Can we hold off excusing Clinton's egregious pardons on the grounds of Bush's pardoning all of his subordinates for horrible crimes until Bush, y'know, actually pardons some subordinates for horrible crimes?
What will the BDS types do without their Two Minutes Hate against Bushitler? Palin's a pretty poor substitute, and Reagan and Nixon are dead. (There's always Cheney, I guess...)
The part about Cheney was an aside... It wasn't part of Martin's argument.
Something that was made evidently clear by Martin entitling the post "Cheney and the Chain Gang," surely. And certainly the concluding paragraph:
I wonder if the media will point out the comparative significance of the use (and abuse) of the power of the pardon in the context of Holder's hearings and the pardons that Bush will inevitably hand down to his inner circle
has nothing to do with his main argument. Strange. Both his title and his concluding paragraph are about Cheney and the "pardons that Bush will inevitably hand down," yet people (some, like "rick" with only a tenuous grasp of grammar) claim that it has nothing to do with his argument!
The part about Cheney may have been an aside (or, to put it more uncharitably, an attempt to change the subject, an odd thing to do in a blog post where the subject was chosen by the author), but the immediately preceding paragraph, presumably the point, was saying that a pardon of an unrelated criminal act for money is not as bad as a President pardoning someone in the executive branch for committing unConstitutional acts. The paragraph also alleges that this has happened, but does not deign to offer specifics.
If we can assume that it's not a comment about Bush, then it must be an argument, I suppose, that "well, Clinton's pardon of Rich is not as bad as Ford pardoning Nixon." The entire post seems to be an attempt to exculpate Holden for the pardon of Rich on the grounds of "worse pardons have happened before." That is true, but generally the presidents who have performed worse pardons have not needed to be confirmed by the Senate subsequently. Arguments along the line of "but someone else has done worse" are rarely that convincing.
I should note that--granting that the presidential power of pardoning implies a lesser power of commutation--there are at least reasonable grounds for doubting the constitutionality of the specific way in which Bush fashioned legal relief for Libby. See http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-libby-order-surrounded-by-doubt/
Also, one might note that Martin specifically in the comments concedes that his argument is about the pardons not yet issued-- but which he highly expects to be issued before Eric Holder's confirmation hearings, and that his post is largely about making sure that when those hearings happen that the pardons, if they happen, are brought up to provide context for the Rich pardon.
"Granted the Rich pardon was an unseemly use of that presidential prerogative, and Clinton deserves robust criticism for that decision,"
This isn't excusing Clinton's pardons. It's using them as a stepping-stone for criticizing Bush, again, for something he hasn't done yet except insofar as he commuted Libby's sentence.
Can we hold off ignoring the fact that a bipartisan Senate committee just found the highest levels of the Bush administration complicit in instituting a regime of torture and instead criticizing Caroline Kennedy's appointment to the Senate until she's, y'know, appointed?
Yeah really! With all the things Clinton did wrong, he did a helluva lot more things right than the disaster from Texas. Megan wants fair treatment for Bush? She's just embarassed for having supported the schmuck for so long.
Can we hold off excusing Clinton's egregious pardons on the grounds of Bush's pardoning all of his subordinates for horrible crimes until Bush, y'know, actually pardons some subordinates for horrible crimes?
As has been noted by some commenters, the point was in no way to excuse Clinton's egregious pardons. Far from it. I specifically suggested Clinton deserves robust criticism for same. I find pardons like in the case of Rich to be deserving of more attention and opprobrium.
But I tried to distinguish between such pardons and another more permicious brand. Unfortunately, presidents do hand out pardons as a form of political payback for certain supporters. Like Bush just did with respect to Isaac Toussie:
I would call that a Marc Rich type pardon, and it too, would deserve criticism as an unseemly use of power. But it would not rise above the level of Rich.
But that type of abuse is different from pardoning administration officials who had circumvented the Constittuion and/or otherwise engaged in the exercise of power above and beyond the law. See, ie, the mass pardons of Iran-Contra players and the precedent set. Pardons such as those tend to loosen constraints on executive branch members who might otherwise hesitate before breaking the law on the President's say-so.
I would think a libertarian would be similarly concerned.
And if your point is really that I'm premature, well fine. I hope that not only am I premature, but that my post was much ado about nothing and that Bush doesn't end up pardoning any in his administration for their involvement in the many unconstitutional and criminal acts of his administration.
Perhaps I should have changed my tone from "the inevitable" to "what I expect to happen." But I don't retract the substance.
That is true, but generally the presidents who have performed worse pardons have not needed to be confirmed by the Senate subsequently.
So, all the people who are saying this is a silly thing to be going on about, given that Bush hasn't pardoned anyone on the scale of Cheney, Gonzalez, Libby et. al. will of course - if these pardons actually take place - roundly condemn Bush for doing so?
Or will they just go on without missing a beat and say that condemning these pardons is just yet more evidence of 'BDS'? Does anyone seriously doubt what will happen?
On another note - I see that there's the usual dishonest honest tactic of trying to force the frame. In point of fact, Clinton's pardon of Rich was not 'unseemly', it was not a get out of jail free card that made Rich immune from any future legal processes, and there were excellent reasons for issuing the pardon, such as it was.
Notice, btw, that despite this 'pardoning', Rich has yet to return to the United States. And shows no inclinations of doing so. As always, cites are good things:
Clinton explained his decision by noting that similar situations were settled in civil, not criminal court, and cited clemency pleas from Israeli government officials, including Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Federal Prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate. She stepped down before the investigation was finished and was replaced by James Comey. Comey was critical of Clinton's pardons and Eric Holder's pardon recommendation.
As a condition to the pardon, it was made clear that Rich would drop all procedural defenses against any civil actions brought against him by the United States upon his return to this country. That condition was consistent with the position that his alleged wrongdoing warranted only civil penalties, not criminal punishment. To this day, Mr. Rich has not returned to the United States.
I don't have a problem with Eric's post in general - there's nothing wrong with speculation, and he certainly didn't excuse Clinton's pardoning. But I think his certainty that inner-circle pardons are forthcoming is unwarranted. The incoming administration won't have any interest in prosecuting Bush officials, and I think that Bush still believes he is destined for Truman-esque revisionary accolades some decades down the line. Pardoning everyone around him for war crimes and wiretapping is entirely incompatible with that goal: Bush remembers how Clinton's pardons were received. I bet he'll roll the dice and gamble that Obama is willing to sweep everything under the rug in the name of unity and change.
All the talk about prosecuting the outgoing administration makes me uncomfortable. It speaks of the criminalization of politics.
What will happen when every officeholder whose successor is from another party has to fear giving up power? In South America in the '50s the outgoing president would immediately take refuge in a foreign embassy. Doesn't that sound like a lovely spectacle?
More famously, Julius Caesar brought his army with him across the Rubicon when he reported to the Senate, which was controlled by his enemies.
If you don't like the other party's policies, vote against them. Campaign against them in the next election. Turn the rascals out.
If their conduct is criminal, impeach them.
Removal from office is the best remedy.
Our system depends a great deal upon the willingness of officeholders, especially the President, to go quietly when their term expires or they lose reelection. Let's not mess that up.
The more shrill the opposition to Holder's nomination due to the Marc Rich pardon, the harder time Bush will have when/if he pardons the criminals in his midsts.
Request: Could Megan refrain from firing off glib dismissals of other people's arguments until she, y'know, actually reads them? It is a waste of resources for the author of the piece in question to have to come over here to school her on how to read. A little embarrassing too, I'd imagine.
All the talk about prosecuting the outgoing administration makes me uncomfortable. It speaks of the criminalization of politics.
Isn't politics funny? You think politics get "criminalized" when people get prosecuted for breaking the law. I think politics get "criminalized" when people break the law in the first place. Oh well. I guess once the law is already broken it's too late to do anything about, so we might as well just not prosecute anyone.
"...the fact that a bipartisan Senate committee just found the highest levels of the Bush administration complicit in instituting a regime of torture..."
If this is, in fact, true, I can't wait for the criminal charges to be levied agains members of the current administration.......I won't hold my breath......
MikeF,
I think it more likely that Bush will not pardon members of his administration for their various criminal acts because that would require him to acknowledge that they were criminal acts. And, last I looked, he was still staunchly maintaining that those acts were perfectly legal. If he issues pardons, he is saying that he doesn't believe that his acts were legal -- hard to build a legacy on that.
Marc Rich bought a pardon for $10M after committing massive fraud. Even his own party condemned it.
Scooter Libby was guilty only of remembering a conversation differently than a reporter -- remember, Richard Armitage was the one who actually leaked the fact Valerie Wilson sent her husband to Niger (not Cheney as Wilson had claimed all over national media), a leak that had no impact on national security, unlike dozens of others that did but have not been pursued nearly as vigorously because they only hurt American security rather than the Democrat Party.
Scooter Libby was guilty only of remembering a conversation differently than a reporter
Oh, you're a mind-reader now? You know what he remembered or didn't remember?
Another way to describe what he was guilty of was "perjury." Unfortunately "that's how I remember it" is not a defense of perjury; if it were, that's what every perjurer would say, of course.
a leak that had no impact on national security
Absurdly ignorant. At least three Americans have died as a direct result of the Plame leak. That we know about.
Chet: I don't know of even one American who died as the result of the Plame leak. Care to provide a link so "we" can all know (or at least "know") that?
Chet: Which three? I haven't heard anything about that.
I think he's assuming that every unnamed CIA agent killed after the leak was killed because of the leak. But Chet, correct me if I'm wrong. I think we would have heard a lot more about this if it wasn't unfounded speculation though.
Actually, I've been pretty impressed that Bush's pardons are so innocuous. I EXPECTED Scooter Libby would lead off, and then maybe a bunch of high-dollar lobbyists (Avenue K kinda guys). I'be been pleased so far that they are pretty low-level kind of folks. But there's plenty of time left, and Madoff is still out there. As well as Libby and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all the guys who really deserve some attention (former IL gov Ryan?).
I am glad to see that Chet has proven himself to be the "moron". It appears not only does Chet makes things up, he is unable to differentiate between a pardon and a commutation of sentence.
Yeah, Chet is just the kind of person I want to go to for rational analysis.
I love how SoV thinks that the only rational choice is going crazy and complaining about hypothetical pardons only insinuated by the media and the opposing party and never mentioned by the administration.
Really, when Bush starts going, "I think I might pardon Cheney," then you can have your little two minutes of Bush hate.
And we can then debate whether Bush is pardoning them because he thinks they are guilty or merely because he fears prosecution.
And then we can debate whether "war crimes"(always a specious term, her tellingly so) were ever committed.
Until then, SoV, you're merely whistling Dixie, believing your fantasies where everyone right of Bill Ayers admits that the collective is correct and they are all corrupt banana republic politicians. Oh, and Bush stole the election, too. Forgot that point.
Separately, I also love how Caroline Kennedy can announce her interest in a seat and numerous politicians in power and with political influence can endorse her candidacy and begin campaigning across NY state for the seat,
and yet somehow this is the same as neither Bush nor anyone in the administration ever making a peep on pardoning themselves or other (leftist phrase alert!) "war criminals," but such information is merely speculation from the press, opposition party people, and webheads.
Absurdly ignorant. At least three Americans have died as a direct result of the Plame leak. That we know about.
Even if Chet does manage to provide us with names for the three people he claims were killed as a result of the Plame leak, this doesn't give us an explanation of how 3 Americans dying = a threat to national security.
Sad? Yes. Scandalous? Absolutely. Threat to national security? Uhhh...
I laugh - because I haven't heard about Bush Derangement Syndrome in a while. I figured it was because well over half of his original supporters realized that it's not deranged to recognize that nearly everything Bush did over 8 years has been a complete disgrace. You may literally be the only one in the universe who thinks the harsher criticisms of Bush are unfair.
Chet: Which three? I haven't heard anything about that.
Well, naturally you haven't heard anything about it, because that would contradict the media's right-wing narrative that the Plame leak was totally harmless politics-as-usual. The truth was that the leak basically ended not only Plame's anti-proliferation activities under the Brewster Jennings operation, but the lives of at least three CIA field personnel.
I think we would have heard a lot more about this if it wasn't unfounded speculation though.
Why would you have heard anything about it? Who would you have heard it from? The media? After Judith Miller spent all those months in jail as a "media martyr"? Once they'd crafted that narrative, wouldn't they'd have somewhat of a vested interest in ignoring anonymous CIA sources trying to get the word out about classified field deaths related to Brewster Jennings?
If you don't think there was fallout after the Plame leak, you probably were under the misapprehension that she wasn't a covert agent. Of course you need to be under that misapprehension, or else the Libby commutation looks a lot less like rectifying prosecutorial overreach and a lot more like a miscarriage of justice perpetrated to avoid accountability, aided by a completely complicit media.
this doesn't give us an explanation of how 3 Americans dying = a threat to national security.
I would say that terrorists gaining access to nuclear or chemical weapons is a pretty substantial threat to national security, but apparently you and the Bush Administration disagree.
And therefore I would describe significant obstacles to efforts to prevent that proliferation, as the Plame leak was to the Brewster Jennings anti-proliferation operation, as a threat to national security. But your mileage may vary, I suppose. Remind me again why conservatives are taken seriously on national security? Oh, that's right - they're not.
Just give us a source for the claim that 3 people died because Richard Armitage blew Plame's cover. I'm sure that there are legitimate reasons why the media didn't cover it.
Just give us a source for the claim that 3 people died because Richard Armitage blew Plame's cover.
The source is an anonymous leak from the CIA. It's easily googled. I believe it because it's obviously true. Outing CIA agents on active covert duty has consequences.
If you're asking for a link to a news story, you're not paying attention - I can't link to a story in the news because the news never reported it. Amazingly, it's possible for things to happen that the news doesn't report. For instance, just yesterday there was an environmental disaster in Tennessee that's shaping up to be more devastating than any oil spill in the past two decades, but you'll hear bupkis about it on the national news, because there won't be any oil-coated ducks; 500 million gallons of heavy metals dumped into the Tennessee river in the space of a day doesn't produce any good pictures.
An anonymous leak from the CIA leaked to whom? Don't tell us to Google it, provide a link to a trustworthy source, or admit you just made it up. After all, you heard about it, didn't you? Unless you're claiming to be the anonymous CIA leaker yourself, you must have a source. Quote it.
While you're at it, quote your source for the Tennessee enviornmental disaster. You don't claim to have witnessed it personally, so you must have heard about it somewhere. How about telling us where, so we can judge for ourselves how plausible the story is?
Let's remember what the standards of proof of the Weevils of the world really are. If Dumbya or Cheney says it, it must be true. No member of the Bush administraton has ever done anything wrong. We are a better nation in every way than we were on January 20, 2001, because of the incredible honesty and efficacy of the wonderful Bush/Cheney team.
This is really what these idiots believe. There is no point in arguing with them anymore, and really no need to do it. They have been flushed into their deserved sewers by the electorate and they will not be taken seriously by sane, intelligent adults ever again.
It's MORNING IN AMERICA! Our long national nightmare is over.
Now we just have to ignore the morons and start repairing the damage they have done.
"Oh, you're a mind-reader now? You know what he remembered or didn't remember?"
No need, I can read his testimony.
Another way to describe what he was guilty of was "perjury."
And yet another would be that a D.C. jury -- a city that is 90% Democrat -- voted to send the aide to an unpopular Republican Vice-President to prison on very thin charges that amount to him remembering a conversation differently than a reporter.
If 3 people died as a result of the Plame leak, why has Richard Armitage not been charged with a crime?
If Scooter Libby should be in prison because Richard Armitage told the truth about how Joe Wilson got to Niger, why are the leakers at the CIA who gave up actual terrorist-monitoring programs treated as heroic whistleblowers?
Outing CIA agents on active covert duty has consequences.
Obviously, CIA agents on active covert duty don't drive to work at Langley in plain view every day, as Plame did. She was a paper pusher.
Also, obviously, an "active covert" CIA agent whose identity was so sensitive it would cause people to be killed if known wouldn't send her husband to Niger on a very public trip, then put him on a national media tour to tell the world about the trip she sent him on.
If Scooter Libby should be in prison because Richard Armitage told the truth about how Joe Wilson got to Niger, why are the leakers at the CIA who gave up actual terrorist-monitoring programs treated as heroic whistleblowers?
Just think of all those vegetarian activists who won't have their phones tapped because of those horrible whistleblowers. The extra six hours or so it would take to get a warrant, even retroactively after we've already tapped their phones and gotten the information as provided under current FISA law, is the difference between freedom and death. We're all DOOMED!!! Everyone be scared now!
Yes, TallDave, that's the established (and proven false) right-wing narrative about the Plame affair.
If 3 people died as a result of the Plame leak, why has Richard Armitage not been charged with a crime?
Who, in your view, would charge him? The DOJ? The DOJ that works for his boss, who ordered the leaks?
The Obama administration? They've already decided not to prosecute any Bush administration individuals for their crimes. So who precisely is supposed to bring these charges?
The source is an anonymous leak from the CIA. It's easily googled. I believe it because it's obviously true.
Then google it and post a link - you made the claim, so back it up. Anonymous sources are fine when they are cited by a journalist or a trustworthy person who actually knows the identity of the leaker (but is protecting him/her). If you're talking about something that was posted by "CIA_man_8734" on a leftie internet forum... not so trustworthy.
1st "The source is an anonymous leak from the CIA. It's easily googled."
2nd "If you're asking for a link to a news story, you're not paying attention - I can't link to a story in the news because the news never reported it. Amazingly, it's possible for things to happen that the news doesn't report."
Everyone, you have the information you need about Chet's claims, don't you? A shocking development on a story that garnered front page attention for years is all over the internet. No one--not even a Matt Drudge wanna be--is bothering to note this wildfire across google, though.
I hope the explanation here is that Chet is goofing on you guys.
Who, in your view, would charge him? The DOJ? The DOJ that works for his boss, who ordered the leaks?
Now you're just babbling. Scooter Libby was charged, wasn't he? What do you think special prosecutors are for?
Since you don't know the answer, I'll tell you why Armitage wasn't charged: Plame wasn't covert, and releasing her identity meant nothing to anyone -- except Joe Wilson and Democrats, who were telling the most outrageous lies about Wilson's trip to Niger all over the national media. The whole investigation was a political witch with no possibility of charges because there was no underlying crime. There never should have been a DOJ referral -- as there wasn't for the leak of the SWIFT terrorist finance tracking program.
But hey, who cares if terrorists get a few billion in funds, right? The important thing is that Democrats be allowed to lie with impunity.
So, your basis for arguing one CIA leak should be prosecuted is... another CIA leak? Do I even need to point out the absurdity of this? By your argument, we should have a special prosecutor investigating YOUR leak and putting your source in jail.
They're for pursuing charges relevant to their mandate. Charges against Richard Armitage for treason simply weren't within that mandate, especially once the grand jury expired. As I said, even if it could be factually established in a court of law that anyone died as a result of the Plame leak - and since the identities of covert agents are classified, that's probably not possible - there's simply no more political capital to do it. Pat Fitzgerald is no longer the special prosecutor. Scooter Libby successfully obstructed justice and was convicted of it. The media will never report on the deaths because they're complicit in them.
I'll tell you why Armitage wasn't charged: Plame wasn't covert, and releasing her identity meant nothing to anyone -- except Joe Wilson and Democrats, who were telling the most outrageous lies about Wilson's trip to Niger all over the national media.
Ignorant tripe. Plame was covert, as the CIA confirmed; she was a key member of the Brewster Jennings anti-proliferation program, which was completely sandbagged when her cover was blown. She did not "send Joe Wilson to Niger", and the crime that was committed was obscured by Libby's perjury, for which he was convicted in a court of law.
It's all a matter of the public record, Dave, if you'd care to inform yourself. But your perspective on the Plame affair is 100% wrong.
It is pointless to argue with people like Dave. They are all mindless Republican Bushbots and therefore, by definition, traitors to their country.
Go back to your little shrine to your Immaculate God-King George Bush, little Davey, and for God's sake, stop masturbating to those Abu Graib photos. Your mother might hear you in the basement.
Do you not consider Scooter Libby a subordinate?
Uh, Libby was not pardoned. He had his sentence commuted. That is easily determined with a Google search, Josh.
Rick
"Speaking of which,"
The part about Cheney was an aside... It wasn't part of Martin's argument.
What will the BDS types do without their Two Minutes Hate against Bushitler? Palin's a pretty poor substitute, and Reagan and Nixon are dead. (There's always Cheney, I guess...)
Its also a sad attempt to troll Obsidian Wings.
Sorry but, the smart kids don't want to play with you.
Megan, do you disagree with what was posted at Obsidian Wings or do you disagree with what you imagined they posted?
Uh, Libby was not pardoned. He had his sentence commuted. That is easily determined with a Google search, Josh.
Oh, I guess that's OK, then.
Moron.
Something that was made evidently clear by Martin entitling the post "Cheney and the Chain Gang," surely. And certainly the concluding paragraph:
has nothing to do with his main argument. Strange. Both his title and his concluding paragraph are about Cheney and the "pardons that Bush will inevitably hand down," yet people (some, like "rick" with only a tenuous grasp of grammar) claim that it has nothing to do with his argument!
The part about Cheney may have been an aside (or, to put it more uncharitably, an attempt to change the subject, an odd thing to do in a blog post where the subject was chosen by the author), but the immediately preceding paragraph, presumably the point, was saying that a pardon of an unrelated criminal act for money is not as bad as a President pardoning someone in the executive branch for committing unConstitutional acts. The paragraph also alleges that this has happened, but does not deign to offer specifics.
If we can assume that it's not a comment about Bush, then it must be an argument, I suppose, that "well, Clinton's pardon of Rich is not as bad as Ford pardoning Nixon." The entire post seems to be an attempt to exculpate Holden for the pardon of Rich on the grounds of "worse pardons have happened before." That is true, but generally the presidents who have performed worse pardons have not needed to be confirmed by the Senate subsequently. Arguments along the line of "but someone else has done worse" are rarely that convincing.
I should note that--granting that the presidential power of pardoning implies a lesser power of commutation--there are at least reasonable grounds for doubting the constitutionality of the specific way in which Bush fashioned legal relief for Libby. See http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-libby-order-surrounded-by-doubt/
Also, one might note that Martin specifically in the comments concedes that his argument is about the pardons not yet issued-- but which he highly expects to be issued before Eric Holder's confirmation hearings, and that his post is largely about making sure that when those hearings happen that the pardons, if they happen, are brought up to provide context for the Rich pardon.
The link said,
"Granted the Rich pardon was an unseemly use of that presidential prerogative, and Clinton deserves robust criticism for that decision,"
This isn't excusing Clinton's pardons. It's using them as a stepping-stone for criticizing Bush, again, for something he hasn't done yet except insofar as he commuted Libby's sentence.
Request:
Can we stop playing the bullshit equivalency game?
Can we hold off ignoring the fact that a bipartisan Senate committee just found the highest levels of the Bush administration complicit in instituting a regime of torture and instead criticizing Caroline Kennedy's appointment to the Senate until she's, y'know, appointed?
Thought not.
Yeah really! With all the things Clinton did wrong, he did a helluva lot more things right than the disaster from Texas. Megan wants fair treatment for Bush? She's just embarassed for having supported the schmuck for so long.
Can we hold off excusing Clinton's egregious pardons on the grounds of Bush's pardoning all of his subordinates for horrible crimes until Bush, y'know, actually pardons some subordinates for horrible crimes?
As has been noted by some commenters, the point was in no way to excuse Clinton's egregious pardons. Far from it. I specifically suggested Clinton deserves robust criticism for same. I find pardons like in the case of Rich to be deserving of more attention and opprobrium.
But I tried to distinguish between such pardons and another more permicious brand. Unfortunately, presidents do hand out pardons as a form of political payback for certain supporters. Like Bush just did with respect to Isaac Toussie:
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/12/pardon_him.php
I would call that a Marc Rich type pardon, and it too, would deserve criticism as an unseemly use of power. But it would not rise above the level of Rich.
But that type of abuse is different from pardoning administration officials who had circumvented the Constittuion and/or otherwise engaged in the exercise of power above and beyond the law. See, ie, the mass pardons of Iran-Contra players and the precedent set. Pardons such as those tend to loosen constraints on executive branch members who might otherwise hesitate before breaking the law on the President's say-so.
I would think a libertarian would be similarly concerned.
And if your point is really that I'm premature, well fine. I hope that not only am I premature, but that my post was much ado about nothing and that Bush doesn't end up pardoning any in his administration for their involvement in the many unconstitutional and criminal acts of his administration.
Perhaps I should have changed my tone from "the inevitable" to "what I expect to happen." But I don't retract the substance.
That is true, but generally the presidents who have performed worse pardons have not needed to be confirmed by the Senate subsequently.
Nor will President Clinton.
So, all the people who are saying this is a silly thing to be going on about, given that Bush hasn't pardoned anyone on the scale of Cheney, Gonzalez, Libby et. al. will of course - if these pardons actually take place - roundly condemn Bush for doing so?
Or will they just go on without missing a beat and say that condemning these pardons is just yet more evidence of 'BDS'? Does anyone seriously doubt what will happen?
On another note - I see that there's the usual dishonest honest tactic of trying to force the frame. In point of fact, Clinton's pardon of Rich was not 'unseemly', it was not a get out of jail free card that made Rich immune from any future legal processes, and there were excellent reasons for issuing the pardon, such as it was.
Notice, btw, that despite this 'pardoning', Rich has yet to return to the United States. And shows no inclinations of doing so. As always, cites are good things:
I don't have a problem with Eric's post in general - there's nothing wrong with speculation, and he certainly didn't excuse Clinton's pardoning. But I think his certainty that inner-circle pardons are forthcoming is unwarranted. The incoming administration won't have any interest in prosecuting Bush officials, and I think that Bush still believes he is destined for Truman-esque revisionary accolades some decades down the line. Pardoning everyone around him for war crimes and wiretapping is entirely incompatible with that goal: Bush remembers how Clinton's pardons were received. I bet he'll roll the dice and gamble that Obama is willing to sweep everything under the rug in the name of unity and change.
All the talk about prosecuting the outgoing administration makes me uncomfortable. It speaks of the criminalization of politics.
What will happen when every officeholder whose successor is from another party has to fear giving up power? In South America in the '50s the outgoing president would immediately take refuge in a foreign embassy. Doesn't that sound like a lovely spectacle?
More famously, Julius Caesar brought his army with him across the Rubicon when he reported to the Senate, which was controlled by his enemies.
If you don't like the other party's policies, vote against them. Campaign against them in the next election. Turn the rascals out.
If their conduct is criminal, impeach them.
Removal from office is the best remedy.
Our system depends a great deal upon the willingness of officeholders, especially the President, to go quietly when their term expires or they lose reelection. Let's not mess that up.
The more shrill the opposition to Holder's nomination due to the Marc Rich pardon, the harder time Bush will have when/if he pardons the criminals in his midsts.
Masterstroke by Obama.
Request: Could Megan refrain from firing off glib dismissals of other people's arguments until she, y'know, actually reads them? It is a waste of resources for the author of the piece in question to have to come over here to school her on how to read. A little embarrassing too, I'd imagine.
"...the fact that a bipartisan Senate committee just found the highest levels of the Bush administration complicit in instituting a regime of torture..."
If this is, in fact, true, I can't wait for the criminal charges to be levied agains members of the current administration.......I won't hold my breath......
MikeF,
I think it more likely that Bush will not pardon members of his administration for their various criminal acts because that would require him to acknowledge that they were criminal acts. And, last I looked, he was still staunchly maintaining that those acts were perfectly legal. If he issues pardons, he is saying that he doesn't believe that his acts were legal -- hard to build a legacy on that.
Marc Rich bought a pardon for $10M after committing massive fraud. Even his own party condemned it.
Scooter Libby was guilty only of remembering a conversation differently than a reporter -- remember, Richard Armitage was the one who actually leaked the fact Valerie Wilson sent her husband to Niger (not Cheney as Wilson had claimed all over national media), a leak that had no impact on national security, unlike dozens of others that did but have not been pursued nearly as vigorously because they only hurt American security rather than the Democrat Party.
Scooter Libby was guilty only of remembering a conversation differently than a reporter
Oh, you're a mind-reader now? You know what he remembered or didn't remember?
Another way to describe what he was guilty of was "perjury." Unfortunately "that's how I remember it" is not a defense of perjury; if it were, that's what every perjurer would say, of course.
a leak that had no impact on national security
Absurdly ignorant. At least three Americans have died as a direct result of the Plame leak. That we know about.
Chet: Which three? I haven't heard anything about that.
Chet: I don't know of even one American who died as the result of the Plame leak. Care to provide a link so "we" can all know (or at least "know") that?
Chet: Which three? I haven't heard anything about that.
I think he's assuming that every unnamed CIA agent killed after the leak was killed because of the leak. But Chet, correct me if I'm wrong. I think we would have heard a lot more about this if it wasn't unfounded speculation though.
Actually, I've been pretty impressed that Bush's pardons are so innocuous. I EXPECTED Scooter Libby would lead off, and then maybe a bunch of high-dollar lobbyists (Avenue K kinda guys). I'be been pleased so far that they are pretty low-level kind of folks. But there's plenty of time left, and Madoff is still out there. As well as Libby and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all the guys who really deserve some attention (former IL gov Ryan?).
The biggest problem is that no one in the Bush administration has done anything wrong, therefore there is no need for any pardons.
I am glad to see that Chet has proven himself to be the "moron". It appears not only does Chet makes things up, he is unable to differentiate between a pardon and a commutation of sentence.
Yeah, Chet is just the kind of person I want to go to for rational analysis.
Rick
I love how SoV thinks that the only rational choice is going crazy and complaining about hypothetical pardons only insinuated by the media and the opposing party and never mentioned by the administration.
Really, when Bush starts going, "I think I might pardon Cheney," then you can have your little two minutes of Bush hate.
And we can then debate whether Bush is pardoning them because he thinks they are guilty or merely because he fears prosecution.
And then we can debate whether "war crimes"(always a specious term, her tellingly so) were ever committed.
Until then, SoV, you're merely whistling Dixie, believing your fantasies where everyone right of Bill Ayers admits that the collective is correct and they are all corrupt banana republic politicians. Oh, and Bush stole the election, too. Forgot that point.
Separately, I also love how Caroline Kennedy can announce her interest in a seat and numerous politicians in power and with political influence can endorse her candidacy and begin campaigning across NY state for the seat,
and yet somehow this is the same as neither Bush nor anyone in the administration ever making a peep on pardoning themselves or other (leftist phrase alert!) "war criminals," but such information is merely speculation from the press, opposition party people, and webheads.
Good parallel there, boys.
Absurdly ignorant. At least three Americans have died as a direct result of the Plame leak. That we know about.
Even if Chet does manage to provide us with names for the three people he claims were killed as a result of the Plame leak, this doesn't give us an explanation of how 3 Americans dying = a threat to national security.
Sad? Yes. Scandalous? Absolutely. Threat to national security? Uhhh...
And the aforementioned pardon has been withdrawn. Wonder what the lefties will say about THAT.
I laugh - because I haven't heard about Bush Derangement Syndrome in a while. I figured it was because well over half of his original supporters realized that it's not deranged to recognize that nearly everything Bush did over 8 years has been a complete disgrace. You may literally be the only one in the universe who thinks the harsher criticisms of Bush are unfair.
I wasn't directly responding to H-C, although it would be funny if I had been! It wouldn't make any sense!
Chet: Which three? I haven't heard anything about that.
Well, naturally you haven't heard anything about it, because that would contradict the media's right-wing narrative that the Plame leak was totally harmless politics-as-usual. The truth was that the leak basically ended not only Plame's anti-proliferation activities under the Brewster Jennings operation, but the lives of at least three CIA field personnel.
I think we would have heard a lot more about this if it wasn't unfounded speculation though.
Why would you have heard anything about it? Who would you have heard it from? The media? After Judith Miller spent all those months in jail as a "media martyr"? Once they'd crafted that narrative, wouldn't they'd have somewhat of a vested interest in ignoring anonymous CIA sources trying to get the word out about classified field deaths related to Brewster Jennings?
If you don't think there was fallout after the Plame leak, you probably were under the misapprehension that she wasn't a covert agent. Of course you need to be under that misapprehension, or else the Libby commutation looks a lot less like rectifying prosecutorial overreach and a lot more like a miscarriage of justice perpetrated to avoid accountability, aided by a completely complicit media.
Couldn't have that, right?
this doesn't give us an explanation of how 3 Americans dying = a threat to national security.
I would say that terrorists gaining access to nuclear or chemical weapons is a pretty substantial threat to national security, but apparently you and the Bush Administration disagree.
And therefore I would describe significant obstacles to efforts to prevent that proliferation, as the Plame leak was to the Brewster Jennings anti-proliferation operation, as a threat to national security. But your mileage may vary, I suppose. Remind me again why conservatives are taken seriously on national security? Oh, that's right - they're not.
Chet,
Just give us a source for the claim that 3 people died because Richard Armitage blew Plame's cover. I'm sure that there are legitimate reasons why the media didn't cover it.
Half Canadian, he doesn't have a source. It's entirely made up.
That of course doesn't make the Plame leak any less ghastly, but Chet is not even attempting to hide the fact that his claim is not true.
Just give us a source for the claim that 3 people died because Richard Armitage blew Plame's cover.
The source is an anonymous leak from the CIA. It's easily googled. I believe it because it's obviously true. Outing CIA agents on active covert duty has consequences.
If you're asking for a link to a news story, you're not paying attention - I can't link to a story in the news because the news never reported it. Amazingly, it's possible for things to happen that the news doesn't report. For instance, just yesterday there was an environmental disaster in Tennessee that's shaping up to be more devastating than any oil spill in the past two decades, but you'll hear bupkis about it on the national news, because there won't be any oil-coated ducks; 500 million gallons of heavy metals dumped into the Tennessee river in the space of a day doesn't produce any good pictures.
An anonymous leak from the CIA leaked to whom? Don't tell us to Google it, provide a link to a trustworthy source, or admit you just made it up. After all, you heard about it, didn't you? Unless you're claiming to be the anonymous CIA leaker yourself, you must have a source. Quote it.
While you're at it, quote your source for the Tennessee enviornmental disaster. You don't claim to have witnessed it personally, so you must have heard about it somewhere. How about telling us where, so we can judge for ourselves how plausible the story is?
Let's remember what the standards of proof of the Weevils of the world really are. If Dumbya or Cheney says it, it must be true. No member of the Bush administraton has ever done anything wrong. We are a better nation in every way than we were on January 20, 2001, because of the incredible honesty and efficacy of the wonderful Bush/Cheney team.
This is really what these idiots believe. There is no point in arguing with them anymore, and really no need to do it. They have been flushed into their deserved sewers by the electorate and they will not be taken seriously by sane, intelligent adults ever again.
It's MORNING IN AMERICA! Our long national nightmare is over.
Now we just have to ignore the morons and start repairing the damage they have done.
"Oh, you're a mind-reader now? You know what he remembered or didn't remember?"
No need, I can read his testimony.
Another way to describe what he was guilty of was "perjury."
And yet another would be that a D.C. jury -- a city that is 90% Democrat -- voted to send the aide to an unpopular Republican Vice-President to prison on very thin charges that amount to him remembering a conversation differently than a reporter.
If 3 people died as a result of the Plame leak, why has Richard Armitage not been charged with a crime?
If Scooter Libby should be in prison because Richard Armitage told the truth about how Joe Wilson got to Niger, why are the leakers at the CIA who gave up actual terrorist-monitoring programs treated as heroic whistleblowers?
Outing CIA agents on active covert duty has consequences.
Obviously, CIA agents on active covert duty don't drive to work at Langley in plain view every day, as Plame did. She was a paper pusher.
Also, obviously, an "active covert" CIA agent whose identity was so sensitive it would cause people to be killed if known wouldn't send her husband to Niger on a very public trip, then put him on a national media tour to tell the world about the trip she sent him on.
Yes, TallDave, that's the established (and proven false) right-wing narrative about the Plame affair.
If 3 people died as a result of the Plame leak, why has Richard Armitage not been charged with a crime?
Who, in your view, would charge him? The DOJ? The DOJ that works for his boss, who ordered the leaks?
The Obama administration? They've already decided not to prosecute any Bush administration individuals for their crimes. So who precisely is supposed to bring these charges?
The source is an anonymous leak from the CIA. It's easily googled. I believe it because it's obviously true.
Then google it and post a link - you made the claim, so back it up. Anonymous sources are fine when they are cited by a journalist or a trustworthy person who actually knows the identity of the leaker (but is protecting him/her). If you're talking about something that was posted by "CIA_man_8734" on a leftie internet forum... not so trustworthy.
Doing Chet's work for him, there is a Daily Kos entry:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/20/04918/1941
that sepculates on this. Including this text:
"Could that be an agent who died as a result of the Plame Leak? It's pure speculation . . ."
Everything following is pure speculation, meaning that they have no facts. And this is for agent (RIP).
Chet's words, in the same post:
1st "The source is an anonymous leak from the CIA. It's easily googled."
2nd "If you're asking for a link to a news story, you're not paying attention - I can't link to a story in the news because the news never reported it. Amazingly, it's possible for things to happen that the news doesn't report."
Everyone, you have the information you need about Chet's claims, don't you? A shocking development on a story that garnered front page attention for years is all over the internet. No one--not even a Matt Drudge wanna be--is bothering to note this wildfire across google, though.
I hope the explanation here is that Chet is goofing on you guys.
Who, in your view, would charge him? The DOJ? The DOJ that works for his boss, who ordered the leaks?
Now you're just babbling. Scooter Libby was charged, wasn't he? What do you think special prosecutors are for?
Since you don't know the answer, I'll tell you why Armitage wasn't charged: Plame wasn't covert, and releasing her identity meant nothing to anyone -- except Joe Wilson and Democrats, who were telling the most outrageous lies about Wilson's trip to Niger all over the national media. The whole investigation was a political witch with no possibility of charges because there was no underlying crime. There never should have been a DOJ referral -- as there wasn't for the leak of the SWIFT terrorist finance tracking program.
But hey, who cares if terrorists get a few billion in funds, right? The important thing is that Democrats be allowed to lie with impunity.
The source is an anonymous leak from the CIA.
So, your basis for arguing one CIA leak should be prosecuted is... another CIA leak? Do I even need to point out the absurdity of this? By your argument, we should have a special prosecutor investigating YOUR leak and putting your source in jail.
What do you think special prosecutors are for?
They're for pursuing charges relevant to their mandate. Charges against Richard Armitage for treason simply weren't within that mandate, especially once the grand jury expired. As I said, even if it could be factually established in a court of law that anyone died as a result of the Plame leak - and since the identities of covert agents are classified, that's probably not possible - there's simply no more political capital to do it. Pat Fitzgerald is no longer the special prosecutor. Scooter Libby successfully obstructed justice and was convicted of it. The media will never report on the deaths because they're complicit in them.
I'll tell you why Armitage wasn't charged: Plame wasn't covert, and releasing her identity meant nothing to anyone -- except Joe Wilson and Democrats, who were telling the most outrageous lies about Wilson's trip to Niger all over the national media.
Ignorant tripe. Plame was covert, as the CIA confirmed; she was a key member of the Brewster Jennings anti-proliferation program, which was completely sandbagged when her cover was blown. She did not "send Joe Wilson to Niger", and the crime that was committed was obscured by Libby's perjury, for which he was convicted in a court of law.
It's all a matter of the public record, Dave, if you'd care to inform yourself. But your perspective on the Plame affair is 100% wrong.
Chet,
It is pointless to argue with people like Dave. They are all mindless Republican Bushbots and therefore, by definition, traitors to their country.
Go back to your little shrine to your Immaculate God-King George Bush, little Davey, and for God's sake, stop masturbating to those Abu Graib photos. Your mother might hear you in the basement.