Newsweek: Libby not qualified for Presidential pardon

[deminks]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17507199/site/newsweek/

March 7, 2007 - The pardon campaign began almost immediately. No sooner had word come down in federal court that I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby had been convicted on four felony counts than conservative allies began pressuring President Bush to step in and effectively overturn the verdict. The National Review Online was first off the block, publishing a “Pardon Libby” editorial barely two hours after the verdict was announced; the piece denounced the entire CIA-leak case as a “travesty” and the product of “media scandal-mongering.” The Wall Street Journal followed suit Wednesday, saying Bush shouldn’t even wait for Libby to file his appeal. “The time for a pardon is now,” the Journal declared. The Web site of the Libby Defense Trust, www.scooterlibby.com, linked to those and other editorials calling for a pardon Wednesday.

But there’s one significant roadblock on the path to Libby’s salvation: Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff does not qualify to even be considered for a presidential pardon under Justice Department guidelines.

From the day he took office, Bush seems to have followed those guidelines religiously. He's taken an exceedingly stingy approach to pardons, granting only 113 in six years, mostly for relatively minor fraud, embezzlement and drug cases dating back more than two decades. Bush’s pardons are “fewer than any president in 100 years,” according to Margaret Love, former pardon attorney at the Justice Department.

(snip)

Those regulations, which are discussed on the Justice Department Web site at www.usdoj.gov/pardon, would seem to make a Libby pardon a nonstarter in George W. Bush’s White House. They “require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application,” according to the Justice Web site.

(end snip)

Oops. Will Smirky stand on principles? If he can find them?

[flyingfysh]

1. Nixon was not qualified either, but that didn't stop Ford

I didn't think those decisions were up to Newsweek.

[KoKo]

21. What about Poppy's pardon of Casper Weinberger in Iran-Contra?

:shrug: I don't think Weinberger served but was indicted...but can't remember the details.

[The Wizard]

36. not convicted

[gratuitous]

58. Weinberger was pardoned two weeks before his trial began

In the dead of night on Christmas Eve 1992 by a lame duck George H.W. Bush. There were credible reports that evidence that came out at Cappy's trial would put the lie to Bush's statement that he was "out of the loop" on Iran/contra, instead putting him right in the thick of the skullduggery.

But once Poppy issued his pardons to Weinberger and others that night, the Iran/contra investigation was effectively decapitated, and Lawrence Walsh was forced to file his final report in 1993 with only speculation about what might have come out at trial had the investigation been allowed to run its course.

But let's all talk about Scooter Libby's former client Marc Rich, why don't we?

[SodoffBush]

23. How was Nixon not qualified?

Was he convicted of anything?

[Roland99]

25. Was he convicted? I thought he resigned before impeachment was over?

[The Wizard]

35. Nixon wasn't convicted of a crime

[Canuckistanian]

79. Nixon wasn't even indicted

Nor were there any active investigations against him when Ford "pardoned" him.

[H2O Man]

41. Incorrect.

Nixon did not meet the specifications mentioned in the article.

[Lobster Martini]

2. That can't be right

I'm referring to the five-year waiting period. Richard Nixon certainly didn't wait five years to be pardoned by Gerald Ford.

[Lobster Martini]

11. Follow up to my own post

These standards also don't seem to apply to Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich.

[Nevernose]

83. They apply perfectly to Marc Rich (Scooter was Rich's attorney, btw)

It had been 18 years since his indictment and 22 since the crimes occurred; he had a good reputation; his crimes were not very serious (tax evasion); he accepted responsibility and showed remorse; there were many recommendations for release, including the Israeli Prime Minister's and Scooter Libby's.

[jobycom]

28. It's just a guideline, not a law. The president has no obligation to follow it.

The Constitution grants the president the right to pardon whomever he wants, and does not set any rules. The Justice Department has a set of guidelines on who can petition to be pardoned, but this is more of a restriction on people seeking pardon, and on who the Justice Department lawyers recommend for pardon. The president (any president) can do what he or she wants in this regard.

[shanti]

33. he has no obligation

so he WILL pardon. since when has he EVER felt obligated to do anything (and do it)??

[jobycom]

37. True, but that's a different point.

He's never given a damn about following laws, but in this case he wouldn't be breaking any laws.

[Lord Balto]

42. Well Then

I think we need a constitutional amendment preventing a sitting president from pardoning a member of the Executive Branch who is essentially working for him.

[jobycom]

43. I like that. nt

[RaleighNCDUer]

89. By the way I read that, it makes no difference.

Nixon had to wait 5 years to apply for a pardon, but Ford was not required to wait five years to offer one.

Same here - if * waits for Scooter to file for a pardon it will be 5 years, per law. He can, however, pardon him without waiting for the convict to file for a pardon - per the constitution, he can pardon him anytime he wants. It all depends on who initiates.

[xultar]

3. He'll pardon scoother on 01/19/09

[zbdent]

10. sooner, if

Libby decides to sing ...

[joeunderdog]

30. Yup, because He's the Decider.

[Inkyfuzzbottom]

62. WELL THAT JUST SUCKS!

That's my 50th birthday!

[salin]

4. when did jr ever follow laws, let alone "guidelines" when it works

against him politically to do so?

[SodoffBush]

24. When did Jr. even follow his own convictions?

He's the master of "flip flop."

[LiberalFighter]

55. He will have to follow where those convictions go when he is convicted

[Tribe Killer]

48. exactly

From the subtitle: "But he’d have to flout Justice Department guidelines in order to do it"...I don't see Bush having a problem sidestepping a few pesky DOJ guidelines. He doesn't recognize the Constitution as anything more than a "god-damned piece of paper".

[salin]

81. can I encourage you

to speak out more? Seems you have been here too long for me to 'welcome you to DU' - but I agree with your post whole heartedly - and encourage you to join the discussion more often - so instead of "welcome to DU" I say - thanks for speaking - and suggest you do so more often. :hi: (belated welcome ...)

[dennis4868]

75. You are right....

Has Newsweek been sleeping the past 6 years....when in the world has Bush and his thugs followed any guiddelines or laws when iT would be bad for them to do so....they have been IGNORING laws!

It's like David Gergen said on TV last night....The Bush administration has nt had any scandals up until now with the scooter libby trial....WHAT THE FU$%C&K!!!! Are some people BRAINDEAD?

[salin]

82. yes they are expecting the public to be braindead.

The only count they are correct on is that there have been fewer investigations into this administration - but that has something to do with the body of govt that is supposed to provide oversight (check and balances, and all of that) giving a six year blank check to the admin. It has nothing to do with scandals covered in the news. Infuriating, isn't it?!

[maine_raptor]

5. Bush can wave any conditions.

I love the talk about how if Libby accepts a pardon he'll be admitting guilt. Yea, like Nixon did when Jerry pardoned him. :sarcasm:

Presidential pardon power comes from the Constitution and there are no "guidelines" listed there (except no pardons in cases of impeachment).

Someone at Newsweek needs to read the Constitution.

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. So? That won't matter. If the psycho wants to Pardon him, he'll Pardon him..

Rules, regulations and LAWS mean nothing to these people. Remember, these are the same people who went around the FISA court so they could illegally spy on U.S. citizens. These are the same people who made Habeas Corpus obsolete. These are the same people who LIED about WMD so they could illegally invade another sovereign nation. These are the same people who have shredded our CONSTITUTION. These are the same people who have taken the presidential signing statements to an all time high. These are the same people who think the Executive branch is all powerful and Congress exists for the hell of it. Libby's Pardon is the least of these. The psycho will do whatever he wants.

[Cabcere]

77. My thoughts exactly.

It's sad and scary how the very foundations of our country have been so trivialized by the current administration. :( Bush will pardon Libby if he damn well wants to, regardless of what the Department of Justice, Congress, or the Constitution says about it.

[tofurkey]

90. Yup

But he'll pin a medal on him first. Then pardon him. And say God told him to.

[Atman]

7. Maybe Libby was scorin' blow for Chimpy...then he could go free.

Or maybe he was jackin cars or running illegal hooch. Seems to be the only people Bush pardons; his old college connections.

.

[sendero]

8. I'm going to take..

... the contrary view. After watching Bush in action for years, I don't think he will pardon Libby. Why? Because he's not the forgiving kind, and there is nothing in it for him personally.

[Atman]

13. True. In fact, Libby has officially embarrassed Bush.

"Scooter? Scooter who?"

.

[Nickster]

18. It's not about forgiving. I think he'll pardon him to keep him quiet about the BFEE inner workings

that Scooter knows about. A pardon would be a completely self-serving thing for Dubya.

[City Lights]

9. Regulations, guidelines, rules, etc., are for chumps.

Junior will do whatever he wants, guidelines be damned. If he wants to pardon Libby, he'll find a way.

[MADem]

65. EXACTLY. The truth of the matter is that those regulations can be changed by the Monkey

with the wave of a hand. They don't control him. They control the bozos who receive the pardons for consideration, and who work them up in preparation for presenting them to the Monkey with an aye or nay recommendation.

In the matter of pardons, the Monkey is absolute King. He could pardon Charles Manson if he wanted to.

[Gman]

12. This doesn't mean a damn thing

since when has a thing like "rules" ever concerned this idiot?

[KharmaTrain]

14. They're Polling...

This massive astroturf effort to pardon Scooter is as phony as it gets. It shows that even the wingnuts knew this guy was guilty and had long set upon astroturfing the "poor Scooter" meme and "Scooter the Fall Guy" and the attempt to ramp up some kind of public sympathy. Be assured there's a ton of polling going on to see if a pardon would fly...and this will dictate not if, but when, the pardon is set.

There's a lot of landmines this regime has to manuever through...one is the reaction a pardon will bring. Too quick of a pardon will boomerang on the remaining "credibility" of this regime as it will be obvious the pardon was granted to shut Scooter up. A pardon during the election would be poison for the Repugnican party as it would force candidates to say where they stood not only on Scooter's pardon but on the overall Iraq fiasco and their culpability. The GOOP wants to go back to the good old days of running on fear, gay bashing, xenophobia and hate...they can't do that with Iraq and the Libby albatross around their neck. It'll be bad enough if the Wilson civil suit moves forward and that could generate some interesting highlights next year.

Methinks the game plan has been to stretch out the appeals...delay it until beyond the '08 elections...where the super lame duck boooosh regime will be spending its last days burying all its crimes and buying off all those who may spill the beans.

[rock]

15. And if bush* were to break the rules, we'd impeach him, right?

(crickets chirping)

[jobycom]

31. Do you understand what impeachment is?

You can only impeach a president for a very specific set of crimes. The Constitution lays out "Treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors" as the only grounds for impeaching a president. Treason is clearly defined, too, by the Constitution as giving direct aid to an enemy of the US.

Even if these rules were binding of the president (and they aren't, they are only guidelines for the Justice Department--the Constitution does not allow limits on the president's right to pardon), such a crime wouldn't be impeachable.

(Note: Technically, that's not exactly accurate. "Impeachment" is simply bringing charges. The House could "impeach" the president for wearing plaid and cowboy boots. But even if convicted by the Senate, the charges wouldn't merit removal from office).

[tritsofme]

51. You're mostly right.

The charges merit removal from office if Congress says they do.

If the House impeached a president for jaywalking and called it a high crime or misdemeanor and the Senate convicted, a POTUS could be removed from office.

[jobycom]

53. The Chief Justice presides over the hearing in the Senate

And while the Constitution does not specifically say so, the CJ could rule that the charges don't meat Constitutional muster. Then we'd have a Constitutional crisis, and those go to the Supreme Court for interpretation.

It would be neat to see. :)

One more thing: Senators are aware of the Constitutional requirements, and take that into consideration. It would be very difficult to get half of the president's own party to ignore the Constitution and vote to remove him.

[ProudDad]

61. You're part right and mostly wrong

Grounds for impeachment are whatever the House says they are. Impeachment is a political process, NOT a "legal" process. There are no criminal penalties or sanctions available by impeaching someone, only removal from office if "convicted" in the Senate.


For instance, in nixon's case one of the articles mentioned his sicking the IRS on political opponents -- probably not "illegal" at the time.


Here's the best word on Impeachable offenses from one of the great Americans of all time!:

http://www.watergate.info/impeachment/74-07-25_barbara-jordan.shtml

(The video's gone but the transcript it still there.)

[jobycom]

80. Not true.

The Constitution doesn't give Congress power to determine what is impeachable. It lays out the terms quite specifically. Since Congress does not have the authority to change the Constitution, the Chief Justice, who per the Constitution presides over the Senate trial (and it is a trial, not a political procedure), has a say in the matter, and the Supreme Court could take an appeal if they felt the Constitution was violated. It's their role to determine whether the Constitution is obeyed. We've never gotten to that stage, but I assure you that if Bush is impeached by the Senate over charges that are not clearly "treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors," his attorneys would make that argument. The argument would be simply "Congress does not have the power to alter the Constitution, and the Constitution claims a president can only be impeached for treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. This is none of those, ergo Congress has no authority to impeach on these grounds." SCOTUS would then have to decide whether the case had merit, and if so, what the outcome would be. They may be hesitant to challenge the Senate on this, but if the charges were not at least somewhat interpretable as "treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors (meaning clearly political crimes that attacked the state), they may step in. Frankly, I'd hope they would, or the next time we had a Dem president and a Repub Congress, they would impeach our president without bothering to specify a charge. And THAT is exactly what the Founders feared and limited impeachment powers to prevent.

I love Barbara Jordan to death, but she was not a Supreme Court Justice nor a king, therefore she was giving her opinion, not a binding legal interpretation.

[foo_bar]

93. I think the key phrase is "or other...misdemeanors"

The Convention came to its choice of words describing the grounds for impeachment after much deliberation, but the phrasing derived directly from the English practice. The framers early adopted, on June 2, a provision that the Executive should be removable by impeachment and conviction ''of mal-practice or neglect of duty.'' 759 The Committee of Detail reported as grounds ''Treason (or) Bribery or Corruption.'' 760 And the Committee of Eleven reduced the phrase to ''Treason, or bribery.'' 761 On September 8, Mason objected to this limitation, observing that the term did not encompass all the conduct which should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add ''or maladministration'' following ''bribery.'' Upon Madison's objection that ''<s>o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,'' Mason suggested ''other high crimes and misdemeanors,'' which was adopted without further recorded debate. 762 The phrase in the context of impeachments has an ancient English history, first turning up in the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk in 1388. 763

Treason is defined in the Constitution; 764 bribery is not, but it had a clear common-law meaning and is now well covered by statute. 765 High crimes and misdemeanors, however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses. 766 In an unrelated action, the Convention had seemed to understand the term ''high misdemeanor'' to be quite limited in meaning, 767 but debate prior to adoption of the phrase 768 and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions 769 were to the effect that the President at least, and all the debate was in terms of the President, should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable. And in the First Congress' ''removal'' debate, Madison maintained that the wanton removal from office of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration which would render the President subject to impeachment. 770 Other comments, especially in the ratifying conventions, tend toward a limitation of the term to criminal, perhaps gross criminal, behavior. 771 While conclusions may be drawn from the conflicting statement, it must always be recognized that a respectable case may be made for either view.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/18.html

[rock]

88. I believe your right ProudDad

Technically, impeachment is not a judicial trial but a political trial. It does not have many of the characteristics of a judicial trial. It has only one legal consequence (for a 'guilty' verdict) removal from office (from which there is no appeal). There is of course a political consequence for Congress as they may suffer (or gain) at the polls. Also rules of evidence are, shall we say, almost non-existence. My take: Congress can remove an elected offical for whatever reason they deem sufficient with little or no discussion. They merely need say that they consider the impeachee to have acted in an inappropriate manner. Note: his actions certainly need not be illegal for impeachment.

[MADem]

67. He MAKES those rules. He can change them without ANY consequence. NT

[texpatriot2004]

16. K & R nm

[donheld]

17. I'm sure a Bush signing statement will be along soon

That will solve that.

[leftchick]

19. he will change the regulation

then pardon him.

[spanone]

20. Qualifiers don't mean shit to an illegal presidency & vice presidency.

[deminks]

22. Kick for the mid morning

In case anyone has not seen.

The guidelines are there. Smirky has followed them closely as recently as last month.

If he does not use them with the Libby case, it further shows his hiprocrasy. (which 80% of Americans, 99% of the world, know by now)

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

26. So what? W isn't qualified to be president either, but he is.

nm

[mtnHov]

27. time for a convenient heart attack?

Maybe the Chene-gang will give Scooter-boy one of those pre-jail "heart attacks"

[jahyarain]

47. egg zactly

scooter will be hangin' with lay in the Marianas.

[krispos42]

50. Or maybe a brain hemorrage

You know, the kind of about 9mm caliber or so...

[NewJeffCT]

29. page 3 of the article keeps crashing for me

anybody have a direct link to it?

[Roland99]

32. Try this >>>>>>>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17507199/site/newsweek/page/3/

[NewJeffCT]

34. Thanks

it crashed as soon as I finished reading it... weird.

[Marr]

38. I'd say this makes impeachment an extremely viable option now, politically.

The threat of impeachment is the *only* thing that will get Bush to pardon Libby before the next election, and that would be a disaster for the Republican Party.

And for Libby, a looming Bush impeachment would make him a hell of alot more willing to negotiate.

[Mr. Ected]

39. What If Bush Is Impeached?

Does that limit his authority to pardon in any way?

Nevertheless, I fully expect Bush to pardon Libby as his last move before leaving the Oval Office.

No accountability, no political fall-out.

[Lord Balto]

44. Impeached?

I'm sure they can find some more buildings to demolish and then declare martial law. Chimpy McBunnyPants isn't going to stand still for an impeachment, and considering that Arianna Huffington just apologized for someone making a comment to her blog that the world might have been better off if Dick Cheney had been closer to the bomber in Afghanistan, I hold out very little hope of the Democrats standing up to this kind of deception.

[Autumn Colors]

40. He won't be pardoned, he'll be suicided

The only fool-proof way for Libby not to be able to name names is for him to meet with an unforunate accident.... have a sudden illness .... commit suicide.... you get the idea.

[onenote]

45. non-binding guideline

From the DOJ rules:

The regulations contained in this part are advisory only and for the internal guidance of Department of Justice personnel. They create no enforceable rights in persons applying for executive clemency, nor do they restrict the authority granted to the President under Article II, section 2 of the Constitution.

[FatDave]

46. OK, raise your hand if you actually read the article

Many here seem to be missing the point completely. The implication is not that Bush is required to follow any guidelines. It is that he always has chosen to follow Justice Department guidelines.

Look, it's right here on page 2:

Of course, there is nothing that requires Bush to follow these guidelines in reviewing a pardon for Libby (whose lawyer, Ted Wells, stated on the courthouse steps Tuesday that he intended to push for a retrial, adding that he has “every confidence that Mr. Libby will be vindicated.”) As Love, the former pardon attorney, points out, “the president can do whatever he wants.” Both Clinton and Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush (who pardoned Casper Weinberger among other Iran-contra figures), bear that out.

Still, Bush himself publicly reaffirmed his determination to stick to the Justice pardon guidelines as recently as last month. In a Feb. 1 interview with Fox News anchor Neal Cavuto, Bush was asked about whether he would pardon Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, two former U.S. Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a Mexican drug dealer who was fleeing across the border into Mexico. Their case has become a cause celebre for many conservatives and anti-immigrant activists who believe it symbolizes the federal government’s lack of aggressive enforcement of border controls. Fueled by CNN immigration critic Lou Dobbs and Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, supporters of the two former agents have been flooding the White House with e-mails and phone calls seeking pardons for Ramos and Compean.

Bush’s response in Cavuto’s inquiry was telling. He repeatedly pointed to the Justice Department pardon process to explain how he would make his decision.

See, though not required to follow them, he has always made it a point of pride that he has followed them. Nevermind what Clinton and Poppy did, this is about what Shrub has done historically vs. what he will do in this case.

It's not much, but it's our spin if he does pardon him. A pardon comes through and we can, once again, show his hypocrisy to the world. Add another flip-flop to the list. How hard will it be for Jon Stewart to come up with that Lou Dobbs footage? Not hard I imagine. Olbermann's probably already paid CNN for it.

(Edited for quote formatting)

[Straight Shooter]

56. A point of pride, eh? Well, in that case, I hope he does pardon him.

And may "pride" goeth before his fall.

[MADem]

71. Reading IS, of course, fundamental. And as you note, that is the KEY point.

In matters of pardoning, Monkey is his own boss. He answers to noone. The purpose of the 'guidelines' is to make a point about how he's so much 'better' than Clinton (see the pardons of Marc Rich, his brother, et.al). Unspoken is the pardon of Cap Weinberger by his 'deddy' of course. Another purpose is so that his people can categorize pardons into "acceptable" pardons and "unacceptable" ones. Of course, the things that can move a pardon from 'unacceptable' to 'acceptable' include:

--Is the person requesting the pardon a friend, a crony, a relative, or a co-conspirator?

--Does the person have information that can help or hurt BushCo?

--Can the person make BushCo richer (or, if BushCo won't play ball, poorer)?

It's nothing more than asking the question Cui Bono? And if the answer is BushCo, the guy gets a pardon.

I think he will do it, simply so that Scooter's pissed off wife doesn't start acting like Martha Mitchell and calling every reporter in town. I think he will wait until the sentencing, if Reggie Walton doesn't let him stay out while he appeals. If he does stay out, Monkey can wait until a news event overrides the matter....really, what will the talking heads focus on if he times a pardon to coincide with say, a tactical bombing of Teheran with a boatload of good video??

[WyLoochka]

78. Thank you for explaining that

Dave. I had been trying to explain it on a couple of different threads. It's all we've got - his own adherence historically to the process - not only the DOJ but in Texas as well.

This is the same man who cruelly mimicked Karla Faye Tucker - "please don't kill me" - when the Pope and his own "base" - the Foulwell and Robberson legions - and millions of others were putting a lot of pressure on him to change her sentence from death to life in prison.

Now he's going to go all squishy on Libby doing 16 months to three years in a white collar min security place? If he does, a huge wave of vehement public scorn should rise about his hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, most missed the point of the article and as a consequence many of the comments here are virtually indistinguishable from what you might read on the freeper board. (i.e - "he can do what ever he wants).

I understand why people are saying these things - because he has indeed flaunted the Constitution and a myriad of laws, as well as upended many long standing regulations - but he has publically tightly adhered to the DOJ guidelines up to this point.

We are emasculating ourselves by caving in already to this spin - we need to be demanding that he continue to follow DOJ and not pardon Libby - even if we know it won't stop him.

[dkofos]

49. The rules are meaningless to this bunch.

They will try.

[closeupready]

52. You know what's so eye-opening though? Two hours after a jury

finds him guilty, the right-wing machine gears up in order to sell the idea of subverting the judicial process.

What else do you need to know to see that the bias, such that it is, is hardly left-wing? Furthermore, what does it say about respect for law and order?

[Samantha]

54. What APPEARS to be eye-opening was PRE-ORCHESTRATED

political cover for Bush*. All of these "apparently random" opinions being broadcast to the public that Libby should be pardoned were inked at the trial's inception, ready for release if the verdict went against him, and, like a trial balloon floated to measure the public's reaction, aired almost as quickly as the verdict itself. Ergo, if Bush* opts to save the political posterior of his administration from further damaging revelations, he has the political cover to do so.

How convenient .

[mahatmakanejeeves]

57. "... does not qualify to even be considered for a presidential pardon...."

Standards? STANDARDS? Where have you been? What do "standards" have to do with anything the * misadministration has done?

We doan need no steenkin' standards.

[bowens43]

59. The only relevant law or regulation is the Constitution

and it gives the President the right to pardon anyone at any time without question, except in the case of impeachment. Guidelines are nice but they carry no real weight, especially to an administration that is morally and ethically bankrupt.

[ProudDad]

60. It's ironic all right

They bushies don't want to pardon anyone so they've screwed the pardon process down with their own regulations to admit almost no one to the process.

Isn't it true that each administration makes its own rules when they come in? I'm pretty sure they can and do. I'll bet that these are bush's rules...

This is a hoot.



However, all a pardon needs is the "decider's" signature on a piece of paper...

The fix is in. Libby will be pardoned by bush as he's going out the door of the white house in Jan. 2009.

You can take that to the bank. Otherwise, Libby sings and cheney and rove go down for outing Plame -- a FELONY.

[Solly Mack]

63. Bush does NOT have to follow those guidelines

A President is under absolutely no obligation to do so.

Bush can pardon anyone he chooses, except in cases of impeachment, and he does not need anyone's approval or consent to do so.

It's really just that simple.

Bush isn't likely to expect a crony to follow the same guidelines as everyone else.

[ddeclue]

64. Sorry but that's just not true...

There is NO check on the Presidential power of pardon...It's written in black and white in the Constitution.

In a battle between DOJ Guidelines and the Constitution, I sure hope the Constitution wins, even if it means setting weasels like Libby free.

If DOJ guidelines were the rule then watch out...

Guantanamo OK
Abu Gharab OK
Kidnapping people OK
Torturing people OK
Killing people without a trial OK
Not having a real trial OK
Not needing lawyers, judges, or juries OK

We're pretty much back to the Star Chamber or Spanish Inquisition if we say that DOJ "Guidelines" decide things...

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[w4rma]

66. Bush breaks *laws* all the time. He doesn't care about "guidelines".

The only reason he didn't pardon the SOB, yesterday, is because he doesn't want to take the political flack for it yet.

[wicket]

68. K & R

:kick:

[whistle]

69. Dubya will pardon Scooter because Libby has the goods on both Bush and Cheney

...and he will never rot away in a federal prison without squealing

[LSK]

70. since when does Chimpy McCokespoon adhere to rules???

:shrug:

[svpadgham]

72. Unable to find the Dept. o' Justice link.

I tried reading the reg. at the Dept of Justice website, but when I got there I got a 404 error. It seems like it got removed for some reason. Hmmm. Maybe they don't want us to know the rules for pardons.



Nevermind, your link has a comma at the end.

[davepc]

73. Does anybody read the Constitution anymore?

Article II

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

DoJ guidelines are all well and good, but until they're added to as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States they are meaningless.

[Maryland Liberal]

74. Hey, I've got an idea...

If we IMPEACH the Bushie, he can't pardon him. Does anyone really think that someone who misled us on IRAQ -wouldn't find a loophole to pardon Libby? Come on Pelosi - change your mind - put impeachment on the table.

[TommyPaine]

76. Another great quote from "43"

From the Neal Cavuto interview:

“I’m saying … there is a process in any case for a president to make a pardon decisions. In other words, there is a series of steps that are followed, so that the pardon process is, you know, a rational process.” - "43", aka Shrub, aka Sir Smirks-a-lot

Thanks for the explanation. How articulate! It's great having a president that could be creamed in a debate by a 5th-grader.

[Alcibiades]

84. Equal protection, anyone?

I'm not a lawyer or anything, so here's a question: if the gov't decides that there will be a legal process governing clemency, AND further validates that process by following those guidelines to the letter 99.999% of the time, does it open itself up to suits on behalf of those denied clemency on that basis if it decides to follow a different practice for its friends?

Anyway, if he does pardon Libby, we have a talking point for for ever. Republicons: one set of rules for most Americans, a different one for the powerful and well-connected.

[SemperEadem]

85. in a strange, weird way, I hope bush does pardon Libby

and that he does it soon. I hope that he launches the biggest torpedo into the thug's juggernaut of delusion they think is heading them towards the White House.

If he pardons that man before the elections, the thugs are finished. Hubris will have finally done them in.

The minor players are all whining right now, being hysterical and dramatic for effect and for broll on fuxnoise--because they all know that they will have to sit with this stinking, rotten corpse of a Libby conviction sitting right there in their living rooms with them until after the election is done--and not a one of those running dares to make a peep about pardoning Libby.

They should be sticking mikes in the contenders' faces, asking them if they think Libby should be pardoned. Watch them flinch like they touched the flame.

[GrimReefa]

87. Nothing strange or wierd about it

If Bush pardons Scooter, then this will look to all the world like an Administration breaking the laws, and then abusing executive power to cover it up. It will be another in a series of events that will lead to a Democratic steamrolling in '08.

Please, please, please, please, PLEASE let this happen. The ends justify the means.

[Exultant Democracy]

86. Yeah but the consitution wins not the Justice Department in this case.

[Festivito]

91. And what? We'll be surprised WHEN IT HAPPENS! Devious!

RW BS.

Impeachment must insure he cannot pardon these things.

[Ksec]

92. That DOJ regulation has been purged

Looks like they removed it .....www.usdoj.gov/pardon,