« R(ittenhouse)IP | Main | Bush and Tucker »
July 03, 2007
Bush and the Law
For my money, the best statement on what the commutation reveals came from Steve Benen:
George W. Bush was once asked, after presiding over the executions of over 152 Texans, about his reluctance to issue pardons and/or commute sentences. “I don’t believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own,” Bush said, “unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware.”
He neglected to add, “Or unless he’s a politically important friend of mine.”
The president’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s sentence is truly contemptuous. A former senior Bush administration official recently said, “It would show a deep disregard for the rule of law if [the president] was to do it right now, when there has been no remorse shown by a convicted felon and no time has been served.” That was in regard to a pardon, which may still be forthcoming, but the same principle applies.
Perhaps we should call this what it is: “amnesty.” In conservative circles, there’s a standard approach to law and order: we need tougher sentences, inflexible mandatory-minimums, and harsh punishment for those found to have broken U.S. law. But if you help expose the identity of a covert CIA agent during a war, lie about it, and are convicted by a jury on multiple felony counts, those standards no longer apply.
It's impossible to overstate how grotesque this is. George W. Bush simply decided to supersede the judgment of the legal system on his friend and subordinate. If you're an inner city African-American wrongly convicted of a crime? You better pray. If you're an associate of the most powerful man in the country? Relax, it's all in hand. That George W. Bush decided to press forward with this move despite the message it would send -- that some are above the law, and that this administration spits on justice -- is remarkable evidence of just how little he values his office, and how disposable he judges this country's mores and ideals.
July 3, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
IMPEACH HIM NOW.
That is all.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Jul 3, 2007 11:26:46 AM
But does a commutation replace the verdict of the jury or the sentence of the judge?
Posted by: BillCinSD | Jul 3, 2007 11:50:10 AM
Both, clearly. You can't remove the punishment without undermining the finding of guilt.
Posted by: Steve | Jul 3, 2007 11:53:44 AM
It's obvious our President was aware of some information that the jury not. And it was about to get out...
Posted by: Nat | Jul 3, 2007 12:04:31 PM
It does not replace the verdict of guilt, it only commutes the prison portion of the sentence. That's whay it is a "commutation" and not a "pardon."
Posted by: slickdpdx | Jul 3, 2007 12:28:54 PM
Not that I'm saying it's appropriate behavior, but we should not be surprised by this. it's no different than Clinton's pardons of the McDougals and Marc Rich. In total, Clinton issued 396 pardons and 61 commutations.
http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/actions_administration.htm
Posted by: mike | Jul 3, 2007 1:03:15 PM
To say that Bush did this because Libby was an associate/insider completely lets Bush off the hook. He did this to keep Libby quiet. Same with Sheryl Gay Stolberg's puff piece in the Times about how Bush really thought this was an excessive sentence for poor Scooter (sourced, by the way, only to one Republican strategist). Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Bush has no feelings for anyone, this is all about covering his own ass, and people must be reminded of that fact.
Posted by: Glenn | Jul 3, 2007 1:08:20 PM
George W. Bush simply decided to supersede the judgment of the legal system on his friend
Sen. Reid seems to be trying to focus this as an issue ... and it's a huge one. But I dunno if this is the best tack politically to take. Going to bat for a friend is often a good thing, or at least seen as such by most people (at the very least, they can imagine themselves doing the same if they were President).
A better tack to take is to play up the "what about your job as an enforcer of laws?" angle. People depend on the GOP for "law and order" (as misguided as that is, even from an ideological perspective, but the GOoPers talk tough, and that's what counts here), so questioning that might get right at the heart of the matter (didn't a successful political consultant whom we all loath once say "attack your opponant on his strength"?).
The problem is that it opens up matters to "you must be a partisan to wanna throw that poor widdle Scooter [n.b.: kid's name] in prison -- even the 'tough on crime' GOoPers wanna be nice to him" ...
Posted by: DAS | Jul 3, 2007 1:58:53 PM
For the partisans out there:
Regarding shutting up, I remember someone doing time for Clinton! I wonder what she wasn't saying?
Posted by: slickdpdx | Jul 3, 2007 2:08:29 PM
Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Bush has no feelings for anyone, this is all about covering his own ass, and people must be reminded of that fact.
How do you know this?
I think some of the reactions to this (not the one just quoted in particular) lack historical context, and are more venting than reality.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 3, 2007 2:19:58 PM
I think some of the reactions to this (not the one just quoted in particular) lack historical context, and are more venting than reality.
Then by all means provides us with the proper "historical context" so we may all comprehend your "reality".
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 3, 2007 2:27:34 PM
Correction, Mr. Klein -- this sentence:
George W. Bush simply decided to supersede the judgment of the legal system on his friend and subordinate.
Should read:
George W. Bush simply decided to supersede the judgment of the legal system on his friend and subordinate and accomplice.
Posted by: sglover | Jul 3, 2007 2:43:43 PM
I think some of the reactions to this (not the one just quoted in particular) lack historical context, and are more venting than reality.
Golly, why am I not surprised that you'd come up with that? If you don't see this as a move to keep Libby from rolling, you're even more obtuse than your comments indicate.
Posted by: sglover | Jul 3, 2007 2:47:28 PM
I think some of the reactions to this (not the one just quoted in particular) lack historical context, and are more venting than reality.
Golly, why am I not surprised that you'd come up with that? If you don't see this as a move to keep Libby from rolling, you're even more obtuse than your comments indicate.
Posted by: sglover | Jul 3, 2007 2:48:55 PM
How do you know this?
I wish I could come up with a good paraphrase of Sam Ervin here, but I can't. Obviously, sanpete, I'm not The Shadow, who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men like Bush. But I have observed him for 6 years, and his actions are most consistent with a man who cares for nothing but his own power and contempt for anyone who would question him. That, plus the fact that there is simply no principled basis for giving Scooter a commutation -- as opposed to a full pardon or letting the system play out -- leads me to my conclusion. I don't care to debate the epistemics of it with you, but I am completely satisfied that, yes, I "know" that my conclusion is the correct one. And your condescension about my lack of historical context does not, surprisingly, change my conclusion one iota.
Posted by: Glenn | Jul 3, 2007 3:17:12 PM
WBR, others have been providing historical context of the kind I refer to, with similar acts from the past from people who we generally don't understand to have had total contempt for their office and the law.
If you don't see this as a move to keep Libby from rolling
How do you know it is, sglover?
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 3, 2007 3:18:00 PM
How do you know it is, sglover?
If you don't know the details of the Libby trial, Sanpete, it's better to keep quiet rather than look a fool.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Jul 3, 2007 3:26:31 PM
WBR, others have been providing historical context of the kind I refer to, with similar acts from the past from people who we generally don't understand to have had total contempt for their office and the law.
Then it's rather odd that you can't seem to recall any specifics with which to enlighten us.
In any case, for such examples to be valid, one couldn't limit the comparison to the single instance of Libby's commutation. The example would have to parallel the arc of Bush's actions throughout his two terms in order to be comparable.
From my knowlege of Presidential history, I doubt you could produce such an example.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 3, 2007 3:31:25 PM
Glenn, your evidence is weak. When people feel they know something for which the evidence is actually weak, I always suspect some emotional cause rather than a rational one. Like anger, hatred, etc. I think it's reasonable to suspect that this move might be designed to keep Libby quiet, if there's anything left to be quiet about, but that's hardly the only likely explanation of why it's only a commutation: Bush had already said he would let the legal process play out before any pardon.
My comment about lack of historical context has nothing to do with this, and wasn't really directed to you.
Pseudo, as usual you argue from a false premise. The Libby trial doesn't imply what sglover said at all.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 3, 2007 3:31:37 PM
The example would have to parallel the arc of Bush's actions throughout his two terms in order to be comparable.
Huh? Not sure what that means exactly, but it doesn't much matter to what I said. The historical parallels don't have to be exact to be relevant. If you can't figure out what the parallels are, try reading this thread and the others on this.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 3, 2007 3:36:19 PM
Huh? Not sure what that means exactly, but it doesn't much matter to what I said. The historical parallels don't have to be exact to be relevant. If you can't figure out what the parallels are, try reading this thread and the others on this.
A dismissive tone can't conceal the fact that, as on numerous other occasions, you either can't or won't back up your assertions. The casual reader can assess the significance of this for themselves.
Yes historical comparisons don't have to be exact to be relevant but that is no license for dispensing with historical context. The validity of a comparison increases in direct relation to its exactness, as does its relevance. Otherwise, you are arguing that there is no distinction to be made between the Libby commutation and any other commutation in Presidential history.
Of course all of this is moot since you refuse to illustrate what you're talking about with examples.
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 3, 2007 3:57:43 PM
Like anger, hatred, etc. I think it's reasonable to suspect that this move might be designed to keep Libby quiet, if there's anything left to be quiet about, but that's hardly the only likely explanation of why it's only a commutation: Bush had already said he would let the legal process play out before any pardon.
In late breaking news, Sanpete was mauled to death by a bear. A companion said 'he assumed that the bear would only take an arm'.
Bush had already said he would let the legal process play out before any pardon.
Which he didn't do.
The Libby trial doesn't imply what sglover said at all.
Imply what? I'll quote Dan Froomkin, and see if you can nitpick him:
We know, for instance, that Cheney was the first person to tell Libby about Plame's identity. We know that Cheney told Libby to leak Plame's identity to the New York Times in an attempt to discredit her husband, who had accused the administration of manipulating prewar intelligence. We know that Cheney wrote talking points that may have encouraged Libby and others to mention Plame to reporters. We know that Cheney once talked to Bush about Libby's assignment, and got permission from the president for Libby to leak hitherto classified information to the Times.
We also know that Cheney wrote "not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy this Pres that was asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of incompetence of others", thanks to the trial. What do you think that strikeout might mean? This Pres-ley impersonator? This Pres-byterian? This Pres-tidigitator?
Scooter gets his Get Out Of Jail And Let Your Buddies Pay card, and Bush-Cheney get their stool pigeon sprung with his fifth amendment rights intact.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Jul 3, 2007 4:04:30 PM
Most distinctions between the Libby commutation and other commutations or pardons are favorable to Libby - a non-violent criminal who lied to obstruct a governmental investigation that resulted in no independent criminal charges (and not because of the obstruction but because the underlying facts apparently would not support prosecuting anybody.)
Under other circumstances, with some other subject of the exercise of the power, I am sure you would recognize those distinctions to be valid.
Many arguments on the last few threads and in Ezra's post question the executive power to grant clemency, pardon and or commute or its role in the justice system. Like many arguments during the Bush years, I do not think you really want what you seem to be arguing for (that is, that exercise of this power is contrary to justice per se.)
Posted by: slickdpdx | Jul 3, 2007 4:11:29 PM
Under other circumstances, with some other subject of the exercise of the power, I am sure you would recognize those distinctions to be valid.
Except the comparisons that are germane here are not those between Libby and other criminals but those between Bush and other Presidents. How many Presidents, exactly, have used the power of commutation to shield a member of their administration from the consequences of perjury and obstruction in a case touching on national security? Of these, how many match Bush's record of contempt for due process and cavalier approach to legal norms?
Posted by: W.B. Reeves | Jul 3, 2007 4:25:34 PM
Yes historical comparisons don't have to be exact to be relevant but that is no license for dispensing with historical context.
Exactly, WBR. There are significant differences between comparative cases, but to ignore the similarities is to miss important historical context that makes some of the claims made here plainly ill-founded.
A dismissive tone can't conceal the fact that, as on numerous other occasions, you either can't or won't back up your assertions. The casual reader can assess the significance of this for themselves.
Of course all of this is moot since you refuse to illustrate what you're talking about with examples.
I often wonder why you so often say crap like this, when it's plain as day what's at issue. All of the answers that come to mind are sad ones. I shouldn't have to point this out, but consider the most obvious recent parallel, Bill Clinton, raised in every thread on this, including this one. The fact that he pardoned his buddies/political helpers didn't imply he had no regard for the law and only contempt for his office. The differences between his case and Bush's don't change the relevance of that.
A companion said 'he assumed that the bear would only take an arm'.
I haven't assumed anything, pseudo. You're the one assuming things not in evidence.
Bush had already said he would let the legal process play out before any pardon.
Which he didn't do.
Don't know what you mean. Bush hasn't pardoned Libby.
See here for my replies to the likes of your conspiracy theory.
Posted by: Sanpete | Jul 3, 2007 5:07:22 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
