SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (74577)3/6/2007 5:11:44 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Republicans Could Push for a Pardon
______________________________________________________________

By JOHN D. MCKINNON, GARY FIELDS and EVAN PEREZ
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
March 6, 2007 1:25 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- The conviction of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on four of five counts is likely to prompt influential Republicans to push for a presidential pardon since they see the former aide as a victim of prosecutorial excess.

But a pardon for Mr. Libby would create a fearsome political backlash against the White House just as Congress is gearing up to hold hearings on the administration's use of intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion.

Further complicating the prospects for a pardon: President Bush's has rarely exercised his pardoning authority and has done so mostly for non-controversial cases. With just under two years left in office Mr. Bush has pardoned 113 people. Among the seven presidents who have held the office at least seven years since 1897, Mr. Bush ranks last in his use of the pardon power in the first six years of his administration.

Democrats today were already putting pressure to ensure Mr. Libby wouldn't be pardoned. In a statement, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it's "about time someone in the Bush Administration has been held accountable for the campaign to manipulate intelligence and discredit war critics" and urged President Bush to "pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct."

Mr. Libby was convicted today of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to the FBI in an investigation that originated from the leak into the identity of a CIA operative.

The Libby case started with a Justice Department investigation into the leaking to the press of the identity of a former CIA official, which can be a crime. To avoid charges of political interference, the Justice Department tapped Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago and a highly respected career prosecutor, as the special prosecutor in charge of the probe.

Mr. Fitzgerald, though, never charged anyone with leaking the identity of Valerie Plame, the former CIA operative, and it now turns out he knew the original leaker's identity early on in the investigation.

The best hope for Mr. Libby, who is now scheduled to be sentenced on June 5, is an appeal or a presidential pardon. The appeal is likely to be based on decisions by U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton to disallow expert testimony and other evidence that defense attorneys thought helped explain Mr. Libby's faulty memory defense.

Presidential pardons of well-known figures can be particularly controversial -- as Mr. Libby knows from personal experience. President Clinton came under fierce criticism for pardoning fugitive financier Marc Rich just before leaving office in 2001. In a historical oddity, Mr. Rich was represented at one point by none other than Mr. Libby, then a high-powered Washington lawyer in private practice.

In making their case for a pardon, supporters of Mr. Libby note that several other administration officials were involved in the leak as well. The original leaker was Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, and political strategist Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary, also peddled information about Ms. Plame to reporters.

Under such circumstances, a pardon of Mr. Libby is appropriate, they say, to counter the effects of prosecutorial overkill.

The prosecution of Mr. Libby aroused sympathy from prominent conservatives, including former Bush adviser Mary Matalin, former Secretary of Education William Bennett, and former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who lent their name to a private fundraising trust that has so far has brought in more than $3 million to help pay for his defense.

Mr. Libby's handling of himself during his ordeal also is sure to score points with conservatives, as well as the White House. Mr. Libby could have done much more during the trial to embarrass the White House. At one point in his opening argument, Ted Wells, one of Mr. Libby's attorneys, suggested the defense would focus on how the White House had tried to make Mr. Libby a scapegoat in the case in order to spare political strategist Karl Rove.

In the end, however, the defense rested without calling Mr. Libby or his former boss Mr. Cheney, and no more was said about White House scapegoating. That led some trial watchers to suggest that Mr. Libby was being careful to preserve the pardon option.

Despite Mr. Wells's aggressive opening statement, "he didn't go down that road during the trial," said Margaret Colgate Love, a former pardon attorney with the Justice Department. "I think that was probably a word to the wise."

With his conviction, Mr. Libby's fate now may depend on the presidential pardoning authority that the Constitution grants President Bush. It is a power he has used sparingly in his first six years in office, and only in non-controversial cases.

Among the 19 presidents who have held the office since 1897, only Mr. Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, pardoned fewer people overall and the elder Bush served only one term. Even Warren G. Harding, who died after 27 months in office, pardoned 300 people and Gerald Ford, who served 29 months, granted 382 pardons, including 147 in his first year.

Mr. Bush came into office amid congressional hearings and a federal investigation of Mr. Clinton's last-minute pardons and commutations, including one to Mr. Rich that was arranged by his ex-wife, a major Democratic campaign contributor. During his first presidential news conference, on Feb. 22, 2001, Mr. Bush said he would be different. Of pardons, he said: "I'll have the highest of high standards."

While it is easy to attribute Mr. Bush's few pardons to the backlash from Mr. Clinton's final performance, Mr. Bush wasn't pardon-happy when he was governor of Texas either. He moved into the Texas governor's mansion in 1995 after a campaign in which he said he would "end early release of criminals." The 18 clemency grants he issued as governor made him the most parsimonious governor of Texas since 1947; Ann Richards granted 70. Even the last Republican to hold the office before Mr. Bush, Bill Clements, used the power 822 times.

The Libby prosecution has drawn parallels to the Iran-Contra affair. The president father, George H.W. Bush, pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and five others because what they did was out of service to the country. "That was really a vindication of his political people. They were doing their job to protect the presidency," said Ms. Love. "This case is not as serious but there is a similar premise for issuing a pardon."

The charge, while a federal one, isn't likely to bring a great deal of prison time. Defendants in similar situations are routinely allowed to remain free on bond while their appeals are pending. For Mr. Libby, that could delay the beginning of his sentence for months and push the need for a decision back to the end of Mr. Bush's tenure when a pardon would reduce the political fallout.



To: American Spirit who wrote (74577)3/6/2007 5:22:23 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Andrew Sullivan seems to have summarized the lesson of the day quite nicely:

Something is rotten in the heart of Washington; and it lies in the vice-president’s office. The salience of this case is obvious. What it is really about - what it has always been about - is whether this administration deliberately misled the American people about WMD intelligence before the war. The risks Cheney took to attack Wilson, the insane over-reaction that otherwise very smart men in this administration engaged in to rebut a relatively trivial issue: all this strongly implies the fact they were terrified that the full details of their pre-war WMD knowledge would come out.

Fitzgerald could smell this. He was right to pursue it, and to prove that a brilliant, intelligent, sane man like Libby would risk jail to protect his bosses. What was he really trying to hide? We now need a Congressional investigation to find out more, to subpoena Cheney and, if he won’t cooperate, consider impeaching him.

About a month ago, Kevin Drum noted one of those points that everyone seems to understand implicitly, but few have bothered to articulate: Fitzgerald talked to a lot of White House and administration staffers as part of this investigation, and Libby was apparently the only one to lie. Richard Armitage originally leaked Plame’s name to Novak, and even he didn’t try to lie. Libby, however, lied repeatedly, under oath, to the FBI, Fitzgerald, and the grand jury. “What was different about the vice president’s office that out of the entire mountain of people Fitzgerald interviewed, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff was the only one who felt he had to lie?” Kevin asked.

The answer, I suspect, gets back to what Sullivan said: “Something is rotten in the heart of Washington; and it lies in the vice-president’s office.”

It’s hardly a stretch to put two and two together here. Libby almost certainly lied because he knew what his colleagues didn’t: that Cheney told Libby about Plame.

Libby had to push some bizarre story about learning about Plame from Tim Russert - almost certainly because he couldn’t acknowledge his original source. As Ezra noted, Libby’s convictions — obstructing justice, providing a false statement, and two counts of perjury — are “protective crimes — they serve to protect others higher in the food chain.” And considering Libby’s role in the White House, that means Cheney.

Kevin explained the likely chain of events.

For some reason, in May 2003 Cheney went ballistic over a couple of anonymous statements Joe Wilson made to Nick Kristof and Walter Pincus, statements that weren’t especially damaging to Cheney and could have been challenged pretty easily. It’s hard to say why … but the end result was that Cheney ferreted out Plame’s identity, passed it along to Libby, and told him to put a full-court press on Wilson. Libby thought it was worth lying about this because it threatened to provide a clue to just how involved Cheney had been in spinning the prewar intelligence on Iraqi nukes. That was the one thing serious enough to make them wildly overreact to a couple of otherwise toothless allegations.

Libby deserves his convictions. The only unfair thing about the whole trial is that his boss, the guy who was behind the whole thing, wasn’t in the dock with him.

And it’s not too late. Maybe Libby will wake up and realize there’s no point in taking the fall for his boss. Maybe Congress will explore this in high-profile hearings and expose the larger scandal.

Either way, Cheney has solidified his legacy — as a cancer on Bush’s presidency.