Look, these boys and girls all got their money, packed the courts a bit and had a good old time doing it. They're yesterday and they know it. Bush has the pardon power until January, 2009 and he'll use it when needed to protect his own. Short of impeachment we'll all go hoarse bitching about it. You come home and the house is ransacked and emptied of your valuables what's left to do but pick up the pieces and start over? Even if you catch the perp he's hocked it all and seeing him jailed may feel good but you certainly haven't been made whole. This country can't be made whole for having elected Bush twice. Nor can the rest of the world. We all just have to pick up the pieces and move on.

No matter how suspect the Marc Rich pardon appears, unless Snow is prepared to argue that Rich was in a position to implicate Clinton in a larger crime, the comparison doesn't hold up well.

Excellent job, bringing up this remarkable point.

Your next assignment:
Get anybody at all, in the mainstream media, to talk about this point.

Hell, get anyone at all in the mainstream media to mention the fact that Plame was covert, or that Joe Wilson was telling the truth.

Come up with all the logic and facts that you want. As long as the talking heads are parroting Snow's letter, and not talking about the facts, we'll continue to live in the nation where 45% of us still believe that Saddam did 9/11.

Susan and Jim McDougal both went to prison, as did Webster Hubble. So yeah...exactly the same thing!!! Why didn't I see it before?

And back on Jan. 20, 2001 - Libby was Marc Rich's attorney. Let's remember that bit too.

“Well it’s different because in this case the person involved is charged with activities that involve knowledge of what his superiors in the White House did.�

Yeah, the Marc Rich and other Clinton pardons don’t compare, because here there’s clearly a commutation and not a pardon to keep the President from being connected to criminal activities (breaking laws meant to protect national security) from possible testimony from Libby.

These guys really are dirty, aren't they?

Dirty tricks, dirty politics, dirty tactics and slimy explanations.

I'm talking about the Fifth Amendment thing, for anyone who hasn't read about it / doesn't realize it- if Libby's sentence is just commuted, he's still got a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if people try to question him about this again. I know there have been things written about this in more detail over the past few days and Steve has linked to one of them. So it looks like that is what Bush is doing.

The WH uses "clinton did it" almost as much as it uses "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here".

Wasn't there a fable about people not responding after hearing the boy cry wolf too many times.

I suspect the general populace is starting to tire of the same old same old. And I don't think it will be good for the Republicans in 2008.

Snow's gambit is soooo Freeper. It's the classic refuge of the right wing lizard brains when their asses have been thoroughly kicked.

osama, good news! David Shuster used those very points last Tuesday to wipe the floor with Tucker Carlson. It was a thing of beauty.

I don't have a link, but the mahablog has it. Well worth the view.

I don't know what could be on Snow's mind by bringing up Clinton's pardons on 1.20.2001. Not only were they investigated by Congress at the time, but Mary Jo White, the USA for the Southern District of NY opened up an investigation into the Rich pardon which outlasted her tenure and was completed by James Comey.

Now, of course, nothing ever came of those investigations, and I suppose that the Republicans could start making that argument, but there was never any suggestion -- AT ALL -- that any of Clinton's pardons could have been for the purpose of buying silence.

Well said- this 'commutation' is simply a continuation of the obstruction of justice that Libby was convicted of.

It seems perfectly clear now that Libby was promised he would not have to spend one day in jail and he, probably with good reason, figured that if he yielded on that point, it might be quite a while before his 'friends' got him out of the slammer.

The other point here is that betraying Valerie Plame and the CIA operation she was working in wasn't really about Joe Wilson, it was about intimidating the CIA. By that point the Bush gang was well aware that some hard questions might be asked about the stove-piped intelligence and the CIA might not want to take the fall.

What we've seen is the velvet-glove equivalent of the Night of the Long Knives.

The more I consider it, the more I like the idea of an amendment which restricts the power to commute or pardon to the period of January 1st to September 1st, election years only, so as to give the electorate a stronger form of direct recourse.

You know . . . I am as outraged over the Libby pardon as most here. Read Glenn Greenwald for some of the best commentary. But we knew that when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich it would come back to haunt us. And now it has. And what did Hillary say two weeks later (early Feb. '01)? She dismissed it as "ancient history." So the Clintons have not helped. Please, anybody but Hillary for the nominee next year.

Brace yourselves. I agree with Will Allen about something.

Well, it's an example of the Republicans' twisted take on logic. It's like someone who hurts a bunch of people, gets locked up for it, gets let out early for good behavior, and then gets banished from the jurisdiction- but then comes back, and says they're not getting a break when they get their ass busted again. The Republicans have gotten their breaks, and they call them 'not breaks.' The best road out for these Republicans, now that the American people are wising up, is to quit your job, change your name, move to another country, never come back, and never speak to anybody you used to know ever again. Otherwise a lot of people are going to get nipped in the bottoms when the stuff they did comes out, eventually.

I'm all for Scooter doing the time for the crime, and think it sucks he's off, and Bush is reaping the criticism he has sowed, but the outrage from the Dems, especially Bill Clinton weighing in? Splitting hairs between Bush's commutation for protection and Clinton's pardon for profit smacks of arguing about virtue among whores. Give me a fricking break.

Enjoy your moment of taking clear shots at the repubs for this, they certainly did it when Clinton threw them the fresh meat. This must be Steve's 10th post on the subject, so lots of hay making while sun shining going on. But just don't pretend you're not living in a glass house here.

Hey, anybody remember when Bushie promised that in his administration "we won't just do what's legal. We'll do what's right"?

Thanks, merciless;
(my oblique point was that this all goes back to the fairness doctrine in media, and how, when the Dems sold that away back in the 80's, they had just dismissed all the usual supporting logic as extremist rhetoric; and yet, pretty much everything the fairness doctrine was supposed to prevent, has come to pass, since it was removed)

We may occasionally get one or two outliers and bizarre incidents - it may even be profitable, from a pushing-controversy standpoint. But these will be the exception, rather than the rule.

Hey, anybody remember when Bushie promised that in his administration "we won't just do what's legal. We'll do what's right"?
Posted by: Roddy McCorley on July 5, 2007 at 4:31 PM | PERMALINK

Obviously, only a few of us remember.

One irony in this is that both Joe Wilson and his wife did something as part of their normal job description that neither Karl nor Dick nor George has ever done. They risked their lives to protect you and me.

You would think that would count for something, but apparently not.

RSM, it's about the cover-up. Just like old H.W. Bush did when he pardoned the 6 Irancontra felons to cover his own backside and squelch the truth about his own involvement. It's the cover-up and abuse of power by W.

swan,
There isn't a pardon yet. Bush is waiting until all the appeals have gone through. Then there will be a pardon. Guaranteed.

My pet goat indeed.

Actually, a much better analogy to the Libby pardon are the Iran-Contra pardons issued by George H.W. Bush, which were equally self-serving and corrupt as they closed the loop on that scandal. Like father, like son...

Like father, like son...

Not exactly. Bush Sr. was corrupt, but at least knew a quagmire when he saw it, and how to avoid it. That, and the basic knowledge of a) this is my ass b) this is a hole in the ground and I can tell the f*cking difference!

thersites >"...I can tell the f*cking difference!"

G.H.W.Bush may be able to tell the difference but he still needs instructions on his toilet paper rolls

"...peeuuu what`s that smell that surrounds you ?..." one might sing

"Nothing is so admirable in politics as a short memory." - John Kenneth Galbraith

When the GOP can point to an example of a pardon/commutation of a member of Bill Clinton's senior staff who was indicted while still working in his WH who was then subsequently convicted then they are in the right ballpark. If they can also find said person was in a position to expose Bill Clinton to criminal charges as is clearly the case with Libby vis a vis Cheney and Bush then they have an actual valid comparison. Problem for GOPers though is no such Clinton example exists. To find the last most recent comparable situation one must look to GHW Bush and his pardoning of his six co-workers in the Reagan WH involved in the Iran Contra scandal. If GOPers were honest they would be using that as an example, but we all know how honest GOPers are these days, which is to say not at all.

It never ceases to amaze me how hypocrisy when it comes from a Republican is considered acceptable political commentary but when it is coming (or even perceived to be such as in this case) from a Democratic politician it is somehow incredibly arrogant and presumptuous. Classic IOKIYAR. The fact that they have to use Clinton so extensively to try and block criticism of this action though underscores just how wrong these folks know commuting Libby's sentence (prior to serving any time in jail no less) truly is, but their loyalty to their side outweighs their loyalty to the ideals and principles America was founded on and are represented in the Constitution and shown in the primacy/dominance (well, this used to be true until Bushco) the rule of law and that all are equal before it. Yet it is somehow Dems and lefties that are anti-American disloyal terrorist sympathizers even though it was GOPers that outed a CIA NOC heading a unit covering Iraq/Iran regarding nuclear counter proliferation. It is getting to the point where pretty much anything a GOPer says can be held up in a mirror to find the reality/truth of the matter, and doesn't that just say it all for why the GOPers of today should be kept as far away from power as possible.

RSM: just how did Clinton "profit" from any of his pardons? If you're referring to the donations of the Rich family to the Clinton Library, you can certainly make a case for the appearance of a quid pro quo (especially if you leave out the fact that the head of govt. of our closest ally in the MidEast if not the world was imploring Clinton to do it). But Clinton personally profitting from it? Not a bit of it. And even if he had, that's still a far cry from selectively pardoning (or commuting or whatever the hell) people who could put you in jail by their testimony and are keeping the truth of their corruption and malfeasance of office by it. That's a world of difference morally.

"Is there anyone outraged that Joe Wilson lied in his NYT editorial that started this fiasco?" Posted by: Stevend on July 5, 2007 at 5:47 PM

This statement is unproven and unsupported by any evidence and is in fact a lie that GOPers defending the Plame treason love to claim but cannot actually prove. Since you clearly cannot distinguish fact from fiction it would appear your own outrage is little more than say "humorous tripe", except that the topic under discussion is anything but humorous, at least if one actually gives a damn about the rule of law, national security, and how it is always wrong to out a covert agent of your own government!

Scooter's life may be "ruined" (he won't have to pay the fine out of pocket given the defence funds GOPers have been setting up for him, and his law license will be restored after Bush pardons him before leaving office, even is he doesn't Libby is set for life as a so called hero within the neoconservative ranks and will get all kinds of employment from think tanks run by them, I believe he is employed by one now paying him 160k/year so you can take that nonsense and shove it back up the anal passage from which you pulled it) but he and his family are not at risk of retribution from foreign agencies and operatives. The same cannot be said for the Wilsons including their children. Your crocodile tears for Libby are anything but humourous, indeed what they show is your complete lack of moral fibre and total lack of anything remotely resembling a principled moral/ethical code, at least one suited for a democracy, for a totalitarian setup with your guys running thing this works, for a democracy not so much.

Twit.

Patrick Fitzgerald said he would continue to "seek to preserve (Libby's) convictions through the appeals process."

Please, RSM, only a fucking moron thinks that there is no difference between a pardon for someone whose patrons include the leader of Israel and highly regarded Republican lawyers (you might have heard of one of them, he goes by the nickname "Scooter") and granting a free pass to a member of one's own administration convicted of felonies undertaken on your behalf.

The Republicans like you trying to make these equivalent (and lying that the only reason why Clinton gave a pardon was money) are trying to deflect from the fact that Bush committed obstruction of justice - an impeachable offense. You know it, we know it, and Bush knows it. But he's counting on America-hating water carriers like you to stand in the way of real justice.

….Splitting hairs between Bush's commutation for protection and Clinton's pardon for profit smacks of arguing about virtue among whores… RSM at 4:25 PM

…in 1983, Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted by U.S. Attorney and future mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani, on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran. Both of them fled to Switzerland before a court appearance, and they remained on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, President Bill Clinton granted Rich a presidential pardon. Since Rich's former wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made large donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office, Clinton's critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought. Rich had also made substantial donations to Israeli charitable foundations. Clinton explained his decision by noting that similar situations were settled in civil, not criminal court, and cited clemency pleas from Israeli government officials, including Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate. She stepped down before the investigation was finished and was replaced by James Comey. Though Comey was critical of Clinton's pardons, he could not find any grounds on which to indict him.
During hearings after Rich's pardon, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who had represented Rich from 1985 until the spring of 2000, denied that Rich had violated the tax laws, but criticized him for trading with Iran at a time when that country was holding U.S. hostages. In his letter to the New York Times, Bill Clinton explained why he pardoned Rich, noting that U.S. tax professors Bernard Wolfman of Harvard Law School and Martin Ginsburg of Georgetown University Law Center concluded that no crime was committed, and that the companies' tax reporting position was reasonable. [New York Times, February 18, 2001][2]. In the same letter Clinton listed Libby as one of three "distinguished Republican lawyers" who supported Rich's pardon….

One Republican said the prosecutor misconstrued the facts

…Libby then said prosecutors from the Southern District of New York "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they prosecuted Rich….Podesta, in an opening statement, said that Clinton was urged by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to support the Rich pardon, and that four days before granting the pardon Clinton said he thought Quinn had raised valid arguments.
Podesta, Nolan and Lindsey all testified they saw nothing in the administration's pardon considerations that indicated a quid pro quo or legal wrongdoing was involved.
Clinton waived executive privilege, allowing his former advisers to appear without a legal dispute….

Rich's pardon was supported by Israeli and Republican interests until it became politically expedient not to. It's like when Reagan/Bush supported Saddam and Noriega until it became politically advantageous not to.

Not one shred of evidence 'pardon for profit' but lotsa evidence of pardoning for covering up in the manner of George H. W. Bush.

I feel sad when I see Tony Snow wasting what may well be the last years of his life on a job which consists of spinning facts and telling lies to cover for the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Snow's illness is serious enough that I am sorry he has not found something better to do, something that could make a difference for good- a legacy for his family in which they might take pride.

When the GOP can point to an example of a pardon/commutation of a member of Bill Clinton's senior staff who was indicted while still working in his WH who was then subsequently convicted then they are in the right ballpark. If they can also find said person was in a position to expose Bill Clinton to criminal charges as is clearly the case with Libby vis a vis Cheney and Bush then they have an actual valid comparison. Problem for GOPers though is no such Clinton example exists

*************************************************
But let's go back and review some of Mr. Clinton's pardons. The one everyone remembers is that of Marc Rich, the fugitive tax evader who renounced his citizenship and whose wife was a big Clinton donor. (Coincidentally, Rich was a client of Scooter Libby, then a lawyer in private practice.) But from CNN, here's a contemporaneous list of other 11th-hour pardons:

Roger Clinton, who was convicted of drug-related charges in the 1980s. He was sentenced to two years in prison after pleading guilty in 1985 to conspiring to distribute cocaine. He cooperated with authorities and testified against other drug defendants.

Susan McDougal, a former real estate business partner of the Clintons. She was sentenced in 1996 and released from prison in 1998. She was convicted of four felonies related to a fraudulent $300,000 federally backed loan that she and her husband, James McDougal, never repaid. One tenth of the loan amount was placed briefly in the name of Whitewater Development, the Arkansas real estate venture of the Clintons and the McDougals. . . .

Henry Cisneros, who served as secretary of Housing and Urban Development during Clinton's first term in office. He was convicted of making false statements to FBI agents conducting a background investigation of him when he was nominated to the Cabinet post in 1993. They included misleading investigators about cash payments he made to a former mistress.

Former CIA Director John Deutch. The one-time spy chief and top Pentagon official was facing criminal charges in connection with his mishandling of national secrets on a home computer.
Among the beneficiaries of Mr. Clinton's pardons, then, were his own brother, a central figure in the Whitewater scandal, and two members of his own cabinet, one of whom, unlike Libby, actually faced charges of mishandling national secrets.
************************************************

Really?

Mike
Not one shred of evidence 'pardon for profit...

But you quoted above...

Since Rich's former wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made large donations to the Democratic Party...

Yea, I can read wikipedia too, and did. Marc Rich ran away and fled to his villa on the lake while Scooter at least stood and faced the music. And I could care less what the Iraelis thought. They want that NSA spy released too (forget name). Screw'em.

This article captures my opinion nicely.

Too bad the majority of the American people like Clinton better than Bush, Cheney, Scooter, Tony or any of the other usual Republican suspects. The incredible shrinking party.

To argue that the White House's "two-wrongs make a right" argument is silly is fine, but you have to drink a lot of Kool-aid to argue that the Clinton pardons for much worse crimes done for donors and friends were lesser travesties. The idea that President Bush was saving himself from being implicated exists only in your imaginations.

Is there anyone outraged that Joe Wilson lied in his NYT editorial that started this fiasco?" Posted by: Stevend on July 5, 2007 at 5:47 PM

This statement is unproven and unsupported by any evidence and is in fact a lie that GOPers defending the Plame treason love to claim but cannot actually prove.
*************************************************

Bush SOTU:

“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .�

Joe Wilson:

“It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.�

Sought doesn’t mean a transaction took place

“The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.�

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:

The intelligence report based on the former ambassador’s trip was disseminated on
March 8, 2002. The report did not identify the former ambassador by name or as a former
ambassador, but described him as “a contact with excellent access who does not have an
established reporting record.� The report also indicted that the “subsources of the following
information knew their remarks could reach the U.S. government and may have intended to
influence as well as inform.� DO officials told Committee staff that this type of description was
routine and was done in order to protect the former ambassador as the source of the information,
which they had told him they would do. DO officials also said they alerted WINPAC analysts
when the report was being disseminated because they knew the “high priority of the issue.� The
report was widely distributed in routine channels.
The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim
Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states
for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-
1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have
been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, | ^ ^ ^ H ^ H | ^ m ^ | ^ |
businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss
“expanding commercial relations� between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that
Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations� to mean that the delegation wanted to
discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting
took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.�

Wilson reported that Mayaki told him Iraqis were in his opinion seeking discussions on buying yellowcake.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

but there was never any suggestion -- AT ALL -- that any of Clinton's pardons could have been for the purpose of buying silence.

Posted by: majun on July 5, 2007 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK
*************************************************

Except for Susan McDougal, Christopher Wade, Robert Palmer and Clinton's former gubernatorial aide Stephen Smith were all convicted on minor charges as Starr pushed them to implicate their former boss. Clinton pardoned them.

McDougal went to jail for contempt for 18 months rather than testify under oath about the Whitewater deal.

MaxGowan: "But we knew that when Clinton pardoned Marc Rich it would come back to haunt us. And now it has."

Actually, it has apparently come back to haunt you. Speaking for myself, it doesn't bother me anymore. Further, I don't recall Marc Rich ever serving as a member of the Clinton White House's national security team.

When you stop inhaling the peripheral vapors of the far right's Clinton-flavored Kool-Aid, you'll start feeling a lot better.

Campesino: "Among the beneficiaries of Mr. Clinton's pardons, then, were his own brother, a central figure in the Whitewater scandal, and two members of his own cabinet, one of whom, unlike Libby, actually faced charges of mishandling national secrets."

Right-oh there, Campy. While I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby knowingly leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame -- who held covert status as a "Non-Official Cover" -- to New York Times' Judith Miller and TIME magazine's Matt Cooper, and then lied about it repeatedly to federal agents and a federal grand jury, it certainly doesn't mean doesn't mean he was involved in the "mishandling [of] national secrets".

And although Libby was never found guilty of the underlying crime, you are hereby found guilty of peeing on our pantlegs and telling us it's raining.

Hey, everybody, do something about it.

Right-oh there, Campy. While I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby knowingly leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame -- who held covert status as a "Non-Official Cover" -- to New York Times' Judith Miller and TIME magazine's Matt Cooper, and then lied about it repeatedly to federal agents and a federal grand jury, it certainly doesn't mean doesn't mean he was involved in the "mishandling [of] national secrets".

And although Libby was never found guilty of the underlying crime, you are hereby found guilty of peeing on our pantlegs and telling us it's raining.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on July 5, 2007 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK
*************************************************

Not even found guilty, not even charged

Not even found guilty, not even charged

Because he successfully obstructed justice.

Libby talked Clinton into pardoning Marc Rich and he talked Bush into commuting his own sentence. Obviously, he's a very persuasive guy.

McDougal went to jail for contempt for 18 months rather than testify under oath about the Whitewater deal.

Don't forget, we're dealing with the people who are still convinced that Clinton's black helicopters murdered Vince Foster.

In other words, morons. Delusional ones.

I see noted America hater RSM is back, now claiming that Libby "stood and faced the music." Standing and facing the music would have meant going to jail or suffering some actual punishment, you nitwit. As for pissing on our allies, well I suppose that's fine if you are a Republican and want our great nation to be a pariah in the world, but those of us who have some modicum of patriotism think that the wishes of our allies have some value. They may not always want something that is good for our nation, and at that point they can be rebuffed, but such requests at least warrant a serious response.

There were plenty of arguments for why Rich deserved a pardon. There are none for why Bush should grant any reprieve to a member of his inner circle convicted of multiple felonies for actions undertaken in the service of the Bush administration.

The comparison between Rich and Libby only emphasizes how bad Bush's behavior really is. But I guess Libby's actions are all right with you RSM; after all, national security isn't something that someone with no real patriotism cares about.

heavy wrote about me...
But I guess Libby's actions are all right with you

After reading (?!) what I wrote...

I'm all for Scooter doing the time for the crime, and think it sucks he's off, and Bush is reaping the criticism he has sowed...

You're exceptionally stupid tonight, heavy. Check your meds.

I think the Prez should have a time limit for pardons, say 180 days from sentencing, and not be able to crank them off while walking out the door. This would force them to live with the political ramifications of their choices.

I think the Prez should have a time limit for pardons, say 180 days from sentencing, and not be able to crank them off while walking out the door.

Hey, great idea: let's punish the people who want the pardons instead of the person issuing them. That'll solve the problem! Didn't reform your life within 6 months of sentencing? Too bad, bucko.

Now, if you'd said "180 days before a Presidential election," I'd be all for that.

RSM, you claim that, but here you are using the "Clinton did it too" defense. One of us is exceptionally stupid, but I'm pretty sure the board is going to come down in favor of the person who can actually speak articulately on the issues rather than the moron claiming that Clinton's pardon of Rich was evidence of a quid pro quo.

I'll see your Marc Rich and raise you an Orlando Bosch.

I'm just a dummy so I have to ask, but what prevents some aggressive prosecution team from going after Bush, Cheney, and Rove in February 09? Without the executive power to stonewall, and a Democratic administration, senate, and house - and rightfully bloodthirsty public - what's keeping these guys out of federal prison in the next five years?

Pardon my lack of civic knowledge if it's due, but this seems inevitable.

Donald, Clinton did the wrong thing. It's that simple. Even a Democrat like myself can easily say it. Spare us the Clintonian parsing of the truth.

Campesino:

In other words no you cannot find any equivalent comparison, all you can do is speculate and allege that which cannot be proven in a court of law nor from documents/evidence from trials, whereas in the trial of Libby more than enough evidence was entered to confirm that Libby was guilty of leaking her identity, Cheney was apparently his source, and that he did all he could to blame reporters for telling him to avoid being charged with the underlying crime.

General:

Bush commuted someone that was in a position that if he went to jail could have told the prosecutor why he perjured himself and obstructed justice. If it were only because he himself screwed up does anyone really think Bush would have so rapidly commuted his prison time once it was certain he would be spending at least several weeks in jail otherwise? Hardly, no this indicated that whatever Libby could tell the prosecutor about why he lied, perjured himself to obstruct justice must have had the ability to get someone else above him indicted, and that leaves exactly 2 people, Cheney and Bush. If this were just a "special favour" because he was friends or because they were so close professionally why then did not Bush let him serve a little time instead of granting the first commutation in American Presidential history to someone before they served a second of time in jail? Especially in the case of GWB whose record as both governor and President indicates that he simply does not believe in such (or so he has always said, until last Monday when his actions clearly demonstrated otherwise, the only thing in dispute is the underlying reason, double standards for his friends and loyalists or blocking the investigation and therefore at minimum an accomplice after the fact to Libby's obstruction of justice).

The Clinton references may actually backfire, because whatever else Clinton was he was the most thoroughly investigated President in American history, and the most they could pin on him was lying about a consensual affair in a deposition in a case where he was alleged to have coerced the complainant in a civil (not criminal unlike Libby) proceeding. Not to mention that Libby was indicted (and convicted) in a national security criminal investigation and Clinton never was nor were any of his senior people while he or they were in office (in other words Sandy Berger doesn't count since Clinton can hardly pardon him out of Office for Berger's own wrongdoing which he at least faced up to in court quickly and did not contest and therefore unlike Libby who lied and forced a trial and was convicted by a jury got the proper punishment for doing so) and this is a Presidency that has seen the least oversight in living memory (I'd say less than Nixon easily). Clinton has also looked better and better the longer GWB has been in office, indeed GWB's performance as President has done wonders for rehabilitating Clinton's legacy as a President. So the more they keep referencing Clinton as some sort of similar situation or worse, the more people are going to stop and think and wonder why they don't remember any such charges/trials in the Clinton years which given the noise the GOP was making about things like travelgate and filegate and equally minor matters only underscores just how much more serious this business with Libby is. Not to mention how fearful the GOP must be of the public understanding what happened here to be using such piss poor arguments to try and spin the Libby commutation and how intensely/desperately they are hitting that Clinton button. It may work among the most hard core Bushies, but the very stridency that will help them reach that core element of their base will only further alienate the other 2/3rds+ of Americans who actually care about the rule of law.

This is the downside of being such heavy heanded law and order rhetoricians in the 90s, now they are hoist on their own petard and their guy actually did commit serious crimes while in Office (entirely aside from the Plame treachery), not least was taking the country to war on false premises, that being a national security threat posed by WMD's and direct links to Osama and AQ creating the threat of Saddam's WMDs falling into Osama's hands. This of course was provably nonsense well before the invasion started, as Knight Ridder news service reported to no avail at the time. Worse, they lied about nukes because until they played the nuke card the public was not buying into the idea. That card is so potent because two and a half full generations were raised under the threat of nuclear annihilation, and Bushco well understood that and took advantage of that to sell the Iraq war to a skeptical public to that point. This is also why the Wilson editorial and articles using him as a source were so threatening to the WH and why it was clearly necessary from their perspective to discredit Wilson any way they could because of his credibility from being a former ambassador to Iraq, the last American to face Saddam prior to GWI beginning and rescuing Americans in Iraq then and a hero according to GHWB. So now the Bushies were faced with an impossible situation with Libby, either they let him go to jail and he spills his guts and gets them impeached and/or criminally indicted or they commute his sentence to keep him out and save the pardon until after the next election and face the fallout because whatever Libby would spill would be even more damaging. This time there is no Clinton comparison that comes even close, and the more such excuses are used to try and defend this action the more that will become apparent even with the amount of stretching of the truth through innuendo and assumption we generally see when GOPers use a "Clinton did it too/worse" spin strategy.

Rather than limiting the power of the pardon, we should elect people who can be trusted with that power. As evidenced by the results of the investigations into Clinton's pardons, he could be. As demonstrated by their pardoning of criminals who could implicate them - neither Bush could be. Lesson? The Republicans cannot be trusted with the pardon and should not be allowed to be President.

There is a down side, of course. Those people who think patriotism is killing a bunch of people who are no threat to our national security wouldn't be allowed to sit comfortably a mile away as they murder innocents below. But we as a nation will survive. In fact, with those mindlessly bellicose individuals put out to pasture, we will thrive.

heavy
RSM, you claim that, but here you are using the "Clinton did it too" defense.

No, read my first post. S l o w ly so you can understand it. Two or three times. If you still think that I am defending Bush, you have reading comprehension problems. Which you do, I'm sure.

Now, if you'd said "180 days before a Presidential election," I'd be all for that.
Posted by: Mnemosyne

Now who is being punished? Not the lame duck President, he's got one foot out the door. If you apply it to the mid-term election, it has all the same problems you attribute to my suggestion.

To cover the "turned a new leaf" case, you could allow the President to either pardon within 180 days of sentencing or 180 days of assuming the Presidency.

Actually, I think I'll just stick with the constitution as written.

should we feel more sorry for poor old Tony Snow because he has cancer, or because he has to come out every day and spout laughable falsehoods in front of a disbelieving audience? What a jerk.

"Donald, Clinton did the wrong thing. It's that simple. Even a Democrat like myself can easily say it. Spare us the Clintonian parsing of the truth." Posted by: MaxGowan on July 5, 2007 at 9:10 PM

Sure he did, but comparing his wrong thing and Bush's wrong thing with Libby is like trying to equate shoplifting with rape/murder. Just because two things are wrong does not give them any sense of equivalency beyond that simple point. The severity/intensity difference can be so great in degree as to create differences in kind as well, and this is exactly the case regarding the Libby commutation as opposed to pretty much every other pardon/commutation I know of with the exception of the Iran Contra six in the last couple of decades. Clearly you have problems grasping this rather basic concept, which would explain why you are trying the arguments you are instead of facing up to reality.

Clinton had his faults, but unlike Bush he was never suspected let alone had an investigation launched into him or anyone in his Administration's senior levels for leaking the identity of deep cover spies which a NOC most certainly is and Valerie Plame Wilson was right up to when Novak told the world she was thanks to his buds at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Therefore there are no viable/reasonable equivalencies possible between any of Clintons action and deeds/misdeeds and what has occurred under Bush from the moment they started leaking Valerie Plame Wilson's CIA identity right up to Monday's commutation of Libby's jail time hours after it was determined he would spend at least a few weeks in jail before his next appeal for staying out of jail on bond could be heard. Man, it must suck to be a Bush defender these days, especially when the only choices for why Bush did what he did was either special treatment for a friend/co-worker or it's a pay-off of a co-conspirator in the outing of a CIA NOC, either way placing he and his own above the rule of law that all others must follow underlying both reasons, one being impeachable alone the other being impeachable and criminally prosecutable too. Talk about your no-win situations...couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch though IMHO.

RSM, I'm not as stupid as you have demonstrated yourself to be. I know that you are claiming not to be defending Bush. But your posts attempting to deflect from Bush's criminality are a de facto defense. It is quite simple. Bush's commutation was criminal. It was an act in furtherance of obstruction of justice. There is no glass house, there is no reason to mention any other actor. Bush's actions were simply wrong.

If you were willing to post without trying to minimize Bush's actions that would be one thing, but you aren't. Your first post said clearly:

Splitting hairs between Bush's commutation for protection and Clinton's pardon for profit smacks of arguing about virtue among whores.

I don't like rich assholes getting away with criminal acts. For that reason I'm not a fan of the Rich pardon. But there was more than a little bit of question as to whether his tax dodges were criminal (the amount of crap that isn't criminal is, frankly, criminal). There is no such question with Bush's commutation. Bush commuted the sentence of someone convicted for actions undertaken for the benefit of the Bush administration.

That's why your comparisons are loathsome. That's why your "they all do it" is bullshit. It is a defense of Bush, and it isn't a good one.

But we can agree to stick to the Constitution. But we also need to elect a better class of people to the Presidency.

Clinton had his faults, but unlike Bush he was never suspected let alone had an investigation launched into him or anyone in his Administration's senior levels for leaking the identity of deep cover spies which a NOC most certainly is and Valerie Plame Wilson was right up to when Novak told the world she was thanks to his buds at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Yes, let's open up that can of worms. As long as we're discussing deep cover and national secrets, did you know people with extraordinary access to our nation's secrets often lose their clearances and their jobs for "lack of integrity in personal relations", i.e., having an affair? Except for the President, of course. He's special.

Did this guy get a fair shake?

Applicant's attempt to conceal his marital infidelity from the government during his initial interview with DSS, when specifically questioned about it, and the fact that he has not told his wife about one of his affairs, subjects the Applicant to coercion, exploitation or duress rendering him susceptible to blackmail that could place the national security at risk. Mitigation has not been shown. Clearance is denied.

Source

An argument that Bush's actions were identical to Clinton's. A statement clearly designed to minimize Bush's culpability.

No, I think they both suck. I'm just enjoying the logical contortions and rationalizations being used to take shots at Bush but not relive Clinton's embarassing pardons. And having Clinton himself speak out...priceless.

But we also need to elect a better class of people to the Presidency.

On that we can agree.

I'm just enjoying the logical contortions and rationalizations being used to take shots at Bush but not relive Clinton's embarassing pardons.

It doesn't require any logical contortions, because none of Clinton's pardons were comparable to this, especially considering that this was a commutation and not a pardon.

Campesino, 2 things:
The first is a research question: Clinton's brother served how much of his sentence vs how much of his sentence did Scooter serve?
Susan Mcdougal served how much of her sentence vs, well you know the rest. Here's Starr prosecutor Ray Jahn at the Susan McDougal trial: In fact, it was the Starr team which “distanced� the Clintons from Whitewater. During his summation at that McDougal trial, Starr prosecutor Ray Jahn said this:
JAHN: The President of the United States is not on trial. Why isn’t the President of the United States on trial? Why isn’t he on trial? Because he didn’t set up any phony corporations to get employees to sign for loans that were basically worthless. He didn’t get $300,000 from Capital Management like Jim and Susan McDougal did by falsely claiming their use…The President didn’t backdate any leases. He didn’t backdate any documents. He didn’t lie to any examiners, he didn’t lie to any investigators.

Clinton's wrongful pardoning of Rich was pretty goddam sleazy, but it's a comparative traffic ticket next to the feloneous Libby pardon. And where oh where is the MSM digging out those videos from '03, where Bush said the things he said? Oh, and Daddy Bush in '89 when he signed the law? "Tantamount to treason" is the phrase I think he used.

Yes, yes, commuting Libby's sentence was business as usual and just like everything Clinton ever did.

Except it's not:

"We can't find any cases, certainly in the last half century, where the president commuted a sentence before it had even started to be served," said Margaret Colgate Love, a former pardon attorney at the Justice Department. "This is really, really unusual."

"For Bush to jump in and make that argument … is ludicrous in light of the arguments that his Justice Department makes on a daily basis in federal court," said Douglas A. Berman, a sentencing expert at Ohio State University law school. "Similar arguments are made by lots of other defendants who have a much lower profile and who have their lives destroyed and who are going to rot in prison for a very long time."

Sentencing experts said Bush's action appeared to be without recent precedent. They could not recall another case in which someone sentenced to prison had received a presidential commutation without having served any part of that sentence. Presidents have customarily commuted sentences only when someone has served substantial time.

That Bush chose to make an exception for a political ally is galling to many career Justice Department prosecutors and other legal experts. Federal prosecutors said Tuesday the action would make it harder for them to persuade judges to deliver appropriate sentences.

The critics included some Republicans who said Bush's decision did not square with an administration that had been ardently pro law-and-order. "It denigrates the significance of perjury prosecutions," John S. Martin Jr., a former U.S. attorney and federal judge in New York, said of the commutation.

Records show that the Justice Department under the Bush administration frequently has sought sentences that are as long, or longer, in cases similar to Libby's. Three-fourths of the 198 defendants sentenced in federal court last year for obstruction of justice — one of four crimes Libby was found guilty of in March — got some prison time. According to federal data, the average sentence defendants received for that charge alone was 70 months.

Said Ellen S. Podgor, a professor at Stetson University law school: "This is a classic case of executive activism as opposed to judicial activism."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-na-libby4jul04,0,6710317.story?coll=la-home-center

Bush's abuse of power -- like all his other egregious abuses of power -- is sadly poised to have long-lasting effects negative effects on law enforcement. I would quibble with Ellen Podgor's classification of this as "executive activism," however.

It is clearly nothing more exotic than a simple obstruction of justice on Bush's part to protect his own ass.

Hey guys, again, I have a very simple suggestion to make. Call Pelosi:

202-225-4965

Call Reid:

202-224-3542

ask for impeachment. this is an impeachable offense. make your voice heard. stop arguing back and forth and ask your representative to step up.

I call my Texas reps today, all republicans and told them it was their duty as Americans to bring articles of impeachment against the President and Vice President.

Do this. Get everyone you know to do it. Make democracy work.

RSM, Republicans like you are certainly contorting themselves to make the case that Clinton's pardons were anything remotely like those of Bush. It simply strains credulity that someone could compare them at all. Bush's clemency in this case isn't just unlike Clinton's, it is unlike any case discovered to date. In fact, it is closest to the pardons handed out by his daddy.

As for the President keeping security clearance while having an affair? Piss off. We have a blithering idiot in the White House whose administration deliberately outed a CIA operative. We have an administration that routinely mishandles classified information. We have a moron in the White House who started a war just because it sounded like fun. Clinton's handling of national security was far better than the guy you've supported for the past six years.

Just a reminder, even if a known cokehead were to be granted the office of President, he would be allowed a security clearance. It comes with the office.

And for the record, we have had better people holding the office - Clinton had his faults, but at least he used the power of the office with some decency.

I think Tony has a decent point here. I think it's true that Clinton's pardons were equally unethical. We should face up to it.

And while you're at it, GW, why don't you take a hummer from an intern under the desk. You've earned it, buddy.

Here's a challenge for you RSM, and I'm being serious here: compare and contrast whatever you think demonstrates that Clinton's pardons were basically the same. Refute some of the arguments that have been made.

I'll give you a head start by assuming you will take the Rich case since that is the only one I've seen mentioned where the criminal in question never served jail time. A talking point on the left has been that Rich's prosecution was contested as unfair and out of proportion. You may argue that the same has been said of Libby's prosecution. I'll warn you in advance that such an argument is going to be laughed at. It may seem unfair to cut the legs out right away, but even the guy granting reprieve didn't buy that argument - he let the jury verdict stand.

But, by all means, try your hand at it. See what facts you can bring to the table. It's a lot more challenging than simply repeating talking points that consists of little more than typing names and relying on innuendo to fill in the gaps. Because it turns out that, in the real world, those gaps mean that your pot is really a sieve and your arguments don't hold water.

Now, if you'd said "180 days before a Presidential election," I'd be all for that. Posted by: Mnemosyne

Now who is being punished? Not the lame duck President, he's got one foot out the door.

That's right -- it would be the lame duck's political party that would suffer. If he had a hand-picked successor, that guy would suffer as well.

Of course, I realize that making rich people who did bad things pay a penalty makes no sense to a Republican -- why punish the right guy when you can fall hard on the patsy?

Oh, and I love the fact that you're still pretending that Scooter Libby was not Marc Rich's lawyer from 1985 to when the pardon was finally secured in 2000, and that the Rich pardon was not supported by many Republicans. Of course, they screamed about it in public once it went through, but that's how you guys operate -- don't look at what we do, listen to what we say. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

You apparently, have decided that the dead elephant in the room is really a rope. Or maybe a tree trunk. Or a wall. And the more you thrash around, the more idiotic you look.

"I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it,"

I just came back from around Arkansas, and after last Tuesday, Arkansan for chutzpah is pronounced either Tony Snowjob, GoCheneyYourself or Putsch.

Here is what Hillary Clinton said in Iowa:

"This (the Libby decision) was clearly an effort to protect the White House. ... There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent."

I read the article in yesterday's Washington Post carefully several times. There were some nine paragraphs about the pardons of Bill Clinton at the end of his presidency. Also, there is a lot of name calling and trash talk by Tony Snow.

However, there was nothing in the article where Snow or anyone else in the Bush White House specifically said that Hillary Clinton's statement is untrue in any way. If what she says is not true, they should say so. And if they say so, what are their facts to back it up?

Otherwise, they should just STFU.

When the GOP can point to an example of a pardon/commutation of a member of Bill Clinton's senior staff who was indicted while still working in his WH who was then subsequently convicted then they are in the right ballpark. If they can also find said person was in a position to expose Bill Clinton to criminal charges as is clearly the case with Libby vis a vis Cheney and Bush then they have an actual valid comparison. Problem for GOPers though is no such Clinton example exists
*************************************************
Campesino:

In other words no you cannot find any equivalent comparison, all you can do is speculate and allege that which cannot be proven in a court of law nor from documents/evidence from trials, whereas in the trial of Libby more than enough evidence was entered to confirm that Libby was guilty of leaking her identity, Cheney was apparently his source, and that he did all he could to blame reporters for telling him to avoid being charged with the underlying crime.

*************************************************

Lets see, in reply to the first quote I gave you two convicted Clinton cabinet level officals who he pardoned and a woman who went to jail for contempt for refusing to testify about Clinton who he pardoned to which demonstrate you are totally wrong.

Your reply is that my examples aren't examples because they are "speculation." Well, it isn't speculation that Deustch and Cisneros were cabinet officals who were found guilty and pardoned. And it is no more speculation on my part that McDougal had incriminating things to say about Clinton than it is speculation n your part that Libby has incriminating things to say about Bush.

You're just trying to change the subject

campesino: Deustch and Cisneros were cabinet officals who were found guilty and pardoned.

other than working for clinton...

their crimes had nothing to do with the executive branch...

libby, of course couldn't say that...

that was easy..

When the GOP can point to an example of a pardon/commutation of a member of Bill Clinton's senior staff who was indicted while still working in his WH who was then subsequently convicted then they are in the right ballpark.
************************************************

campesino: Deustch and Cisneros were cabinet officals who were found guilty and pardoned.

other than working for clinton...

their crimes had nothing to do with the executive branch...

************************************************
I was replying to Scotian's comment which is still obviously wrong.

Agree Cisneros was personal, but Deutsch was convicted of mishandling classified data - how do you figure that had nothing to do with the Executive Branch?

Darned easy!

camp: how do you figure that had nothing to do with the Executive Branch?

so all classified data goes throught the exec. branch?

who knew?

lol

that will be nice to know...as we move forward..

camp: how do you figure that had nothing to do with the Executive Branch?
************************************************

I said Deutsch's violations DID have something to do with the Executive Branch, as he worked in it.

YOU were the one saying: "their crimes had nothing to do with the executive branch..."

Or did you forget?

camp...

while techinically true...

since Deutsch was IN the exec. branch

but his mishandling of classifed material was related to leaving computers...

tent called it sloppy...

libby's was spreading info to reporters...and putting himself in the as cheney said...(the meatgrinder)

libby wasnt sloppy ....it was the mission...

see the diff...

Regarding this Libby situation, and all the other Whitehouse screw-up’s over the last six years, I’m sure tired of their justifying their possibly illegal, definitely incompetent behavior by pointing a finger at the Clinton Administrations possibly illegal, definitely immoral behavior. As our political ethics, competence and morality bar continues to slide to new lows, think our only salvation is to go back to Basic Voting 101..who’ll steal the least and what’s in it for me!

E3oeyz comment1 ,