Leahy: Bush bought Scooter's silence with Commutation
Sen. Pat Leahy wants to have a chat with Patrick Fitzgerald and then echoed what Schumer said on Face the Nation and acknowledged that commuting Libby's sentence was a great way to buy his silence.
Download | play 
Download | play
LEAHY: No, because he's got a fifth amendment right that he can still do. I mean, this was, actually in my view, a blatant way of guaranteeing that Scooter Libby would not talk about the things that were done, you know, some of the misleading information given out by Vice President Cheney and the president. They led us into this war in Iraq, and they bought his silence. I can understand why the prosecutor was so angry about it.
George Bush commuted Scooter’s sentence rather than pardoning him to Shut. Him. Up. The notion that he did it to “split the difference” and respect the jury’s decision is just absurd. He did it to cover his own tracks, which is exactly why Congress should be looking into the whole matter.
I couldn't agree more. (transcript below the fold)
Do you have a problem, Senator Leahy, with anything the president decided in terms of the legality of what he did? He was within his right to commute the sentence.
LEAHY: The president has a constitutional right or has the constitutional power to commute sentences of anybody he wants. I wish he had shown more constitutional responsibility. Just as I was critical of some of the pardons by President Clinton, former President Bush or President Reagan, I've said they have the power to do it, but I didn't think they used good judgment.
It was not a surprise he did this. It was generally assumed, certainly in Washington, by Republicans I talked with, that the president would give Scooter Libby a "get out of jail free" card. It's interesting he commuted the sentence. He didn't give an out and out pardon. That way Scooter Libby can take the fifth amendment if he wants as far as any testimony before (inaudible).
(CROSSTALK)
BLITZER: Well, I was going to ask you, Senator Leahy. Do you want to hold hearings on this whole issue?
LEAHY: No, because he's got a fifth amendment right that he can still do. I mean, this was, actually in my view, a blatant way of guaranteeing that Scooter Libby would not talk about the things that were done, you know, some of the misleading information given out by Vice President Cheney and the president. They led us into this war in Iraq, and they bought his silence. I can understand why the prosecutor was so angry about it.
BLITZER: You're talking about Patrick Fitzgerald, your colleague, Senator...
LEAHY: Also the fact...
BLITZER: I was going to say...
LEAHY: Also the fact that he was given, when the president talked about a severe sentence, he was given at the low end of the sentencing guidelines. People have been given much, much harsher sentences than he was given.
BLITZER: Senator Schumer of the Judiciary Committee wants you to call Patrick Fitzgerald to testify before your committee on this whole issue. Do you want to do that?
LEAHY: That's something I would discuss with Senator Specter before I did, but I know how concerned Mr. Fitzgerald is.
And we may very well find ourselves going down that path. It would do no good to call Scooter Libby. His silence has been bought and paid for, and he would just take the fifth.
I agree wholeheartedly with Jane. She calls a spade a spade and she's right on the money with this.
No question about it. That's why the commutation came quickly on the heels of the judge's decision that he should go to prison.
Scooter, we'll spring you guy. Just keep your mouth shut for a couple of hours.
Interesting how this has become the straw that broke the camel's back. Even Ed Schultz was ranting about impeachment today.
What? It's wrinkled up old traitor day on C&L?
Karl Marx famously remarked that historical events occur twice, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. In the case of President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence, Marx had it half-right. Americans are reliving George H.W. Bush's 1992 Iran-Contra pardons, with the same tragic consequences for the rule of law in the United States. All that's missing in 2007 is the convenient death of one of the principal conspirators.
For the full story, see:
"Like Father, Like Son."
We need to fire Pelosi and get someone in there with brass knuckles to take on Bush.
In case I have failed to mention in previous C&L sites... I think bush is the worst
prez. of all times, is arrogant, a prick, thinks he is above the law, continues to
abuse his powers, lies constantly, and the one way to wipe that smirk off of his
face is to IMMEDIATELY commence with his IMPEACHMENT.
Doggiebobo @ 7:
Bush is an absolute ruler who enjoys absolute power with the knowledge that the Chicken Sh*t Democrats can do absolutely nothing to stop him.
L.A. Confidential @ 6:
There's a brass balls joke in there somewhere, I'm still lookin.
It's not a crime when the President does it.
Doggiebobo @ 7:
Shittiest President Ever.
Repeat after me...
Shittiest President Ever.
Let's get this meme rolling.
Richard Milhouse Nixon @ 10:
I thought Reagan said that...or Bush 41...no maybe it WAS Nixon...although I thought I heard Cheney say it...or was it Gingrich....
From my letter yesterday to Leahy and others
----- Original Message -----
From: S Brennan
To: maria_cantwell ; patty_murray ; sf.nancy ; senator_leahy ; John.Conyers
Cc: inspector.general@usdoj.gov ; AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2007 2:03 PM
Subject: I've thought about last weeks events with regard to Lewis Libby and I'm compelled to ask the experts
Appropriate Salutations to All,
I've thought about last weeks events with regard to Lewis Libby and I'm compelled to ask the experts,
The way I understand it, Lewis Libby's presidential reprieve involves a case where the Vice-President's office was involved in revealing a covert CIA agent, which would seem to fit the bill of a "high crimes" which could subject the Vice-President to Impeachment should congress so will. The grand jury did make a finding that a crime had occurred and Lewis Libby was charged in connection to that crime and he was subsequently convicted for perjury regarding that crime that took place while employed by the Vice President. It would seem that this would be a case where Impeachment of the Vice-President would be a likely remedy, one which is so plausible that the American public favor such a remedy by 54%.
The constitution's wording does not specify what officer in regard to impeachment they are referring to in Section 2. - Article II - U.S. Constitution(please see below). Unless one believes the framers were naives, it is fair to assume they meant what they said...the US President can not pardon his way out of an impeachment...regardless of which officer is being impeached (please see below).
I believe, Patrick Fitzgerald and others have made a legal error in saying that the Libby commutation was legally permissible under the US Constitution. Impeachment is the only legal remedy available for removing "civil officers of the United States" reprieves are not permissible per section 2 article II of the US Constitution in cases of impeachment. Whether acted upon or not, this is a demonstrable case of impeachment.
[1] - Could you please explain to me why the US Constitution does [not] speak directly in contravention to this case?
[2] - Can Representative Pelosi's decree that Impeachment "is off the table" become a legally binding declaration, by which the US President is free to Pardon even in cases where impeachment would be involved because that possibility had been removed through fiat?
[3] - If [2] is true, can the house leadership effectively abrogate Section 2 & 4. - Article II of the U.S. Constitution at will?
I believe these are legitimate questions that deserve answers.
Thank you in Advance,
Best Regards,
S Brennan - US Citizen/Taxpayer
e-mail: deleted[at]deleted.net
"...and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
Section 2. - Article. II - U.S. Constitution
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Section 4. - Article II - U.S. Constitution
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/constitution.html
This e-mail is intended for the exclusive use of the individual
The writing was on the wall when The Dems caved and let the Supreme Court decide the Election in 2000.
That was the end of it.
of course scooter fibby's commutation was an attempt to keep him silent. file under: duh.
no doubt about it. these guys have heaping mounds of info to keep from the public and congress, and ensuring scooter's continued silence is worth any hit in the polls. the public hearing straight from a bush insider that the bush admin purposefully lied to start the Operation Iraqi Liberation (OIL) is worse than loosing a couple of poll points over the issue of unequal justice for political hitmen. not that libby would ever sell his masters down the river, but this is a handy insurance policy for prez cheney and his pet monkey.
L.A. Confidential @ 14:
Sad to say, but I agree w/you.
Just like Clinton bought Marc Rich's silence when he pardoned him.
BTW, Rich was a client of a lawyer named I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby up until the time Rich was pardoned. Mob brothers, y'know?
Go get 'em Patrick!!! get Bush Cheney and Rumsfeld on crimial charges and you'll have the Patrick Hatrick!!!
Orwell's Illegitimate Son @ 17:
Yes indeed. Don't know about everyone else though.
I don't know where it's written that a president can pardon anyone he wants but I'm starting to think it should be removed. What good does it do to have courts if the president can cancel anything they do? I'm not just talking about Repub presidents, Dems too.
pissed off patricia @ 20:
Bush sees himself and his cronies as above the law. He has made this explicit, attaching “signing statements” to hundreds of bills sent to him by Congress asserting his right to interpret those bills as he deems fit.
Leahy and the rest of the Democrats are so full of talk, and absolutely no action. I will be terribly surprised if the Dems actually hold the WH in contempt of Congress and for abusing power and for refusing to comply with their own laws. But until then, they're all just full of shit, both the WH AND the Congress.
The Champ is out.
The Dems in Congress are acting like impeachment is too difficult. They vote themselves raises every six months, have great health insurance, great pensions, months of vacation.
So what, ITS HARD WORK!!!!!!!
Do your jobs, the Constitution demands that you impeach a president that breaks laws.
What a sad state of affairs when we look at Nixon, who resigned when he was caught!
OK, so Scooter would take the 5th. So what? Put him in front of the TV cameras and make him tell the whole country that he can't divulge what he knows about Bush & Co. because it might incriminate him. It's Scooter's right not to answer, but that doesn't mean you can't put the weasel on the spot by asking.
We should use the Patriot Act to open up that clam. There's got to be a clause for TREASON and NATIONAL SECURITY issues in there. There's no habeus corpus anymore so it's right to a black site with you Scooter. A few days listening to Cindy Sheehan speeches should soften him up nice for Roger Cressey.
jay severin has a small pen1s @ 25:
Shaving is optional.
Here is a copy of my letter to Rep. Rick Larson
I do not like having to go the impeachment route, but if we do not, a precedent will have been set. THEN WHERE ARE WE? These people must be held accountable for their actions, or others will continues these practices, and probably worse.
1) Torture – my God, I never thought we would tolerate torture by this country
2) Abu Ghraib – it was not just a few bad soldiers. It came from the top Cheney/Bush
3) Rendition - sending prisoners (human beings) to countries that we know use torture
4) Geneva Convention violations directed by Cheney/Bush.
5) Removal of Habeas corpus to US Citizens
6) Wiretapping of US citizens
7) lying our way into a unprovoked war
If Democrats do nothing to correct these issues, then I guess I will not be voting for the same Democrats that I have in the past.
...Garbo
-------Original Message-------
From: rick.larsen@mail.house.gov
Date: 7/9/2007 9:30:34 AM
To: xxxxxx@comcast.net
Subject: Responding To Your Mail
Dear Mr. xxxxx :
Thank you for contacting me to express your support for impeachment proceedings against members of the current Administration. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
I believe that the standard for impeaching an elected official must be very high. Impeachment must not be based on anger or revenge. Rather, impeachment must be based on the law. I strongly disagree with this administration on many issues, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to provide oversight and hold the administration accountable for its actions. At this time, however, I have not concluded that the President or Vice President has violated the law.
The new Democratic majority in Congress has already increased the minimum wage, demanded accountability in Iraq , and engaged in aggressive oversight of the administration. We will continue to work hard on a legislative agenda that reflects our nation's priorities, such as lowering drug prices for seniors, setting a new direction in energy policy, keeping the promises that we made to our veterans, and continuing to demand a new direction in Iraq . Undertaking impeachment proceedings would hinder our ability to confront these challenges.
While we may disagree on this issue, be assured that as your elected Representative, I will continue to fight for the values of the 2nd Congressional District. If I may be of further assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Rick Larsen
United States Representative
Washington State, 2nd District
I interpret the presNOT as an ignorant, obnoxious, self-serving prick.
garbo @ 27:
Clinton was impeached for lying about BJs in the Oval Office, but Bushit & Cheney "haven't broken any laws".
How long has this arsehole Larsen been in office?
I wonder if anything will be done about this ....
Haha. Silly I know.
So we've known all this for a week!! The question is what are Leahy and the other limp Dems going to do about it.
S Brennan, don't expect much of a helpful reply from Pat! When it comes to the I word all he'll reply is something about us Vermonters having "other priorities".
Exactly. I said it days ago. Its a keep him out of jail for silence deal, and, if he is a goodboy, a full pardon in January 2009.
If your name was Scooter, how hard would you work to keep out of Prison?
The real point here is not whether Bush bought Libby's silence with this commutation, but whether Libby BOUGHT his freedom by zipping up. The presidential power of clemency has one over-riding limitation - it cannot be sold. Selling a pardon, commutation, or any other form of clemency is a prima facie instance of high crimes and misdemeanors. It is my understanding that to 'sell' something doesn't necessarily entail the exchange of money, only something of value. It certainly looks like Libby's silence has a very high value, at least to Bush and Cheney.
Once again I find it only fair to point out that I am not a lawyer. Once again I appeal to anyone who is an attorney to weigh in on this and tell me if I'm just whistling in the wind.
What is being ignored here is the obvious self-interest, if not outright conflict of interest, Bush indulges in by commuting Libby's sentence.
Libby served in Bush's administration; he was convicted of felonies committed in service to Bush and Cheney.
Presidential pardons of such crimes, or commutting the sentence arising from them, is a conflict. It's as if a judge, presiding over a criminal trial, then vacates a jury's verdict on a criminal defendent found guilty of committing crimes as an employee of the judge. This is a clear ethical violation by the judge, and would never, ever be allowed to stand on appeal.
I wonder how this can be permitted under the constitution, which the president is sworn to uphold. Isn't there a guarantee of "equal justice under law"? If a president is allowed, without apparent limit or conditions, to pardon or commute the sentences of political appointees who do his bidding and act on his instruction (or the vice-president's), how can this be "equal justice"? The political political appointee is effectively provided with a 'get out of jail free' card by the presidential right of pardon.
The power of pardon in the hands of an unscrupulous president is a license to commit unethical and/or criminal acts without risk of punishment.
Presidents should be allowed to pardon and commute, but not in the case of people who work for them.
Cheney will just come out of his spider hole long enough to tell Leahy to go fuck himself again and then crawl back in. What remains to be seen is what Leahy will do about it now that the Democrats are in the majority...probably nothing but more talking.
Whatever... This is all getting to be soo tiring and trite... And the Libby bit is just a part of a much larger crime... If you really believe all you just mouthed to Wolf Blitzer Senator Leahy, then fucking get off the dime and impeach that son of a bitch dammit!
Impeach them all! Stop dicking around and get to the point!
George Bush and his entire administration are a clear and present danger to this nation, its laws, its very foundations as a nation..
And all you want to do is hagle over Libby, his fifth amendment strategies and the minutia of Bush's obsfications instead of calling the whole sordid mess for what it is... High crimes and misdemeanors.... And then doing what the goddamned constitution has set up as a solution to such duplicatious behaviors in a president, a vice president and an attorney General.. They all need to go, so just do it already... I'm sick of hearing it, with no ligitimate legal followup... And so is most of this nation now.....JD
The problem with booshco is whether they know the law or not, they have somebody who uses legal technicalities to spring them.
Kind of like the Sopranos.
If chainey is a spider, shouldn't his wife have eaten him after she was impregnated?
Yeah think??
He is a real smart feller.
I had the same thought myself last week or so but I said Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw, Bushie would never do that.
It was just that the sentance was so long, wasn't it?
Well I guess if it is on TV it must be true?
Why not give Scooter immunity and subpoena him. That will take away his right to invoke the 5th and at this point will not hurt anything.
Cheney was supposed to be called by the Libby defense. Then suddenly, that idea died. Of course Libby was told to be quiet and he would not have to serve time. What a bunch of crooks and liars.
Investigate.
Impeach.
tim winking @ 40:
Pointless exercise. He's been tried and convicted already. If he still refuses to talk about the same crime he's been sentenced for, what then?
Charge him with contempt? That's probably double jeopardy.
He paid his fine (which he might get back when the pardon comes through in January '09) and he may not have to do probation, as there was no jail time.
He got a walk and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Anyone with half a brain knows that Libby's commutation was all about buying his silence. But, Bush really doesn't give a damn whether anything he does is illegal, improper, or unethical. He continues to get away with it at every turn. No one seems willing or able to drawn the line. Now he's forbid one of Rove's assistant's to testify, even though her lawyer says she's willing. He's evoking executive privilege, even though it's not someone who worked directly for him or directly had a conversation with him. And I'm sure he'll get away with that too.
Annoyed Canuck,
Go read post 13, The founders already thought of this trick and put a provision against it in the US Constitution. Please folks there already laws against this commutation, if you can only make an effort to let your Reps & Press know you know about them.
impeachment is a fantasy. do the math. it takes 2/3 of the Senate to evict bush from the white house.
just count the votes. the loyal GOP robots will stand by their Leader and vote against impeachment.
so how can bush be impeached- they just aint got the votes in the senate.
wake up and face reality.
so why blame pelosi or anyone else. just calculate the votes in the senate.
Another one of the mouths that roar and does nothing. It's a dog and pony show and it needs to stop. The party of hearings, that's all they are. All talk and no show. I'm tired of this shit. Just start impeachment hearings or STFU. I for one think these current Dems are no better than the Repugs we ousted from power.
ooooooooooooohhhhhhh, ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhh, we increased the minimum wage!!! Who cares anymore. It's time to vote Green Party or Independent.
Casey defeats Santorum and has done nothing since (I'm from PA).
Let Cindy and Michael Moore run. I'm done with with party unless they show real progress in 6 months. Time tables are good for Iraqi's, it's good for the Democratic party.
Maybe a good ole fashioned waterboarding will make Scooter talk.
You certainly shouldnt be able to pardon people you know personally. Kind of makes the whole system a joke.
Give me 30 minutes alone with Scooter and I will give you a signed document with everything you want to know.
bubba @ 48:
I'm not a Clinton hater or anything but Clinton did pardon family and friends. I think if we changed the rules now we'd look silly.
Folks,
please go read post 13 which outlines the Sections 2 & 4. - Article II of the U.S. Constitution which speaks directly in contravention to this commutation.
It's your Constitution, I swore to defend it, you could at least have quick look at it before you commented
Greg @ 50:
Yeah, because its not like we changed the rules on special prosecutors since then...oh wait... I guess we did.
Tomorrow’s episode of digg daily will be focused on Politics. Conference lines will be open to all participants. Please join and share your opinion. Starts Wednesday 07/10/2007 at 8:00pm EST
http://diggdaily.wordpress.com/2007/07/11/fifth-episode-wednesday-july-1...
http://ustream.tv/channel/unofficial-digg-daily-review
Check this out its a hoot!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ypa75axdK6o
Please keep the language straight...
Wolfie says...
... He was within his right to commute the sentence.
Leahy replies...
The president has a constitutional right or has the constitutional power...
Thank you Leahy for correcting this to "POWER."
Rights are for ordinary folks, not for presidents. Presidents, as officials of government wield POWER. RIGHTS are our defense against that power. No one ever has a RIGHT to wield POWER. That screws up our entire political language, making it seem like maybe Bush's motives are irrelevant. Not so. In a democracy, the motives of those who use power are ALWAYS relevant. They NEVER have a right to use POWER. They are temporary guardians of power and use it in OUR NAME. We ALWAYS have the RIGHT to ask why.
Bush had access to power and he used it. Plain enough. No rights involved. Could somebody PLEASE educate the punditry about the basics of the English language?
BushCo is cancer. Impeachment is the cure.
Leahy: Bush bought Scooter's silence with Commutation
[...]With the commutation, Libby still can assert his 5th Amendment right not to answer questions. A full pardon would have eliminated his 5th Amendment rights, according to legal experts.[...]
The attorney who started the investigation on Lewis Libby ALSO brought down Martha Stewart and used the FBI to do it both times.
Why don't you snoops figure THAT one out.
Comments are closed on this entry