Close Topic Options

Lewis Scooter Libby - Page 3

BUSH WON'T RULE OUT PARDON FOR LIBBY

U.S. President George W. Bush on Tuesday refused to rule out a pardon for I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, adding that he stands by his decision to commute part of the former White House aide's sentence.
Ref. https://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...whitehouse.html

Libby Scooter Lewis

Well all the criticizing has begun and it is not pretty as expected:

Lewis Scooter Libby History & Civil Business Politics

I don't really care whether one supports Democrats or Republicans, what Bush has now done is a miscarriage of justice. It is cronyism of the highest order.

I read somewhere that during Bush's tenure as Governor of Texas, he had watched over a record number of executions (150+) with no inclination for clemency - even in some cases where inmates were claimed to have had mental illness. I am not suggesting that he should let such criminals off without reason, but the point I make is that he seems quite happy to allow justice to deliver the harshest punishments without batting an eyelid. There are also guys rotting away in Guantanamo Bay, with little or no evidence of any wrongdoing, who still cannot see the light of a fair court hearing. So Bush has certainly proven a hard man when it comes to justice on these cases.

But then there is Lewis Scooter Libby, one of the president's buddies. Granted, Cheney also deserved to take the fall on this case. But seeing as that is virtually impossible, as Cheney is one of "The Untouchables" of US politics, for reasons that escape me given he is grossly incompetent and immoral, at least Libby should face the music and serve his time.

The idea that a political leader could interfere in a judicial ruling to protect his mate is astounding to an Australian. You just wouldn't get away with it where I am from, especially if you are Prime Minister. I can't understand how this is acceptable to anyone in the US? Libby was still involved in perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to federal investigators. Does that not mean anything to the President? I am certain if Libby had been a Democrat Party member Bush would not have used his pardon power. That means he is preventing justice.

It is true that Bush isn't the first, and probably won't be the last, president to use his pardon powers to free personal associates.

Bill Clinton's controversial pardon of Marc Rich, a fugitive whose ex-wife had donated large amounts to the Democratic Party, was rightfully denounced in many quarters. Gerald Ford's decision to pardon his former boss, Richard Nixon, over Watergate attracted criticism ever since because cynics presumed that Nixon was pardoned in return for resigning the Presidency for Ford.

So this is not really a debate about Bush's personal abuse of this power. It is more about the power of pardon itself. The US needs to changes its constitution so that the President cannot pardon anyone who is personally connected to him. If a President can pardon anyone who breaks the law to protect himself, an administration cannot be called to account except by the lengthy and partisan process of impeachment.

Bush personally has nothing to lose by pardoning Libby, although he is further damaging the credentials of the party whom he belongs. I think swing voters will view this as another example of the Republican losing the plot and it could well come back to hurt them at the next polls.

Page 3 Libby Scooter Lewis

Actually, the Constitution is quite fine. There are provisions that allow for checks and balances to this practice. If it is agreed upon that the use of a pardon was totally inexcusable and illegal, the House of Representatives can Impeach the President. This only requires a majority vote, which they may have. That does not mean that the President is booted out of office at that point, as we can remember that Clinton was impeached but carried out his term. The second part is the conviction in the Senate. This is where the President can be removed from office. Upon a 2/3rds majority, the President would be convicted of a crime and removed from office. To date, no President has been convicted in the Senate.

While I am not a huge fan of Pardons or Clemency, they have done some good in the past of rectifying extreme sentences for minor infractions under the 3 strikes rulings where judges hands were tied into lifetime sentences.

https://www.time.com/time/2007/presidential_pardons/
(listing of the most notorious pardons in US history - some good/some bad)

https://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardonspres1.htm
(It is not up-to-date with GWB's, but the list is pretty good)

However, the use of clemency and pardoning has widened to give relief to a whole new group of people. If you look at Clinton's pardons, a great majority of them were blue collar criminals. Also, it is rumoured and supported fairly well that Clinton's brother made a profit off hooking others up with clemency. I have long since stopped looking for honesty in politics. Lying to a federal investigator and jury...mean anything to a President. Hmmm...the previous one did the lying in person and he didn't go to jail, so I guess protocol has been established, sadly.

The interesting part is the reaction. Sure it is a nice topic for the election campaigns, but will they really do anything about it? Do we really think that the congress will roar and impeach the President? My guess is NO. Why? Because both sides want to continue to abuse this power when they have it. So, yes, Bush really doesn't have anything to lose in that respect. Now they may impeach him on something else and it still wont get through the Senate and we will waste a lot of money doing it, which is probably why it wont happen.

However, if you really want to get a kick out of what has happened with the power take a look at this:

https://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6.htm
(this is where it really took a turn for the worst...no long looking for advice from the Attorney Generals Office in granting these wishes)

https://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm
https://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/bushgrants.htm

Conspiracy and Fraud as far as the eye can see! NICE..."Pardon" the sarcasm if you will...

Honestly, I expected Bush to pardon Libby at the end of his term. I expected Libby to be out on appeal, but the courts forced Bush's hand when the said that Libby needed to begin serving his sentence while waiting for the appeal. Still, Clinton allowed McDougal to stay in jail for 2 years protecting him before he granted her a pardon. It is in this article about mid way through it...

https://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/pardons/pardon.history.html

Edited: Vincenzo on 17th Jul, 2007 - 4:27am

Libby Scooter Lewis

I agree with most of what you say although I think you have displayed further evidence of why the pardon system needs fixing.

Impeachment is a costly and drawn out process that the House is not going to approve against a political pardon. As you correctly mention, Clinton was impeached but still served his term, what was the point of impeachment other than to make a political point?

A two thirds majority is virtually impossible so we can rule out the second option. So basically, as these two options are either impractical or impossible, President's can abuse their pardon powers without punishment.

It doesn't mean anything to the President because they know they can get away with it. It's up to the people to ensure that politicians pay for their deceit. Unfortunately, it's the people who are often blind or uninterested in deciphering the truth behind their politicians. From my observations, there is far too much trust of Presidents and other senior political figures in the US, especially at times of war. The fact that Libby is to be pardoned should be big news, but I don't think most people care.

Maybe I"m sounding too much like a journalist, but we vote these people into power to be honest and not treat the public with contempt. I would take personal offence if I voted for someone who blatantly lies. Bush's track record suggests he was not a wise choice for a second term, but instead of actually measuring his performance, people seemed more concerned about personalities. This is for another topic"¦

My simple point remains that I believe no leader, whether they are political, religious or monarch, should be allowed to pardon personal friends. Justice must be allowed to prevail or there must be an independent review of a situation that is not politicised.

Of course neither side of politics will change this power, they are both as bad as each other in that respect.

Lewis Scooter Libby

Actually, impeachment does work. Richard Nixon is the prime example. I know, he wasn't impeached, so what do you mean Vincenzo! Well, the reason Nixon resigned from office is that he was informed of a movement to impeach him and that it had the votes to go through the House and would likely carry through the Senate as well. That would make him the first president in US history to be successfully thrown out of office, so he resigned. So yes, he wasn't actually impeached, but the power or threat of impeachment worked. Any president in the same situation as Nixon will do the same thing. No one wants to be the first one thrown out of office!

So if the people as a whole are totally against what they preceive as a violation of the law by the president, he can be removed from office (although, they will probably take the action themselves). In this case, there are enough people that don't see this as a impeachable and convictable offense by the president. And they are right... Protocol has been set by previous administrations.

The only way that this can be gone after is to better or more clearly define and marginalize the clemency and pardon rights of the presidency. Honestly, I am not sure how to go about that, but it would probably include the executive and judicial branches of government.