Just what might justify pardoning Scooter Libby? I mean, if you are George W. Bush, what principles would you rely upon to rationalize the neutering of the judicial process? The jury was clear, the judge was clear, the case was clear…Scooter Libby intentionally and knowingly lied and obstructed an investigation, which is quite clearly a crime. The federal government payed a great deal of money to investigate the Plame Affair and jurors (grand, and otherwise) dedicated months of their lives to ascertaining the facts. The Justice system did its job and concluded that Scooter Libby deserves to do two and a half years in prison for the crimes that he committed. If you are going to wipe that away, you must have some theory about how, ultimately, this sentence is a miscarriage of justice.
Cheney has a theory on how Libby is getting screwed. He wrote it in his notes.
“Not going to protect one staffer [ed note: Karl Rove] (plus) sacrifice the guy [ed note: Scooter Libby] that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.”
We may never know exactly what Dick Cheney meant by ‘the incompetence of others’ but we do know that he thinks Scooter got a raw deal. And if Scooter got a raw deal it is because he was assigned to be the Fall Guy. It doesn’t change the fact that he committed crimes. But it does mean that his crimes protected other people that were the real culprits. If Scooter is getting a raw deal it is because someone else is the person (or persons) that really deserves to be going to prison.
But, again, how can George W. Bush apply this information to justify a pardon for Libby? If true justice requires that someone else do the time that Libby is being forced to do, then wouldn’t Bush have to turn that person (or persons) in to the authorities at the same time that he springs Libby free?
That would seem to be the minimum requirement for justifying a pardon for Libby. Otherwise he would just be letting everyone get away with crimes and there would be no whiff of justice anywhere.
But, even if there is one or more people that really should be going to jail before Scooter Libby, that still doesn’t justify letting Libby off the hook. He committed a series of crimes.
And, at least ostensibly, he committed those crimes and then lied about whether he committed them to the President. After all, the President promised to get to the bottom of the Plame leak and he wasn’t told the truth about what Libby and Rove and Armitage and Fleischer, etc. did. Right?
Doesn’t the President have every right to be angry with Libby for not only causing a major embarrassment for his administration, but for lying about it to the President when he set out to get to the bottom of it all?
Why would the President pardon a man that created such a mess and then misled him about what he had done?
How would the President justify letting a guy off the hook that had totally screwed him and even put his reelection in jeopardy?
Wouldn’t it look like the President was rewarding a man for obstructing justice?
No matter how you look at it, there is no way to justify pardoning Scooter Libby without it being an admission of guilt by the President.
Any innocent President would be furious with Libby and wouldn’t pardon him in a million years.
But Bush is not innocent. Libby lied for the President. And if Bush pardons Libby then we will know for certain that the President himself is the one that should be doing jail time for the crime that Libby covered up.
We shall see.
Well its not exactly tax evasion but it’ll do.
Bob
that because Libby was convicted, he would no longer be able to claim 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination if called to testify before Congress…so I think it’s highly likely that Libby won’t be pardoned until Bush and Cheney are heading out the door in January of 2009…
Would the 5th restriction hold for all his life, even after he has done his time or pardoned?
I think that Bush does not care anymore about expected appearances. But he may want to show the strength of his power to do anything he wishes. He’ll pardon Libby, and the number of people who changed their minds about him would be negligible, just as the number of people willing to do act more against him. Bush has done zillions of stupid things without any consequences.
because you may be indicted for crimes other than the one you were convicted for and you should/would still have the protection (if there are any left!) of not having to convict yourself by your testimony.
The same ones that are arguing for a pardon now are the same ones that argued for impeachment of Clinton. For essentially the same crime – lying under oath.
This is so blatantly partisan that I don’t see how it can be taken seriously.
fundamental hubris these folks operate by – if THEY do it is okay and right and just and proper and they have a mission and that mission demands that they are ALLOWED to act as they wish etc. So if Bushco pardons Libby it would be under that premise – their shit don’t stink!
He IS letting everyone get away with crimes and there IS no whiff of justice anywhere near this president.
Stop trying to reason with this man, Boo. He really doesn’t care anymore what it looks like.
What has Bush done that HAS been justified, ESPECIALLY from a legal standpoint? ALL of it has come down to his famous “I’m the Decider(tm)” meme. Illegal wiretapping of US citizens, the death of habeus corpus, the DoJ as a weapon, every legal precedent this administration has generated rests on the principle that Bush has the powers of a dictator, general, and Pope rolled into one.
If the Decider(tm) decides to pardon Libby, and I think there’s no doubt that he will, exactly what are we going to do about it? Hell, we STILL refuse to impeach the man even though his list of crimes is a mile long.
What’s one more crime among friends? Guys, you’re trying to apply legal logic to a man whose logic begins and ends with “I’m the Decider(tm)”.
I’d have to say that the most significant part of the Cheney quote is the word “asked”. The Dick may have just exposed himself…. If anyone with any power in the US still cares.
It was Bush **himself** who asked Libby to stick his neck in the meat grinder!
I can’t post the images here, but the government exhibit of Cheney’s note clearly says “the Pres.” You’ll find the entire page and 2 blown-up views here:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml
Someone at the trial thought it read “this Pres.” but the word is clearly “the”… Cheney extends his e’s and tucks his s’s.
Libby served the President officially as well as serving the VP. IIRC, he had 2-3 job titles. Cheney probably didn’t mind the sharing, because it would give him more insight into Bush’s thinking and another opportunity to direct policies by controlling the information Bush was given.
The only reason Bush would pardon Libby was if he was afraid that his other loyal staffers might spill the beans rather than continue illegal activities. The defense fund and the pardon are both statements that the Republicans will take care of felons if they remain dutifully silent. Since he demands loyalty, he probably doesn’t believe that anybody in the inner circle would betray him.
Bush won’t pardon out of compassion for Libby’s family (look at his own family!!!). He won’t pardon because the guideline recommends it (5 years, plus remorse and rehabilitation). He won’t pardon for the public good
(what can Libby better do for the community if he is free?). He certainly won’t pardon because he is generous or wise.
Thanks to the provisions against double jeopardy, if Libby is pardoned, he can be called back into Court or Congress without any 5th amendment rights and be made to talk about whatever he was obstructing. Do any of us believe that Bush and Cheney desire a freely talkative Libby?
If Libby receives a pardon, I’ll be very surprised.