Print reports leave out DOJ rules, which would preclude Libby pardon by Bush
In March 8 articles on the speculation regarding whether President Bush will pardon I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was convicted on March 6 of perjury, lying to the FBI, and obstructing justice, the Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and USA Today all left out any mention of the Justice Department regulations setting out the process for petitions for clemency or Bush's recent suggestion that his policy on issuing pardons is rooted in those regulations. Assuming Bush does adhere to those rules, Libby would not be eligible to be considered for a pardon during the remainder of Bush's presidency.
During a January 31 interview on Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto asked Bush if he would pardon "ex-Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean [who are] both serving time in jail for shooting a runaway Mexican drug dealer." In his reply, Bush repeatedly pointed to the pardon "process," suggesting that he would allow a "series of steps" to be taken by the Justice Department "to make a recommendation as to whether or not a president grants a pardon." Bush said that this "series of steps" is followed "so that the pardon process is, you know, a rational process":
CAVUTO: Let me ask you, sir, about the ex-Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, both serving time in jail for shooting a runaway Mexican drug dealer. Would you pardon them?
[...]
BUSH: I'm saying, I would look at all the facts. And -- but there is a process in any case for a president to make a pardon decision. In other words, there is a series of steps that are followed, so that the pardon process is, you know, a rational process.
[...]
BUSH: Right. But what I'm trying to tell you is, is that it is -- there is a series of steps that are analyzed in order for the Justice Department to make a recommendation as to whether or not a president grants a pardon.
According to the Justice Department's "rules governing petitions for executive clemency," Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, would be subject to "a waiting period of at least five years after" he completes his prison sentence. Or, in the event that no prison sentence is imposed, Libby could not petition for a pardon "until the expiration of a period of at least five years after the date of the conviction."
Therefore, as a March 7 Newsweek "Web-exclusive commentary" noted, the possibility of a pardon for Libby would be "a nonstarter" if Bush adheres to the Justice Department regulations. While observing that "there is nothing that requires Bush to follow these guidelines in reviewing a pardon for Libby," Newsweek noted that "Bush seems to have followed those guidelines religiously" and that "[h]e's taken an exceedingly stingy approach to pardons." The article continued: "Following the furor over President Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich (among others), Bush made it clear he wasn't interested in granting many pardons." The Newsweek article also pointed to Bush's comments during the January 31 interview with Cavuto.
Yet while the AP, the Times, the Post, and USA Today noted that Bush has granted a relatively low number of pardons throughout his presidency, none noted his reference to those regulations in the case of Ramos and Compean, nor that those rules would preclude a pardon of Libby during the rest of Bush's term in office.
From the January 31 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Let me ask you, sir, about the ex-Border Patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, both serving time in jail for shooting a runaway Mexican drug dealer. Would you pardon them?
BUSH: You know, I get asked about pardons on a lot of different cases, and there's a procedure in place. And what I told members of Congress who have written me or called was to just look at the case, look at the facts in the case.
And people need to understand why these folks were sent to trial and why a jury of their peers convicted them. And that's, of course, what a president does on any pardon request.
CAVUTO: So, what are you saying?
BUSH: I'm saying, I would look at all the facts. And -- but there is a process in any case for a president to make a pardon decision. In other words, there is a series of steps that are followed, so that the pardon process is, you know, a rational process.
CAVUTO: Well, they're in jail now. They're not going anywhere.
BUSH: Right. That's right.
CAVUTO: So --
BUSH: So --
CAVUTO: -- as things stand now, they'll stay in jail.
BUSH: As things stay now, they'll serve their sentence, right.
CAVUTO: Unless you interfere.
BUSH: Right. But what I'm trying to tell you is, is that it is -- there is a series of steps that are analyzed in order for the Justice Department to make a recommendation as to whether or not a president grants a pardon.
CAVUTO: And we're not at that yet.
BUSH: No, we're not at that stage yet.
But - never forget - I'm the Decider, and I will decide . . . whatever.
Rules? I don't need no stinkin' rules! I'm the Deciderer! And if I Decide to attach a signing statement to the Pardon, that is what I Decided!
all the conservatives are in a frenzy over libby's conviction. and i think the reason is they are afraid he's going to talk.
this entire episode has revealed the moral emptiness of so many on the right. time after time, you hear there was no one charged with the crime of outing her, so libby should not have been charged. but that is saying that you are free to lie to a grand jury and federal agents as long as there are no other charges. that is not the law. one of the jurors said that tim russert's testimony was a turning point. he said he remembered picking up his newspapers and then reading novak's column. he did not tell libby or anyone else her identity, as the defense claimed. you also hear that armitage was the original leaker, so that lets everyone else off the hook. but rove and libby were discussing her identity with other reporters [breaking their security oaths] well before novak's column appeared. they engaged in a knowing effort to reveal her identity. then you have the utter hypocrisy of the fact that had this been the clinton administration, or novak a liberal writer, this whole affair would have brought a storm of charges of treason from the right. instead. we get a no big deal shrug from many on the right.
congressman henry waxman on ed shultz yesterday. he will hold hearings nest week on the plame outing. rove should have been fired at the start of this, and anyone who does not call for that is more partisan than patriot. he admitted he was discussing her identity with reporters, something he was not allowed to do becasue his security oath said he could not even confirm info unless he knew it was declassified. fitzgerald made it clear after the libby verdict that her identity was classified.
Rules? Laws? Surely you jest. This pathetic creature is the architect of secret prisons, torture chambers and illegal domestic spying! To think that nutty Bush would adhere to the rule of law is to endow that freak with integrity he never, ever had. I'll be delighted and surprised if these locusts actually leave as scheduled at the end of their term. After all, We Are At War and it is, as they say, "a war like none other." Creeps.
First of all, Cavuto gets an interview with the President? That, alone, is absurd. Of course Bush will pardon Libby... prob the reason his defense changed their entire gameplan into the trial. He may do some time, but he'll get pardoned.
For Libby to sing, it'd have to be some major calamity or misstep by the Rove/Cheney crew.
I was concerned that the Libby juror said he should be pardoned.
It seems as though many of the jurors were sympathetic with Libby because they feel he took the fall for the administration. Unfortunately, they're confusing this sympathy for being the fall guy with an understanding that he did truly break the law and lie to a grand jury, preventing the prosecutor from convicting anyone of the bigger and more eggregious crime.
I feel sorry for him, as well, for being the lone neocon in jail for this BS, but I also recognize that he deserves everything he gets for it.
Unfortunately, they're confusing this sympathy for being the fall guy
Since the convicted him on four of five charges, I don't think such "confusion" existed.
You're assertion is incorrect, inasmuch as DOJ specifically authorizes waivers from the five-year waiting period, albeit in extremely rare cases. I hope you will correct your error.
According to DOJ's Web site, [link to www.usdoj.gov]
Five Year Waiting Period
Under the Department's rules governing petitions for executive clemency, there is a minimum waiting period of five years after completion of sentence before anyone convicted of a federal offense becomes eligible to apply for a presidential pardon. The waiting period begins on the date of the petitioner's release from confinement. Alternatively, if the conviction resulted in probation or a fine, but no term of imprisonment, the waiting period begins on the date of sentencing.
A waiver of any portion of the waiting period is rarely granted and then only in the most exceptional circumstances. In order to request a waiver, you must complete the pardon application form and submit it with a letter explaining why you believe the waiting period should be waived in your case.
Good work. Looks like the administration has its loophole. MMFA should amend their article. The apparently didn't do their homework completely on this one.
"Assuming Bush does adhere to those rules, Libby would not be eligible to be considered for a pardon during the remainder of Bush's presidency"
I'm probably reaching, but I think the point MMFA was making is that a waiver would not be an adherence to the rules, especially with the methods and influence Bush has at his disposal, via Cheney and Rove.
We've already seen what they can do to CIA agents who are married to war critics and prosecutors who won't play ball and go after Dems. You think they'll hesitate to employ the same methods when it comes to getting what they want from the DOJ?
I can see both sides of this, Goldbergs and pete,
MMFA technically missed the loophole, but on the other hand, this isn't the kind of administration that wastes a lot of time digging around for legitimate ways to pull off their operations.
i think mmfa acknowledges that he could do it, by mmfa quoting the newsweek article above. i think the point is that bush is saying there are regulations that must be followed.
I wonder what his explanation as in why the pardon time is too long will be?
Great point Goldbergs. This is indeed true what you say, however, this "waiver" is not actually in the DOJ regulations on clemency and what you are actually referrring to is the petition for a pardon AFTER the sentence is served. In this case, a pardon for Libby would still likely be "a nonstarter" seeing as though it looks like he won't begin serving his sentence (which will probably be at least a year) until later this year or well into the next.
Sorry, but that's not the case. The power to pardon is a constitutional power, and so any valid limitation on that power would have to be written into the Constitution as well. I don't think these rules are even statutory (passed by Congress and signed by the President). Rather, this guideline would preclude the DOJ from recommending Libby's pardon and for Libby to ask for a pardon. The President gets to pardon whoever the hell he wants.
That is correct which is why MMFA said if Bush adheres to the Justice Department regulations. Now those regulations are just that DOJ guidelines. Bush is not REQUIRED to follow them. His constitiutional authority has very few limitations.
Aren't these more guidelines than hard and fast rules on things?
A good article about Presidential pardons:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_pard.html
It does appear, at least according to the Constitution, that a pardon can be granted at any point in time to anyone, except in cases of impeachment, again, according to the Constitution. The guidelines cited in the article appear to be just that, guidelines that a President can either adhere to, or not adhere to. There is no law saying that Scooter, for instance, couldn't be pardoned tomorrow. These types of pardons are indeed rare, but they can happen. Remember, Ford pardoned Nixon before the man was ever charged with anything.
I agree. This MMFA item is potentially misleading. There is no legal barrier to the President issuing a pardon with respect to violations of federal laws except that noted in the Constitution, i.e., in matters of impeachment.
The President is only bound by the DOJ rules to the extent that he promises to follow them. We've already have examples of Bush not keeping his promises, e.g., failing to fire anyone involved in the leak. That Bush would change his position on this issue with respect to a Libby pardon isn't surprising.
I give very high odds that Bush pardons Libby. The message from the White House is that Bush will wait for the legal process to play out. I'm guessing he's hoping to wait until after the 2008 election.
I think we're getting too hung up on this. As far as I understand, the president's Constitutional power of pardon is at least virtually unlimited. So that Bush could pardon Libby is beyond question.
However, Bush has said his policy on such pardons would be guided by the DOJ regulations, so if Bush follows his declared policy, Libby could not be pardoned until sometime after Bush leaves office. None of the coverage cited by MMFA mentioned that.
I don't think this rises to the level of misinformation, but it does mean the media outlets in question didn't do their homework.
THERE IS NO LIMIT AS TO HOW LOW BUSH WOULD STOOP TO BEND THE RULES TO FIT HIS AGENDA. LETS NOT FORGET ALL THE REASONS GEORGE GAVE CAVUTO ON FOX NEWS AS TO WHY HE WOULD NOT PARDON THE TWO BORDER PATROL AGENTS WHO SHOT A DRUG DEALER. WHAT APPLIES TODAY MAY NOT APPLY TOMORROW, AND WHAT APPLIES TOMORROW MAY NOT APPLY THE NEXT DAY. WHERE IS THE SCRUPLES OF THIS CLOWN YOU CALL PRESIDENT?
Not to defend Bush, but his use of the pardon is his alone to make. There really are no rules binding him, per the Constitution of the United States. Would a pardon of Libby be correct? Depends on who you ask I would hazard a guess, but it is within his rights and powers, as actually defined by the Constitution, to pardon Libby right now if he wanted to. The only crime that is not pardonable is impeachment (see article I linked earlier). It is totally up to Bush as to what he wants to do. In this case, he actually is the "decider".
you are correct, those rules are for people making a petition for a pardon, and if the DOJ would accept one. In normal times with real people instead of partisan cronys running the DOJ LIBBY could not have a petition for a pardon accepted and passed on. But even this pReasident can issue one as soon as the ink is dry, just like Ford did for Nixon.
Anyone who thinks Bush will let those rules determine Libby's fate is naive. The only deciding factor will be the chance of Libby giving away something that indicts Bush or Cheney.
i don't think anyone questions he could pardon libby, but here are bush's words: "there is a series of steps that are analyzed in order for the justice dept to make a recommendation....". that is the point here. bush is claiming it comes from the justice dept.