60 percent of Americans think Bush should have left the pardon in place. I hope the Democrats are prepared to ignore the braindead crew at the WaPost editorial board and hang this around the necks of the Republican presidential contenders and congressional leaders. Hay should be made.
« Honor Among Thieves | Main | My Secrets Exposed »
Against Commutation
02 Jul 2007 09:01 pm
Comments (42)
60 percent of Americans think Bush should have left the pardon in place.
Surely you mean "left the prison sentence in place"?
"WASHINGTON — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales today, speaking before employees at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)...
....
Restore Binding Nature of Sentencing Guidelines:
For every federal crime, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines provide a range of punishments in which a criminal convict’s sentence should fall. In U.S. v. Booker, the Supreme Court held that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, freeing federal courts to go below the guidelines range when they deem it reasonable to do so in specific cases. The proposed Sentencing Reform Act will:
Restore the binding nature of the guidelines by making the bottom of the guideline range for each offense a minimum sentence that must be imposed when the elements of the offense are proven
Far-sighted and prudent Democrats will also highlight Thompson's leading role in this farce when he announces his candidacy this week or next.
More interestingly, 40% of REPUBLICANS think Bush should have left the sentence in place -- which (comapred to Bush's vastly more solid support from the nation's remaining Republicans on every issue except immigration) means that he may have hurt himself a lot more even with his "base" than the Talking Heads are saying (something Mystery Pollster pointed out some time back).
Only 22% thought the Amnesty bill was a good idea. So what? With one side of your face you champion "the will of the people" and when it doesn't further your agenda, you don't.
You're a shill.
Let's all remember that Bush is within his constitutional abilities just as Bill Clinton was when he pardoned (yes PARDONED) his criminal buddy Marc Rich.
It may not make any difference, though; Brad DeLong cites a detailed "LA Times" analysis by Jeff Lomanaco -- agreeing with "MSB's" comment on the thread immediately below that Bush's real intent was just to make sure that Libby can't be forced to testify before Congress on Bush's and Cheney's own actions in the Plame Affair (and also that they themselves can continue to avoid answering reporters' questions on the subject on the grounds that they would be "interfering with Mr. Libby's continuing appeals"). http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/07-jeff-lomanaco-p.html
(Sounds like Addington at work again to me. Certainly somebody very intelligent has been busy over the least few years finding the weak spots to unjoint the American eagle.)
Of course he and Clinton (and Ford, and Bush Sr. with Weinberger & company) were within their "Constitutional abilities" in their sleazy actions, Fred. That's because their "Constitutional abilities" in this respect were written, once again, on the assumption that political parties would never exist -- and in this particular case, they were also designed by Alexander Hamilton, who had lost his bid to give the President a 30-year term but still favored raising his powers as close to those of a king as possible.
You know, Fred, the Marc Rich hyping is such bullcrap - so spare the manufactured Free Republic outrage.
What you guys always forget to talk about is that Marc Rich also faces a slew of non-federal lawsuits (for instance, he owed New York State over $100 million in back taxes that they couldn't get because he had fled the country, and if he ever returned the feds would have first shot at him. As part of the pardon for his "criminal buddy", Rich had to come back and face the music for all his non-federal charges. If Clinton hadn't acted, Rich would still be living the high life abroad, instead, New York State was able to go after him for his tax evasion.
Even though he was pardoned by Clinton, Rich still had justice served against him - can't say the same thing about Bush and Libby.
[Putting aside the um, typo] I totally support the pardon power. The power exists as an outlet for pressure in the system, and is not too far from the idea that we 'should let ten guilty men go free, rather than imprison one innocent person'.
The checks on the misuse of the pardon power are 1> impeachment, 2> elections and 3> outrage, and I say that whomever wishes to do so, should overfulfill their constitutional perogatives and roast His Narcissistic Majesties Royal Ass.
You're a shill.
Bush certainly is, as are you.
m, have a nice day
A felony conviction (as is left intact by this commutation) precludes Libby from engaging in a long list of personal, civic and vocational (the practice of law?) liberties. Look for Bush to complete the circle and grant a full pardon in the last few hours in office.
just as Bill Clinton was when he pardoned (yes PARDONED) his criminal buddy Marc Rich.
tell us Fred, who was Rich's lawyer from 1985 till 2000 ?
You write that "60 percent of Americans". Wrong. Read the survey. It says that "1,500 Americans were surveyed. Of them 825 were familiar with the Libby case," and of those 825, 60% disapproved. So, actually, more like 30% of Americans.
The Dems' new slogan should be "Law and order conservatives, my ass."
With one side of your face you champion "the will of the people" and when it doesn't further your agenda, you don't.
Need some work on your reading comprehension, Fred. Matt's not championing the "will of the people" he is simply noting that it would be a good political move for the Dems to hang this pardon over the Republicans' heads. The poll merely shows that this political strategy will work.
60% of Americans think Bush should have left the SENTENCE in place, not the pardon (which doesn't make sense).
Small typos are no big deal but c'mon.
60 percent of Americans think Bush should have left the pardon in place. I hope the Democrats are prepared to ignore the braindead crew at the WaPost editorial board and hang this around the necks of the Republican presidential contenders and congressional leaders. Hay should be made.
I'm not sure the Democrats, especially Hillary, would be wise to open that can of worms, given the sorry state of their own ethics record, and especially the Clinton Administration's. Let's review:
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court
The 1996 campaign finance scandal alone resulted in the criminal conviction of 17 people on dozens of counts of fraud, conspiracy, illegal campaign contributions, jury tampering and other crimes related to funding for Democratic election campaigns, including Clinton's.
Fixing Bruce Moomaw's link:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/07/jeff-lomonaco-p.html
Can Congress force Libby to testify by granting immunity? Of course Bush and Cheney would still say they won't comment on ongoing legal proceedings, but that excuse has always been the most fragrant of bullcrap anyway.
shurely shome mishtake
KaLo and the rest of the Neo-- Fascists at the Corner will squeal like pigs, and spin so fast, they’ll affect the earth’s rotation.
It is amazing that they have not been shamed into silence-- constant propaganda that at its core is against the rule of law, democracy, the Constitution and American international and security interests.
Even Mussolini would winch at their brazen and shameful corruption.
Is there really hay to be made here? It's bad for Bush & Cheney (at least to the extent that the public understands the issue) but neither of them are on the ballot in 2008. Unless there's some reasonably direct connection that I haven't heard about, I can't see any of the Republican presidential candidates being blamed for the pardon.
Seamus,
That's a good reason why the Democratic Party would be craaaazy to nominate Hillary.
Matt-- Would it be too much to ask you to proof read your damned posts? This is your blog and you are making a living off of it. You're a smart kid but it seems like every post you have has a typo that either changes the meaning or distracts the reader. You're a smart kid, but grow up. This isn't some high school project. Act like a professional.
And while we're on the subject of neocon justice, let's note that Paul Wolfowitz had a very short stay in the bread lines. He's just been hired as a (try not to vomit) "Visiting Scholar" by the American Enterprise Institute.
Odd thing about that lady who accused Clinton of rape, Seamus: Juanita Broaddrick claims that she just can't remember the day, month, or season of the year in which he raped her. (The fact that such data would allow his intinerary to be checked to determine whether he has an airtight alibi and she's lying through her teeth is doubtless coincidental.) As for your other twaddle, I'll leave my fellow commentors to review it because I don't have time (although it has been extensively reviewed before, I assure you). Menawhile, may I suggest that it's rather unwise to borrow your talking points word-for-word from the blogs of Bush's few remaining crackpot supporters?
Just agreeing with DH; the flip hip tone can work, but when combined with so many important typos, it only says "sloppy"....
Thanks for the moronic FUD, Seamus. Go ahead and let go of your pickle now.
One thing Bush has taught us is that if you're going to be a really bad president, it's a good strategy to be stupendously, horribly bad - innovatively bad - in every way you can think of. Be so incompetent, corrupt and traitorous that you make it impossible for people to keep all the badness in their heads at once. It's like a non-lethal weapon the Pentagon would dream up - dizziness and vomiting is so distracting. While people's heads are spinning, you can get away with even more shit.
I would like to see the media remind people of this quote by George H.W. Bush:
“I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.” [Speech at CIA, 4/26/99]
Bruce Moomaw,
As for your other twaddle, I'll leave my fellow commentors to review it because I don't have time
"Twaddle?" So you're now denying even matters of public record, are you?
The WaPo was late to publish, and it's a weasely 'he should have halved the jail time' piece of shit.
Unless there's some reasonably direct connection that I haven't heard about, I can't see any of the Republican presidential candidates being blamed for the pardon.
Well, there's the small matter of Mitt Romney, who never issued a pardon as governor, discovering a taste for executive clemency. Or Rudy Giuliani, former federal prosecutor, deciding that this particular prosecution was in error.
Seamus: Those "matters of public record" cited by you have been described as flatly erroneous by other ommentators in the past. And if you're dumb enough to fall for the Juanita Broaddrick story, I have every reason to think you're dumb enough to swallow other erroneous data from the same source (since it's reasonable to assume that you're citing some single blogger's supposed "facts" about Bush verbatim).
seamus, just to support bruce here for a second: just because dimwitted rightwingers make up phony lists of crap doesn't mean the rest of us have to take the time to educate the ideologically-blinkered uneducable.
Can Congress force Libby to testify by granting immunity?
Of course.
Seamus: Those "matters of public record" cited by you have been described as flatly erroneous by other ommentators in the past.
They've "been described" that way, you say?
Which items on the list do you (yes, YOU) claim are factually incorrect? I like to educate the ignorant.
Matt,
Love your commentary, but I strongly advise you proofread your posts. An alarming fraction have spelling, grammatical, or other errors. I make 'em too, and know how rushing a post (or more often, rewriting sections) can lead to errors. But sometimes it gets to the point where your meaning is totally lost. "60 percent of Americans think Bush should have left the pardon in place." That makes no sense at all. There has been no pardon. And the 60 percent were assenting to a "president should have 'Left The Prison Sentence In Place'" option.
Pardon me while I burst/ Intoooooooo flames/ I've had enough of this world/ And its people's mindless games/
Allow me to join the chorus: you may consider this an intervention if you like. You may have some decent reason to avoid careful self-editing, but without it, you are tarnishing your good work. You may think that minor errors make no difference; to me, a sympathetic audience, they do not. To an unsympathetic audience, they are signifiers of sloppiness, amateurism, and indifference. Your voice would be much more potent if it were allowed a polished medium.
I've just found Seamus' source -- and, sure enough, he quoted it verbatim. Interestingly, it's the "Progressive Review" ( http://prorev.com/legacy.htm ), an ultraleft magazine which (as Seamus, for some reason, never gets around to mentioning) regards Bush as much, much worse. Nor does Seamus mention that the same Progressive Review piece reveals great enthusiasm for the theory that the Clintons were having people murdered wholesale, and cites Christopher Ruddy, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, and Alexander Cockburn as among its main sources. With friends like these...
Well I have few problems with the pardon as such. Libby was working in the best interests of his boss George W Bush. It is only right that Bush pardon him. But the buck has to stop somewhere, someone has to be punished. The logical conclusion is that Bush ought to resign or at least apologise. If, of course, Libby was not a faithful servant, then he ought to be punished, but I expect that we all know he was. So Bush ought to take Libby's guilt on his own head.
Naive I know.
My guess is that this will be worth $100 million in additional contributions to Democrats for 2008.
> Surely you mean "left the prison
> sentence in place"?
Well, he might have intended that in the sense of "left the pardon in place on the shelf". But if so it is not a very clearly expressed thought anyway.
Cranky
(St.) Ronald Reagan was accused of rape.
Comments closed July 16, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I don't write in to correct typos, Matt, but replacing "sentence" with "pardon" kind of screws up the meaning of the post...
Posted by T_Porter | July 2, 2007 9:06 PM