On Hardball, O'Donnell suggested that commutation of Libby sentence shows he is not "above the law"
On the July 2 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, reporting that President Bush had commuted the 30-month prison sentence of former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, NBC News White House correspondent Kelly O'Donnell claimed that "[p]olitically," the commutation "allows the president to split the difference." O'Donnell then said, "A full pardon could have been viewed by critics as really allowing someone who worked for the president to be above the law." O'Donnell did not explain why "critics" would not view the commutation itself as "allowing someone who worked for the president to be above the law."
Libby's sentence stemmed from his conviction on charges of perjury, lying to the FBI, and obstructing justice in the CIA leak investigation.
From the 5 p.m. ET hour of the July 2 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
O'DONNELL: So the president is doing something short of a pardon, which would wipe the slate clean, take away the convictions. And in this case, he is sparing Libby from jail time, but he remains a convicted felon, as I mentioned, will likely lose his law license, will have to pay $250,000 in fines that were deemed by the court, and he will continue to be on probation.
Politically, this allows the president to split the difference. A full pardon could have been viewed by critics as really allowing someone who worked for the president to be above the law. At the same time, many conservatives were pressuring the president to take some sort of action. And when, today, the appeals court said that Libby's prison time could not be stayed while he appealed, the president decided to take this action.
It is a two-page statement from President Bush clearly laying out the criticism, his consideration of what happened, and this dramatic step that he is taking today. Reverend Al [Sharpton, guest host]?
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Huh? What kind of logic is this?
You get the feeling that everyone from Bush and his little band of thugs to those at the FOX Noise Channel are laughing their collective asses off......
Mainly because they knew that regardless of what the facts ARE that none of them would or will see a day in jail while The Chimp was in charge!
It is my belief that, with the majority will of the American people firmly in place, it is time for the impeachment process to begin!
I fail to understand the logic here. On the morning of May 6, 1997, then Governor George W. Bush signed his name to a confidential memorandum presented to him from his legal counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, and placed a bold black check mark next to a single word: DENY. That Bush signature led to the execution of Terry Washington, a mentally retarded thirty-three-year-old man with the communication skills of a seven-year-old. Let me get this straight, you cannot commute a death sentence for a mentally disturbed person, but for a friend hell bent on covering up his lies for war it's a different story? Give me a break!
YES, it's two parts.
ONE, let's Scooter off Scot-free, signalling he is indeed above the law.
TWO, it preserves for him his fifth amendment rights against further indictment, so he won't have to testify as to what he knows IN TRUTH, rather than the lies he's already told. If PARDONED, then he would be free to speak about matters in which he might be further culpable.
Let him off, allow him to keep his mouth shut. A double for sure.
Ding ding ding, buy this man a beer!
Indeed Tex. And I'm also more than willing to bet that he isn't going to have a very hard time paying the fine, and or finding very gainful employment even though he is a convicted felon.
Agreed.
Scooter will be a big hit on the Conservative speaking circuit and will command huge fees - more than enough to offset the relatively insignificant $250,000 slap on the wrist (which could still be eliminated by a full pardon).
Of course he'll have to get permission from his parole officer!
Not even on the speaking circuit. I'm thinking that he'll be hired by some big time conservative think tank type unit and sit in a back room, and do whatever it is they do at think tanks.
I'm sure that the fine will be paid out of his legal fee fundraising efforts that his powerful republican friends (Fred Thompson among them by the way) completed for him. Libby could have gotten out this a lot easier if he had just hired some fresh faced kid out of law school, because he was always going to get pardoned, and or have his sentence commuted anyway. He should have saved more of his money instead of blowing it on a high priced lawyer who got him a conviction anyway.
He was hired by the Hudson Institute, a right wing cabal,soon after his indictment.
I predict that Fox News will be looking to hire a new "legal analyst" some time soon, and you won't see it posted on Monster.
Perdix, I want another Hiku please.
Juliajayne patient one
Waits for a Haiku
Disappointment awaits her
Why do I have the sick feeling that our tax dollars will be used to pay his fine? Unofficially, of course.
Bush had to let him off...he obviously knows too much.
He doesn't need tax dollars to pay the fine - we've already covered it for him. The tax dollars that have been "invested" to fund our military in Iraq over the past 5 years have provided an impressive return on Scooters (and Cheneys) Haliburton stock, giving him profits far in excess of the $1/4 million fine (which doesn't cover the cost of our military in Iraq for even 1 whole day).
All in all, Scooters lies have returned very nice dividends. And thanks to Bush, he doesn't even have to cool his heels a couple years before he can enjoy it.
I'm sure Cheney will pay the fine himself, or those that helped fund Libby's defense will do so.
Hard or not, Libby's already paid the fine -- this very afternoon. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/07/05/libby-pays-250400-fine/#comments
Make that a triple, Tex. By not pardoning Liddy (whoops) Libby, Bushy keeps Scooter's conviction in place. This means the appeals will continue, and Shrub will continue to stonewall any and all questions concerning his role in Plamegate with his old reliable, "I'm not going to comment on a case that's before the courts."
Not above the law? At least Paris Hilton served half of her teem.
Has anyone else noticed that all of the neo-con outrage over the immigration bill has been forgotten now that Scooter has been kept out of jail. Does anyone else see the huge carrot being dangled out in front off all of the neocons?
I have seen it, and have heard it, repeatedly today. Bush was right to commute his sentence, and then all the usual reasons behind it (political partisanship, even though Fitzgerald was a Bush appointee, liberal judges, even though 3 out of 4 who ruled on the case were appointed by either W or Dad, no underlying crime committed so perjury was not important and so on...)
Then of course, I heard people trying to bring Clinton into this, almost as if it were the same situation and all. Main talking point today. If Scooter has to go to jail, Bill should go too. I kid you not.
Magnolia,
I'd bring Bill Clinton into this ONLY because of some of the pardons he doled out. And actually I'd direct it more at Hillary who had the nerve to say:
"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."
Marc Rich, a fugitive, was pardoned of tax evasion, after clemency pleas from Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, among many other international luminaries. Denise Rich, Marc's former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton's library and Hillary's Senate campaign. Clinton agreed to a pardon that required Marc Rich to pay a $100,000,000 fine before he could return to the United States. According to Paul Volcker's independent investigation of Iraqi Oil-for-Food kickback schemes, Marc Rich was a middleman for several suspect Iraqi oil deals involving over 4 million barrels of oil.
No doubt Libby having his sentence commuted smacks of a personal favor to Cheney OR even as a way to protect Cheney [and Bush?] by making certain Libby didn't turn on him.
Clinton's pardon of Susan McDougal, may have been predicated along the same lines.
Susan McDougal who had already completed her sentence, was pardoned for her role in the Whitewater scandal; McDougal had served 18 months on contempt charges for refusing to testify about Clinton's role.
A thank you from Clinton perhaps? A air-tight certainty that McDougal would remain mum?
While I disagree with Bush's actions here, and believe we should all speak out about it...hearing Hillary's indignation just smacks of disingenuous blather to me.
Jeter,
since you bring that up, how about let's wonder why it was soo important for republicans to try to impeach clinton for lying to the grand jury and then for those same republicans to turn around and excuse one of their own for doing the same thing? Especially since one was about lying about a blow job while the other was about breaking the law?
Well Snoop I was one of those Republican/Conservatives that did not believe Impeachment was called for in Clinton's case, so you're basically not going to get an opposing opinion on this one.
My post was meant to focus just on Hillary & her disingenuous indignation.
It's getting to the point that I can't stand to even listen to her & find myself wishing I had earplugs available whenever she appears on TV or radio.
There was a time, because I like Bill Clinton, that I thought I could stand having her in the Oval Office as long as Bill was part of the deal.
I no longer think it's worth the aggravation.
I am no fan of Hillary either, but I agree completely with her statement.
I think the whole Marc Rich issue was hugely overblown, but Clinton should have never accepted a dime from (or given the money back) Denise Rich for his library or otherwise before, during and after the issue was even up for consideration. That is a fair criticism IMO.
Marc's former wife, was a close friend of the Clintons and had made substantial donations to both Clinton's library
Wow! Were his books that late?!!!!?
Neither Marc or Susan worked for the United States Government in the same capacity as Libby.
Libby used government information for political payback. This is wrong.
Bush is too close to the corruption of Libby, Rove and Cheney, which makes this commuting of Libby's sentence an act of cronyism and corruption.
His father is also guilty of cronyism and corruption when he pardoned Weinberger and five others in the Iran Contra scandal.
I repeat Marc and Susan did not work for the United States Government. Weinberger and Libby did. Like father like son cronyism and corruption ruled the day.
Hillary is right.
In 1992 U.S. President George H.W. Bush pardoned six people involved in the Iran Contra scandal,namely Elliott Abrams, Duane R. Clarridge, Alan Fiers, Clair George, Robert C. McFarlane, and Caspar W. Weinberger.
Here are the winners Bush Junior picked for his administration:
Elliott Abrams: pleaded guilty on two counts of unlawfully withholding information, pardoned. Admiral John Poindexter: found guilty of multiple felony counts for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, lying to Congress, defrauding the government, and the alteration and destruction of evidence.
Charles E. Allen: Allen's position at DHS was not subject to Senate confirmation. Director of Central Intelligence William Webster formally reprimanded Allen for failing to fully comply with the DCI's request for full cooperation in the agency's internal Iran-Contra scandal investigation.
Include Libby obstruction of justice and perjury.
Add Wolfowitz and his stealing money from the World Bank so he can play sugar daddy. Wolfie just walked into a job with a Conservative think tank.
Like father like son cronyism and corruption makes their decisions.
Are you going to make me list all the democrat cronyism and corruption, all of Clinton's pardons, Hillary's cattle future's, Hillary's brother trying to get pardons for dems who made illegal campaign contributions, Susan Mcdougal, John Deutsch, Henry Cisneros, Marc Rich. It goes on and on. It's not a Bush monopoly.
If you do I can easily match you with ReNAMBLAcan corruption except more RECENT and egregious. So go for it.
Jeter, FYI
-- Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff testified Thursday he believes prosecutors of billionaire financier Marc Rich "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they went after Rich on tax evasion charges.
The testimony from Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who represented Rich dating back to 1985 but stopped working for him in the spring of 2000, came during a contentious, hours-long House committee hearing into former President Bill Clinton's eleventh-hour pardons.
Fortunately, this isn't about Clinton of what he did. But if you want to compare, I don't believe Rich worked for the VP Al Gore, and wasn't his chief of staff, and neither did Rich use a covert CIA agent's name for a personal attack for purely political reasons.
The circumstances are much different, and Clinton has received much grief over both the Rich and MacDougall pardons if I remember correctly. It's not as if he did them, and they were ignored.
I don't think that Bush's commutation is illegal, because he is allowed per the Constitution to pardon and or commute to his liking, and the same for Clinton. Now, whether or not they used them to help their friends, I think we know the answer to that. But again, within their Constitutional rights. We don't have to like it and we can do one of 2 things. Change the Constitution, or vote them out of office.
I hear the right wing screech monkeys (not you Jeter) keying up on the "Rich defense" I'm going to call it. I've heard this talking point thrown out about a dozen times today already, as if what Clinton did has any bearing on this matter at all. Now we have some right wingers (again, not you Jeter) saying that Bush can do this because Clinton pardoned Rich, but at the same time they were all up in arms about the Rich pardon at the time (and apparently still are), so in essence, they are saying what Clinton did was actually OK, because they have given their tacit approval for what Bush did with Scooter. Now they're saying that Bush is no better than Clinton (and I know most hard core right wingers wouldn't want that).
Magnolia,
My point [which was probably off topic a tad] was really about Hillary. Considering how controversial some of Clinton's pardons were, she might have been better off keeping her remarks a bit more low-key. Granted neither Rich or McDougal were government officials, but "cronyism and ideology" could still be argued here as to why they were pardoned.
Hillary said:
"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."
I think she should have tempered that a bit. People who live in glass houses and all...
P.S. Thank you for clarifying that I'm not included in that "right wing screech monkeys" club...it is appreciated :-)
You mean no longer in the right wing screech monkey club. Some of us have long memories.
Jeter, Susan Macdougal was in prison on civil contempt charges. She wasn't that close to the Clintons and says they were innocent anyway. She wouldn't bend to the will of Ken Starr. He wanted her to implicate the Clintons and she refused and stood by her principles. She didn't deserve to be in prison in the first place and she definately deserved a pardon. In this case it was not a case of quid pro quo, but a deserved pardon.
Refusing to testify is a crime and she and her ex-husband were extremely close to the Clintons.
wrong again, as you ever are. she did not refuse to testify. she was jailed because she would not say what ken starr wanted her to say. he abused his power and authority. just like the current scandal of prosecuters fired for not being political enough for this white house.
Yeah, and to listen to Democrats whine about Bush breaking the laws over Libby while ignoring the torture chambers and war crimes is downright sickening.
If the motivation is buying silence, I would suggest that Bush has provided a far more effective model for ensuring it. A pardon after the fact doesn't seem as thorough.
This makes me realize I was wrong about George... he *does* excel at something!
I've noticed the so call law and order Conservatives are quite happy with politics trampling law and order down to the ground.
The leakage was politically motivated as pay back. Conservatives are happy with that.
Historically speaking Conservatives will have to live with the fact that they sided with treason against this nation. That they can never erase.
Libby's commuted sentence was nothing more than a personal favor to Cheney. The Conservatives are happy with this.
Conservatives are the ugly Americans, total conformists. Their demons are power in this country. They are loyal to whoever serves their need of the moment. Time and again they are opportunists working against our country. Their empty soul is filled with rationalizations to sense their own corruption.
Their corruption has been revealed with their happiness that politics has trampled law and order.
carrot duely sited aye. Still there's been calls from his old media friends to pardon him right now! A flag for a bull (identity to be determined later), or are they not with the program to use it, the comutation of sentance, to avoid futher useful questions. to find out WTF is going on, legal evidencewise.
Don't you just pine for the days in the late 1990s when the "rule of law" was all the talk. Heh, I hope every Democratic candidate has their research people culling old speeches etc., by current Repub candidates for quotes from when the "rule of law" was the guiding principle when it came to Clinton-bashing. I also wish the MSM you throw W's 2000 campaign quote about accountability out there and make each Repub candidate publicly endorse it and then explain their position on Scooty's get-outta-jail-free card.
Braveneworld, I did just that. He are what Republicans were feeling about perjury/obstruction of justice when it pertained to Bill Clinton.
http://www.democrats.org/a/b/in_their_own_wo.html
Somehow it's different for a Republican as opposed to a Dem when your lie and obstruct justice.
very few people see this as splitting the difference... supporters wanted a full pardon and opponents wanted the sentence to remain intact... Bush disappointed everyone with this arse-saving act...
I would beg to disagree. Tony Snow said this morning pardon is not off the table yet. Cheney is not done with his nepharious secret tricks yet.
Scooter will get a full pardon before Bush leaves office.
I don't know if I agree. I think Tex's statement above is a good one: a commutation keeps Scooter quiet, but a pardon would compel him to testify if subpoenaed. If that is true and crimes were committed, Bush has no motivation to pardon him.
Absolutely right. The pardon will come as Bush goes out the door in January 09.
I'm sorry, but I DO view the commutation as an assault on justice. Screw Bush.
But I am sure you were also so outraged about the Marc Rich pardon and the pardon of Henry Cisneros?
Marc Rich was not a partner in outing a national security agent so let's drop this all day rant about Clinton pardoning Rich.
It all points out that giving one man the power to overturn the verdicts of a jury is antithetical to justice. The Founders were idiots when it came to designing the Presidency, imho. They gave the position FAR too many powers, far too monarchial.
I have to agree. Whatever the Founding Fathers intended when they gave the Executive the Pardon Power, it has been perverted by politics in modern times. It is simply too much power for one man to have- perhaps it should be replaced by a commission consisting of federal judges working with the Justice Department, or abolished altogether. Right now, its just a tool to pay off political favors or shut up potentially damaging witnesses.
Well, if one looks at the basic frame of the Fedral government, it's a copy of the British government of 1789....two houses; a powerful "monarch" in the President, with the powers of nomination for all civil servancies and the pardon, plus complete command of the military; and a high court, also chosen by the President/king.
They did not do a good job designing the Federal government. It puts far too much power into the Presidency, but they were quasi-monarchists who wrote it.
Thomas Jefferson realised the error and added the second ammendment to the Constitution to give the ultimate power back to the people. The second ammendment is not just your right to carry guns but also represents the ultimate power of the people. I think Mr Jefferson suddenly realised that the early version of the Constitution did allow for possible dictyatorship.
But you're not allowed to revolt, according to the Federal constitution. Look up the duties of Congress regarding the use of militia. My state consitution has a clause saying we have the right to alter, reform or abolish our state government. But the Federal one says revolution verboten and that it can use state troops to put down any rising against their misrule. We need a new Federal constituion, the one we got is not working.
i knew you were a little off, but you're saying that any dissatisfied citizen should be able to start a violent revolt. we have these things called elections. they do not always turn out as we wish, but the alternative is chaos. no thank you.
I take it you would have been on the King's side in 1776, eh?
you don't take anything but your own foolishness, eh? were there elections then?
Where are our happy little neo-cons? NL? rino? various number people (i.e. steve545633 for example)? PleaseSeeMyTalkingpointsBlog.com?
Please defend Bush's actions for us. I really want to hear your defense (although in all honesty knowing the BS that would be spewed, never mind)
Why was Al Sharpton guest hosting Hardball? Its not ok for CNN to allow Glenn Beck the hour at 8pm on CNN but its ok for Al and his record of hate and division to be given a platform on MSNBC? This network is really going down the tubes.
I'm not sure he's appropriate for that myself. That seems like an odd decision to put him on there.
I don't think they'll make that mistake again. He was lousy. Decent guest, if you can overlook his past (I can't), but really bad host.
Al Sharpton debated Christopher Hitchens on Hardball a few of days ago. Christopher Hitchens does not believe in God and Sharpton is a minister.
As for “his record of hate”? Your opinion. I don’t always agree with Rev. Al but for me he doesn’t rise to Becks level of bigotry.
I have major problems with Sharpton, especially after the Brawley affair.
Casey, I agree with you about the Brawley case, however I try (not always successful) not to judge based on one mistake.
I have major problems with Sharpton, especially after the Brawley affair....by CaseySpring
That bothers me as well, but I enjoy Sharpton as a guest on various political programming. He's frank, intelligent & humorous.
Did I miss him guest-hosting on Hardball? Maybe I fell asleep at 6:55? [Hardball is on at 7pm here]
Why was Al Sharpton guest hosting Hardball?...by SueEld
When did he do that? I watch Hardball every night.
How'd I miss that?
I think he did the first half, with David Schuster finishing up. Schuster was much better.
I'll bet Sueeld was a hot f*ck in the 50s. She's pinche loca!
Of course, lost in all of this is the real underlying crime...the lies told to justify invading Iraq. That is what Scooter was really covering up, and what Bush is covering up by effectively buying his silence. It's why they had to discredit Wilson in the first place. The Iraq War is the crime of the century, and the Neo Clowns responsible are painfully close to getting away with it.
I agree. While I'm raving about Libby's "get out of jail", Junior and Dick cover their a**. Scooter will not need to write a tell all book cause he's not doing time. Employment won't be a problem cause he like Ollie North and G Gordon Liddy can always find employment in the conservative world and young men and women will continue to die in a war in a country that was in no way an "imminent" threat to the US.
With this cowardly move, Bush has cemented his legacy of failure. He is destined to go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever.
But, when Pappy Bush passes on, Numbnuts will inherit a huge fortune, virtually tax free. He won't care what we think of him or his idiotic policies. He won't suffer for anything he's done to the country.
He's already bought himself a safe haven...a huge bit of land in Paraguay. He can hang out near the old Nazis-in-hiding.
The fix was in from the beginning. His reward for taking the heat from Pres "one minute with a bullhorn=eight years of bulls**t" Bush and VP "Cardinal Richelieu" Cheney.
People here don't seem to be getting it quite right. Really, it's not that difficult.
Say Bush had done nothing. If that were the case, he would be tacitly saying that he agreed Libby had been justly found guilty of obstructing justice while there was a legitimate investigation into the near enough to treasonous outing of a covert agent. He would have been tacitly saying that the process and the sentencing were just and proper, and that the appeals judges were correct in their assessment that justice would not be served be letting Libby remain free while he pursued appeals...and agreeing with the judges that there seemed to be no legitimate appeals.
Furthermore, by these tacit statements, he would have been distancing himself from the conviction for obstruction, and even distancing himself from the outing that had quite clearly taken place. It's not a difficult conclusion to draw that by taking no action, by allowing justice to proceed, that it would be plainly visible that proper laws and process still had some respect at the highest levels.
Clearly, these tacit statements would give everyone the *wrong* impression, so they must be nipped in the bud at the first practical microsecond. The American people must not be allowed to suffer any such superficial impressions. What good could possibly come of that?
So he gave up another chance to make the public feel secure about our justice system. The level of fear is maintained. Fear easily turns to anger. Someone does something stupid because of anger. The screws turn tighter. He does have his own private law if he feels he must act through marshal law. With our military and The National Guard strectched out in Iraq, whos going to enforce it, Blackwater surprise? After that it gets bad.
Aweful scenario there. Anyone for impeachment?