RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Bushgate

Writing over at Slate, liberal columnist Tim Noah explains why Bush was right to commute the prison sentence:

• President Bush's commutation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 30-month prison sentence will likely prompt many people with politics similar to my own to cry bloody murder.
  
  But Judge Reggie Walton went overboard in sentencing Libby to 30 months. This was about twice as long as the prison term recommended by the court's probation office, and if Libby hadn't been a high-ranking government official, there's a decent chance he would have gotten off with probation, a stiff fine, and likely disbarment. Walton gave Libby 30 months and a $250,000 fine, then further twisted the knife by denying Libby's routine request to delay the sentence while his lawyers appealed it.
  
  It would have been wrong for Bush to pardon Libby, as many Republicans urged him to do. Libby committed a crime, and it wouldn't have been right for Bush to do anything to minimize the attendant disgrace or to lighten Libby's $250,000 burden. "The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged," Bush said. And so it should be. Bush did not intervene to spare Libby further disgrace, as Ford did with the Nixon pardon, and he didn't pre-empt a prosecution that might reveal embarrassing facts about himself, as Bush's father did. He waited until it was all over, and he acted humanely.

the perjury stemmed from the leak. so he was lying about his role in ruining a woman's career for political means while Clinton lied about getting a blowjob. I think Clinton deserved to lose his law license but even a lot of republicans felt impeachment went too far.
And the thing is that the leak happened, it's not in doubt. What is in doubt is how illegal it was because the white house is trying to use the "if the president does it then it's not illegal" route that worked so well for Nixon. Clinton's allegations were never proven. Starr couldn't prove that he raped a woman, defrauded investors, or threw two kids under a train. Clinton lied in a civil matter, and given that people like Anne Coulter were pushing Jones to hurt Clinton rather than settle I don't really blame the guy.

Actually, as noted elsewhere, its been established that Richard Armitage was the leaker and that he wasn't leaking it as part of any conspiracy. He just had a big mouth.

Libby was also a leaker.

It's got to be pretty sad to some conservatives who still remember Bush's pledge to bring back honor & dignity. Now the Bush Whitehouse is basically saying "Hey we're just as bad as Bill Clinton"

I'm not sure how you could take that from what he said, given that Bush simply commuted a sentence, leaving the conviction, the term of probation and the fine intact, whereas Clinton out and out pardoned his donors.

In any event, however, thanks for admitting that Clinton was wrong. Now we're just quibbling over whether Bush is or isn't bad also.

Oh, Bush is just waiting to do the pardon part before he leaves office.

There really isn't much I could say in defense of Clinton's pardons. They were what they looked like. I would argue that Bush's Libbygate is exactly what it looks like also.

Washington Post
This summed up my thoughts pretty well.

Which is pretty difficult to do, after all.

Point of information. Clinton did, in fact, grant pardons to persons "involved in an investigation of his own White House."

For example, Clinton's pardons included his former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros, as well as Whitewater figures Susan McDougal, Chris Wade, Stephen A. Smith and Robert W. Palmer.






Not really.

So, G-man you are going with the "someone else did it so it's ok for Bush to do it" defense?
And the editorial was correct in pointing out Bush's pledge in 2000 to be ethical but then has had more serious provable scandals than Nixon.

I took it as meaning that none of Clinton's pardons were seen as a way to insulate himself from a criminal investigation. Bush doesn't have to worry about Libby being pressured into talking now does he?

Point of information to correct the record: Contrary to MEM's assertion, Susan McDougall was prison for at least in part for refusing to testify in Whitewater. By pardoning her Clinton could easily be seen as trying to insulate himself from further criminal investigation in that matter.

Point of further information, Susan McDougall had served her prison time before getting a pardon. A large chunk of that time was served in solitary confinement. That's 23 hours a day in a windowless room folks. Yeah she had it so much better than Libby who had a quickly paid fine & will probably receive his pardon on Bush's last day in office.

None of which changes the fact that she could have been charged with other crimes, or another round of contempt, if not pardoned by Clinton.

Does that mean, per se, that Clinton was trying to insulate himself from further criminal investigation? Of course not.

At the same time, however, there little evidence that Bush's commuting Libby's sentence was an attempt to insulate himself from further criminal investigation.

Furthermore, to continue your comparison of McDougall and Libby, since McDougall was pardoned, there was no chance she would be charged again or serve more time. Accordingly, there was no threat against her and, as a result, no threat that could pressure her to testify against Clinton.

In contrast, Libby still faces a quarter of a million dollar fine and years of probation. When a person is on probation, they are required by court order to obey certain terms and conditions including, typically, cooperation with probation officers and government officials investigating crimes. As a result, if Libby fails to cooperate in any investigation of Bush he can be found in violation of his probation and resentenced.

And, do you really think that, if Libby violates his probation, the Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald wouldn't act to have him sent to jail?

Accordingly, if anything, Bush's actions increase the chance of Libby having to testify (assuming that he has something to testify to).

What else was there left for Starr to get Susan McDougall on? She served her prison time for everything except for the bit she was aquitted for.

Libby doesn't face a fine, that was paid almost right away. Probation is no problem. Bush can just claim executive privelege as he's done recently when he doesn't want any of his people to testify.

The Washington Post

• A federal judge yesterday dismissed a lawsuit filed by former CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband against Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials over the Bush administration's disclosure of Plame's name and covert status to the media.
  
  U.S. District Judge John D. Bates said that Cheney and the others could not be held liable for the disclosures in the summer of 2003 in the midst of a White House effort to rebut criticism of the Iraq war by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The judge said such efforts were a natural part of the officials' normal job duties and thus the officials were immune from liability.

I certainly hope the timing of this dismissal doesn't hurt any of the Wilson's book and media deals.

But seriously...I doubt they realize it, but the dismissal of the Wilsons' lawsuit against Cheney et al. is probably a gift.

The more time that they spend in courtrooms, where they would presumably have to testify under oath, the more likely they are to get in trouble for their questionable relationship with the truth.

It's still a trumped-up allegation Plame is making against Cheny and others in the Bush administration, of allegedly outing her.

Again, slicing through RAW (and MEM's ) circumnavigation of the truth, if there were any true wrongdoing against Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson, then the true leaker of Plame's name and CIA employment, Richard Armitage, would be on trial.

But he's not, so there's clearly no wrongdoing.

And what we truly have is an elaborate web of empty allegations by Democrats in Washington and their lackeys, to smear Cheney and other Bush officials.
When in truth, as I said earlier, a public allegation was made by Wilson in a Wall Street Journal editorial, and that obligated Bush officials to respond and question how legitimate and credible (or not) Wilson's mission was.

And investigating the circumstances of how Wilson was chosen (by Plame) for the Niger mission discussed in his editorial, was fair game. It was Wilson himself who made his covert mission public, and Wilson's action gave Robert Novak and other journalists the right and the obligation to investigate every detail of the mission, how Wilson was selected for it (by Plame), and how thorough and credible (or not) Wilson's Niger investigation was.

Just because Armitage had leaked doesn't preclude that the White House didn't. Fitzgerald ran into a roadblock when Libby lied & obstructed the investigation but we all know where the road was taking us.

That's speculation on your part, MEM, not a known fact.

Are you speaking to me or WB?

MEM

It's hardly a stretch though. Libby lied & obstucted for a reason.

By Libby's own account, he didn't lie and obstruct for a reason, he testified falsely because of defective memory. If he were lying, he could have plea-bargained a deal at any point up to and after his conviction if it were otherwise, and avoided jail-time.

And since Bush commuted his sentence (instead of fully pardoning him) there is still leverage over Libby to force him to come clean with the truth about what or who he is hiding. Libby had every reason to plea out and come clean, if he hadn't done so already.

There was just way to much evidence to the contrary that Libby was intentionally lying & obstucting for his memory defense to be plausable. At one point I think we were up to over 9 people he couldn't "remember" talking to about Plame.

I'm guessing Bush is just going to do the pardon on his way out of the White House. He had to commute the sentence right away or else Libby might have started spilling. Any leverage evaporated once Bush stepped in to shelter his guy from the legal system.

As WB already noted, some would say he "lied" because of a defective memory, not out some need to protect Bush.

However, assuming Libby lied does not mean that the "reason" had anything to do with Bush or Cheney. It could have just as easily been that Libby thought he was a target of the Plame leak probe and was trying to save his own skin.

Sure, you can come up with alternative rationalizations for why Libby lied & obstructed.

Your scenario then has a President protecting someone who wasn't lying to protect him & Cheney but just someone willing to lie & obstruct just to save his own skin. Beyond the GOP's base this casted a shadow on them. I can understand the motivation for Bush protecting his own hide but not the other.

Many people with much more experience in politics than either of us have written extensively on how Bush is loyal to a fault with his inner circle, and how this loyalty damages his credibility.

See, for example, "you're doing a heckuva job, Brownie," the delayed firing of Rumsfeld, the continued support of Gonzales and his foolish attempt to elevate Harriet Miers to the SCotUS.

Each demonstrate that Bush has a great capacity to damage his reputation out of loyalty, not "saving his own skin."

He had no problem dumping Rumsfeld after the election results in '06. He flipped on that so fast he risked whip-lash. Gonzales is doing exactly what Bush wants him to do. As it is now he gets the benefit of Gonzales taking some of the heat for it. (kind of had that with Rumsfeld to) And I believe Brownie feels differently about Bush's "loyalty" these days. Something about being made a scapegoat I believe. Harriet Miers was supported by Bush until he knew he couldn't get her in because his base wouldn't allow it.

And your point is what, MEM ?


It seems to me you're dedicated to believing the absolute worst about Bush and other Republicans, often on total speculation and a complete lack of facts. Whereas in the same situation, you defend Democrats under the same allegations, and attribute Republican pursuit of justice in those cases to petty vindictiveness, no matter how clear and incriminating the evidence.

First off, Bush didn't pardon Libby. Your assumption that he'd pardon Libby, now that Libby's already out of jail, and has paid a 250,000-dollar fine, is pure speculation.

And meanwhile, you conversely ignore that Clinton is the biggest abuser of presidential pardons in the history of the office. With an unprecedented 141 last-minute pardons to wealthy political contributors, federal criminals, and other assorted Friends-of-Bill.


Rumsfeld submitted his resignation to Bush 4 times before the November 2006 election, as Rumsfeld himself said multiple times in front of reporters at press conferences.

Bush finally replaced Rumsfeld with Robert Gates after the Democrats won big in the November 2006 election. I'd call that the minimum action on Bush's part to open the possibility of getting cooperation with Democrats (Democrats who were elected on an anti-war agenda). And at that point, as I recall, Rumsfeld had been the longest-serving Secretary of Defense in the history of that office.

What you say about Gonzales "doing exactly what Bush wants him to", and "taking some of the heat" for Bush is speculation, and could be speculated without evidence about any Bush appointee who is accused of something and stays in office.
Frankly, I wish Gonzales would resign, and be replaced by someone who would restore faith in the attorney general's office. As I wished Rumsfeld to resign as well.


However scapegoated Michael Brown might be, he still absolves himself of all reponsibility for what happened with Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. As do the Democrat governor of Louisiana, the other elected Democrat Senators and Representatives of Louisiana who neglected funding for stronger dams and levi's, and then blamed it all on Bush, as also did the mayor of New Orleans. All of whom could have done more to prevent the disaster in New Orleans, but were all too happy to heap the entire blame at Bush's doorstep.

While I strongly opposed the Harriet Miers nomination, I think Bush hung onto the nomination as long as he could, up until he saw it was impossible, and saw he'd get no cooperation, even from his fellow Republicans (who stonewalled for a more qualified nominee). But Bush didn't give up on Miers until it was clear she'd never be confirmed.

I realize you feel that way but I see you & G-man being guilty of much of what you accuse me of. It pretty much comes down to all of us having some biases when expressing our opinions. There was a post not so long ago where I said the Dem looked guilty. It's just not as simple as what your saying.



Since I was clear that it was my opinion I'm not sure why you bring it up as if your sorting something out. Do you feel speculation is wrong?



Ah the Clinton defense. You know you can always count on it. I didn't ignore it though nor defend them. I did point out how they were different. I also think if Clinton had stepped in the way Bush did with Libby you guys would be yelling.


That just makes the case that Rumsfeld was the loyal one. Bush finally accepted his resignation after it became a political liability.

Why is it a case of wishing they would have resigned? As you pointed out Rumsfeld offered a couple of times. It seems this "Bush is just to loyal" thing is a pretty good deal for him.



They could have done more & Bush could have done more. And if we're talking about blame at the local level I would be interested in hearing your thoughts how a Mayor could have done a better job protecting his city from a terrorist attack.


Is that really unusual for Presidential nominations?

I've crossed party lines on a considerable number of occasions as well. And have voiced consistent dissent from Bush on a number of issues.

There's a degree of truth to what you say about all of us having biases in expressing our opinions. But I do feel that G-man and I try to limit ourselves to speculating about what Democrats and Republicans have actually said, rather than speculating wildly about malevolent intent of Democrats when there is no clear evidence.
One example is, on the death of Vince Foster, while I do think there was conspiracy and foul play in his death, I'm always very clear that there's not evidence of that, and it's my opinion.

Conversely, in the case of Bush commuting Libby's sentence, you not only speak malevolently about Bush's intent in commuting the sentence, but repeatedly foretell that Bush will, without doubt, and without the slightest statement or action on which to speculate it, will pardon Libby before he leaves office. As if it's already a fact.



I do feel it's wrong.

And as I said, beyond saying it's your opinion, you state this alleged future occurrence as if it's factual and has already occurred.



I can count on it because it's true!

Clinton committed crimes and abused his office. And you find inventive ways to rationalize it. Or evade discussing it altogether.



That just seems like liberal spin to me. To the point that I can't even follow your train of thought.

I think Rumsfeld and Bush were loyal to each other. Bush held on to Rumsfeld for 4 years despite calls for his resignation. And that Rumsfeld offered his resignation 4 times indicates he was eager to go, at any point he might be relieved. It's hardly as if Bush relieved Rumsfeld against his will. Rumsfeld was glad to go.



I wished them both to resign because there was widespread loss of faith in their ability to lead, among the military or the attorney general's office, respectively.
I do thionk Bush is loyal to his people. But it's a flaw, because he's put personal loyalty to non-performers, over the best interests of the nation, and his oath to preserve, protect and defend our nation.



That's an obvious partisan jab at Giuliani. There's a huge difference between making partisan jabs at a NY city mayor for attacks using airlines that he could never have seen coming, and the mayor of New Orleans who deals with hurricanes every year, and didn't use school buses and other tools for evacuation of a city located well below sea level, in the face of a category 5 hurricane.

The same can be said of the Democrat governor, Democrat Senators and Democrat representatives, who had YEARS to allocate the resources to prepare for the storm, and have managed to get re-elected by scapegoating the entire blame for their own inaction on Bush, Brown, and FEMA.



No, it's not unusual. But your point was alleging that Bush was disloyal. My point was that he had complete loyalty, even in the face of his own opposing Republican party, as long as there was a prayer of her being nominated. Far from you allegation of him dumping her at the first moment she became inconvenient.
Any fair observer can see Bush was loyal to her. Bush's nomination of Miers can be criticized for other reasons, but not for Bush's allegedly being opportunistically disloyal.

i said...

Like your Vince Foster speculation I'm pretty clear that it's me guessing that is what Bush will do. At any rate time will tell if I'm right. Personally I feel accusing somebody of cold blooded murder should require far more than you've ever presented.

I owe you more of a reply to the monster post we've created but it will have to wait.

As I pointed out though I didn't justify Clinton's pardons. I did point out how they differred from what Bush did with Libby. What would have been the conservatives response if he had commutted Mcdougal's sentence before she served any jail time? As it was I remember some outrage when he pardonned her after she served her couple of years in prison, a chunk of it in solitary. I don't believe for a minute that those cheering the Libby commute would have felt the same way.


So where was Bush being loyal by keeping somebody in place that didn't want to be there? I guess my point is that Bush kept him because he agreed with what Rumsfeld was doing.


So when Bush supports these guys & doesn't offer any contradictory views it's not that he doesn't have them but it's a case of being loyal? I don't buy that speculation.



Katrina wasn't your average hurricane though & New York had been attacked by terrorist before. There wasn't the assumption that it wouldn't somehow happen again. In fact our intelligence that had been reported predicted we would be attacked again.

At any rate a huge diseaster like that requires good federal response & aid. What happened with Katrina was a poor response at the federal level. While it happened the GOP response was to concentrate on whatever some local Democratic local official didn't do. (apparently there are no Republican in the local governments down there) That's fine holding them accountable but that's where the criticism seems to end.



I wouldn't say Bush was disloyal just that this was pretty much the status quo with presidential nominations. As long as any President thinks he can get one through their being what you call loyal.

I guess what it boils down to, MEM, is that your viewpoint is so partisan that its never just a case of "the other side is mistaken." Its always "the other guy is corrupt and/or evil."

The Libby case is just one example. You can have WB and myself saying "well, we think it may have been ill-advised and just one more example of Bush prizing loyalty over competence," but that's not enough for you. It HAS to be, it ALWAYS has to be, that the Republican is corrupt and proceeding with an evil intent.

Conversely, you will bend over backwards to excuse everything a democrat does. Everything. The only criticism of a democrat I can ever recall was your two years later gripe that John Kerry spent too much time windsurfing.

Yes you've made it clear that you feel your views are reasonable.

When I say a Democrat looks guilty I can count on you agreeing with me & even giving me credit for being fair. I also know when I dissagree with you I'll get attacked for being so one sided & "Conversely, you will bend over backwards to excuse everything a democrat does". If you want to concentrate the discusion on your exagerated claims, I'm used to it.

You're both so partisan neither one of you will ever be willing to see the other's point of view.....and unfortunately much of our country is in this state of mind right now. It will take a great Uniter to bring both parties back to the middle of the spectrum and try and govern for all of America.

And when will that be? Just wondering.



With all due respect, P, constantly claiming "the middle", holding out hope for some sort of imaginary "uniter" and criticising anyone who has beliefs to one side or the other of your own is probably no less bull-headed.