Comments (35)

aaron wrote on July 3, 2007 12:20 PM:

Like father, like son.

Chris wrote on July 3, 2007 12:21 PM:

I think thats not a bad explanation. Why would you ever close the door to a pardon? New information may appear or the political climate might change.

Dick wrote on July 3, 2007 12:24 PM:

You stupid amerikans, enjoy your silly little holiday tomorrow. Suckers!

HA! HA! HA!

Dick & Scooter

Waiting for Truth wrote on July 3, 2007 12:24 PM:

One point that bothered me about this press briefing was Mr. Snow's continual use of the article "a," as in Libby was convicted of "a" crime.
Not the whole truth there, pal.
Libby was convicted of FOUR crimes -- four, not one. Their perceived expertise at minimizing wrongdoings has served their purposes far too long.
Four crimes, not one.

Mike G wrote on July 3, 2007 12:31 PM:

Book it: a pardon will be forthcoming before Bush leaves the White House. He's letting everyone have their crapfit now, hoping for a quiet pardon later on.

What a sick, black joke.

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 12:36 PM:

I have no problem with this. If Libby accepts a pardon, that is legally an admission of guilt -- I doubt Libby's going to do that until his appeals run out.

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 12:38 PM:

Thank you, Chris.

joejoejoe wrote on July 3, 2007 12:45 PM:

The commutation closes the door to any discussion of the facts of the case from the White House because the case is still 'ongoing'. It's worse than if Libby was pardoned yesterday because if Libby was pardoned the case would be over and the President would have to take questions on the matter.

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 12:50 PM:

joejoejoe:

It's not "worse" for Libby.

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 12:57 PM:

Of course he'll pardon Libby. And we can be sure that Libby let it be known that he would play the canary if he had to spend a day in the joint.

I'm reminded of the Robert diNiro character in Goodfellas when he talked to the Ray Liotta character: "Ya kept yer mouth shut and didn'd rat on yer friends."

Ah, boids of a feather....

spinn wrote on July 3, 2007 1:05 PM:

I'm not sure he'll pardon Libby-

1) String him along with the suggestion that he might (reminiscent of how this administration handles many issues--obfuscate and delay);

2) Why bother? $250K is not the problem for him it would be for one of us; he's a felon now, sure, but to whom would that matter? If it matters to you, then a post-pardoned Libby wouldn't be any more palatable; and if you're in the Free Scooter crowd, then whether he's a felon or not is immaterial to you.

Hah, and my security code is "shame". Sometimes it's like the computers are paying attention, too.

Cali4nian wrote on July 3, 2007 1:06 PM:

He'll pardon him when the time is right -- when he's about to leave office. For now, it gives the administration the out of "No comment" while the "case is still in the courts." Grrrr.

spinn wrote on July 3, 2007 1:11 PM:

I'm not sure he'll pardon Libby-

1) He could just string Libby along for the next year and a half, maybe he'll pardon maybe he won't, keeping the hope alive so Scooter keeps his mouth shut, just like the pattern of obfuscation and delay this administration has employed in other areas;

2) Why bother? $250K doesn't mean as much to him as it does to us. And sure, Scooter's a felon, but if you're not happy about this, then a post-pardon Libby isn't going to be more palatable to you; and if you're in the Free Scooter camp, then whether he's a felon or not is immaterial. I'm sure he'll have no problem continuing his career at some sympathetic company.

spinn wrote on July 3, 2007 1:12 PM:

(oh also I didn't realize comments were moderated, I thought I messed up my submission somehow, sorry about the duplicate)

Sacanagem wrote on July 3, 2007 1:13 PM:

Jake: I didn't know that Mafia families hired trolls to defend them on the internet. So do you get paid per post or per word?

theWalrus wrote on July 3, 2007 1:19 PM:

When do the Dems finally say "Enough is Enough!"? Clinton was impeached over a BJ! This has gone on too long and is now in total fantasy land. What more can the Bushies do to break the law and not be held accountable for it?? You can bet that if the next President is a Dem and he so much as SNEEZES the Repubs will be asking for his/her head!

Enough already with the Dem talk of "working with the President" and "bipartisanship". This is friggin WAR and the Dems are going to lose if they do not fight back. It's so frustrating. Articles of impeachment must be drawn up. No more excuses!

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 1:20 PM:

No one hired me to post here -- I'm retired and plenty of time to waste pointing out your side's hypocrisy -- for instance, how much JAIL TIME did Clinton get for his lying to the grand jury and obstruction of justice?

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 1:28 PM:

Bush also took questions this morning (not just Tony Snow):

Q Mr. President, are you willing to rule out that you will eventually pardon Scooter Libby?

THE PRESIDENT: First of all, I had to make a very difficult decision. I weighed this decision carefully. I thought that the jury verdict should stand. I felt the punishment was severe, so I made a decision that would commute his sentence, but leave in place a serious fine and probation. As to the future, I rule nothing in or nothing out.

Q Mr. President, federal sentencing guidelines call for jail time in these kinds of cases of perjury and obstruction of justice. Why do you feel otherwise, and are you worried that this decision sends a signal that you won't go to jail if you lie to the FBI?

THE PRESIDENT: I took this decision very seriously on Mr. Libby. I considered his background, his service to the country, as well as the jury verdict. I felt like the jury verdict ought to stand, and I felt like some of the punishments that the judge determined were adequate should stand. But I felt like the 30-month sentencing was severe; made a judgment, a considered judgment that I believe is the right decision to make in this case, and I stand by it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070703-3.html

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 1:34 PM:

theWalrus:

Please point out where in Clinton's Articles of Impeachment the word "blow job" was used? In my history book, Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice -- now, why does that sound familiar -- oh, that's right, those are the SAME EXACT crimes Libby was convicted of. Do you think Clinton should have been charged and convicted of those crimes after he left office?

P J Evans wrote on July 3, 2007 1:37 PM:

jake:

Clinton didn't commit perjury and obstruction.
Libby did, and was charged, tried, convicted and sentenced for it.
He got the minimum sentence allowed under those sentencing guidelines the 'tough on crime' Republicans keep telling us are 'too lenient'.
Bush, or someone, decided that sentence was 'excessive' and needed to be commuted immediately, before the appeal process was completed. (BTW, the guidelines for commutation/reprieve/pardon say the person receiving should have served at least part of the sentence.)

What does Libby know, and how do we get him to reveal it in a way that it can be acted on legally? Because he has to know something major, or they would have let him serve time.

Karlynn wrote on July 3, 2007 1:47 PM:

with apologies to e.e.cummings (my memory's faulty):

so hoo-rah-rah for democracy
we'd better be thankful as hell.
and bury the statue of liberty,
because it's beginning to smell

Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 3, 2007 1:49 PM:

Jake

Please tell us about yourself. What medication do you take that enables you to think so logically?

jimG wrote on July 3, 2007 2:03 PM:

"And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. " -- G.W.Bush, Sept 2003

Hypocrisy or truth?

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 2:04 PM:

First, P J Evans, President Clinton was impeached, and eventually accepted a plea bargain, so I don't think you can say he didn't commit perjury and obstruction. Second, Libby's sentence was NOT the "minimum" (the probation report recommended less time). Third, they are only "guidelines" for commutation/reprieve/pardon, Short of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, there's no limitation on the President's pardon power. Even if you guys impeach Bush, the commutation stands.

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 2:08 PM:

Billy Pilgrim:

Once Mr. Marshall starts a thread about me, I will be gald to provide said information.

Helen wrote on July 3, 2007 2:09 PM:

Jake,

So you are saying that Clinton should NOT have been punished for a lesser offense of lying about a BJ?

If not, then YOU are the hypocrit here.

Helen

Phoenix Woman wrote on July 3, 2007 2:19 PM:

Tony Snow Job's just setting up the spin for Bush's refusal to pardon Libby. He wants to pretend that Bush bravely defied his own base's alleged demands for a pardon, when in fact the whole reason he commuted instead of pardoned was to ensure that Scooter could still plead the Fifth when called on to testify about Bush and Cheney's dirty dealings.

Phoenix Woman wrote on July 3, 2007 2:25 PM:

So which is worse:

1) Giving evasive (but technically truthful -- that's right kiddies, Clinton didn't technically lie, which is why even the Republican Senate of 1998 had to acquit him on that) answers to a non-material question in a case that the judge was about to dismiss anyway,

OR:

2) Burning a NOC and destroying her Iraqi spy network, which essentially signed their death warrants (anyone wanna guess how merciful Sunni or even Shia insurgents would be to someone known to have associated with CIA agent Plame), then lying under oath to protect the people who told you to do it?

St. Augustine wrote on July 3, 2007 2:46 PM:

I think Jake sounds a lot like "Rob LA Ca". I wonder if they are roommates at the same institution.

Josh, there is no need to give this troll a thread.

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 5:32 PM:

Short of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, there's no limitation on the President's pardon power. Even if you guys impeach Bush, the commutation stands.

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 2:04 PM

----

Jake you're mistaken. I expected more from you, you showed some insight into the law.

Let's refresh your memory on pardons: Once someone is impeached, regardless the Senate action, the President cannot pardon someone.

Pardons, reprieves, and commutations are permitted and restricted by the same rules. Commutations cannot be invented by the President unless that clemency is also constrained by the same restrictiosn applicable to pardons:

"he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, _except in cases of impeachment_."

The Commutation was issued before impeachment; unless Congress impeaches Libby, the President may pardon him.

This is partially true: "Even if you guys impeach Bush, the commutation stands."

This is incorrect: "Short of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, there's no limitation on the President's pardon power."

Truth: Unless Congress impeaches, there is no _Congressional_ limitation on the President's pardon power. War crimes prosecutors before international tribunals are not required to recognzie Presidential pardons on internatinal war crimes. There is no statute of limitations on war crimes. Rather, when it appears, as is the case here, that the Congress has failed to impeach when it should, the War Crimes prosecutors mayuse that inaction as evidence of complicity by Members of Congress with the war crimes.

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 7:06 PM:

Well, yeah, hypothetical green men from Mars coming down and kidnapping Bush would also a "limitation" on the President's pardon power, I guess. Good luck with those "war crimes" trials . . .

theWalrus wrote on July 3, 2007 7:48 PM:

Trollster Jake:

OK. Clinton lied under oath *about* getting a BJ (the underlying crime??!). Everybody knows that. It was an embarrasing moment for him and the country that could have been handled in a million other ways that would not have put the country (and taxpayers) through partisan Republican Hell.

Libby and Clinton may have been *charged* with the same crimes BUT (and this is a very big but, fella) Libby was actually CONVICTED of his crimes. Former President Clinton was ACQUITED. So, your qestion as to whether Clinton should have been charged and convicted of those crimes after he left office is moot. He was acquited. Libby was CONVICTED. Sheesh, this is democracy 101 stuff - something you rightwingers just don't get.

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 11:21 PM:

And don't forget, Libby was convicted on 4 counts.

d

Jake wrote on July 4, 2007 12:30 PM:

There were multiple "counts" as to Clinton as well. The President of the United States lied before a federal judge, and then again in front of a grand jury, obstructing justice during Ken Starr's investigation as well. Clinton was never indicted or "acquited" for his crimes in federal court. He accepted a contempt citation and plea bargain instead. Federal District Judge Susan Webber Wright cited Clinton for his "willful failure" to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully, assessing a $90,000 fine, and referring the matter to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if disciplinary action would be appropriate. Regarding Clinton's January 17, 1998 deposition, the Judge wrote:

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false . . . ."

After he left office, Clinton could have been indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges (same as Libby) in federal court. It doesn't matter whether Clinton had been "acquited" after his impeachment or not. Sheesh, this is democracy 101 stuff.

Clinton instead agreed to a five-year suspension of his Arkansas law license as part of an agreement with the Independent Counsel to end the investigation -- based on this suspension, Clinton was also automatically suspended from the United States Supreme Court bar, from which he chose to resign.

Jake wrote on July 4, 2007 4:35 PM:

Of course, JNagarya, will try to convince you that Clinton never agreed to any plea bargain because he could not be "indicted" again.