Fight Global Warming - Ride a Scooter

[howeird]

Lots of folks are ranting about the shrub's commuting Scooter Libby's sentence, and as I always try to let my LJ friends have the last word on their own pages, it's time to move the conversation here.

My opinion, in a nutshell, is Bush did nothing wrong. The Constitution gives the President the right to pardon or commute the sentence of anyone, any time, for any reason. If you don't like it, fight to amend the Constitution.

And for those who are crying about how immoral it is for the shrub to give his buddy of 20 years a "get out of jail free" card, I disagree. All he was prosecuted for was telling a lie to a grand jury. The only effect of that lie was to momentarily lead the grand jury to a dead end in one of many possible routes to discovering if a crime had been committed.

He was not convicted of outing a CIA agent.

He was not convicted of the injury or death of anyone.

It was a first offense of a minor white collar crime, and had it been you or me, we would have been given some community service and it might not even have made the papers.

The real criminal in this case is Robert Novak, who published information he knew he was not supposed to have access to, and which could threaten the life of a patriotic American. What he did was treason in a time of war, and if you're going to rant about injustice and morality, then rant about the fact that by not prosecuting Novak, the shrub has committed the impeachable offense of not protecting and defending the United States "against all enemies, both foreign and domestic."

As for the leak itself, how would anyone in the White House know who the CIA's secret agents are? The CIA ultimately reports to the President, so I suppose any leak of classified CIA personnel information would be his responsibility. Another impeachable offense.

Underlying my take on this are two beliefs:

1. Bush and Cheney should have been impeached long ago for actual crimes they have committed
2. Crying for impeachment based on perfectly legals actions these guys take does nothing to help your case

Comments

[jadecat9.livejournal.com]

a friend posted this, which I thought was interesting. I'm not stating my beliefs on the subject, but rather C&P'ing this as an interesting note:

----------
"In the [Constitutional] convention, George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to 'pardon crimes which were advised by himself' or, before indictment or conviction, 'to stop inquiry and prevent detection.' James Madison responded:

"[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm

[cinchntouch.livejournal.com]

Two things, make that three:

I don't agree on the Scooter Libby thing - If what you say where practiced by everyone than the whole country would be like HP.

I agree with you on Novak. His actions were treason and (you must never repeat this) I think he should be executed.

Finally, anything said on LJ neither helps nor hinders an impeacement process. I can argue that the president should be impeached because he has beady little eyes like a dead puppy and that does sqwuat to change anything for good or bad.

And a second finally, the president will not be impeached. The American people have no will for it.

Oh and before I forget, ah shit I forgot.

[howeird]

the whole country would be like HP.
HP as in Hewlett-Packard? The whole country is already like Hewlett-Packard.

anything said on LJ neither helps nor hinders an impeacement process
Did I say it did? Nope.

The American people have no will for it
Sure they do. Pelosi just doesn't have the balls to do what she was elected to do. So to speak.

[howeird]

Thanks. That was in the back of my mind too.

[scendan.livejournal.com]

I agree with your last two points. Don't agree with everything, or in the same degree, but agree with those.

And, as always, it's acceptable to agree to disagree. I prefer my friends to think, which you definitely do. You don't always have to think just what I do, for me to think you're basically swell. :)

[damiana-swan.livejournal.com]

Umm.

Well, first of all Scooter was convicted of both perjury and obstruction of justice; specifically, he lied to a grand jury in order to protect his boss (Dick Cheney) and his boss' boss (George). Because he lied, the investigation was stalled.

It's true that he didn't release the information to the public himself; however, he *did* release it to several other gov't official, and as Dick Cheney's National Security expert, he was indeed responsible for making sure he handled classified information appropriately. The information in question, BTW, was the identity of the woman who was in charge of the investigation into WMD's in the Middle East. This is not a minor mistake.

The fact that George W. commuted Scooter's sentence is constitutional, but it also effectively constitutes a further obstruction of justice--Libby is released from the bulk of his sentence for having committed several felonies, but can still refuse to testify truthfully and thus can continue to block the investigation. Bush has just proved--again--that as far as he is concerned, the Rule of Law does not apply to him or his administration.

As several people have pointed out, Paris Hilton served more time than Scooter Libby did.

[howeird]

Paris Hilton served more time than Scooter Libby did.
And that's only right and just. All Libby did was momentarily stall an investigation. No lives were threatened by his lying. Paris Hilton drove recklessly while drunk, endangering lives.

he *did* release it to several other gov't officials
What you're doing is mixing up the crime which he was convicted of - a very minor, harmless one - with the crime for which there was not enough evidence to prosecute him. It is not illegal to "leak" CIA personnel information the Vice President of the United States. Which other officials did he leak it to? I don't recall any, but I have not been following every detail.

the Rule of Law does not apply to him or his administration
The rule of law was not circumvented here. Libby was tried, convicted and sentenced. W could have halted the prosecution if he had wanted to.

still refuse to testify truthfully and thus can continue to block the investigation
Libby can always refuse to testify against himself, regardless of whether he is in jail or promoted to Queen of the May. Now that he has been convicted, anything he is asked to testify about on this subject will require him to take the 5th.

[howeird]

You don't always have to think just what I do
But I'm so much sexier when I do. :-)

Seriously, though, I really do want to give people the last word on their own journals, especially when their last word, like yours, made really good points and left them on the high ground.

[scendan.livejournal.com]

LOL! Um, ok. Thanks. :) Then I shall leave you in a similar position in your journal.

And then we shall both be sexeh.

[damiana-swan.livejournal.com]

And that's only right and just. All Libby did was momentarily stall an investigation. No lives were threatened by his lying. Paris Hilton drove recklessly while drunk, endangering lives.

Nope, that had already happened, when Valerie Plame's identity was leaked. It not only endangered her and her husband and their twin daughters, but also every single contact and informant and spy she had working for her, and also every agent who was using the same business she was for their cover.

What you're doing is mixing up the crime which he was convicted of - a very minor, harmless one - with the crime for which there was not enough evidence to prosecute him. It is not illegal to "leak" CIA personnel information the Vice President of the United States. Which other officials did he leak it to? I don't recall any, but I have not been following every detail.

I suspect that if you ever ask a prosecuting attorney how serious obstruction of justice is, they might not agree with you that it's a "minor, harmless" crime.

How closely did you follow the trial? If you haven't read it already, firedoglake.com had people there liveblogging the testimony, including a lawyer and a psychologist--you might find it very interesting. It was so exhaustive all the "normal" media were using them as a resource. During the trial it was made clear exactly how the office of the vice president found out about Ms. Plame and what they did with the information, and that it was indeed a crime. (If it wasn't, the FBI wouldn't have a task force investigating it ... which they still do, btw.) There's also a book called Anatomy of Deceit by Marcy Wheeler which was exhaustively researched and has the whole story about how the leak happened.

Oh, one of the officials Libby leaked to was Ari Fleischer (without telling him the information was classified) who then leaked it to several reporters.

This particular type of classified information was supposed to be handled even more carefully than normal--it wasn't just that it could only be told to people who had clearance; they also had to have demonstrated need-to-know. As Cheney's National Security expert, Libby was required to sign papers stating that he understands the proper handling of all types of classified information and would comply.

I suspect that the main reason no one was charged with the leak itself is because there's an administration claim that Plame's identity was declassified (either by the President or by the Vice President with delegated authority) "on the fly", which means they're claiming they have the authority to classify or declassify information without going through the required process. Prosecuting a leak charge would require proving that the "on the fly" claim is unconstitutional, and I suspect Fitz is still gathering evidence on that point. He's known as a real pit-bull prosecutor who starts with the small stuff and works his way up to the big guys.

BTW, administration toadies *did* try to stop the prosecution--remember all those US Attorneys who got fired? Patrick Fitzgerald's name was put on that list, while he was investigating this. I suspect that someone realized it would look really bad if he was fired, though, because he still has the job.

As for the testimony thing--if Libby had been fully pardoned rather than just having his sentence commuted, accepting the pardon would require him to (a) de facto admit his guilt, and (b) give up his fifth amendment rights in regards to that specific matter. The fifth amendment says you can't be forced to incriminate yourself; well, if you can't be prosecuted, there's no way to incriminate yourself, and thus if you're pardoned you *can* be forced to testify about it. (Lawyers I trust to know their stuff have said this is the case, and I believe the Department of Justice says the same thing.)

[howeird]

If he was being tried for leaking the information, I would agree with you. But he was not. Your entire rant is based on not making that distinction.

As for your lawyer friends, they are wrong about the pardon. It does the opposite of what you say. Remember a guy named Richard Nixon? I don't seem to recall him being hauled into court after his resignation and pardon. We never did find out what was on those missing 18 minutes of tape. Libby is probably going to be given a full pardon, I'll owe you something shiny if we ever see him forced to testify about this matter again. He can't be - it violates the double jeopardy law.