06-09-2008, 10:45 AM
|
#139 (permalink)
|
|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tully Mars
Really if Bush is impeached that will nullify Libby's commutation? Can he be impeached after leaving office?
|
Tully, here is what McClellan wrote about the commutation...it's too hard to transfer links in articles since they shut off html coding here at TFP, but there are plenty of linked pages about this, in this piece:
Quote:
http://sentencing.typepad.com/senten...e-from-mc.html
May 29, 2008
Passage from McClellan's book on the Libby commutation
Mclellan Thanks to this post at TalkLeft I saw this post from Christopher Bateman at Vanity Fair titled "McClellan Disappointed (and McCain Still Mum) About Libby Commutation." Here are highlights:
Scott McClellan’s bombshell book... [includes] a forceful denunciation of President Bush’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s sentence after his conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice in the Valerie Plame affair:
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.
The Vanity Fair post goes on to not that John McCain was spoke out on behalf of Libby in 2007 but that "McCain has declined to speak about the commutation, and his campaign has not returned VF Daily’s request to comment on McClellan’s statements." Needless to say, I think (along surely with folks at Pardon Power) that the Libby commutation should be a campaign issue in the weeks and months ahead.
Some related posts:
*
Bush's reasons for Libby's commutation ... will others now see similar compassion from Bush and his Justice Department?
* Latest FSR issue on "Learning from Libby"
* The inside backstory on the Libby commutation
*
Reflections on "Bush the merciful"
* Few giving the President sentencing thanks
* Pardon politics and the 2008 campaign
|
The commutation of Libby's sentence, for it to be valid, has to be "pure"...unrelated to any other motive on the part of the president....I think the best we can hope for is to make it untenable for Bush to issue a pardon to Libby for his four count conviction, on Bush's last day in office:
Quote:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/08/...libby-hearing/
Jul 8th, 2007
Conyers: Bush Should Waive Exec. Privilege, ‘Do What Clinton Did’ And Explain Commutation»
This Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers will hold a hearing on the use and misuse of presidential clemency power, looking specifically at whether President Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence was an abuse of power.
Appearing on ABC’s This Week, Conyers said there exists a “suspicion that if Mr. Libby went to prison, he might further implicate other people in the White House.” Conyers noted “there was some kind of relationship here that does not exist in any of President Clinton’s pardons… [and] it’s never existed before.”
Conyers said he is requesting Bush waive executive privilege and “do what President Clinton did — namely to bring forward any of his pardon lawyers or anyone that can put a clear light on this and put this kind of feeling that is fairly general to rest.” Watch it:
Transcript:
CONYERS: But what we have here — and I think we should put it on the table right at the beginning — is that the suspicion was that if Mr. Libby went to prison, he might further implicate other people in the White House, and that there was some kind of relationship here that does not exist in any of President Clinton’s pardons, nor, according to those that we’ve talked to — and this is why we’re doing the hearings — is that it’s never existed before, ever.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So it’s really…
CONYERS: We’ve never had…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me stop you there, because you seem to be suggesting that President Bush commuted Mr. Libby’s sentence in order to keep him quiet.
CONYERS: Well, that’s — I said that’s what the general impression is. And what we’re trying to do — and this is why we’ve written the president, inviting him to do what President Clinton did, and namely to bring forward any of his pardon lawyers or anyone that can put a clear light on this and put this kind of feeling that is fairly general to rest. That’s the whole purpose.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re asking him to waive executive privilege.
CONYERS: Yes. And that’s what Clinton did. Yes, we’re asking him to waive executive privilege and allow his pardon lawyers or other experts, who it appears that he did not consult, explain this in a little more detail.
So, what we’re saying, Mr. Stephanopoulos, is that there wasn’t any pardons that have involved a person who was a former chief of staff to the vice president of the United States that got a commutation. Commutations usually follow after a person has served some period of time. And of course, this isn’t the case here.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You’ve asked the president — you’re asking the president to waive executive privilege in this case on the pardons. You’ve also asked him to waive executive privilege as you investigate the firing of those U.S. attorneys. And you’ve given the president a 10 a.m. deadline tomorrow to come forward with those documents.
But The Washington Post reports this morning that the White House is going to deny that request. They say that they’re not going to turn over the documents you’ve requested or the detailed justification for the executive privilege claims. So what’s your response going to be?
CONYERS: Well, I’m glad The Post finds out about what the president plans to do before anybody just gives us a call. We’re going to pursue our legal remedies to press forward with the subpoenas. I don’t think, if this is correct, we don’t have any other choice.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So that means holding the White House in contempt of Congress?
CONYERS: Well, yes. It means moving forward in the process that would require him to comply with the subpoenas like most other people.
|
Last edited by host; 06-09-2008 at 10:54 AM..
|
|
|