Comments (26)

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 12:34 PM:

The White House and the DOJ are one and the same. Why do you need to consult yourself?

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 12:37 PM:

Again, nothing wrong with keeping this one secret.

TSUMBRA wrote on July 3, 2007 12:37 PM:

"TOTALLY FUNKED IN AMERICA 727"
WWW.ILOVEPOETRY.COM/VIEWPOEM.ASP?ID=92689

Sojourner wrote on July 3, 2007 12:44 PM:

It just points up to the President not wanting to be bothered by the truth or the facts. He just wanted to prevent Scooter from revealing what he knows. This was a payoff of the rankest sort. If Scooter is the true 'patriot' who has done so much in the service of his country, he would tell the truth about everything so that this country's justice system was not raped.

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 12:48 PM:

Sojourner:

So, if Jesus Christ is the one true God, He would have spoken up and not allowed the Crucifixion either?

MrNuts wrote on July 3, 2007 12:49 PM:

Maybe Irving has a strong phobia about being in prison and let it be known that if he ever was in prison he would start squealing and leaking like a dog strapped to the roof of a station wagon going 60.

camtron9000 wrote on July 3, 2007 12:52 PM:

When the Democratic Party swept the elections last fall, it was done in large part in a wave of frustration with the politicization of justice. That the men elected to represent us would rather hide the likes of Foley than admit wrongdoing and seek to repair it, for fear of losing political ground, was something that galvanized many people and informed their decisions to change the power differential in DC.

The Democrats need to remember this. This is the mandate they were given by the people last fall. Quit pulling punches and impeach already. The people want it, thats why they put them there--to follow through on this kind of stuff. If they don't, it will only stand to hurt their chances in '08 by perpetuating everybody's feelings of helplessness in the face of mass corruption.

And let's not underestimate these people. They may not have an exit strategy for Iraq, but they have thought long and hard about how to extract themselves from this mess untouched. We need to figure out what their plan is and short-circuit it, or else they go scott free.

TheraP wrote on July 3, 2007 1:02 PM:

You know, when you're used to doing whatever you want to do, you don't want to be bothered with extra steps.....

Why bother - when you can have "just us" and "libby-ty" - without any muss or fuss!

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 1:07 PM:

Let's not lose sight of the fact that since Fitzgerald is pursuing appeals, this is still very much a (catchphrase) "ONGOING LEGAL PROCEEDING" which is the usual way for the Admin to cower and clam up.

Only the President has now spoken amidst this "ONGOING LEGAL PROCEEDING."

This is inconsistent with past practice.

TheraP wrote on July 3, 2007 1:23 PM:

anon @ 1:07

Past practice - schmashed practice!

kjenn wrote on July 3, 2007 1:29 PM:

To Congress,

How many more reasons do you need. You can't swing a cat in this administration without smacking into corruption. Top to bottom, this administration holds its self above our system of justice.

The imbalance between the will of congress and that of their consituents cannot continue without severe repercussions come election time.

Even though you feed at the coporate money trough, remember that you serve at the will of the people. The ultimate "At Will Employer".

The much used line of "Impeachment is not worth it" due to the length of Bush's remaining term is NO EXCUSE for not doing your job to ensure that this administration is thoroughly REPUDIATED for it's crimes and misdemeanors.

It is your duty to all of us, and to history to do your damned job already!

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 1:32 PM:

This link to the USAM is consitent with the Supreme Court precedent:

TPM:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014963.php

Supreme court _emphasis added_

QUOTe:
[Emphasis in original] "The Supreme Court itself has opined that '[c]lemency is deeply rooted in our Anglo-American tradition of law, and is the historic remedy for preventing miscarriages of justice where _judicial process has been exhausted_.' " [ 66 Ohio St. L.J. 875]
ENDQUOTE

This isn't a DoJ rule which POTUS can ignore, or something in the USAM that POTUS can bypass like an EO; this is the Supreme court which says, until all judicial options are exhausted -- which they have not -- the president's clemency-commutation is not lawful or enforceable.

POTUS cannot pick and choose from "precedent" as a basis to defy the Law; then ignore the Supreme court.

See this: A strong case is needed to overturn a Supreme court Precedent, which does not apply here:

QUOTE:
[ 419 U.S. 256 ]: These facts are not insignificant for our interpretation of Art. II, § 2, cl. 1, because, as observed by Mr. Justice Holmes: "If a thing has been practised for two hundred years by common consent, it will need a strong case" to overturn it. Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U.S. 22, 31 (1922).
ENDQUOTE

By his admission of not involving DOJ in the discussion of commutation, Bush provides no evidence that there was a proper legal analysis to determine that there was a "strong" case or an "exceptional" case in re 66 Ohio St. L.J. 875, cited above.

kjenn wrote on July 3, 2007 1:48 PM:

How do we explain this to our children?

Remember that old saw from republicans hell bent on bringing down the last duly elected President of the United States? I remember hearing republican talking heads bemoaning the fact that they would have to explain Clinton's wrong-doing to the tender ears of their off-spring.

Nothing could stand in the way of their determination to impeach. They started looking for a reason to impeach the day Clinton took office. The best they could come up with after years and years of pushing, and digging, was a personal affair. Nothing to do with National Security.

Why don't democrats care about the message this administration sends to our children?

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 1:48 PM:

Do you think "66 Ohio St. L.J. 875" is a Supreme Court case cite?

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 1:57 PM:

Bush will challenge Congress' impeachment authority on the basis that it intrudes on the autonomy of the Executive Branch.

anon wrote on July 3, 2007 2:07 PM:

...And let's not underestimate these people. They may not have an exit strategy for Iraq, but they have thought long and hard about how to extract themselves from this mess untouched. We need to figure out what their plan is and short-circuit it, or else they go scott free...

Yes, it seems to me that even though they've done everything possible to have plausibly deniability and shredded every harddrive, they must know that a half-honest new administration would have to send hundreds of them to jail. And, I don't think they like jail so much.

After Iran-Contra, IIRC, certain power brokers met with Clinton and Co just before he took office and quietly negotiated to "let Clinton rule" if he dropped various Iran-Contra investigations, for "the good of the country." IIRC, so of our wise old men wrote a few columns saying that they had heard about such deals and, of course, felt that Clinton was "mature" enough to make the deal "for the good of the country." And, well, Clinton did let Iran-Contra drop.

I'm sure they will do the same thing this time. And Broder will be writing columns about how the new administration needs to focus on whatever and let all the investigations go "for the good of the country." But, this time, it's too much of a mess and the bad deeds are too basic. Just following through some fairly small investigtions, say, Duke Cunningham, will spell doom for Cheney-Bush and Co. So, yeah, they must have some other strategy. Perhaps they've been very careful to keep two sets of records throughout and they will dump/open all the fake--but, oh, so clean--books at the end, assuming it will take years to figure everything out? Or, perhaps, there are enough "loyal Bushies" in the DoJ to stop everything cold? Or, or, or, well, I dunno, but I think you are right, they really don't want to go to jail and they've had years to figure out how to avoid it.

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 2:57 PM:

Can't argue the logic here. They know exactly who leaked Valerie Plame's identity, how and why they did it and how they tried to cover it up. There are no fuzzy memories.

On the Clock wrote on July 3, 2007 3:37 PM:

Tony Snow's cancer has spread to his conscience.

Code word: shame. Something Lee Atwater had.

Mary wrote on July 3, 2007 4:51 PM:

Oh please.

Bush knows off the cuff what is and is not an "excessive sentence" for perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. charges?

Of course if he's legitimately going to commute based on excess in the sentence he would consult with DOJ. He didn't because that's not the reason - the reason is he doesn't want Libby to have to serve time and talk.

BTW - Hayden still not talking about what the CIA thinks is an ok sentence for someone who perjures themselves and obstructs justice in an investigation about an outed covert agent?

No big surprise there - apparently if he can't purge those who don't meet the "loyal Bushie" profile one way - he's game to have Scooter Libby purge them for him another way.

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 4:59 PM:

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 1:48 PM

You're not sure what the difference is between a Law Review Journal and A Supreme Court citation? It's a law journal, not a Supreme Court case.

The cited journal article does not support the conclusion that the Supreme Court "prohibits" Clemeney after any specific thing; only the opposite--That Clemency _can_ follow judicial reviews. Your comments are not helpful, and might have provided the above information.

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 5:17 PM:

For the record, I was the one who asked the person who posted a "quote" from 66 Ohio St. L.J. 875 whether he/she thought that was a Supreme Court case cite. Of course, I know the difference between a law journal and a Supreme Court case -- I was trying to see if that person knew the difference -- any more questions?

Marty wrote on July 3, 2007 5:43 PM:

Yeah, I have a question, who are you and why do you writte like an asshole?

Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 7:00 PM:

My name is Jake, and I at least know how to spell "write" : )

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 7:32 PM:

Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 7:00 PM

Not clear if this statement is a reminder to the wider audience or yourself. Does it mattter if there are or are not words correcttly spellled?

Even if you got the answer of whether a citation was or was not a Supreme Court citation, what difference would it make? You're not going to change. Getting the information doesn't appear to do anything for you. Not clear why you're requesting an answer; or waiting for one.

You, with your intellect should know, and do not appear helpful: Once you get a response, would you assist someone else with information? It doesn't appear that is your style. Is this what you were expecting?

Anonymous wrote on July 3, 2007 7:35 PM:

Congress is powerless to make the President follow rules which the President can ignore.

What's Congress going to do, impeach? Ha! This lazy, reckless DNC has too many guilty feelings to reconcile before they're going to stand up.

Clinton sure did a number on them: It was a DNC President who was impeached; and the DNC's response has been to cower in the corner. This is very normal for abused people: To continue to cower; and for those who did the abusing, to expand their abuse and remind themselves, "The rason we are abusing the DNC is that they must be bad people."

BUt the DNC knows it is not bad; it's jut "stuck" with it's guilt, and cowering. What would it take for the DNC to stand up for itself? I would hate to think it would have to be something like the events of Sept 2001. Very warped.

Lindy wrote on July 4, 2007 8:13 PM:

Breath-taking, isn't it? It's as if the attorneys prosecuting or defending OJ opted not to put on any evidence because "we all know the facts."

If nothing else, you'd think the W.H. would want to check with DOJ to see if they actually had the facts right.

Well, not this W.H., perhaps. But a W.H.