Scooter convicted

[tickledgirl]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_trial;_ylt=AuOk9r0_ndnlep2aaWyiPEas0NUE

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was convicted Tuesday of lying and obstructing an investigation into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

Anyone want to start a pool on when he gets pardoned?

[maniactickler]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_trial;_ylt=AuOk9r0_ndnlep2aaWyiPEas0NUE



Anyone want to start a pool on when he gets pardoned?

I hope its soon.

[tickledgirl]

I hope its soon.

Hey, me too! I think it'd be good if he was pardoned right in the middle of another obstruction of justice investigation. The one where Republicans fired eight US Attorney tossed out for looking too hard at Republican sleaze would be perfect...

Not very likely they'd be that stupid, but we can dream can't we?

[Robace252]

I dont think Bushie is dumb enough to use one of his (or is it his very) first presidential pardons on "The Scoot Man".

Also the investigation I think you may be refering too TGirl isnt that the 8 fired were looking to hard at GOP investigations, it is that "some" people in high places (we can all guess who) were upset last fall when told that indictments in a corruption case against Democrats would not be issued before the fall elections.
It had nothing to do with rightly convicting and looking at Republicians. It had to do with the GOP wanting the "sleaze" out on the democrats before the elections.

Rob

[Robace252]

Thought I better mention it before someone else does......
Lets not forget how many pardons were issued from the previous administration.
Once the 08 race really gets going, Hillary wont hear the end of it.

Also....TGirl. I like the new Siggy Quote. Reagan was right. It is not cheap and best a lot of people remember that.

Rob

[tickledgirl]

I dont think Bushie is dumb enough to use one of his (or is it his very) first presidential pardons on "The Scoot Man".

Also the investigation I think you may be refering too TGirl isnt that the 8 fired were looking to hard at GOP investigations, it is that "some" people in high places (we can all guess who) were upset last fall when told that indictments in a corruption case against Democrats would not be issued before the fall elections.
It had nothing to do with rightly convicting and looking at Republicians. It had to do with the GOP wanting the "sleaze" out on the democrats before the elections.

Rob
Depends on which case you were talking about. David Iglesias got it for exactly the reasons you mention. And I think the US Attorney in Washington was a similar deal.

But Carol Lam got it for investigating Duke Cunningham, and continuing the investigation into other Republican officials, like Dusty Foggo (what a great name!) Virgil Wade, and dear Katie Harris. And of course Bud Cummins got bumped off so they could have Karl Rove's oppo researcher as the US Attorney for Arkansas.

Hmmm...a political hired gun being named head of US law enforcement in Arkansas. Say, isn't there a politician who lived in Arkansas running for president? You don't think that could be related, do you?

But Rob, how cynical of us! We're both dead wrong about even suggesting that politics entered in here. Bush's Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty already explained that these people were all fired because of poor performance. In an Oscar-worthy performance, McNulty declaimed, "When I hear you talk about the politicizing of the Department of Justice, it's like a knife in my heart..." How could we be so cruel as to suggest such a thing? :sadcry:

[tickledgirl]

Also....TGirl. I like the new Siggy Quote. Reagan was right. It is not cheap and best a lot of people remember that.
Thanks, glad you like it!

[Robace252]

Oh yeah.
Certainly no politics played a part in these decisions.
No way. Uh-uh.
At least thats what my magical unicorn "Horny Rumplebacks" said to me.

LOL

Rob

[hivoltage]

Anyone want to start a pool on when he gets pardoned?Talk about "taking one for the team". He's gotta be a scapegoat.

[isabeau]

Talk about "taking one for the team". He's gotta be a scapegoat.

of course he is a scapegoat for Cheney...i heard on Imus this morning that he said all the white house staff should be impeached, starting with Bushie..

[milagros317]

Anyone want to start a pool on when he gets pardoned?

No pool, but my guess is January 19, 2009.

[JPie1]

interesting date, I wouldn't argue with that thought.

[Robace252]

You know Mils....your probally right.
Why be diffrent than the last administration.
When you pardon all your buddies, do it on the last day.
That way its swept under the rug, and no one can say much about it.

Rob

[simulatedvacuum]

You know Mils....your probally right.
Why be diffrent than the last administration.
When you pardon all your buddies, do it on the last day.
That way its swept under the rug, and no one can say much about it.

Rob

Everyone pardons on their last day of office, its kind of a tradition :P

That said, I can see libby trying to stretch out the proceedings for as long as possible; he'll probably only serve a couple months in prison.

It does make me wonder about our justice system, though, when someone caught selling pot will be going to jail for longer than someone convicted of four counts of obstruction of justice and perjury.

[Robace252]

Everyone pardons on their last day of office, its kind of a tradition :P
Yes it is.
I did not find the numbers for Reagan's last day in office, but for his entire last year he pardoned a total of 32 people. Overall 393.
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/actions_administration.htm#reagan

George H. Bush pardoned a total of 72, with only 14 on last days.

Bill Clinton pardoned a total of 396, with about 140 comming on his last day.
Reading it I did not realize (remember) that he pardoned his brother from a cocaine conviction. Ehhh. Just food for thought.
(These numbers do not include sentances commuted)
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/recipients.htm

Rob

[Feathery]

It will be interesting if Libby falls completely on the sword, the way Ollie North did for Reagan. More likely, I would think that if Libby gets wind that he's going to be sent down... he's going to "sing like a canary." Having the GOP by the balls before the Nov. election.

[NavelTickler75]

Fine he's going to jail let it drop and forget and move on with our lives now.

[simulated]

Yes it is.
I did not find the numbers for Reagan's last day in office, but for his entire last year he pardoned a total of 32 people. Overall 393.
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/actions_administration.htm#reagan

George H. Bush pardoned a total of 72, with only 14 on last days.

Bill Clinton pardoned a total of 396, with about 140 comming on his last day.
Reading it I did not realize (remember) that he pardoned his brother from a cocaine conviction. Ehhh. Just food for thought.
(These numbers do not include sentances commuted)
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/recipients.htm

Rob

You say it as though Clinton pardoned an excessive number of people.

Franklin D. Roosevelt - 3687
Woodrow Wilson - 2480
Harry S. Truman - 2044
Calvin Coolidge - 1545
Herbert Hoover - 1385
Ulysses S. Grant - 1332
Lyndon B. Johnson - 1187
Dwight D. Eisenhower - 1157
Grover Cleveland * - 1107
Theodore Roosevelt * - 981
Richard Nixon - 926
William McKinley * - 918
Rutherford B. Hayes - 893
Warren G. Harding - 800
William H. Taft - 758
Andrew Johnson - 654
Benjamin Harrison - 613
John F. Kennedy - 575
Jimmy Carter - 566
Bill Clinton - 456
James Monroe - 419
Gerald Ford - 409
Ronald Reagan - 406
Andrew Jackson - 386
Abraham Lincoln - 343
Chester Arthur - 337
James K. Polk - 268
John Tyler - 209
James Madison - 196
John Quincy Adams - 183
Millard Fillmore - 170
Martin Van Buren - 168
James Buchanan - 150
Franklin Pierce - 142
Thomas Jefferson - 119
George Bush - 77
Zachary Taylor - 38
John Adams - 21
George Washington - 16
James Garfield - 0
William H Harrison - 0

(Stars represent estimates, numbers from http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm)

Looks pretty average from here

[tickledgirl]

I don't think raw pardon numbers matter that much. Pardon's aren't evil per se. They can be a legitimate safety mechanism to fix injustice.

There's a difference between pardoning Jane Doe who got nailed to the wall because her boyfriend slipped his drugs into her purse or John Roe who got hounded to his death by a witch hunt.

Then there's pardoning Joe Moneybags because he gave thousands to your campaign. That's what Clinton did, and making Hilary defend/explain it is entirely legit.

And then there's pardoning an official in your own administration who got nailed for carrying out your orders. That's what Reagan did, and that's the "wild hypothetical" (as Bushie's spokesman put it) we're considering now. That seems an awful lot like CYA to me.

I will be surprised if Libby spends a day in jail. I expect them to draw out the appeals process as long as possible. The target date would be Novermber 4th 2008. If they can get beyond that, he's home free. Otherwise, it'll be interesting to see if Bush is more loyal to Libby or to Republicans running in 2008. Every time a Republican slams Bush, Libby's odds get a bit better.

[Robace252]

I agree Tgirl.
Most pardons from earlier eras were for diffrent things, as in new laws enacted. New rights protected. A slew of new evidence techniques to overturn cases.

There's a difference between pardoning Jane Doe who got nailed to the wall because her boyfriend slipped his drugs into her purse or John Roe who got hounded to his death by a witch hunt.

Then there's pardoning Joe Moneybags because he gave thousands to your campaign. That's what Clinton did, and making Hilary defend/explain it is entirely legit.

No disagreement there.


And then there's pardoning an official in your own administration who got nailed for carrying out your orders. That's what Reagan did, and that's the "wild hypothetical" (as Bushie's spokesman put it) we're considering now. That seems an awful lot like CYA to me.

I agree again.

I will be surprised if Libby spends a day in jail. I expect them to draw out the appeals process as long as possible. The target date would be Novermber 4th 2008. If they can get beyond that, he's home free. Otherwise, it'll be interesting to see if Bush is more loyal to Libby or to Republicans running in 2008. Every time a Republican slams Bush, Libby's odds get a bit better.
Im really unsure of this. I mean LIbby should not be Pardoned. But I think you may be right that Bushie might go on some tangent and Pardon him. I really hope not. But with Bushie, nothing is certain.

Rob

[Mitchell]

I predict that Scooter will be pardoned on 1-19-2009. It just doesnt seem likely that Bush will let his VPs former chief of staff go to prison.
On the pardon issue, what hasnt been mentioned here is this: Everyone talks about how many people Clinton pardoned. Well, here's some info on important pardons, taken right from Bill Clinton's book. According to Bill's book, in December, 1992, just before the Christmas holiday, Bush 41 pardoned former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger, and five others who had been indicted for their roles in Iran-Contra. Considering how important the defense secretary is, and the significance of Iran Contra, this was a pretty big deal. Bill said that he could have made a big deal out of the pardons, but didnt because the president's pardon power is absolute under the Constitution, and he wanted the first president Bush to retire in peace. Bill said he wanted to enter office on a positive note, and that making an issue over Weinberger's pardon would have brought divisiveness to the country, and not unity.
All presidents pardon. When Clinton left office, there was much made about the amount of last minute pardons he issued. To me, while number of pardons is meaningful, the significance of who is pardoned, such as important figures, is even more crucial. Weinberger being pardoned was, in my view, an incredibly big deal, considering the position he held.
I predict that Libby will receive a pardon. As I stated earlier, it doesnt seem likely that Bush or Cheney will let Cheney's former chief of staff go to jail. Do I agree with it? Probably not. However, all presidents do so, and, in that light, considering what Bush 41 and Clinton did with their pardons before they left office, it probably shouldnt be unexpected.

Mitch

[maniactickler]

I hope Bush pardons him. this wasnt that huge of an issue. just another democratic witch hunt.

[MrMacphisto]

I don't think raw pardon numbers matter that much. Pardon's aren't evil per se. They can be a legitimate safety mechanism to fix injustice.

There's a difference between pardoning Jane Doe who got nailed to the wall because her boyfriend slipped his drugs into her purse or John Roe who got hounded to his death by a witch hunt.

Then there's pardoning Joe Moneybags because he gave thousands to your campaign. That's what Clinton did, and making Hilary defend/explain it is entirely legit.

And then there's pardoning an official in your own administration who got nailed for carrying out your orders. That's what Reagan did, and that's the "wild hypothetical" (as Bushie's spokesman put it) we're considering now. That seems an awful lot like CYA to me.

I will be surprised if Libby spends a day in jail. I expect them to draw out the appeals process as long as possible. The target date would be Novermber 4th 2008. If they can get beyond that, he's home free. Otherwise, it'll be interesting to see if Bush is more loyal to Libby or to Republicans running in 2008. Every time a Republican slams Bush, Libby's odds get a bit better.

I agree with a lot of your post, but for the most part, I think pardons promote injustice more than they fix it. We should get rid of that privilege entirely.

[Mitchell]

Macphisto, I dont post in the P and R very often anymore, and this is off the topic of Scooter, but about pardons. Do you feel that Gerald Ford did the right thing in 1974, when he pardoned Richard Nixon, for what happened with Watergate? I once did a college research paper on Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein, what Nixon did with Watergate, and the pardon. On the day I had to present my paper to the class, (It was a history class) the professor said that Ford took a lot of heat for his pardon of Nixon, but justified it by saying that the country was spared an incredible amount of grief, by having Nixon go on trial, a trial that he would have been convicted in, and probably would have served jail time after.
Granted, the Nixon-Ford situation is different than Scooter Libby. The country wouldnt be terribly shaken up if a guy like Libby went on trial, as he isnt the sitting or former president, as Nixon was in 1974.
On the issue of pardons and whether the president should have that power. On one hand, it is an important power to have, but, on the other hand, in certain cases, it can be abused. Who is to say that everyone who Clinton pardoned before he left office should have been pardoned, or that the Iran Contra guys should have gotten off, or even that Libby should be pardoned? The whole issue is very controversial. Clinton said in his book that the pardon power is absolute under the constitution. My feeling is, perhaps that should be modified. I say, let the president, whoever he or she is, keep the pardon power, but, it might be best to have some kind of review panel, to review the instance of why, or why not, someone should, or shouldnt, be pardoned. That might take more time, but it would promote the power being exercised in the right way. There should be a cap on up until what point in his term a president can pardon someone, say, no pardons the last 90 days of someone's term. Therefore allowing time for review, without rush jobs, to finish pardons before a lame duck president leaves office. This will probably never happen, but it might serve to aid in issuing pardons to people who are more deservant of ones, instead of just Clinton, Bush, or whoever, saying "You're pardoned", due to personal favoritism.

Mitch

[Strider]

He screwed himself. Really all there is to it.

[MrMacphisto]

Macphisto, I dont post in the P and R very often anymore, and this is off the topic of Scooter, but about pardons. Do you feel that Gerald Ford did the right thing in 1974, when he pardoned Richard Nixon, for what happened with Watergate? I once did a college research paper on Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein, what Nixon did with Watergate, and the pardon. On the day I had to present my paper to the class, (It was a history class) the professor said that Ford took a lot of heat for his pardon of Nixon, but justified it by saying that the country was spared an incredible amount of grief, by having Nixon go on trial, a trial that he would have been convicted in, and probably would have served jail time after.
Granted, the Nixon-Ford situation is different than Scooter Libby. The country wouldnt be terribly shaken up if a guy like Libby went on trial, as he isnt the sitting or former president, as Nixon was in 1974.
On the issue of pardons and whether the president should have that power. On one hand, it is an important power to have, but, on the other hand, in certain cases, it can be abused. Who is to say that everyone who Clinton pardoned before he left office should have been pardoned, or that the Iran Contra guys should have gotten off, or even that Libby should be pardoned? The whole issue is very controversial. Clinton said in his book that the pardon power is absolute under the constitution. My feeling is, perhaps that should be modified. I say, let the president, whoever he or she is, keep the pardon power, but, it might be best to have some kind of review panel, to review the instance of why, or why not, someone should, or shouldnt, be pardoned. That might take more time, but it would promote the power being exercised in the right way. There should be a cap on up until what point in his term a president can pardon someone, say, no pardons the last 90 days of someone's term. Therefore allowing time for review, without rush jobs, to finish pardons before a lame duck president leaves office. This will probably never happen, but it might serve to aid in issuing pardons to people who are more deservant of ones, instead of just Clinton, Bush, or whoever, saying "You're pardoned", due to personal favoritism.

Mitch

Those are interesting ideas. I still don't see why the executive should be able to trump the judicial system, but your proposal would certainly be an improvement.

As for the Nixon thing, I see it as the following: if the nation can't deal with the prospect of bringing a president to justice for serious crimes, then this nation has some rather embarassing psychological problems that go way beyond the pardoning problem.

Everyone should be subject to the law -- if not, then why even have laws?...

Nixon deserved to be incarcerated for his crimes, but then again, I will have to acknowledge that he did some good things while in office as well.

[tickledgirl]

Everyone should be subject to the law -- if not, then why even have laws?...

That's a better sound bite than a policy. The president really is above the law in most ways. He can be impeached, but in most other ways he's untouchable. Lots of other people are above the law. Diplomats, for example.

There're pretty solid reasons things are set up that way. And the laws still work...more or less. Obviously there have been problems recently. But I think (hope!) that recent illegal overreaching is going to get slapped down in the next few months.

Re Nixon: I'm certainly no Nixon fan. But how would we be better off if he had been brought to justice?

[Feathery]

The bottom line here is that Libby is Bush and Cheney's fall guy. The larger issue is that it appears the Bush Administration set out to lie to the American people about why we should fight a war with Iraq. When Joe Wilson found out that Iraq was not seeking enriched uranium from Niger, as the government claimed, Bush and Cheney sought to punish him by naming his wife as a CIA agent. It's becoming clear that Bush and Cheney wanted to go to war with Iraq at all costs, running counter to what the intelligence said.

[MrMacphisto]

That's a better sound bite than a policy. The president really is above the law in most ways. He can be impeached, but in most other ways he's untouchable. Lots of other people are above the law. Diplomats, for example.

That needs to change.... but of course, presidents and diplomats have shown quite clearly that they aren't above the laws of physics, like the force applied by a bullet to the head.

Mencken once said it best: "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." When a system fails to hold its leaders accountable, that's when the knives should be out.

There're pretty solid reasons things are set up that way. And the laws still work...more or less. Obviously there have been problems recently. But I think (hope!) that recent illegal overreaching is going to get slapped down in the next few months.

Solid reasons... I know of few solid reasons why anyone should be above the law, but I do know of a few laws that are rather stupid but still enforced.

Re Nixon: I'm certainly no Nixon fan. But how would we be better off if he had been brought to justice?

The best that I can come up with is that if we had sentenced him to life imprisonment, it would scare the shit out of the elite.

It's kind of the same principle as to why I wish we had executed Jeff Skilling of Enron. White collar crime is often even worse than violent crime in its repercussions on society as a whole, but we overlook this, because the laws are made by the rich and the corrupt. Yet, it is poetic justice when these same laws are enforced on their makers, and they seek to escape even the mild punishments to be dealt. Why not give them a reason to fear the law? They certainly want the people to fear it.

If Nixon had really gotten what he deserved, then it would have made him a good example to deter future corruption with. Then again, if most politicians got what they deserved, we probably wouldn't have a government to speak of, would we?....

[bellytickler200]

Libby should get the pardon because there was never any crime to begin with. Manufactured scandal from the get-go and everyone knew it.

[tickledgirl]

Libby should get the pardon because there was never any crime to begin with. Manufactured scandal from the get-go and everyone knew it.

Yeah, can you believe people would make such a fuss about a little perjury?

[drew70]

Yeah, can you believe people would make such a fuss about a little perjury?Right. That's only permissible when Bill Clinton does it.

[bellytickler200]

Yeah, can you believe people would make such a fuss about a little perjury?

There was no perjury because there was nothing to lie about. It was far too easy to assign perjury to this because once it became obvious there was no crime committed, they decided to nail someone on perjury, which is easy to do because all Fitzgerald had to do is find two people whose stories are different, and call one of them a liar, which is what he did.

[tickledgirl]

There was no perjury because there was nothing to lie about. It was far too easy to assign perjury to this because once it became obvious there was no crime committed, they decided to nail someone on perjury, which is easy to do because all Fitzgerald had to do is find two people whose stories are different, and call one of them a liar, which is what he did.

Err...no. Let's see if we can break that long sentence into some individual statements.

It wasn't one person said X and another said Y. It was a case of four (five?) people said X and Libby said Y. Maybe all the not-Libby witnesses coordinated their stories to nail him. You're free to believe that if it makes you feel better. But that's not what the jury thought.

Also, it doesn't much matter whether you lie under oath about something that's proven to be a crime. If it did, that'd be a hack of an incentive to lie. If you pulled it off, and they couldn't prove the crime, then you're home free! But that's not how it works. Libby lied and obstructed justice. He left a "cloud over the vice president." But just because he lied successfully doesn't give him a "Get Out Of Jail" card.

Finally, you're making some pretty strong assertions about the actions of the prosecutor. Do you have anything to back that up? Any motive?

This is the guy who brought down Gambino and the original World Trade Center bombers. He indicted Bin Laden. Here in Illinois he's made life miserable for the Republican ex-governor (actually nailed him for corruption) and the Democratic mayor of Chicago (hasn't nailed him yet, but he's jailed a number of his underlings, and we can still hope...)

He's gone after the mob, terrorists at home and abroad, Democrats, Republicans, you name it. Thoughout his high profile career, no one's accused him of bias against anyone except criminals. And no one's ever suggested that he has ulterior motives. (Even legit ones like running for elected office.)

But when he goes for Cheney's flunky, suddenly it's because he's a lefty Democratic shill?