For the first time in quite a while I watched some cable news last night. And I’ve read this morning’s editorials. And, other than a brief mention by Keith Olbermann, I haven’t seen anyone addressing the central point of Libby’s commutation. Take a look at this:
…House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said the president “did the right thing today…. The prison sentence was overly harsh and the punishment did not fit the crime.”
Intentionally or not, Rep. Blunt is expressing something important here. If we just look at his statement at face value it appears nonsensical. How can a sentence set within the federal guidelines (and at the minimum allowable within that range) be considered overly harsh? If it is overly harsh for Libby then it is overly harsh for anyone else. So, is this comment by Blunt just another inaccurate and misleading talking point…or is it something more?
It’s the second part of Blunt’s statement that explains the first part: ‘the punishment did not fit the crime’. Why would Blunt think that? It’s because Blunt knows, like we all know, that Scooter Libby was the guy who was asked to stick his neck into the meat grinder. Libby lied because he was asked to lie. He released classified information because he was asked to release classified information. Nixon said that ‘when the president does it then it is not illegal’. It’s a theory shared by many Republicans (at least when applied only to Republican presidents).
Blunt knows that Libby was asked to lie to the FBI, to the prosecutors, and to the grand jury. Therefore, it would be wrong for Bush to let him go to jail for following orders. And it would be wrong. The proper thing for Bush and Cheney to do would be to commute Libby’s sentence and then offer to serve his prison sentence themselves. For the Republicans, the idea that they would let a loyal soldier like Libby do hard time is an appalling prospect.
The commutation of Libby’s sentence is an entirely straightforward admission of guilt. The media is not discussing this. And it is a tragedy. There is no doubt in my mind that Libby lied throughout this case precisely because he knew that he would never have to face jail time. It is and has been an extreme example of obstruction of justice. And it is a slam-dunk case for impeachment and removal from office.
Can anyone recommend a link to a web site/blog that has a good impeachment action item up?
Alegre has a good one up here at dKos.
If you’d like to know why I am so angry about this here are three examples:
and
3) Fattah’s office was unable to tell me if the Congressman stood for the rule of law. Booman, they actually had to ask someone to answer that: the woman shouted across the room.
They will not impeach. They’ll just shrug their shoulders and say “what can we do??”
what happened with Reid’s office?
They laughed. They literally laughed almost as soon as the words “Scooter Libby” came out of my mouth.
Not an outright HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA, just a chuckle or two. A snort.
And no, i wasn’t in high dudgeon. I was polite, low key, and direct.
They actually laughed?
What’s their phone number?
They’ll vote to impeach when they decide that’s the way the tide is flowing and it’s safe for them to do so. To get to that point we need judiciary committee hearings to lay the case with the public and allow the talking heads and newspaper editorialists to see that there’s momentum building, and they want to pile on (adding to the momentum). Once the levee holding back impeachment start eroding, everyone with a beef against the administration, D or R, will get their knives out. Watch for when the big money Wall Street types start wondering publicly what the effects of Bush & Cheney’s “problems” are on the economy. Then you’ll know the die has really been cast.
We’ve been down this road before with Nixon – it just takes time to make it all happen. (And yes, I was one of those people screaming at the TV for them to just get on with it, already at the time.) The consensus needs to be near-universal, so that government can pick up the pieces and move on afterward, without devolving into paralysis or worse.
My greatest fear isn’t that the right things won’t start to happen, but that Bush & Cheney will manage to run out the clock.
So which is it, Boo? A “slam-dunk case for impeachment and removal from office”, or as you attempted to argue earlier, a case that does not fit in with the Dems’ alleged “strategy”? If it’s a slam dunk, there should be no problem pursuing it, assuming, as you regularly and passionately argue, that Nader was wrong about the duopoly. (And no, I didn’t vote for Nader.)
What I am suggesting is that bloggers have a role and the leadership has a role, and they aren’t the same.
Pardon still possible?
Blunt knows that Libby was asked to lie to the FBI, to the prosecutors, and to the grand jury. Therefore, it would be wrong for Bush to let him go to jail for following orders. And it would be wrong. The proper thing for Bush and Cheney to do would be to commute Libby’s sentence and then offer to serve his prison sentence themselves. For the Republicans, the idea that they would let a loyal soldier like Libby do hard time is an appalling prospect.
I used to live in Missouri, and Blunt didn’t strike me as smart enough to think it through that clearly. To me, it’s more likely he’s just mouthing the latest talking point from Rove.
could be
The prison sentence was overly harsh and the punishment did not fit the crime.
By that logic most of the black men in our prisons ought to walk free this day.
If we really had a political opposition in this country they’d be all over the Net, the air, and every other public space with the outrageous examples of how punishment fits the crime under our “justice system”, like the kids in jail until middle age because of a couple ounces of pot, the guy in for life because he screwed somebody when they were 15 and he was 16, and on and on and on. There’s enough material to run a 24/7 TV network for years with no reruns.
This nonexistent opposition would also be contrasting Bush’s compassion now with his glee at being America’s killingest, most merciless governor. Did Libby induce him to get born yet again?
The phony opposition would, of course, also be hollering about Bush’s obvious quid pro quo to Libby, and how this is exactly how the Mafia would operate if it had presidential powers. But all we hear so far is tortured verbiage about arcane legal nitpicking.