« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Snow: Clinton Criticism of Commutation is "Chutzpah"
From this morning's press gaggle:
REPORTER: Tony, why do you ... in your op-ed today you brought up the Clinton pardons, as well. Do two wrongs make a right? Is that the idea, like if Clinton did wrong ...SNOW: Well, this is ... no, this is not a wrong, but I think what is interesting is perhaps it was just because he was on his way out, but while there was a small flurry, there was not much investigation of it. Now you've got President Clinton and Senator Clinton out complaining about this, which, I got to tell you, I don't know what our Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it.
To refresh your memory on Hillary Clinton's remarks:
"I believe that presidential pardon authority is available to any president, and almost all presidents have exercised it.... 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."
The rest of the gaggle is posted below.
The full excerpt:
Reporter: So, back on Libby. The President envisioned him serving parole time. But there's some confusion about that. What's the White House understanding now about whether ...SNOW: The understanding is that this basically says, you now have ... he's got probation time, not parole time.
REPORTER: Probation, I'm sorry.
SNOW: Yes. So you treat it as if he has already served the 30 months, and probation kicks in. Obviously, the sentencing judge will figure out precisely how that works. But this ... I know that there has been some confusion about it, but it's our understanding that you treat it as if, okay, you've served your 30 months, now you're on probation, and the kind of conditions that would apply during normal probation would apply.
REPORTER: Well, the judge didn't think it was that clear.
SNOW: Well, again, we have a disagreement there.
REPORTER: Did the White House make a misstep here, I guess is what I'm asking.
SNOW: No, the White House did not make a misstep. And again, these sorts of determinations are always up to the sentencing judge.
REPORTER: But does this argue for why he should have run it past the Justice Department? Maybe a lawyer or ...
SNOW: No, and again ... you and I went through this the other day ... there's this notion that somehow there's a hard and fast process that requires the President to consult. Again, in this case, the Attorney General himself had been recused from it. We think that proper diligence was exercised in this case.
REPORTER: How could proper diligence be exercised if the judge is now saying, wait, the statute says you have to serve some jail time before you can actually get probation?
SNOW: Again, I think that is still a grey area in the law. We understand what the judge is saying. Our legal counsel looks at it in a different manner, and I don't think that that is a reflection on whether you have due diligence. There seems to be a disagreement here ... it does happen in law. The sentencing judge will make the final determination on it.
REPORTER: If there is a grey area, how do you know with certainty then ... I mean, on the one hand, you're saying there is a grey area; on the other hand, you're saying we're confident that this is all fine and he will serve probation.
SNOW: Well, I can't go any further for you on that, Ed. I mean, this is ... but on the other hand, you treat it as if ... it doesn't seem that it ought to be that complicated ... you treat it as if he served the 30 months, and you have a probationary period that follows.
REPORTER: What's the basis for that? Because the judge is saying there's a statute ... in the order he specifically says there's a statute that says that you have to serve some jail time.
SNOW: I will see if legal counsel can give you something a little more nuanced on that, but the fact is that this is something that will be determined by the trial judge. On the other hand, you've got a judge, also, who has had some of the verdict, some of the punishment taken away. My sense is that there are some disagreements here, but it's something that ... talking to Fred Fielding, he thinks that they're on strong legal ground that, in fact, this is something that can be imposed.
REPORTER: But, clearly, it was not the President's intention that probation not be served?
SNOW: That is correct. And that was very clear. Look ... and again, if you talk to attorneys around town and you ask them, is it a severe punishment to have your career taken away, the answer is, yes. By maintaining a felony conviction it has very profound impacts on what Scooter Libby can do in the future to provide a living for his family, and obviously, the fine is significant and so is probation.
Go ahead, Kelly.
REPORTER: Do you think that the judge is reacting in some way because he feels that ...
SNOW: I don't want to try to psychologize.
REPORTER: Why do you say that the President did not take politics into account, and if he had he would not have lifted a finger?
SNOW: Because you take a look at the polls ... the polls indicate that ... they've been recited ... people say, well, if you take a look at the polls, they wish he would have done nothing. So that's my reading of it.
REPORTER: That he would have done nothing because he's already so ... why?
SNOW: No, because, again, if you're taking politics into consideration, what you're saying is somebody trying to figure out politically what is going to be advantageous and popular with the American public. What the President thought in this ... what the President's approach was ... and I think you know him well enough to understand this ... is what is consistent with the dictates of justice? It is not something where he was consulting public opinion polls or asking what's going to play politically.
If you take a look at what has happened with some on the conservative side, they've been unhappy because they wanted a full pardon. The President thought that it was inappropriate to vacate the finding of the jury in this case. He ... after a long deliberation, they found Scooter Libby guilty of obstruction and perjury, and he thought it appropriate to maintain those convictions. He just thought that the punishment leveled by the court was excessive. You can take a look at Tim Noah's piece on Slate today where he also has taken ... he's gone through and read what the sentencing commission had to say and they seem to agree. So there's ... the President feels strongly that Scooter Libby's punishment was excessive, but on the other hand, he is also not willing to say, I'm going to forget the fact that you were convicted of a serious crime by a jury of your peers.
REPORTER: So why would he still be considering ... why wouldn't he rule out a pardon?
SNOW: Because all he's doing is ... he's not ruling anything in or out. But on the other hand, if you take a look at what he has said, he said that he is perfectly content ... not content ... he did the right thing. And there is still an option, people can always approach the pardon attorney. But the President thinks he's done the right thing.
REPORTER: If he thinks it's so important to keep jury deliberations and their rulings in effect, why does he ever pardon anybody?
SNOW: Well, there are some times when, obviously, there are some cases that may not be of sufficient gravity where he thinks that, in fact, a pardon would be called for.
This is a pretty serious case. And so, again, I think you can go back and look through the record of this administration. This is not where ... one where, for grave offenses, people have been handed out pardons.
REPORTER: So the hurdle for a pardon is pretty high, though not off the table?
SNOW: Again, I'm not going to get into speculating about the future, other than to say that the President thinks that he's done the right thing here. This is the right way to approach this case.
REPORTER: What about Conyers and his desire to have some sort of investigation of the use of the President's power in this instance?
SNOW: Well, fine, knock himself out. I mean, perfectly happy. And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?
REPORTER: Tony, why do you ... in your op-ed today you brought up the Clinton pardons, as well. Do two wrongs make a right? Is that the idea, like if Clinton did wrong ...
SNOW: Well, this is ... no, this is not a wrong, but I think what is interesting is perhaps it was just because he was on his way out, but while there was a small flurry, there was not much investigation of it. Now you've got President Clinton and Senator Clinton out complaining about this, which, I got to tell you, I don't know what our Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it.
REPORTER: That's all I need.
REPORTER:I think it's "chutzpah," but it was close.
SNOW: That's fine. Oy, oy, oy.
REPORTER: Tony, there were safeguards put into place after Clinton, and since you obviously feel there were abuses at the end of the Clinton administration ...
SNOW: I'm not just ... no, no, no. Look, the President has the constitutional authority and the constitutional power to practice clemency. So I don't ... all I'm saying is that this administration has been very careful about the way they approach it, and that would include in the case of Scooter Libby.
REPORTER: But because of perceived abuses by Clinton, there were changes made. Former pardon attorneys say there were a bunch of changes made to make sure it went through the proper channels.
SNOW: Right.
REPORTER: So then, since you feel so strongly ...
SNOW: So you're hung up ...
REPORTER: No, no, no. You feel so strongly that the Clinton pardons were abuses. You put that in your op-ed today; said there was a flurry of them. But ...
SNOW: I don't think I used the term "abuses." I think I had said that there was a flurry of them.
REPORTER: "Dizzying haste," you said.
SNOW: I believe that would be an accurate portrayal. If you take a look at news reports ... people scurrying about, clutching pieces of paper, running around ... I think those final hours were probably not timed of long chin-pulling reflection. But again ... look, Ed has got a reasonable point, which is to ask, do we think we've done wrong, do we think we've cut corners? The answer is, no.
REPORTER: Much of the complaint about this has been that this is not equal justice under the law; that Scooter Libby is getting a special break, and there are so many others who have asked for commutation, including an Iraq war veteran, who's got 33 years of prison ahead of him. Will ... doesn't Scooter Libby ...
SNOW: Thirty-three months, not years.
REPORTER: I'm sorry, 33 months. Does Scooter Libby's commutation fall under the same equal justice under the law there that everybody else gets?
SNOW: Look, if you're asking ... this provides a nice chance to go back and look at the Clinton pardons. Does that mean every drug dealer in America should have gotten off under the "equal justice under the law" logo? I mean, I think what you have here is that this was a special case. He had a special prosecutor. It was a unique case. I don't want to try to judge on merits of demerits of cases that may be pending, and frankly, I don't know whether this particular veteran has appealed to the pardon attorneys. I don't know any of those particular cases, so it's very difficult to respond to a broad, abstract assertion on other cases. This was, in fact, a unique case, but it was one that the President believes that he did right by the dictates of justice.
REPORTER: Well, was it not special in the sense that Scooter Libby is a former top aide who knew the President, worked for the President, and that gave him special access and special treatment?
SNOW: Well, no. I don't think he got special access in the sense that when he worked in the White House he had access. But on the other hand, there's been access since. So look, it is a special case because it was a special case ... highly publicized, a special counsel doing an investigation. So I think you can say it was a unique case. But on the other hand, again, this is the President trying to take a look, a hard look at a case. And in this particular instance, hastened by a decision by the 1st U.S. District Court of Appeals to go ahead and do what he thought was right.
REPORTER: Can I just come back to the probation thing again? Just to be clear, you're saying that Fred Fielding looked at this before the President signed it, signed off on it, said, oh, don't worry about this, sir.
SNOW: I don't know if ... I don't know if the President asked him specifically about it, but Fred did take a look at it, and he thought that it was appropriate.
REPORTER: Before ...
SNOW: Yes, of course, absolutely, absolutely.
REPORTER: Okay.
REPORTER: You and the President both said very, very clearly that the jury's verdict should be respected.
SNOW: That is correct.
REPORTER: Will you ever have to eat those words if he does grant Scooter Libby a pardon?
SNOW: Well, again, just wait and see if that happens, and then we'll answer the question.
REPORTER: Do you expect that the President would look at some other cases now? I know he's got a record of not ... a lot of these, but might he be open to looking to some of the other cases of people who did not have special access ...
SNOW: Kelly, I don't know precisely how the process works for bringing these cases before the President. As Ed has pointed out, they do have a process that they go and they look through these things, but I honestly don't know. My sense is that you don't adjust simply because people say, man, you got to look at a lot of other cases. My sense is that people do take a look at the cases pending. But I don't have any special details.
REPORTER: Did the pardon attorney play any role in this decision?
SNOW: I have no idea.
REPORTER: Could you find out?
SNOW: Yes, I don't believe that there have been any conversations with the pardon attorney.
REPORTER: Well, would that not make this the only occasion on which the President has granted executive clemency without the case going through the office of pardon attorney?
SNOW: Well, I will try to find out what I can get you on it. I just don't have anything on it.
Comments (107)
teacherken wrote on July 5, 2007 12:39 PM:why is Snow referring to a decision by the "1st U.S. District Court of Appeals" - is he confused?
The decision denying Libby the right to stay out of jail was the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. There is no District Court of Appeals, and the First Circuit is in New England.
the security code is "foot" - is that because that is what Tony inserted in his mouth?
destor23 wrote on July 5, 2007 12:43 PM:The best party is when they ask why Libby was pardoned while Rita is serving a similar sentence for the same crime. Snow seemed almost ready to blurt out, "Because this is the president's FRIEND!"
JR wrote on July 5, 2007 12:45 PM:So what happens if Scooter Libby is found to have committed further egresses of perjury, say during House/Senate testimony? What can Judge Walton (or judge with jurisdiction/supervision of his probation) do about it?
poetry wrote on July 5, 2007 12:53 PM:And, of course, the obvious response to Tony Snow is that Marc Rich was not convicted of -- or suspected of -- doing anything to cover up the crime(s) of the president who pardoned him.
On the other hand, Libby lied and obstructed the CIA leak investigation to the extent that the prosecutor could not "drill deeper" to identify the culprits in the White House's conspiracy to harm Joe Wilson (and silence future Iraq war critics) by destroying the career of Wilson's wife, a covert CIA operative working to keep terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Libby lied to protect the very man, Bush, who just commuted Libby's sentence and who will, if he feels like it, eventually pardon Libby completely.
Bush commuted Libby's prison sentence to SILENCE Libby.
Big difference between that and the Rich pardon.
MonkeyBoy wrote on July 5, 2007 12:58 PM:WTF. Is this crypto-religious code wordery in action again (remember all the fundamentalist Christian shout outs that can be found in Bush's speech).
By using a Yiddish term (which is unfamiliar to the vast majority a Americans),are they putting out the message that the only reason Libby is being attacked is because of Antisemitism and that all Jews need to come to his defense?
Jon Gurry wrote on July 5, 2007 12:58 PM:Did Scooter paid a visit to somebody at the WH since his trial?
SNOW: Well, no. I don't think he got special access in the sense that when he worked in the White House he had access. But on the other hand, there's been access since.
kth wrote on July 5, 2007 12:58 PM:Tony Snow has me confused. When did Clinton ever commute the sentence, thus sparing imprisonment but preserving the Fifth amendment privilege, of someone who could have implicated him?
Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 12:59 PM:Mark Rich’s attorney Scooter Libby knows how to play the game, even if Scooter’s wife, the former Biden staffer, gave him some hints. Could it be that Rich’s wife, the big Clinton financial supporter put in a good word, off the record, with Senator Clinton for the guy that helped her husband so much? Or maybe Cheney right hand gal Mary Matalin with her husband, Clinton advisor, Scooter supporter, faux Democrat, and Ohio saboteur James Carville told Senator Clinton that some harsh words to hush the angry cries of the base would be acceptable, but no real action is necessary. And so forth…..
Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 1:00 PM:The point is that Snow’s act is for the base, they lapped it up just like the hungry animals they are, just as Hillary’s angry rhetoric came with a wink and a nod to the Bushies. Hillary needed to say something furious, Snow knows, it’s just how the game is played. There is no true outrage by the powerbrokers in Washington about the commutation, or the original crime. They are all on the same team, with the single objective to fool the public most of the time. And they do.
Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite. I wish her and Bill would STFU about Libby because they have NO ROOM TO TALK.
BC pardoned a sheitload of people who certainly didn't deserve it, including Marc Rich.
Jane wrote on July 5, 2007 1:09 PM:Dear 1:00 PM:
Why not try being even handed for a change? Say about Bush all the things you said about Clinton and add the Bush may well have been protecting his own ass?
Is it true that you believe two wrongs make a right?
Nina wrote on July 5, 2007 1:14 PM:The best part of the gaggle in my opinion is when Snow tries to snow the reporters into thinking that Bush's decision is apolitical because "if you take a look at the polls," the American public "wish[es] he would have done nothing." Of course Bush is acting apolitically! Because the decision is unpopular! Hence, "if you're taking politics into consideration, what you're saying is somebody trying to figure out politically what is going to be advantageous and popular..." What Snow fails to remind us is that Bush acted in a manner sure to generate political heat indicates precisely how politically necessary the act was; for this administration can't afford to have a snarky loyalist like Libby staring at jail time... he will talk first. And a light shone into the crevices of this most secret of administrations will not do.
Your Uncle Bastard wrote on July 5, 2007 1:16 PM:Ahh, anonymous, showing again the courage of your convictions with an unsigned post.
WATB chorus: "Bbbbbut, the CLINTONS did it, and it was ONLY EVIL then!!!!"
Whatever will you do when you have no more Clenis to obsess over, or daydream about?
Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 1:26 PM:There was no need for Bush to determine whether Libby would be eligible for probation. He knows full well he's going to give him a full pardon.
Erich wrote on July 5, 2007 1:26 PM:Actually I just read another article online (off the first page of google news) that said Clinton pardoned Rich at the behest of Scooter Libby, which makes this even more ironic. It also seemed to imply, rather baldly, that both Rich and Libby had ties to the Mossad, and that Scooter was perhaps working more in the interests of Israel than the US. If that isn't just tinfoil hattery, and can be proven, I'd certainly think a few more mainstream media types could be getting a lot more intersting story out of all this.
mo2 wrote on July 5, 2007 1:27 PM:Kudos to the reporter who led this exchange:
REPORTER: Did the pardon attorney play any role in this decision? ...
SNOW: Yes, I don't believe that there have been any conversations with the pardon attorney.
REPORTER: Well, would that not make this the only occasion on which the President has granted executive clemency without the case going through the office of pardon attorney?
Andrew wrote on July 5, 2007 1:29 PM:Does anyone really care what Bush or his mouth piece thinks anymore? Either mover to impeach Bush as well as Cheney or stop grumbling about it. For Pelosis said that impeachement was " off the table". I sincerely hope she's willing to take a second look. In the meantime, rather than reading wag the dog stories about Gores kid smoking pot, why not cover some real news that will affect not only the US but every country in the world? Now I know why Andrea Mitchell and Mr. McGoo haven't been seen in public recently.
LEO WANTA'S PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
CASE NUMBER: 1:2007CV00609 – TSE – BRP: ALEXANDRIA
Thursday 5 July 2007 16:04
THE BIGGEST FINANCIAL SCANDAL IN WORLD HISTORY
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
Case Number: 1:2007cv00609 – TSE – BRP
Filed: 20th June 2007
www.worldreports.org
Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 1:30 PM:News flash: Sir Eddie George former Govenor of the Bank of England was arrested as well as Greenspan who is under house arrest.
"Why not try being even handed for a change? Say about Bush all the things you said about Clinton and add the Bush may well have been protecting his own ass?
Is it true that you believe two wrongs make a right?"
Me? Of course Bush was protecting his own ass. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Republican two-faced hypocrite party. I'm not defending Bush at all. He doesn't deserve it. But to have a Clinton of all people talk about pardons and how unethical it was is nothing short of ridiculous and just hands the rightwingers a bazooka. Having Bill and Hillary talk smack like that just makes Democrats look like hypocrites and fools.
For the record I thought scootiepuff should have went to jail.
Grumpy wrote on July 5, 2007 1:32 PM:"...while there was a small flurry, there was not much investigation of it..."
Funny Snow should put it that way -- since in the case of Marc Rich, there were Congressional hearings about his pardon.
Davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 1:32 PM:Whoops, I don't know why I was signed out. 1;00 would be me.
Scott L wrote on July 5, 2007 1:33 PM:Tony Snow aka Bagdad Bob. Always great for a laugh.
Davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 1:34 PM:Why isn't my name showing up?
Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 1:35 PM:destor23L
Victor Rita was PREVIOUSLY convicted of the same crime so, unlike Libby, he was not a first-time offender.
poetry:
I have no problem with the Rich pardon. If you are really looking for a Clinton pardon more directly tied to covering up his own misdeeds, however, what about Susan McDougal's?
davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 1:38 PM:Now my name doesn't show up. I am davis13.
Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 1:39 PM:"Tony Snow has me confused. When did Clinton ever commute the sentence, thus sparing imprisonment but preserving the Fifth amendment privilege, of someone who could have implicated him?"
Well, take off your DNC blinders and ask this question to Web Hubbell and Susan McDougal. She refused to testify, at all, regarding the Clintons and went to jail for it, only to be let off via pardon. Hubbell did the same thing, clam up, protect the Clintons, and wait for Bill's midnight pardon.
Face it, the only people upset about this are the rabid Bush-haters....the same people tripping over themselves trying to defend Clinton's worse actions.
davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 1:39 PM:Damned sign in won't work.
arthur wrote on July 5, 2007 1:40 PM:"Tony Snow has me confused. When did Clinton ever commute the sentence, thus sparing imprisonment but preserving the Fifth amendment privilege, of someone who could have implicated him?"
Well, take off your DNC blinders and ask this question to Web Hubbell and Susan McDougal. She refused to testify, at all, regarding the Clintons and went to jail for it, only to be let off via pardon. Hubbell did the same thing, clam up, protect the Clintons, and wait for Bill's midnight pardon.
Face it, the only people upset about this are the rabid Bush-haters....the same people tripping over themselves trying to defend Clinton's worse actions.
Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 1:40 PM:Clinton also signed commutations for LOTS of people:
Melvin J. Reynolds - Democratic Congressman from Illinois - bank fraud and obstruction of justice
Dorothy Rivers - lead official in Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, pled guilty to theft of 1.2 million dollars in federal grant money
I could keep going.
Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 1:41 PM:I can't seem to sign in. I am davis13, not 1;00 and not mr. anonymous.
EH wrote on July 5, 2007 1:42 PM:@12:59
that's exactly it. it's not a partisan issue, it's an illustration of the rights of the powerful vs. the rights of the people. Two different sets of laws. Sometimes they overlap, but as we see here, not always.
davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 1:46 PM:Can't seem to sign in. I am not Mr. anonymous or 1:00.
I am davis13.
YellowDogDem wrote on July 5, 2007 1:47 PM:How about some comparisons with Daddy Bush's eleventh hour pardons of his administration's running dogs right before the end of his term. Ass covering seems to run in the family, eh?
Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 1:47 PM:Op Ed by Bill Clinton (defending HIS pardons, of course):
"First, I want to make some general comments about pardons and commutations of sentences. Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and unreviewable power to grant "Reprieves and Pardons" for all offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted "[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit" (United States v. Klein). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that "[a] pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . ." (Biddle v. Perovich). A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances.
The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be. Some of the uses of the power have been extremely controversial, such as President Washington's pardons of leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion, President Harding's commutation of the sentence of Eugene Debs, President Nixon's commutation of the sentence of James Hoffa, President Ford's pardon of former President Nixon, President Carter's pardon of Vietnam War draft resisters, and President Bush's 1992 pardon of six Iran-contra defendants, including former Defense Secretary Weinberger, which assured the end of that investigation."
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/18/opinion/18CLIN.html?pagewanted=all&ei=5070&en=ec04e1c8cb40752d&ex=1183780800
davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 1:48 PM:Sorry for the multiple posts. I have no idea what's going on.
I do find it ironic that Marc Rich's attorney was Scootie puff Jr.
Larry_H wrote on July 5, 2007 1:49 PM:So if Libby violates the terms of his probation can his sentence be enforced? If not then how is it probation? Kind of like a donut hole with no donut. MMMMMMMM donuts!
Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 1:50 PM:Susan McDougal was not pardoned.
Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 1:52 PM:". . . While I was aware of and took into account the fact that the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York did not support these pardons, in retrospect, the process would have been better served had I sought her views directly. Further, I regret that Mr. Holder did not have more time to review the case. However, I believed the essential facts were before me, and I felt the foreign policy considerations and the legal arguments justified moving forward.
The suggestion that I granted the pardons because Mr. Rich's former wife, Denise, made political contributions and contributed to the Clinton library foundation is utterly false. There was absolutely no quid pro quo. Indeed, other friends and financial supporters sought pardons in cases which, after careful consideration based on the information available to me, I determined I could not grant.
In the last few months of my term, many, many people called, wrote or came up to me asking that I grant or at least consider granting clemency in various cases. These people included friends, family members, former spouses of applicants, supporters, acquaintances, Republican and Democratic members of Congress, journalists and total strangers. I believe that the president can and should listen to such requests, although they cannot determine his decision on the merits. There is only one prohibition: there can be no quid pro quo. And there certainly was not in this or any of the other pardons and commutations I granted.
I am accustomed to the rough and tumble of politics, but the accusations made against me in this case have been particularly painful because for eight years I worked hard to make good decisions for the American people. I want every American to know that, while you may disagree with this decision, I made it on the merits as I saw them, and I take full responsibility for it."
chuckago wrote on July 5, 2007 1:54 PM:I agree w/ Mo2 about the Pardon Attorney. I was struck by Snow's response about the Iraq War veteran
davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 1:57 PM:sentenced to 33 months. Snow said, "I don't know whether this particular veteran has appealed to the pardon attorneys." So did Scooter even ask for a commutation or pardon? Or did Bush just initiate it on his own? Then the question is when did the process start.
"Face it, the only people upset about this are the rabid Bush-haters....the same people tripping over themselves trying to defend Clinton's worse actions".
davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 1:59 PM:BS. I dislike Clinton and refuse to defend his ethics lapses. As for your definiton of "worse"? What a joke. Libby is involved with a cover up having to do with national security.
I have no idea wtf is wrong with this site. First it blanked my id now it won't post.C'mon people.
Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 2:03 PM:Susan McDougel was indeed pardoned by Clinton:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010120/aponline104904_000.htm
Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 2:05 PM:I don't believe that Webster Hubbell was pardoned though.
Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 2:06 PM:McDOUGAL, SUSAN H.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/20/pardons.list/
Michele wrote on July 5, 2007 2:07 PM:I sorta agree with Tony on this one, not because I think that Scooter should have been pardoned (oops, I mean "commuted"; I certainly don't. But I agree that the Clinton's would be wise to just shut up on this issue so as not to draw attention to their own record. It gives legitimacy to the Republicans who are saying "see, Clinton did it, too" and distracts from the egregious specifics of the Libby case, allowing false comparisons of Marc Rich vs Scooter Libby that have no merit. This only serves to confuse the populace--a condition that seems to only ever benefit the right.
Samsara wrote on July 5, 2007 2:08 PM:
Barry Champlain wrote on July 5, 2007 2:08 PM:Tony Snow is running out of spin power. It takes considerable energy to sell a product that doesn’t work, and even an accomplished spinner like Mr. Snow may wear down given his circumstance. The sympathy factor will permit him to stay on for as long as he wants, but his effectiveness as pied-piper and charmer of the Washington press corps may not last through September. A new spokesperson may better be able to generate the hurricane force spinning necessary to sell another year of the surge. Time to charge up the fembot. She can stand in till they find another heavyweight spinner. Lets see, they tried smiles and charm, perhaps they will switch gears to sneering abrasiveness. Anyone have Brit Hume’s number?
When, you ask, will the right get over its obsession with "the Clenis"? When they get over their obsession with that "traitor" (read "CLASS traitor"), Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Republicanism has always depended upon having a stock company of Goldstein-like villains: FDR and his New Deal; the Commies; the Hippies; Barbra and Soros; the Clintons. Boogeymen, to keep the dummies riled-up and believing.
You'd think the MSM would have gotten hip to the scam, by now. No, they just treat the various invocations of all these dark critters as a virgin birth of commentary, whenever and wherever it occurs, devoid of any historical political context. As if.
Back to Snowjob... THIS got me:
REPORTER: What about Conyers and his desire to have some sort of investigation of the use of the President's power in this instance?
SNOW: Well, fine, knock himself out. I mean, perfectly happy. And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?
Snicker, snicker. Smirk, smirk. Yeah, if that dumb Negro nobody wants to "knock himself out", yeah right, like WE care. Like anything's REALLY gonna happen, as a result of a bunch of whiny liberals vs. Darth Vader and the Chimp (hey... sounds like a 1970's Fred Silverman NBC sitcom! :-)
Oh, say Tony, as for January 20th, 2001, my memory of it went like this: there was a riot in Washington, DC, which caused the inauguration of George W. Bush to be truncated.
And, thanks to the mainstream media, I (a voracious news consumer) found out about it on June 23, 2004.
That was the day that right-wing boogeyman Michael Moore premiered "Fahrenheit 9-11" in New York City.
Sonomabob wrote on July 5, 2007 2:09 PM:If we had a free and independent press, The only thing that would make sense would be to just stop going to these briefings.
At least until the promised, promised to answer something.
Security code "snake", too good.
mo1 wrote on July 5, 2007 2:11 PM:Ahhhhh...the old "gray area in the law" play....
****REPORTER: How could proper diligence be exercised if the judge is now saying, wait, the statute says you have to serve some jail time before you can actually get probation?
SNOW: Again, I think that is still a grey area in the law. We understand what the judge is saying. Our legal counsel looks at it in a different manner, and I don't think that that is a reflection on whether you have due diligence. There seems to be a disagreement here ... it does happen in law. The sentencing judge will make the final determination on it.****
So, we have laws, but if WH doesn't want to follow them, then there comes that "gray area" or the "disagreement" of what the law says,........
Bush motto... follow the gray area.
Good for the Dems in getting their ad out so fast.
.
Mojotron3000 wrote on July 5, 2007 2:18 PM:and from that same link Webster Hubbell was not pardoned.
Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 2:21 PM:Barry Champlain:
I believe Mr. Snow is referring to earlier that day in Washington, D.C. and the pardons / commutations I linked to above. I guess that's something else "a voracious news consumer" missed too.
Barry Champlain wrote on July 5, 2007 2:30 PM:Quick note, from the "Great Minds Think Alike" Dept:
I just went over to Huffington Post, and they apparently also thought Tony's little crack which I mentioned above was banner headline material: "KNOCK YOURSELF OUT".
Why am I thinking that Rep. Conyers will not take too kindly to being publicly joked about as irrelevant, by a rogue White House?
The last WH that smirked this hard about those who would have the "chutzpah" to investigate it, was the Nixon White House.
eyeball wrote on July 5, 2007 2:38 PM:so jake's point is what? other presidents have made controversial and in some cases (mark rich, caspar weinberger) really odious pardons and commutations, so this ... justifies another odious one? and, in none of those cases did the president, with 18 months to go in his term, grant clemency to a material figure in an investigation intp HIS OWN white house -- and to a figure found guilty of obstructing that very investigation.
james madison: "[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty. . . ."
Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 2:46 PM:by the way, the hubbell analogy is utterly spurious, details to come but: mcdougall was jailed for refusing to testify to the truth of claims by hubbell that mcdougall knew to be lies. those claims had to do with whitewater not the actions of the white house. and more to the point: mcdougall served a lot of time. but keep dreaming, righties. the percentages keep falling.
Why shouldn’t Snow taunt Rep. Conyers and the rest of them? If all they will toss back at the WH is a Censure motion or some such nonsense, they deserve the public ridicule.
Barry Champlain wrote on July 5, 2007 2:48 PM:er, Jake... see that 800-lb. gorilla, in the corner of your living room, there? That would be... a 800-lb. gorilla!
Why must wingnuts be so unable to dig below the literal level? Is it a genetic defect?
My point was... READ. THIS. SLOWLY. ... whatever else happened during Bush's inauguration, how the f#*^ do you ignore a RIOT THAT SHUTS DOWN THE INAUGURATION OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?
Therefore, when you and your Fox News propagandist/White House criminal liar buddy there invoke January of 2001, common sense dictates that you not bury the lede (CNN, NBC, etc., bent over forwards to switch camera angles frantically, and eventually revert to their studios, in order to avoid showing this "voracious news consumer" what actually went on that day. I'm sure it was all good-intentioned :-P )
I'm saying, you oughta start with the headline that SHOULD have existed, outside of Bizarro World, and screw yer stupid-ass Clinton pardons!
(See? Get it??)
Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 2:53 PM:eyeball:
My point is that anyone who defended the Clinton pardons / commutations (starting with Bill Clinton -- see Op Ed article I linked to above) is a hypocrite for bashing Bush's commutation of Libby -- if you didn't defend Clinton on this, then bash away.
arthur wrote on July 5, 2007 2:54 PM:"mcdougall was jailed for refusing to testify to the truth of claims by hubbell that mcdougall knew to be lies. those claims had to do with whitewater not the actions of the white house. and more to the point: mcdougall served a lot of time."
Exactly, MdDougall was jailed for refusing to testify! Why---because she would have either told the truth about the Clintons or she would have had to perjure herself.
Had to do with Whitewater, not the Clintons? How pathetic of an attempt to create a difference where one doesn't exist. She clammed up to protect the Clintons and was later pardoned, rather than be forced to testify. Why didn't Bill just tell her to testify and get out of prison on her own? He knew the plan and so did she, it worked out perfectly, she never had to testify or tell what she knew, and like clockwork, she got her pardon.
To say her only choice was to lie or not testify is comical and pathetic. Only those willingly ignorant Clinton lovers can believe this is not what it appeared to be.
"But McDougall served a lot of time"
Pointless comment, it doesn't change the quid pro quo that was so blatantly obvious.
Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 2:55 PM:Of course, the same holds true in reverse: those who slammed Clinton for those pardons are hypocrites for defending Bush.
snart wrote on July 5, 2007 2:56 PM:"if you're taking politics into consideration, what you're saying is somebody trying to figure out politically what is going to be advantageous and popular with the American public."
Oh. So, ITS NOT political to casually commute the sentence of someone just convicted of having lied to a grand jury about his involvement a massive propaganda operation, apperantly directed out of the OVP, and aimed at advancing a particular policy goal. I get it. Yeah.
Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 2:56 PM:It's up to Congress and the Grand Jury to decide if Bush's assertion of power nullified the Constitution. If the Congress and/or Grand Jury decide that throughthis commutation, and other action, the President has made the Constitution null and void, the Grand Jury and/or Congress ay prosecute or impeach the President. It's up to the Grand Jury and/or Congress to decide what "nullify" means. The President cannot prevent Congress or the Grand Jury from concluding that the commutation made the Constitution, in effect, impermissibly null and without effect.
eyeball wrote on July 5, 2007 2:57 PM:snow's taunt is a hair reminiscent of 'bring it on" -- that didnt go over well, as i think about it,
on the spurious mark rich analogy: that was done at the end by clinton. had it been done with 18 mos. left it would 1) have occasioned well-deserved intense and furious scrutiny; 2) it wud likely have wound up somehow in the gop bill of impeachment against clinton.
arthur wrote on July 5, 2007 2:58 PM:Conyers looking into anything is a joke, as is he. Wasn't he under an ethics investigation until the Democrats took over?
Conyers is an old, drooling moron in need of speech therapy and secondary education. His only validity comes from the left wing nuts that have taken over the Democrat party.
Way to go Tony, call out this irrelevant imbecile for what he is.
Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 3:00 PM:Libby is off the hook, the President did have the power to commute the sentence, ans will have the power to pardon eventually.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the President isn’t also guilty of obstruction of justice. He couldn’t be impeached for the pardon, but he could be for the cover-up it facilitates.
Further, our pathetic congress should give Scooter immunity then haul his sorry ass before one of their useless hearings and require him to commit perjury a second time. Future lies to the FBI or Congress are new crimes, I’m fairly certain the President has no authority to pardon a criminal prospectively.
David Taylor Shannon wrote on July 5, 2007 3:00 PM:All this talk and confusion about probation is misplaced. Libby was not sentenced to probation. He was sentenced to "supervised release." Probation is something you get instead of prison. "Supervised release" is the replacement for parole under the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. You can't get supervised release if you didn't get any time in prison, which is why the judge is concerned about how to execute the sentence.
My guess is that Libby's lawyers will now argue that his supervised release sentence is invalid, so he never has the indignity of reporting to a probation officer, his fine is paid, and he's through with the criminal justice system (except for his appeal).
arthur wrote on July 5, 2007 3:01 PM:"Why am I thinking that Rep. Conyers will not take too kindly to being publicly joked about as irrelevant, by a rogue White House?"
Why am I thinking who cares what Conyers takes kindly? He's irrelevent and couldn't win an election anywhere other than the gerry-mandered, uneducated, union household, welfare dependent district he represents.
Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 3:03 PM:This Clinton this is the perfect right wing red herring. The point is, if Clinton was wrong, so is Bush. Bush is also wrong independent of whether Clinton was wrong. They supposedly were outraged with the Clinton abuse, but they use it as license to do whatever they please.
Either it is wrong or it isn’t.
Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 3:10 PM:arthur:
You are correct -- in letters sent separately to the House Ethics Committee, the FBI, and the US Attorney's office by two former aides of Conyers, they alleged that Conyers repeatedly violated House ethics rules -- Conyers used his staff to work on several local and state campaigns and forced them to baby-sit and chauffeur his children. In late December 2006, however, Conyers "accepted responsibility" for possibly violating House rules. A statement issued December 29, 2006 by the House Ethics Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) and Ranking Minority Member Howard Berman (D-Calif.), said that Conyers acknowledged what he characterized as a "lack of clarity" in his communications with staff members regarding their official duties and responsibilities, and accepted responsibility for his actions. Of course, there was no punative action taken -- so much for accepting responsibility, huh?
In deciding to drop the matter, Hastings and Berman state:
After reviewing the information gathered during the inquiry, and in light of Representative Conyers’ cooperation with the inquiry, we have concluded that this matter should be resolved through the issuance of this public statement and the agreement by Representative Conyers to take a number of additional, significant steps to ensure that his office complies with all rules and standards regarding campaign and personal work by congressional staff.
Also, I guess a J.D. degree from Wayne State University ain't what it used to be -- Conyers was #13 on Nixon's "Enemies List" with the president's Chief Counsel described him as "coming on fast" and that he was "emerging" as a "black anti-Nixon spokesman" who also had a "weakness" for white women (Rep. Conyers has been married to Monica -- an African-American Detroit City Councilwoman -- for more than 16 years).
DemandTruth wrote on July 5, 2007 3:13 PM:Look, you right-wing trollsies just can't have it both ways. You continue with your BUT BUT BUT...Clinton!!!
So, you are obviously STILL outraged about Bill Clinton's use of pardons/commutations. And that's just fine and dandy and perfectly acceptable to be outraged at Clinton after all these years.
But us lefties aren't allowed to be outraged at all about the Libby issue? We should just smile, bend over and take it?
You idot trolls with your double standards - it's always okay if a Republican bends/breaks the rules/laws. You fall all over yourselves to make excuses for these criminals. It's sickening.
poetry wrote on July 5, 2007 3:14 PM:Jake:
"Both Rita and Libby are FIRST-TIME offenders; both were convicted of the exact same crime.
"One lied about gun registration; the other lied about his role in outing a covert CIA operative during a time of war.
"The president believes the prior should be away for nearly three years, but believes the latter shouldn't spend a single moment behind bars."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_07/011621.php
Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 3:16 PM:David Taylor Shannon:
In the alternative, Libby "served" one day per BOP Guidelines in being booked and assigned an Inmate Number -- supervised release, as ordered by the President, is allowed under the statute.
Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 3:22 PM:DemandTruth:
Is it O.K. to think that both Clinton / Bush's pardons / commutations were allowable under the U.S. Constitution? What I am pointing out is the hypocrisy of those who defended Clinton in the first instance but bash Bush in the second instance. Please let me know if you still don't understand my position.
Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 3:26 PM:poetry:
I thought we weren't at "war"? Nonetheless, I think the argument can be made that the weapons charge was more damaging to the country, even assuming Plame was still technically "covert".
Barry Champlain wrote on July 5, 2007 3:34 PM:Why am I thinking who cares what Conyers takes kindly? He's irrelevent and couldn't win an election anywhere other than the gerry-mandered, uneducated, union household, welfare dependent district he represents.
Posted by: arthur
~~~~
See my above snark about Tony's sending the Republican dog whistle to guys like this: "Yeah, if that dumb Negro nobody wants to knock himself out, yeah right, like WE care."
Say, isn't it great, that it's okay to be blatantly, publicly RACIST, in the brave new Bushworld? No more "political correctness" for us! Yeah baby!
Oh... and leave us not forget:
"Conyers is an old, drooling moron in need of speech therapy and secondary education."
Dog whistle: "Them darkies sure do talk funny!"
We're calling you people out, now. Fun, isn't it?You got AM radio. We got this thing. Sucks to be you.
(That's it for the day; I'm going to work, now. You trolls, who probably ain't got that problem, may now continue bashing everyone and everything to your left, as you type it all with one hand...)
eyeball wrote on July 5, 2007 3:38 PM:o dear arthur. you really do not know the mcdougall case. i realize the rightist myth is that it implicated the clinton white house but of course it didnt since it was about the land deal that by the way was determined not to be an underlying crime (i seem to be seeing this righty talking point about libby). where is your proof of this "deal," by the way? i'd like to see it. wudnt mcdougall have been more congenial to shutting up if she hadn't had to serve all those months in an orange jump suit? granting people an incentive to shut up usually involves keeping those people out of jail, not having them sit in jail - it's why we have plea bargains. people don't like jail.
using phrases like "for what other reason" and "blatantly obvious" does no make your arguments correct, just desperate, since you are assuming things out of thin air. try to hold onto that basic aspect of logical conversation.
in any event, misdirection is a great con man's art, but why not stay on point: libby was granted clemency by bush. he was convicted of obstructing justice during a probe of activities in the bush-cheney white house. pls defend.
Dali wrote on July 5, 2007 3:41 PM:Is it me, or should every resident of the state Arkansas be offended by Tony Snow's remarks?! Sure, he wanted to take a hit at The Clintons, but to smack down an entire state? The arrogance is amazing. I was appalled when I heard it.
mo2 wrote on July 5, 2007 3:46 PM:"Of the 25 Republican Senators still in the Senate and who voted that day to convict Clinton on both articles of impeachment, not one of them has issued a public statement on the Libby sentence commutation in the three days since it occurred."
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2007/07/gop-senators-who-voted-for-clinton.html
Will these 25 Republicans vote to convict if Bush is impeached? Their silence implies Yes.
eyeball wrote on July 5, 2007 3:53 PM:well jake, feel free to make arguments about hypocrisy, but i'd like to see something specific -- a groundswell of democrats seizing up and railing in defense of sandy berger or mark rich. didnt happen. berger pled guilty. what more needs to be said. he also owned up to his crimes and surrendered his law license. libby has insisted on his innocence, been convicted, been rebuffed by an appeals court, in a case with no partisan taint. showed no remorse, and yet he was commuted -- keeping this one man out of jail became the single most vital and important matter before the bush white house -- so much so that he was commuted without having even filed for presidential clemency. if all this squares with you, fine. but show me a similar case perpetrated by any president with 18 mos to go in his term, when the commutee has been specifically convicted of obstructing an investigation into the president's own white house, and the public turned away? show us that.
arthur wrote on July 5, 2007 3:56 PM:At 3:40pm, our resident racial ambulance chaser says: " That's it for the day; I'm going to work, now. You trolls, who probably ain't got that problem, may now continue bashing everyone "
No Barry, you're right, we don't have that problem of having to go to work at 4! That job you report to at 4:oo in the afternoon must be pretty important! I guess after a day of race baiting, it's off to wash the dishes at Outback!
You have definitely found your political party!
arthur wrote on July 5, 2007 3:59 PM:""Of the 25 Republican Senators still in the Senate and who voted that day to convict Clinton on both articles of impeachment, not one of them has issued a public statement on the Libby sentence commutation in the three days since it occurred.""
And of the legion of Democrats that did NOT vote to impeach, how many have come out if defence of Libby?
Your point??
poetry wrote on July 5, 2007 4:08 PM:-- excerpt from: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_07/011621.php
- - - - -
* Sentencing experts cannot find a single other instance in American history in which someone sentenced to prison had received a presidential commutation without having served any part of that sentence. (Bush is quite a trailblazer.)
* Defense attorneys can't wait to take advantage of the can of worms the president has opened. One legal expert said, "I anticipate that we're going to get a new motion called 'the Libby motion.'"
* According to federal data, the average sentence for those found guilty of obstruction of justice was 70 months, not zero.
- - - - -
poetry wrote on July 5, 2007 4:15 PM:For those who CLING to the MYTH that Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA operative at the time the White House disclosed her identity, I can only observe that there are none so blind as those who will not see.
- - - -
"Plame was ‘covert’ agent at time of name leak"
Newly released unclassified document details CIA employment
By Joel Seidman, Producer, NBC News
May 29, 2007
"An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
arthur wrote on July 5, 2007 4:24 PM:"berger pled guilty. what more needs to be said. he also owned up to his crimes and surrendered his law license."
Yes, which allowed him to not have to answer under oath or threat of punishment to anyone for what documents he had taken and why.
Eyeball seem to be awfully sure about the angelic intentions of a top ranking Clinton official who walks with Top Secret National Security documents secretly stuffed in his shorts. I guess he had nothing to hide either, just like Susan McDougal who went to jail rather than testify under oath.
The only proven liar in the whole Plamegate fiasco is Joe Wilson (see 9/11 commission report).
So, now 2 Clinton officials have had their law licenses taken away....Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton himself. National Security Advisor and President of the United States...debarred. That's quite an administration you long for.
Please, please, let Hillary be the democrat candidate. Americans need to be reminded of the real Clinton years, not the fairy tale the media has portrayed for 7 years. Hillary will be beaten easily.
arthur wrote on July 5, 2007 4:27 PM:"indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003."
Yes, covertly sending her free-loading husband on a taxpayer supported junket. He's told nothing but lies ever since.
davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 4:28 PM:"No Barry, you're right, we don't have that problem of having to go to work at 4! That job you report to at 4:oo in the afternoon must be pretty important! I guess after a day of race baiting, it's off to wash the dishes at Outback!"
Hey artie, any of you rightwankers ever heard of second shift? Or do all of you have banker's hours?
PS: Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton.
There, that should take care of you for about 2 minutes. Carry on.
mo2 wrote on July 5, 2007 5:05 PM:My point is that these Senators might vote differently the next time a vote against Bush comes up:
Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR)
Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Senator Thad Cochran (R-MI)
Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM)
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO)
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Senator Larry Craig (R-ID)
Granted Jeff Sessions is a party-first voter, and Pat Roberts is an enabler of treason, that still leaves 9 Republicans who have voted for impeachment in the past for much less serious crimes.
arthur wrote on July 5, 2007 5:11 PM:"Hey artie, any of you rightwankers ever heard of second shift?"
Yes, janitors, dishwashers, and union workers....the usual democrats. Menial labor, easily replaced, and always 'owed' something they are unable to provide themselves.
davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 5:26 PM:"berger pled guilty. what more needs to be said. he also owned up to his crimes and surrendered his law license."
"Yes, which allowed him to not have to answer under oath or threat of punishment to anyone for what documents he had taken and why."
Bush commuting Libby's sentence instead of pardoning him allows him to plead the 5th if necessary. But that doesn't count in your amoral world, does it?
By the way GENIUS, it was the BUSH Department of Justice that made the god damned deal with Berger, wasn't it? Now I have an idea why.
Just like the pube criminals who supported Jefferson's right to have his office off limits for FBI searches, it protects THEM, the Republicans. It also makes good cover for their own illegal BS, doesn't it? But it sure the hell doesn't stop rightwing hypocrites from shrieking at full volume even though Bush's OWN PEOPLE made the plea bargain.
SEE? SEE? HE DID IT! Waaaaahhhh!!! You're picking on us!! Waaaahhhh!!
So if you have a complaint that Berger got off easy I suggest you take it up with Ashcroft, Goonzalez or maybe the DOJ.
Morals and values my ass. Situational ethics?
Abso-friggin-lutely.
Hector wrote on July 5, 2007 5:30 PM:I think it would be difficult to defend either the Clinton pardons or the Bush pardon before an impartial tribunal fairly weighing the relevant evidence. That said, it does seem to me that the Clintons' chronic corruption and general self-serving conduct is personal, focused on and driven by greed; the conduct of Bush et al. is aimed at, or at least has the consequence of, subverting the most basic elements of republican constiutional government. It is precisely my anger at, and fear of, the conduct of Bush et al. that drives me to despair that the Democrats have thus far supported only candidates of no substance or principle, no determination to change US foreign policy, and if anything more insistent than Bush on dropping nuclear bombs on Iran and cheering on Israeli conduct that can only lead to more deaths for everyone in the Middle East -- Jews, Arabs, Christians, everybody.
davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 5:46 PM:"Yes, janitors, dishwashers, and union workers....the usual democrats. Menial labor, easily replaced, and always 'owed' something they are unable to provide themselves."
Menial labor? Ha ha. That's a good one. Have you ever have a job that made callouses on your hands or are you a purely air-conditioned, white collar desk jockey?
I live in Illinois and we have many 1st, 2nd, and even 3rd shift workers, not janitors or dishwashers. Not that there is anything wrong with hard work. I'm talking skilled trades. I myself went through an apprenticeship. There is a fundamental dissconnect between you pubes and the working man. You rightwingers think no one in the country works hard but you.
Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 6:37 PM:This arthur character is arrogance personified. But, he is a perfect example of a Republican.
"Have you ever have a job that made callouses on your hands or are you a purely air-conditioned, white collar desk jockey?"
Purely air conditioned white collar. It's called an education.
"This arthur character is arrogance personified. But, he is a perfect example of a Republican."
Is your whining a perfect example of a democrat?
"I live in Illinois and we have many 1st, 2nd, and even 3rd shift workers, not janitors or dishwashers."
As I said, janitors, dishwashers, and UNION WORKERS. I would dare say your Illinois co-workers fit into this category, no?
"Have you ever have a job that made callouses on your hands"
Yes, while I was paying my way through college, and guess what...I didn't need a union to cover for my lack of work ethic or to demand wages I didn't deserve.
My comments were not made to hard workers, it was made to union workers, the scum of the rust belt and the true cause of manufacturing losses in this country.
improper wrote on July 5, 2007 6:50 PM:Bush v. Clinton, Hillary v. George, liberal v. conservative, dem v. repub, what a boring old story. Why does the press or anyone else address this trite and old charade? Nothing really distinguishes Bush from HRC, other than their genitals, as they are bought and paid for and answers to the same folks and it not the American voters.
Koshchei wrote on July 5, 2007 7:14 PM:The pool is now open for the following question:
How soon will the American Enterprise Institute hire "Scooter" Libby?
What a death bed confession Tony Snow is going to have!
breakspear wrote on July 5, 2007 8:07 PM:Just curious, but what does pass for 'chutzpah' in Arkansas? I'll wager Snowjob doesn't really know so we'll ignore his slander of the state, but it got me thinking what really might pass for 'chutzpah' in Arkansas. And, yes, it might have something to do with either clinton, i can imagine.
Barry Champlain wrote on July 5, 2007 8:11 PM:Hello again! I see that in my absence, I have ignited a class AND a race war. As an unhinged, loony lib, my work here is done :-)
My apologies to my defenders (and thanks, guys!), but I really AM a "white-collar desk jockey", myself. Who just happens to report to work at 6:30 p.m.
And remember, arthur: on the internets... I could be Katie Couric!!
kth wrote on July 5, 2007 8:18 PM:Susan McDougal had already served all of her sentence when she was pardoned, so any comparison with Scooter Libby's commutation is totally preposterous. Bush's commutation of Libby does have somewhat of a precedent, though: his father's pardon of Casper Weinberger, who could have implicated Bush Sr in the Iran-Contra criminal conspiracy.
davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 8:20 PM:"Purely air conditioned white collar. It's called an education."
It took no education to install a robotics parts retrieval system for Caterpillar. I had to clean my fingernails after work though. Sorry about your paper cut.
"Is your whining a perfect example of a democrat?"
I'm no Democrat.
"As I said, janitors, dishwashers, and UNION WORKERS. I would dare say your Illinois co-workers fit into this category, no?"
Some.
"Yes, while I was paying my way through college, and guess what...I didn't need a union to cover for my lack of work ethic or to demand wages I didn't deserve.
My comments were not made to hard workers, it was made to union workers, the scum of the rust belt and the true cause of manufacturing losses in this country."
Typical righwing, lying spew. The union workers I was around weren't lazy. They would be fired if that were the case. Unions have done more for the working man in this country than any of your super wealthy, limosine Republican elites like GW. You should be happy. The robber barons are back with a vengence and they are called the Republican party.
But I've gotten a bit off topic. I've had about enough of your sheit.
kentuck wrote on July 5, 2007 8:35 PM:Of course, Josh has simplified it to the lowest common denominator and he is absolutely correct. None of Clinton's pardons - that I am aware of - were given to protect the President of the United States or the White House, as this commutation appears to be? The appearance is there. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire. The pardons are not the same, no matter how much chutzpah Tony Snow may exhibit...
Barry Champlain wrote on July 5, 2007 8:44 PM:p.s.: Just so you understand, I was not defending myself against being interpreted as a blue-collar worker. I was just clarifying that I didn't happen to be a laborer, at this time; no value judgment intended.
I was simply trying to make a point to the arthurs of the country that, in fact, not all of us who work at desks and don't get their fingernails dirty happen to be condescending, classist assholes.
Thank you for your understanding. Please resume catapulting the ordinance.
arthur wrote on July 5, 2007 8:55 PM:"p.s.: Just so you understand, I was not defending myself against being interpreted as a blue-collar worker....I was just clarifying that I didn't happen to be a laborer,... at this time;... no value judgment intended."
Geez Barry, enough of your sniveling. Have a little self respect for God's sake. You liberals really are a bunch of guilty, PC, weenies, aren't you. I don't think anyone other than me was offended by your post Barry, ease up.
Secondly, your little race baiting post earlier was cute, typical, and pathetic. If you are assigning my comments regarding Conyers to a certain race, then you do have some sniveling to do. Conyers and his "investigations" are a joke. I thought we elected a Congress that was going to accomplish something other than red-meat for the media, I mean Europeans...I mean the democrats.
davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 9:02 PM:"Thank you for your understanding. Please resume catapulting the ordinance."
Thanks but no thanks. I already wasted too much time with the troll. By the way, I don't work as a millwright anymore. I don't have a problem with white collar workers, just Republicans who think their work ethic is far superior to blue collar workers, and yes, even union members. Sorry for the diversion.
davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 9:37 PM:What amazes me is the charge of partisanship. Can you imagine the reaction if it were a Democrat appointed judge? How stacked do they want the court?
More on that angle from Andrew Sullivan:
More incoherent blather from Marty Peretz:
"It was from the beginning a politically motivated case, as Dershowitz argues in this morning's Post, the appointment of the special prosecutor, the prosecutor's own obsessions, the case itself with the doubtful and understandably doubtful but diverse memories of many witnesses, including the defendant, the especially harsh sentence pronounced by the judge, the refusal of the appellate court to continue Libby on bail - all of these were politically motivated."
This is an argument? Marty does not provide a scintilla of evidence that any of these things was "politically motivated". Not one. How was John Ashcroft's appointment of a special prosecutor politically motivated? What exactly are Patrick Fitzgerald's unnamed "obsessions"? How is the sentence out of line with usual standards endorsed by the Bush Justice Department? How does Marty know that faulty memory as oposed to lying is why the jury convicted Libby of perjury? He knows none of these things. So he just repeats his assertions loudly, as if volume is a substitute for reason. It isn't.
http://dailydish.typepad.com/
Glenn C Scott wrote on July 5, 2007 9:38 PM:Purely hypothetical...
I was wondering if someone (preferably from the right) could explain what is to stop the next President's (say Hillary Clinton) Press Secretary from going out and offing Rush Limpnuts. This press Secretary is then convicted of murder and later commuted to zero time in jail....."but it the President's constitutional right"
Is this the road we are now on?
Seriously...the President as a tyrant pardoning whose who can do whatever their bidding, please re-read the Declaration of Independence and understand why we declared independence from the King.
davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 9:58 PM:I think the presidential pardon should be eliminated. It isn't used to right wrongs anymore, it's a get out of jail free card for political operatives.
Pefee wrote on July 5, 2007 10:25 PM:It is used to right wrongs, with the President deciding, it doesn't matter what anyone else's opinion of it is...kinda like a beauty is in the eye of the beholder thing. It wouldn't be the first time that Bush had a problem with this type of judgment. We can not argue with this now, just because Bush used it. The nutjobs on the right were just as upset at Clinton.
If anything, the above posts have made clear that there is a direct correlation between partisan perspective and one's opinion of Bush's action.
To deny this from either side is transparent and futile.
davis13 wrote on July 5, 2007 10:36 PM:I think the presidential pardon should be eliminated, PERIOD.
Calvin P wrote on July 5, 2007 10:47 PM:Libby's partial pardon doesn't compare to Bill Clinton's pardon of Susan McDougal.
McDougal was jailed for refusing to testify in a case against Bill Clinton et al. She was then pardoned by him. If she had nothing damaging against the Clinton gang, why not just testify and say so under oath? If only she wasn't pardoned, we may have found out. Maybe she'll decide to write a book...or maybe she'll disappear.
Libby will probably win on appeal anyway as he was convicted on a he said/he said prosecution. Tim Russert is of course going to be more believable than Libby to the common juror. Plus, Libby was only convicted for lying under oath, Clinton did that too, remember how it was no big deal back then???? he just had a Senate trial, anyone with a brain knows he was proved to be lying under oath...he was disbarred for it. So for those of you who argue he was never convicted of it, think what would have happened had it been a real trial, in a real courtroom.
You say, he was just lying about sex...well, what was Libby lying about? He has been proven not to have leaked the information in question, as dubious of a charge as even that is, so what was so important about his lie?
Joe Wilson was proven to be lying...so the VPs office didn't want to stand by and let it go unanswered. Big deal, happens all the time. No one was trying to damage our national security by disclosing some irrelevent blond bimbo, they were simply showing, later to be proved per the 911 commission, that Wilson was sent on a junket by his wife and his findings were not what he was saying, therefore he had no credibility (again later proven by the 911 commission).
Enough said. Clinton's pardon had a more direct affect on covering his slimy skin than Bush's pardon of a lie that had nothing to do with the case, charge, or outcome of the trial.
This thread is about presidential pardons and the back and forth recently between Clinton and Bush, right? I want to clarify that before I get accused of always bringing up Clinton (like several people above have done)...he is kinda a major part of the story here.
Pefee wrote on July 5, 2007 10:53 PM:"I think the presidential pardon should be eliminated, PERIOD."
Yeah, now you do. That's my point.
Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 11:03 PM:" No one was trying to damage our national security by disclosing some irrelevent blond bimbo,"
Ha!Yeah, she looked all upset about the loss of her anonymity when she was on the cover of Vanity Fair. Joe was obviously in pain too, even behind that cheesy smile and those glorious wings of his. He gives John Edwards a run for his money for the "I looked at myself in the mirror longer than you this morning" award.
eyeball wrote on July 6, 2007 1:43 AM:it truly is amazing how in the right wing world saying something makes it so. valerie plame wasnt covert -- who cares what the cia and special counsel determine, cos we bush suckups "feel" she wasnt covert, and of course our feelings are what matter, not simple objective facts, libby will get acquitted on appeal -- we feel it will be so, thus he must be commuted. our "feelings" are what matter, because we feel so much. we feel like bringing up sandy berger to defend sleaziness by bush, so we do so, even though the matters have no parallels. we just feel it should be so. this is the debating style of children. not one of these trolls has made a single argument that defends what bush has done. all they have done is try to kick up dust about unrelated issues. its comical really. lets just restate the simple facts for the record:
a gop appointed prosecutor took libby to trial by jury for perjury and O of J. he was found guilty. he was sentenced by a gop judge, and his appeal for freedom pending appeal was denied by a gop panel of judges. the gop prosecutor said libby's crimes were especially grave given that they prevented the prosecution from getting at the facts behind white house involvement, if any, in the leak case. the judge concurred. just as libby faces the entrance to a prison cell, and without even having sought clemency, bush commutes his time, putting his case ahead of all others in america, thus doing an immense favor for a man who has been convicted of obstructing the investigation into the very white house bush commands. this is what the rightists "feel" is hunkey-dorey. so be it. they can live with it. we dont have to.