Pardon for Scooter Libby?

The Times: No Libby Application

2008-07-19T01:06:00.001-05:00

Charlie Savage of the New York Times has written a very general piece on the pardon power and the Bush administration. He begins by noting applications for pardons and commutations are "at historic levels" and, among those seeking clemency are Michael Milken, Randy Cunningham, Edwin W. Edwards, John Walker Lindh and Marion Jones. But Savage also reportst that the Justice Department has not received clemency applications from Scooter Libby, Jack Abranoff, Bob Ney, George Ryan, Conrad Black, Martha Stewart or border patrol agents Compean and Ramos. See full Times article here.

Book Tour Goes to Congress

2008-06-20T09:59:00.002-05:00

The Dallas Morning News reports that Scott McClellan has told Congress that he is "not sure" if any administration officials committed a crime by revealing Valerie Plame's identity to journalists. And the former White House press secretary is "not sure" if there was a cover-up. Perhaps he has just not had enough time to think it over, or he is trying to develop some inside contacts to the highest reaches of power. The cynic might have expected both the thinking and the conclusion before the printing of McClellan's new book.

But, after hundreds of pages of writing, McClellan is certain that he was very "disappointed" at the president's decision to commute the prison sentence portion of Libby's sentence for obstruction of justice. It is also reported that McClellan will be even more disappointed if Libby ends up with an outright pardon, "because the Bush he knew as governor and president always insisted on two things for a pardon: repayment to society and expression of remorse." Says McClellan, "We have seen neither of that from Scooter Libby."

God help the President if a federal prisoner is proven innocent by DNA. McClellan will be out there demanding "repayment to society and expression of remorse!" Notably, the self-righteous tizzy features not the slightest amount of disappointment that so much time, energy, effort and money went into an investigation where there may or may not have been a cover up, or even a crime. Nor is there any expression of remorse that Richard Armitage, the original leaker, was in no way punished for his behavior. Scotty, Scott, Scotty.

PardonPower is shocked and dismayed with Mr. McClellan, and deeply disturbed that the glass casing on his disappointment radar screen is so fogged-up. See story here.

Congress Supports Book Tour

2008-06-09T22:23:00.002-05:00

Jason Leopold at the Public Record reports Scott McClellan "has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee next week about the White House’s role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame." John Conyers, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has "extended an invitation" to Mr. McClellan to "testify." Conyers also says, "Mr. McClellan suggests that senior White House officials may have obstructed justice and engaged in a cover-up regarding the Valerie Plame leak. This alleged activity could well extend beyond the scope of the offenses for which Scooter Libby has been convicted and deserves further attention.”

Leopold suggests, however, that the White House "may assert executive privilege and attempt to block McClellan from testifying." Very juicy. But boring.

Leopold also refers to a passage in What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and the Culture of Washington Deception that McClellan jas discussed on the talk show / interview circuit. It described how Karl Rove had a "private" meeting “Scooter” Libby in 2005. Rove has publicly responded that he and Libby had dozens and dozens of such meetings. What of it?

Mclellan also alleges in that President Bush authorized the leak of the highly classified National Intelligence Estimate to reporters to discredit Ambassador Wilson who challenged the truthfulness of Bush’s pre-invasion claims. It appears Mclellan does not distinguish between a leak and declassification of information.

If you are looking to learn more information about the individual who actually leaked Plame's name, this is not the article for you. Richard Armitage is not mentioned all. See Public Record post here.

Novak All Over McClellan

2008-06-02T12:40:00.001-05:00

Robert Novak has written an editorial covering some of the more obvious flaws in Scott McClellan's new presentation of history, but also provides the kind of great detail that only a person like Novak can provide. Here are some portions of the piece:

In Scott McClellan's purported tell-all memoir of his trials as President George W. Bush's press secretary, he virtually ignores Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's role leaking to me Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee.
... In claiming he was misled about the Plame affair, McClellan mentions Armitage only twice.
... On page 173, McClellan first mentions my Plame leak, but he does not identify Armitage as the leaker until page 306 of the 323-page book -- then only in passing. Armitage, anti-war and anti-Cheney, cannot fit the conspiracy theory that McClellan now buys into. When Armitage after two years publicly admitted he was my source, the life went out of Wilson's campaign. In "What Happened," McClellan dwells on Rove's alleged deceptions as if the real leaker were still unknown.
... He omits Armitage's slipping Mrs. Wilson's identity to The Washington Post's Bob Woodward weeks before he talked to me. He does not mention that Armitage turned himself in to the Justice Department even before Patrick Fitzgerald was named as special prosecutor.
... McClellan writes, "I don't know" whether the leaker -- he does not specify Armitage -- committed a felony. He ignores that Fitzgerald's long, expensive investigation found no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, if only because Plame was not covered. Nevertheless, McClellan calls the leak "wrong and harmful to national security" -- ignoring questions of whether Plame really was engaged in undercover operations and whether her cover long ago had been blown.
... The bland book proposal McClellan's agent unsuccessfully hawked to publishers early in 2007 is not the volume now in bookstores. How and why McClellan changed is a story so far untold.

See the full Novak editorial here.

Libby a Campaign Issue?

2008-05-31T19:11:00.003-05:00

It is fairly common to see comments on blogs suggesting that there is no way that Scooter Libby will (or should be) an issue in the presidential election. I suppose much depends upon how one defines what an "issue" is. I do know this: Americans are notorious for forgetting notorious "controversial" pardons of the very worst sort with great speed. As a result, if pardons were ever an issue in previous presidential campaigns, then it would be forgotten as well. How many people remember the first presidential debate of October 6, 1996? A portion of it went like this:

DOLE: Well, I'm really encouraged to know of your renewed friendship with Al D'Amato and I know he appreciates it. You didn't even have tax cuts in your budget, Mr. President, first two years you were president. It wasn't until we had a Republican Congress that you'd even thought about -- you talked about tax cuts. And getting back to personal differences. I don't -- you know, if, Jim, if you're a little more specific. But I think the president could clarify one thing tonight and that's the question of pardons. I know you talked about it on the Jim, the Jim Lehrer, on the PBS show and I've never discussed Whitewater, as I've told you personally. I'm not discussing Whitewater now. But I am discussing a power the president has to grant pardons and, hopefully, in the next segment you could lay that to rest.

CLINTON: Well, first of all, you know, he made that remark about Senator D'Amato. He's arranged for me to spend a lot more time with Senator D'Amato in the last couple of years, and so I'm more familiar with his comments than I used to be. I -- let me say what I said already about this pardon issue. This is an issue they brought up. It's under -- there has been no consideration of it, no discussion of it. I'll tell you this: I will not give anyone special treatment, and I will strictly adhere to the law. And that is what every president has done, as far as I know, in the past. But whatever other presidents have done, this is something I take seriously, and that's my position.

MR. DOLE: But it seems to me the president shouldn't have any comment at all, particularly where it's someone where you've had business dealings. I mean, you may be sending a signal. I don't know. I'm not questioning anybody. But as the president of the United States, when somebody asks you about pardons, you say, 'No comment.' Period. And I think he made a mistake. And I think when you make a mistake, you say, 'I made a mistake.' But apparently his position hasn't changed. If there are other specific areas -- but beyond that, I haven't gotten into any of these things, as the president knows. We've had that discussion. And, again, I know Senator D'Amato, I think, may have had a hearing or two on Whitewater; I can't remember. But he's not my general chairman. He's a friend of mine. And so is Senator Kennedy a friend of yours. And --

CLINTON: You bet.

DOLE: -- I remember one day on the floor I said, 'Now, gentlemen, let me tax your memories,' and Kennedy jumped up and said, 'Why haven't we thought of that before.' You know? So one of your liberal friends.

CLINTON: No comment.

In the second debate (October 16), Dole persisted, "The president ought to say tonight that he's not going to pardon anybody that he was involved in business with who might implicate him later on." Clinton (far more disciplined in debate than Mrs. Clinton) simply did not respond. So, were Whitewater pardons an "issue" in the 1996 campaign? And think about it, when President Clinton dropped all of those last-minute controversial pardons, did anyone in the national news media recall what Clinton said in that second paragraph?

Class, Courage and Principle v. McClellan

2008-05-30T17:53:00.001-05:00

In an editorial, George Weeks asks this question regarding Scott McClellan:

why, when he was resident propagandist, did he not take the honorable course taken by ex-White House Press Secretary Jerry terHorst?

terHorst resigned after Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon, but made his views on the matter know personally, privately, directly before he left the White House. Notes Weeks:

An hour before Ford's telecast announcing the pardon, terHorst handed Ford a manila envelope with a single sheet of typed White House stationary that said:
--Â¦ It is with great regret, after long soul-searching, that I must inform you that I cannot in good conscience support your decision to pardon former President Richard Nixon even before he has been charged with the commission of any crime. As your spokesman I do not know how I could credibly defend that action in the absence of a like decision to grant absolute pardons to the young men who evaded Vietnam military service as a matter of conscience and the absence of pardons for former aides and associates of Mr. Nixon who have been charged with crimes -- and imprisoned -- stemming from the same Watergate situation."

Weeks says it best, "What a contrast in class." See the Weeks editorial here.

McClellan Disappointed Re Libby

2008-05-29T22:13:00.001-05:00

Sentencing Law and Policy is featuring a passage from Scott McClellan's new book re President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby 's prison sentence. I am still trying to find a live link for the passage myself. But, here it is:

It’s … clear to me that Scooter Libby was guilty of the perjury and obstruction crimes for which he was convicted. When the president commuted Libby’s prison sentence and thereby protected him from serving even one day behind bars, I was disappointed. This kind of special treatment undermines our system of justice …. President Bush certainly has the right and the power to commute Libby’s sentence. But in choosing to do so, he sent an unfortunate message to America and the world — that in the United States criminal behavior on behalf of a political cause may go unpunished if those who support that cause have the power to make it happen.

See full Sentencing Law and Policy post here.

Book-Selling Time: McClellan on Libby

2008-05-28T01:16:00.004-05:00

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's memoir What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception will be published next week. that President Bush "veered terribly off course," was not "open and forthright on Iraq," and took a "permanent campaign approach" to governing at the expense of candor and competence. Here is an excerpt of coverage by Mike Allen of Politico.com:

McClellan lost some of his former friends in the administration last November when his publisher released an excerpt from the book that appeared to accuse Bush of participating in the cover-up of the Plame leak. The book, however, makes clear that McClellan believes Bush was also a victim of misinformation.
The book begins with McClellan's statement to the press that he had talked with Rove and Libby and that they had assured him they "were not involved in … the leaking of classified information."
At Libby's trial, testimony showed the two had talked with reporters about the officer, however elliptically.
"I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood," McClellan writes. "It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn't learn that what I'd said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later.
"Neither, I believe, did President Bush. He, too, had been deceived and therefore became unwittingly involved in deceiving me. But the top White House officials who knew the truth — including Rove, Libby and possibly Vice President Cheney — allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie."

See full article here.

Judge Walton on Libby

2008-04-30T08:46:00.003-05:00

When U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton disagreed with the probation office's sentencing recommendations and denied Scooter Libby's request to remain free during appeals, he brought on President Bush's commutation of Libby's 2 1/2 year prison sentence (the $250,000 fine, felony conviction and probation remained). Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald complained about Bush's use of the pardon power immediately.

Judge Walton has waited until now to express his opinion. He believes the president "has that authority" (the power to grant commutations), that the President "exercised it, and that that has to be respected." But Walton appears to have little respect for the President's decision making otherwise.

For example, Walton expresses the time-worn, boiler-plate concern that "there are a lot of people in America who think that justice is determined to a large degree by who you are and that what you have plays a large role in what kind of justice you receive." Of course, these perceptions are also present with respect to thinking about the recruitment process for federal judges, like Walton. What is more, political scientist John R. Schmidhauser, in his book Judges and Justices, has well-documented the validity of these perceptions. Now, what are we to do? Impeach 90 percent of the federal judiciary?

Judge Walton is also concerned about an oncoming rash of criminal activity since, people "won't follow" the law if they do not "respect it." I have not seen the data on the validity of this concern/predicted increase as of yet, and the commutation was granted last July. But I suspect the expressed concern/prediction is about as valid as the expressed concerns/predictions that the President's critics had with respect to so-called "Libby Motions" (see commentary here, here, here, here, and here).

Finally, Judge Walton is also proud of the fact that he does not give white-collar criminals "a pass." The irony here, of course, is that it is perfectly reasonable to guess that Libby's social status is what got him into federal court to begin with. That us to say, his background, "privileged" status and "contacts" were not the source of an advantage. They were a distinct liability!

Regardless, one hopes Judge Walton is not simply ignoring the considered recommendations of other sentencing authorities and over-sentencing white collar criminals so as to appear to be a "tough" guy. Most of the President's critics agree that we really don't need any more of that in the federal judiciary. See story here.

The Market on Libby

2008-04-02T13:58:00.000-05:00

According to a story here, NewsFutures.com is an Internet-based news prediction market that operates much like the stock market. Using a fake currency called X$, participants buy and sell shares at prices ranging from X$1 to X$100. Contracts are sold alongside shares for the opposite outcomes. If the event occurs, the shareholder receives X$100 for each share. The trading price of each share represents the probability traders collectively assign to the event occurring. If "President Bush will pardon Scooter Libby" is trading at X$73, for instance, it means participants believe there is a 73 percent chance the president will grant the pardon. Well, I guess that solves that.

15 Pardons and 1 Commutation - No Libby

2008-03-25T20:41:00.004-05:00

Today, President Bush granted 15 pardons and one commutation of sentence. See more details here. Scooter Libby was not among those graced with executive clemency, but the number and timing of the pardons suggests that the fourth year surge may very well be upon us. Developing ...

Libby All Webbed Out?

2008-03-21T02:05:00.004-05:00

I visited ScooterLibby.com today and, well, the site is gone and the domain name is up for sale. PardonLibby.com (owned by John in Utah) is the location of something in the "future." LibbyPardon.com (owned by Ernest in Oregon) has expired and is being considered for renewal or deletion. What does it all mean?

Libby Disbarred

2008-03-20T10:29:00.007-05:00

"Scooter" Libby (who had already been suspended from the practice of law) has been disbarred from practicing law in the nation's capital after being convicted of lying to a grand jury and investigators last year (Case No. 07-BG-170). The three-judge District of Columbia Court of Appeals wrote in its one-and-a-half page opinion, "When a member of the Bar is convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude, disbarment is mandatory." The judges (John R. Fisher, Anna Blackburne-Rigsby and Annice Wagner) were appointees of Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Of course, a portion of Libby's sentence was commuted by President Bush last July. According to the Washington Post:

Libby's disbarment is effective as of June 12, 2007, when he first filed a declaration saying he would voluntarily comply with the court's rules on professional ethics for lawyers. Libby, 57, could seek reinstatement to the bar five years from that date, in June 2012.

See story here. See the Court's full opinion here. See Washington Post report here.

Buckley on Libby (and others)

2008-03-01T10:32:00.001-06:00

Many of William F. Buckley's Firing Line debates and regular television programs were dedicated to the topic of the death penalty. And there was certainly little doubt as to where he stood on the issue. In an August 1989 editorial Buckley wrote, "My own opinion is that too few, not too many, people are being executed in America."

But, if you look through the body of Buckley's work, especially his editorials, you cannot help but see that Buckley's view of the death penalty included an emphasis on the need for the intelligent use of the pardon power. For example, in the above mentioned editorial he also wrote:

But it makes very good sense to be as certain as circumstance allows that the right people go to the death chamber. Hang one man, prove the next day or year that he was in fact innocent, and you set back the case of the death penalty by a generation, with the result that hundreds who should be hanged eventually go back on the streets, and thousands who should live are killed by those who have every reason to scoff at the threat of the death penalty.

These attitudes were frequently displayed when Buckley discussed particular cases that had attracted his interest. He found it "strange," for example, that there was "very little commotion in the press" with regard to the impending execution of Ronald Monroe (in Louisiana) and wondered, "Where are the men of conscience?" He added:

Injustice is written into the human order and cannot be expunged from it. But such injustices as are the result of sheer inattention are injustices compounded.

In the case of Gary McGivern (New York), Buckley was annoyed that Vice President George Bush had made an "indefensible" criticism of Mario Cuomo for merely allowing any consideration of the possibility of clemency. McGivern had been convicted under the felony murder doctrine and had served as an "exemplary" prisoner for 18 years. Buckley wrote:

It has been said before, but it is worth repeating, namely that the Republican Party, in order to stress its devotion to law and order, oughtn't to deem itself insensible to the appeal for clemency.

Buckley also defended the decision making of Judge John Noonan who postponed the execution of the very notable Robert A. Harris. Buckley observed that, while "popular resentment" at "endless judicial review of cases" was a "legitimate complaint," the thing that guided Judge Noonan's decision making was the same thing that guided Mother Teresa to ask the Governor of California to extend clemency to Harris. Noonan believed Harris' "rights under the Constitution [had] have been violated " since the was a "substantial showing" that the jury was not able to hear from competent psychiatrists.

While he stopped short of making an explicit recommendation in the matter, Buckley was clearly intrigued by Karla Faye Tucker's plea for mercy from the Governor of Texas George W. Bush. Buckley's editorials of December 8, 1997, entitled "Dark Night for George W." suggested Tucker's appeal presented "a helluva problem." He noted Tucker was supported by the detective who arrested her, the prosecutors who sentenced her, a sister of one of the murder victims, Amnesty International, the Pope and Pat Robertson. Buckley also offered that her very troubled life (featuring drug use at a very young age and prostitution) was "contingently relevant." The strident manner in which Buckley eventually defended (or presented arguments to justify) Bush's ultimate decision (to do nothing) was more the result of attempts by inconsistent critics to make additional political hay out of the episode.

Note: With respect to notorious convicts, it is probably not well known that, in 1981, Buckley supported clemency for Abbie Hoffman, who sold $36,000 worth of cocaine to undercover police officers in 1973 and was a fugitive for six years before turning himself in and receiving a three-year sentence. He also supported clemency for Patricia Hearst saying that, if Jimmy Carter dd not see the "transcendant injustice" of her sentence, then it was only because he "affected not to see it." As far as Buckley was concerned, "the institution of clemency was established for such difficult cases." And, of course, he supported a pardon for Scooter Libby saying, "Mr. Bush will have to exhibit the courage for which he is loved and hated, by doing the right thing, and letting Mr. Libby get on with life."

William F. Buckley, Jr. (1925-2008)

2008-02-27T21:13:00.000-06:00

I want to extend my sympathy to family and friends of William F. Buckley, Jr., who passed away this morning. I also want to extend the same to the fine folks over at National Review, who were very generous with me in the past year, by providing a platform for my research and insights on the pardon power.

I first started reading Mr. Buckley's editorials in middle school and was a full-fledged addict by the time high school came around. Granted, I did not understand a fair amount of what I was reading. What really caught my attention, and sparked the interest in politics which led me all the way to a Ph.D., was Buckley's debate show Firing Line. To this day, I insist that those programs were the very height of television broadcasting. And I continue to buy recordings of them here and there as I can afford them - order here. I had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Buckley speak in Pensacola, Florida, on "The Hyperbolic Imperative in American Politics." He wittily asked, "If these people are not making a 'living wage,' then why aren't they all dead?" After the speech, I approached him for an autograph. With 500-600 people in the room, he would have been well justified to say "no." But he gave it to me anyway. To this day I look forward to seeing National Review in my mailbox. Buckley was a priceless treasure to both the conservative movement and the Nation.

This past year, I communicated with David Frum and Jean Lopez at National Review Online concerning what I saw as a lack of proper focus in the national media on the President's options regarding Scooter Libby. As I saw it, there were numerous ways that Bush could utilize the pardon power to keep Libby out of prison short of granting a full, unconditional pardon. NR Online allowed me to write a piece on one of them (the respite), then placed individuals on various television programs (Hardball, the Situation Room and Meet the Press) who spread the news - albeit in the face of resistant hosts who were much more attracted to the fabricated drama of pardon / no pardon scenario.

Of course, the President utilized the pardon power to keep Libby out of prison, but it was not the particular option which I had focused on. Incidentally, to this day, I insist that the President should have done things my way. But that is another story. As if the first appearance were not enough glory for one career, NR Online let me to write a second piece, which allowed me to place the Libby commutation in historical context. It was such a pleasure to show off years and years of research in such a fun, respected, widely-read forum. I will be forever grateful.

So, rest in peace William F. Buckley, Jr. and thank you for all that you shared with us. Thank you National Review for carrying on his work. It is a sad day for us all, but also a day to be thankful that we saw him, listened to him, read his words and enjoyed his intelligence and wit. We are all so very fortunate to have had these opportunities.

P.S. Ruckman, Jr.

Wexler on Pardons and Libby

2008-02-26T09:24:00.003-06:00

The Philadelphia Jewish Voice has interviewed Florida Congressman Robert Wexler's, who is described by the Voice as "a nationally recognized advocate for the integrity of our election system." I am not certain who Wexler's opponents are on this front. But, along the way, this q and a took place:

PJV: Still on the matter of Constitutional checks and balances, should there be any limits on the President's ability to use his pardon power to insulate his administration from investigation?
Well, certainly he commuted Scooter Libby’s sentence, which I vehemently disagreed with because I thought the President was intellectually dishonest. He said that he thought Scooter Libby’s sentence was excessive, and then he cut it to zero. The President had the authority, and still does, to commute any sentence under whatever terms the President wishes. And he thought Scooter Libby’s sentence was excessive – I think he got 30 months – then he could have made it 22 months, or 19 months or whatever number of months the President thought appropriate, but he made it zero months, which I think, for any objective party indicates that he wasn’t serious about the excessiveness of the sentence. What he wished to do was protect Scooter Libby from any kind of prosecutorial penalty.

And the real question is, “Why did the President do it?” I think the answer is to insulate both himself, Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove and other important members of the administration. And that in and of itself, according to the founders of this country, in their original Constitutional document, is a grounds for impeachment. A President is using the pardon, or commutation powers, for the purpose of covering up a crime committed by him or by a chief member of his administration – that is an abuse of his Constitutional authority.

So, while yes, the President does have the power to pardon and commute, I think it appears this President it appears likely abused that power and that’s why I think we ought to have hearings regarding the Vice President and the administration.

See full interview here.

Dems: McCain and Libby

2008-02-07T23:12:00.001-06:00

CBS News reports that the Democratic National Committee, anxious to share some of the headlines with John McCain, who has found himself the probable Republican presidential nominee is sending out an e-mail which reads, in part:

Campaign McCain's "extreme makeover" may help him pander to the right wing, but the rest of America has figured out that a vote for John McCain is a vote for a third Bush term. Whether he is pining for a 100 year war in Iraq, calling for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, supporting efforts to make the same Bush tax cuts he once opposed permanent, supporting President Bush's veto of health care for 10 million children, or applauding the President's decision to commute Scooter Libby's sentence, John McCain has promised four more years of the same failed Bush policies that have undermined our economy and made America less secure.

See full story here.

Obama is Scary on Libby

2008-01-28T09:55:00.000-06:00

Jim Tynen has written a very on-point editorial, entitled "The Scary Side of Obama," in the Daily Herald today. Along the way it has this to say about Barack Obama's casual references to Scooter Libby in campaign stump speeches:

This kind of moral confusion leads to ideological confusion. To pick one example, Obama declaimed: "We have a [moral] deficit in this country when there is Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others."

White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was accused in the CIA leak case. His career was ruined, he spent a fortune on his defense, and he was convicted. In Jena, La., the media may have badly distorted confusing incidents of teens fighting and a noose that may or may not have had racial implications. Legal cases are still pending, and the full story has yet to be made clear.

The point is that in both cases the truth is complex and can be debated. But Obama ignored the complexities and nuances. He couldn't resist the cheap shot, the flawed symbol. That is a dangerous weakness. It hints that his aura of being above the fray might not be durable.

See the full editorial here.

Cindy Sheehan On Scooter Libby

2008-01-23T16:00:00.000-06:00

Cindy Sheehan and her supporters held a rally at the San Francisco Federal Building on January 14 and presented an aide to Nancy Pelosi with 8,000 signed letters urging impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush. Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq, said, "I believe that when George Bush commuted Scooter Libby’s sentence for a crime that he was complicit in, he committed treason. A president can commute sentences, a president can pardon people, but not when they are involved in the crime."

It is not certain what "crime" Sheehan is referencing. Prosecutors have yet to charge anyone with a crime in relation to Valerie Plame. If Sheehan means to say the President was "involved" in Libby's testimony, then U.S. Grant, Warren G. Harding, Harry Truman, Gerald Ford, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton should have all been impeached as well. See story here.

Obama, Still Tuned In

2008-01-20T16:59:00.000-06:00

Andrew Sullivan provides this transcript of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama's speech this morning, in Atlanta

I’m not talking about a budget deficit. I’m not talking about a trade deficit. I’m not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans. I’m talking about a moral deficit ...

Obama then went on to list dozens of examples of the "deficit" that he has in mind. Right near the top of the list:

We have a deficit in this country when there is Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others; when our children see nooses hanging from a schoolyard tree today, in the present, in the twenty-first century.

One wonders if anyone will ever ask Obama for a detailed analysis of either case. I suspect not.

Commentary on the Libby Case

2008-01-19T20:17:00.000-06:00

Michael Berry has written an interesting piece over at the First Amendment Center online. Here are some excerpts:

When I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby dropped his appeal last month, the legal case against the former vice presidential aide officially closed. The legacy of Libby’s prosecution in the Valerie Plame leak case, however, remains open ...
... Just look at Libby’s case. A special prosecutor was appointed to investigate a supposed breach of “national security” and then used his subpoena power to pursue reporters’ sources. Yet the nation’s security was never at risk, and no national security crime was ever committed.
... Conservatives have often noted that Libby should never have been the subject of a criminal investigation, for no underlying crime was ever committed. As Libby’s legal battle draws to a close, it also remains clear that the Plame leak never should have sparked subpoenas to the press. That is one of the certain legacies of Libby’s case, and it should live on in a federal shield law with conservative support.

The complete article can be found here.

Irony

2008-01-13T21:36:00.000-06:00

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has never tired of promising his audiences an end to the "Scooter Libby era of justice." For that reason, the UK version of The Times probably had great fun constructing this passage:

The other potential threat to Obama comes from the indictment of one of his leading donors, Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a Syrian-born property developer in Chicago, who is accused of extortion. Rezko has been indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald - the prosecutor who brought down the White House official Lewis “Scooter” Libby and the press magnate Conrad Black - for seeking millions of dollars in kickbacks from companies bidding for state business in Illinois. He is due to appear in court on February 24.

See complete article here

Marion Jones v. Scooter Libby

2008-01-12T08:15:00.000-06:00

In today's New York Times, this article discusses the recent 6-month sentence of track star Marion Jones. Late to hop on the band wagon, the author notes:

No, the sanctimonious call for jail time doesn’t come easily when the government can so blithely spring one of its own (see President Bush’s commuting of Scooter Libby’s 30-month sentence for four counts of perjury in the Valerie Plame case).

The author, of course, does not offer one modicum of evidence to suggest that the Scooter Libby commutation in any way made anything more difficult for anyone. And with good reason. No so-called "Libby motion" has ever worked, and there is no reason whatsoever to think that one ever will. The attempt to spread Scooter Libby all over ever criminal case is as dumb as it was the first time it was suggested. Libby has nothing whatsoever to do with Marc Rich, Roger Clinton, Peter Yarrow, the FALN terrorists, the individuals who shot up the House of Representatives (and hit five congressmen) ... or Marion Jones.

What may have made things difficult is Jones' behavior. As she put it:

“Yes, I’ve made mistakes by lying. And I’ve admitted to these mistakes much later than I should have ... I truly hope that people will learn from my mistakes."

The critic will, of course, compound the whine, "so she admitted guilt and will be going to prison while Libby did not and has his sentence commuted." Admittedly, there is no answer to such reasoning that can be spelled out in an equally catchy sound-bite. The merchants of junior-high rhetoric are going to win that round. Ironically, they are the same people who constantly remind us that innocent people are convicted by the justice system all of the time! Perhaps, one day, when the sentence is long behind her, they will also claim Jones was forced to lie about lying, so as to satisfy "Scooter Libby justice."

Obama Not Letting It Go

2008-01-10T11:44:00.001-06:00

There are some who look with amusement upon blogs like this, and others that continue to pay attention to Scooter Libby, the topic of presidential pardons and related issues. As one participant wrote over at the Sentencing Law and Policy blog:

... the pardon/clemency issue is irrelevant to most voters. It won't be a campaign issue unless an opponent pulls a "Willie Horton" on Huckabee. The Scooter Libby pardon, though most Americans opposed it, had its 15 minutes of fame, and is now history to all but legal scholars and pundits.

But, when Barack Obama stepped into a standing room only crowd at the Yanitelli Center at St. Peter's College two days ago, he had Scooter Libby on his mind and mentioned Libby by name - as he has done throughout the entire campaign. What are we to make of this? Doesn't Obama know Libby is old news, yesterday's lettuce, so last year?

Well, it just isn't that complex. The Libby case was certainly one of the major stories of the past year, but it is clearly not over in the sense that Valerie Plame and her husband will continue to yell and all eyes are on the president's use of the pardon power. Witness the headlines that followed the last round of pardons (in December) ... "Pardon, But No Libby." When is the last time a pardon was that much anticipated? It seems reasonable enough to think that, as we head into the last year of the Bush administration, the focus will both remain and increase.

Second, by continuing to focus on Libby, I believe it is possible that Obama is sending the signal that he sees the pardon power (and other issues related to the criminal justice system) differently than his opponents. While they may be content to comment and point fingers when the next "episode" arises, Obama would like to address systematic problems that he sees with formal processes (like sentencing, for example). He appears to lean toward change in advance, as opposed to seasons of distraction followed by the paralytic effects of delayed reactions to seemingly random "controversies."

Introducing a New Blog: Pardon Power

2008-01-10T00:34:00.000-06:00

Sure, I have been asked, "What happens after Libby is pardoned? Then what? What happens to the blog?" And, after giving it some thought, I have decided to prepare for the transition well in advance. This week, I have started a new blog PARDON POWER, which can now be found at http://pardonpower.com.

At the PARDON POWER blog, I am going to focus on news items related to both federal executive clemency and the exercise of clemency powers at the state level. This will allow me to broaden the discussion of presidential use of the pardon power to all previous administrations and delve even more into history and data. Mr. Libby will thus be a very small slice of the pie over there. The debate between Republican candidates Huckabee and Romney also made me more keenly aware of how little systematic analysis there is on pardons at the state level. It seems to me that we are in need of a blog that provides a more rich context in which to judge gubernatorial behavior.

In addition, I will open PARDON POWER to responses from readers, an idea that I never really got altogether comfortable with here. We'll just have to see how all of that goes.

So, if you have found this blog interesting, please consider stopping by PARDON POWER every now and then as well and, if you like, leave a comment.

best, P.S. Ruckman, Jr.