Has there ever been a president who deserved it more? I don't think so. Looking at this as someone who believes that until we hold them accountable for their crimes, these zombie crooks will keep doing this over and over again until our country is unrecognizable, my instinct is to scream it from the rafters. But I'm still not convinced that the Democrats should try to impeach. The problem for me is threefold and it has nothing to do with the merits of the case or the desirability of doing it. It's about the political landscape.
The Libby Motion
This is rich:
This is a very touching story about Bush's many weeks of agonized deliberation and careful thought about whether he should pardon Libby or commute his sentence. It is a portrait of a man wracked by the weight of presidential responsibility. It was, after all, among the most important decisions a leader ever makes. A man's life was at stake.Perhaps inadvertently, Mr. Bush’s decision to grant a commutation rather than an outright pardon has started a national conversation about sentencing generally.
“By saying that the sentence was excessive, I wonder if he understood the ramifications of saying that,” said Ellen S. Podgor, who teaches criminal law at Stetson University in St. Petersburg, Fla. “This is opening up a can of worms about federal sentencing.”
Because the deliberations were so closely held, those who spoke about them agreed to do so only anonymously. But by several different accounts, Mr. Bush spent weeks thinking about the case against Mr. Libby and consulting closely with senior officials, including Joshua B. Bolten, the White House chief of staff; Fred F. Fielding, the White House counsel; and Dan Bartlett, Mr. Bush’s departing counselor.
Hollywood Fred the TV prosecutor is always in the front lines helping out his crooked Republican friends:
The day before Senate Watergate Committee minority counsel Fred Thompson made the inquiry that launched him into the national spotlight -- asking an aide to President Nixon whether there was a White House taping system -- he telephoned Nixon's lawyer.
Thompson tipped off the White House that the committee knew about the taping system and would be making the information public. In his all-but-forgotten Watergate memoir, "At That Point in Time," Thompson said he acted with "no authority" in divulging the committee's knowledge of the tapes, which provided the evidence that led to Nixon's resignation. It was one of many Thompson leaks to the Nixon team, according to a former investigator for Democrats on the committee, Scott Armstrong , who remains upset at Thompson's actions.
In another installment of our day long fourth of July tribute to the depth and quality of the president's dedication to justice and mercy, here's yet another example for us to ponder. And this one touches on yet another scandal --- the US Attorney purge:
Thursday, June 28, 2007; A07
Paul K. Charlton, one of nine U.S. attorneys fired last year, told members of Congress yesterday that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has been overzealous in ordering federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty, including in an Arizona murder case in which no body had been recovered.
Justice Department officials had branded Charlton, the former U.S. attorney in Phoenix, disloyal because he opposed the death penalty in that case. But Charlton testified yesterday that Gonzales has been so eager to expand the use of capital punishment that the attorney general has been inattentive to the quality of evidence in some cases -- or the views of the prosecutors most familiar with them.
No Dice
For the final installment of our day long Independence Day tribute to President Bush's commitment to truth, justice and the American way, I direct you to Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings:
So I asked myself: self, if George W. Bush is so worried about excessive sentences, how has he acted in previous cases in which a sentence might seem excessive? Herewith, some examples, which I'll put below the fold. Here's the short version: Serving twelve years for a rape that DNA testing shows you didn't commit does not get you a pardon. Being represented by a lawyer who slept through large chunks of the trial does not get you a pardon. Being convicted of murder in proceedings that a court-appointed special master describes as ""a breakdown of the adversarial process" caused by the incompetence of your lawyer does not get you a pardon, even when someone else confesses on tape to the murder you were convicted of.Very Close To The Tree
All over TV today I'm hearing references to Clinton's allegedly self-serving last minute pardons and how Scooter's commutation pales by comparison. Scott Stanzel in the press briefing put it this way:
Q Scott, what do you say to Democratic critics who say that the commutation of Libby's sentence was intended to mollify conservatives, his own Republicans included, who were beginning to break with him on issues ranging from immigration to Iraq?Overtipping
MR. STANZEL: Well, if that was what we were responding to, then a full pardon would have been the answer of the day, because that's what many people -- many conservatives were asking for. And that is what the President did not do. He respected the jury verdict. There's still the hefty fine and the probation. And it's interesting to me -- there's much hypocrisy in Washington, D.C., but it seems to me that the hypocrisy demonstrated by Democratic leaders on this issue is rather startling. When you think about the previous administration and the 11th hour fire sale pardons, and issues that were provided commutations on the last day in the numbers of the hundreds, in the final time between the post-election period, it's really startling that they have the gall to criticize what we believe is a very considered, a very deliberate approach to a very unique case.
I was reading this post by Steve Benen about the latest John Solomon journalistic abortion on the endlessly fascinating topic of John Edwards' hair and I wondered if anyone knows whether the first tip on this story came from an oppo shop. (If you know, drop me a line.)
Here's why I'm curious. It is my understanding that reporters will receive a tip about something like this then do their own investigation and report the tip if it turned out to be true.(Or in the case of Barbara Comstock's 2000 operation, at least, actively seek out nasty nuggets of irrelevant slander to fuel the next day's smear cycle.) Journalistic ethics only require that the story be factual to justify running it, and since the tips are usually on background, it is not reported that it comes from an opposing campaign.
Mr. and Mrs. Nut
A number of people have blogged about this fascinating little James Fallows anecdote at the Atlantic blog and it's a really good one.
At the first meeting, one Republican woman on the commission said that the overwhelming threat was from China. Sooner or later the U.S. would end up in a military showdown with the Chinese Communists. There was no avoiding it, and we would only make ourselves weaker by waiting. No one else spoke up in support.I Heart Shuster
The same thing happened at the second meeting -- discussion from other commissioners about terrorism, nuclear proliferation, anarchy of failed states, etc, and then this one woman warning about the looming Chinese menace. And the third meeting too. Perhaps more.
If you get a chance, watch David Shuster turn Fouad Ajami into a blubbering puddle of melting playdough on Hardball today. It is an awe inspiring performance by a reporter who knows the facts and refuses to let these neocon liars bluster and bloviate about irrelevancies.
The Village
I was awfully pleased this morning to see that Dan Froomkin and I are of the same mind when it comes to this silly "Clinton did it, too" defense of Scooters Skate:
Guts[A]s it happens, the previous granting of clemency that is most analogous to what Bush did dates back neither to the Clinton or even the Nixon era, but to Bush's father's presidency.
In 1992, on the eve of his last Christmas in the White House, George H.W. Bush pardoned former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger and five others for their conduct related to the Iran-Contra affair, in which he himself was also loosely implicated.
Bush Rips Democratic Lawmakers' Failures
President Bush accused Democratic lawmakers on Saturday of being unable to live up to their duties, citing Congress' inability to pass legislation to fund the federal government."Democrats are failing in their responsibility to make tough decisions and spend the people's money wisely," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "This moment is a test."
No comments:
Post a Comment