[hrothgar]

Gerben42, on Jul 7 2007, 04:31 PM, said:

Point 2: Creating a position where the US president can pardon someone without any consequences (like in the Clinton case, after all he was just quitting) sounds like a situation open for abuse. Idea for a law change there, like no pardons in the last 6 months of office?

The power to grant pardon's is built in to the Constitution. It would require a Constitutional Convention to change the system.

For what its worth, there was quite a lot of debate about the power of pardon in the early days of the American republic. Some folks like Madison were highly critical of the entire idea, fearing that Presidents would abuse this power.

[helene_t]

Gerben42, on Jul 7 2007, 03:31 PM, said:

Quote

In particular, I think that the Mark Rich pardon was a load of crap and a disgrace. Its part of the reason that I'm not supporting Hillary during the primaries.

Silly foreigner question: I thought you only get to vote completely at the end, in November 2008.

Point 1: Not supporting Mrs. Clinton because her husband did something you disagree with sounds like a strange reason.

Point 2: Creating a position where the US president can pardon someone without any consequences (like in the Clinton case, after all he was just quitting) sounds like a situation open for abuse. Idea for a law change there, like no pardons in the last 6 months of office?

@Silly foreigner question: Primaries' procedures vary by state. As a member of the Democratic Party, Richard can apparently vote at the Massechutes primaries.

@2: Or get rid of those pardons altogether. One can argue about how much independence the courts should have, but if some political body should have power to interfere in court decisions it's quite clear that said political body should be the parlament.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jul 7 2007, 08:37 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 7 2007, 04:27 PM, said:

Rob F, on Jul 6 2007, 08:16 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 3 2007, 03:40 PM, said:

i also expect a pardon...

You must not exactly understand the requirements for a pardon then. Commuting his sentence if a very carefully chosen strategy to prevent further disclosure of the embarrassing and possibly treasonous actions taken by higher ups in the Bush administration. You see if Libby was pardoned, he would have to show some remorse but most important admit to his misdeeds which would mean correcting his lies under oath. ~~

i don't know why you say that, but you are obviously wrong as to the requirements of a full pardon... you are in effect saying that a man wrongly convicted can not be granted a pardon... libby can be pardoned and i think he will be, although opinions on that vary

Actually, Rob's comments are right on the money...

The following article provides a good summary regarding the Justice Departments procedures for granting pardons.

http://writ.news.fin...s/20070705.html

i need to know exactly what you are saying, richard... are you agreeing that a man wrongly convicted must "... show some remorse but most important admit to his misdeeds ... " before he can be pardoned? and are you saying that a president can not grant a full pardon to anyone, at anytime, at his own discretion, but must use justice department "rules"?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 7 2007, 04:46 PM, said:

i need to know exactly what you are saying, richard... are you agreeing that a man wrongly convicted must "... show some remorse but most important admit to his misdeeds ... " before he can be pardoned? and are you saying that a president can not grant a full pardon to anyone, at anytime, at his own discretion, but must use justice department "rules"?

I am saying that we live in a Republic, not a dictatorship. The President doesn't get to do whatever he damn well pleases regardless of legal precedent and tradition.

Probably the most useful part of these entire proceedings is the way that they are exposing the authoritarian core of the modern movement "conservatives".

In answer to your specific questions:

1. I agree that persons wrongly convicted shouldn't be forced to show remorse. However, I also consider this a complete red herring. I don't think that Libby was wrongfully convicted. I don't think that there is any chance that his sentence will be overturned on appeal.

(For whats its worth, part of those guidelines indicates that the President should wait for the normal course of appeals to exhaust themselves before intervening.)

2. In this case, I believe that Bush is using his power to commute Libby's sentence as part of a criminal conspiracy. While the act of commuting a sentence is within Presidential authority, the choice to commute this sentence is criminal.

This is obviously part of a quid pro quo that was promised to Libby in exchange for Libby dropping his original "vigorous" defense. During the early days to the Libby trial, Libby's lawyers announced a defensive model based on documenting that he was the fall guy for high level administration officials. Libby suddenly dropped this entire defense, refused to take the stand to testify on his own behalf, and now gets a pardon.

As I noted earlier, I don't find any of this surprising. However, it is disappointing.

[Gerben42]

Quote

@Silly foreigner question: Primaries' procedures vary by state. As a member of the Democratic Party, Richard can apparently vote at the Massechutes primaries.

Ahh... how about becoming a member of the republican party in great numbers and messing up the primary vote to make sure your favorite democratic candidate wins by a landslide?

[Al_U_Card]

BebopKid, on Jul 6 2007, 08:35 PM, said:

Libby is a scum bag.

The sentence for Libby's crime, however, was cruel and unusual.

The judge made a political decision with the sentence. That judge should be disbarred.

Fair is fair. But what about the higher up scumbags? How about their punishment? When will the lies and subterfuges end. Perhaps my naieveté gets the better of me regarding responsibility for your actions, but this gang of thieves is so brazen that they don't seem to care anymore whether their actions are scrutinized or not......this does not bode well for the future.

[Winstonm]

This has all the earmarks of Dick Cheney - it's sly, devious, brilliantly conceived, with potential to have been based on total moral corruption.

The concept of commuting the sentence rather than a full pardon protects Libby's 5th amendment rights against self incrimination while at the same time removing any leverage the Special Prosecutor had to obtain cooperation from Libby, as in reducing his sentence for cooperating. From now on Libby can clam up legally, and never have to face the prospect of a contempt charge.

[luke warm]

hrothgar, on Jul 7 2007, 09:08 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jul 7 2007, 04:46 PM, said:

i need to know exactly what you are saying, richard... are you agreeing that a man wrongly convicted must "... show some remorse but most important admit to his misdeeds ... " before he can be pardoned? and are you saying that a president can not grant a full pardon to anyone, at anytime, at his own discretion, but must use justice department "rules"?

I am saying that we live in a Republic, not a dictatorship. The President doesn't get to do whatever he damn well pleases regardless of legal precedent and tradition.

Probably the most useful part of these entire proceedings is the way that they are exposing the authoritarian core of the modern movement "conservatives".

In answer to your specific questions:

1. I agree that persons wrongly convicted shouldn't be forced to show remorse. However, I also consider this a complete red herring. I don't think that Libby was wrongfully convicted. I don't think that there is any chance that his sentence will be overturned on appeal.

(For whats its worth, part of those guidelines indicates that the President should wait for the normal course of appeals to exhaust themselves before intervening.)

2. In this case, I believe that Bush is using his power to commute Libby's sentence as part of a criminal conspiracy. While the act of commuting a sentence is within Presidential authority, the choice to commute this sentence is criminal.

This is obviously part of a quid pro quo that was promised to Libby in exchange for Libby dropping his original "vigorous" defense. During the early days to the Libby trial, Libby's lawyers announced a defensive model based on documenting that he was the fall guy for high level administration officials. Libby suddenly dropped this entire defense, refused to take the stand to testify on his own behalf, and now gets a pardon.

As I noted earlier, I don't find any of this surprising. However, it is disappointing.

first of all, i agree that bush shouldn't commute the sentence or pardon libby, but that isn't what (i thought) we were discussing... the fact that libby is guilty has nothing to do with it, and it remains that bush, and all presidents (and, i think, most state governors) have the right to commute and/or pardon at their own discretion... so the criteria that one must admit and apologize for the crime isn't correct

[Al_U_Card]

Calling on Richard......how many presidential pardons, by president, vs the number of commuted sentences ibid?

The morality (or lack of same) is what I find astonishing. Reward loyalty and punish honesty......the credo of the Bushies.

[hrothgar]

Al_U_Card, on Jul 8 2007, 03:54 PM, said:

Calling on Richard......how many presidential pardons, by president, vs the number of commuted sentences ibid?

Fairly good statistics are available at:

http://www.usdoj.gov.../statistics.htm

Looking over the numbers, there seems to be a fairly steady drop in the number of pardons granted during the later half of the 20th century. The most notable outlier is George H.W. Bush (the one from 1988 - 1922). The number of pardons granted during his tenure was a fraction of those who came (before or after) him

Ford granted 382 pardons over 29 monthes
Carter granted 534 pardons during his 4 years in office
Reagan granted 393 over 8 years in office
Bush granted 74 pardons across 4 years
Clinton granted 396 over 8 years

[Al_U_Card]

Thanks R. Prescott's son was pretty skimpy with his.....when do we get to see Dubya's?