It’s worth pointing out that only one aspect of Libby’s sentence was commuted—the fine and probation were left intact.

Don’t you understand? Bush is evil!

Republicans is the devil, Bobby Boucher!

Wait, Gobsmacked Andy is slipping into conspiracy-theory land? Where the fuck has the only real conservative been for the last two years then?

Sullivan didn’t slip into conspiracy theory land, he waltzed right in and started measuring for curtains.

What I don’t get is that of all the great, imnumerable reasons to try to, or even call for, empeaching Bush, THIS is the one he jumps on?  I never did understand Jesse Jackson…
(I know, I know that I tread on dangerously thin ice here, so be kind, ok?)

Speaking of an astonishing display of tonedeaf hypocrisy and a reliance on the short term memory of the American public, Hillary Clinton say “This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.”

A commutation keeps the appeals process going, which means Libby keeps his 5th Amendment protection against being compelled to testify.  That’s why he was kept out of prison but not given a full pardon yet—to make sure he stays quiet, and to ensure that no one can make him talk.

Libby will be given a full pardon in 18 months, which will also take care of any remaining probation.  And the fine is more than covered by “donations” to his legal defense fund, which already stands at 20 times the amount of the fine.

Presidents have the Constitutional power to protect their own henchmen from criminal convictions, to block investigations into their own criminal acts. That’s not in question.  But if you’re okay with a President using their power to do this, you are okay with overturning the basis of our Republic, no exaggeration.

Just be honest with yourself about that.

But if you’re okay with a President using their power to do this, you are okay with overturning the basis of our Republic, no exaggeration.

So propose a constitutional amendment. That’s the way these things get changed under the basis of our Republic.

zota, the theory that Bush is trying to reward Libby for “keeping his mouth shut” does not make any sense to me.  There is really not any evidence that there is anything that Libby might otherwise testify to.  There clearly wasn’t any underlying crime by anyone else to cover up.

This kind of belief is just builds up a frothy hysteria over what was always a tempest in a teapot.

So propose a constitutional amendment.

The President has the Constitutional power to kill hobos with a baseball bat and pardon himself if he gets caught. If a President were to do this, is there a problem with the Constitution? Or is there a problem with that particular President?

There clearly wasn’t any underlying crime by anyone else to cover up.

He was convicted by a jury of obstruction of justice. The investigation he blocked with his perjury is ongoing. But I guess it depends on the definition of the word “clear.”

zota, both of your statements are false.  First, the President cannot kill hobos and pardon himself.  If you don’t understand why this is so, you need to learn more about the Constitution that you plainly do not understand.

Second, Libby did not block any investigation - Fitzgerald knew the name of the person who leaked Plame’s name to Novak within days of beginning his investigation, no one has presented any evidence that Libby knew anything about Armitage’s leak and there is no further investigations ongoing in the matter by Fitzgerald.

A- Luckily we don’t have to worry about a president killing hobos w/ a baseball bat and pardoning himself. Since, you know, that hasn’t happened.

B- A president can’t pardon himself in matters related to impeachment, so if the fictional hobo-slaying president were to be impeached for his hobo-slaying ways, he would not be able to excuse himself from that legal exercise.

So, let’s just move on past that particular straw man.

As to the ongoing investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame’s name, which would be Richard Armitage, I’m not overly concerned. I subscribe to the Victor Davis Hansen view:

In the case of Valerie Plame, a special prosecutor was selected to find out who outed supposedly covert status at the CIA. The common liberal allegation was that administration lackies had stooped to hound a CIA employee for the anti-war politicking of her husband Joe Wilson.

But very early on in Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald’s investigation, two inconvenient truths emerged. Ms. Plame was not a covert agent as envisioned by the original mandate of the special prosecutor. And second, the culprit who disseminated knowledge of her employment in with the CIA was almost immediately revealed--former State Department official Richard Armitage.

But no matter. Armitage was out of office and had voiced misgivings about the Iraq war. Thus his early conviction would have earned little public attention, but might instead have ended the investigation before it could snowball in the daily press.

So Fitzgerald barreled ahead anyway on a new mission to satisfy the partisan lust for high-value scalps--hoping to find some top administration official guilty of something else in the growing labyrinth of competing testimonies.

Presto! Scooter Libby, Chief of the Vice President’s staff was found to have offered contradictory evidence, and thus convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. We tend to think of smooth Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald as far more professional than the buffoonish Nifong. Maybe. But as was true of Nifong in the Duke rape case, Fitzgerald knew of information that might be fatal to his case--that early on Richard Armitage confessed to the leak--and yet neither apprised the public nor shut down his investigation.

I tend to think that the focus on this is mostly from people who were massively disappointed by the failure, a few years ago, of “Fitzmas” to magically appear and bring down Cheney or Rove. All of that build up, all of the rumors, and then nothing. It was a big fizzle, there is an admission of guilt, and yet the investigation continues.

Sorry if I can’t get all worked up about it, but I would hope that you would agree that this was nothing like murdering mendicants with a baseball bat.

According to Article II Sec. 2 the President has the power to pardon any offense except impeachment. This power is plenary, absolute, designed to protect the Executive from the jJudiciary. So unless he was impeached for it, yes the President can in fact pardon himself for the murder of a hobo.

As for what would happen in real life should an amoral President commit a crime in office and pardon himself? Well that is what the White House spokesperson would call “an interesting Constitutional question.” But it is most certainly in the text of the Constitution.

And what would happen in real life should a President block the investigation of a crime in which he and other members of the Executive are implicated?  I guess we’ll find out, won’t we?

As for the investigation being open, I’ll take the CIA’s word over yours, thanks.

No, zota, you are quite wrong.  The President can only pardon offenses under Federal law.  The President cannot pardon offenses under the laws of the states.  So in the case of your silly dead hobos example, the President could not pardon himself.  I suggest you study the Constitution some more.

As for the CIA, it isn’t their investigation, so their “word” is meaningless.

I believe my next blog is going to be called “Silly Dead Hobos.” I sort of like the sound of that.

Works for me.

The author of this post stated that the President of the United States of America is allowed to pardon whomever he wants, whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants.

Are you suggesting that he… might be exaggerating?

Are you suggesting that there might be a process for pardons and clemency that every other President in history has followed?  Are you suggesting that overturning this process might be a remarkable thing?

Perhaps you have spoken in haste.

zota, perhaps you should think about what you are arguing, and what this post was arguing.

From the post:  Certainly, it’s reasonable to critique the president on his decision and to disagree with his conclusions. But that’s a far away from calling for impeachment when the president has exercised his constitutional powers.

and from your 7:01PM comment:  According to Article II Sec. 2 the President has the power to pardon any offense except impeachment. This power is plenary, absolute, designed to protect the Executive from the jJudiciary. So unless he was impeached for it, yes the President can in fact pardon himself for the murder of a hobo.

As for what would happen in real life should an amoral President commit a crime in office and pardon himself? Well that is what the White House spokesperson would call “an interesting Constitutional question.” But it is most certainly in the text of the Constitution.

How is David “exaggerating”? 

You seem to be arguing that the President has the power to pardon himself for murdering a hobo, yet should be impeached for pardoning a member of his staff.

There is no required “process” zota.  What I’ve pointed out is that you don’t understand the scope of the pardon power that you are arguing about.

I think we’ve reached that magical point in an argument where zota is no longer arguing the issue, but is instead merely looking for reasons to argue. Which is where it stops being fun for me, so this is likely my last comment.

Zota, to clarify, the points that I was trying to make with my words, with note of previous government decisions, and with note of some very interesting previous pardons is very simply that there is (as Robin says) no required process, no oversight, and that (here’s where I apologize for any lack of clarity) when the crime is a violation of Federal law and does involve impeachment, the president can, indeed, offer some form of clemency to “whomever he wants, whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants.”

Now, I apologize for not specifically pointing out that one part--that it must be an offense under Federal law--but I don’t think that it changes my argument or my point: not only was the pardon within the bounds of presidential power, but it isn’t unusual and it isn’t surprising.

Now, if you want to argue whether it was the correct decision or whether Libby was worthy of his commuted sentence, that’s fine, but if you still want to play games with nitpicking parsing of what I’ve written w/o actually bothering with trying to understand what I was saying.

I make no pretense of being a constitutional scholar, and even now consider my understanding of presidential pardons to be flawed--there are a few points that I intend to discuss with Mr. Roberts over beer tomorrow night. But I do my best to be clear and honest in my writing; where I have failed to be clear, I apologize.

Unless you offer up something interesting or relevant, I’ll leave the floor to you, DF, and Robin.

Sorry to stop being fun, David. 

And I agree that the really glaring point is not the historic sweep of Presidential clemency (of which this is a unique example) but rather your argument that we just go with what the president has given us.

What we are given is that this one particular application of the Federal sentencing guidelines was deemed too harsh by a merciful man. That in this one instance, and no other, the sentencing guidelines—which they fought in favor of in the Supreme Court just weeks ago—must be overrulled. That it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with who this person is or what they were doing when they commited their crimes. Special Assistant to the President—hey, let’s not slip into conspiracy land here! Let us simply take this president at his word, that he is a bleeding heart as far as harsh Federal sentencing guidelines go.

That’s your argument.  And it is indeed a magical.