tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post4494791820109206969..comments2024-03-29T07:56:36.655-05:00Comments on Althouse: "The time for a pardon is now."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-91991120352644165032007-03-10T05:15:00.000-06:002007-03-10T05:15:00.000-06:00The Exalted:Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, Pre...The Exalted:<BR/><BR/>Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.<BR/><BR/>I think thats pretty general as to "what he could have done" but specific as to time period.hdhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573004614816464571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40351646614495520032007-03-08T20:21:00.000-06:002007-03-08T20:21:00.000-06:00hdhouse, not sure if you're being serious...he's p...hdhouse, not sure if you're being serious...he's pardoned for a particular crime, not for any commission of that crimeThe Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-7802196421373314992007-03-08T17:13:00.000-06:002007-03-08T17:13:00.000-06:00besides, john fund of the wall street journal was ...besides, john fund of the wall street journal was just on msnbc and after that explanation of why this was so "unfair", i think libby deserves the noose.hdhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573004614816464571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88475079187353056762007-03-08T17:12:00.000-06:002007-03-08T17:12:00.000-06:00revenent....would that be issuing a get out of jai...revenent....would that be issuing a get out of jail free card?<BR/><BR/>lets just say that this is pre-trial or in the midst or for a magic wand, the appeal process, when accepted puts the guilty verdict off to the side..takes it out of play...<BR/><BR/>the president now pardons libby..if he is found not guilty could he then go commit the crime with this pass from the president waiting in the wings?<BR/><BR/>i think of ollie north admitting to everything but stealing money from girlscouts so that when he got to trial he could claim the immunity (ultimately successful) to anything that he testified to in front of congress.<BR/><BR/>clearly not in the league with a presidential pardon but perhaps a difference without effect.hdhousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573004614816464571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-69032228666332728402007-03-08T03:59:00.000-06:002007-03-08T03:59:00.000-06:00I have a question: can a person be pardoned before...<I>I have a question: can a person be pardoned before conviction?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes. You are pardoned for a crime, not for a conviction (which is why pardons don't give you the right to turn around and sue for wrongful conviction).Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2324238733084275142007-03-08T01:30:00.000-06:002007-03-08T01:30:00.000-06:00Nixon was pardoned before he was convicted.Nixon was pardoned before he was convicted.Wade Garretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02427231454565149921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-3593536608403337072007-03-07T22:50:00.000-06:002007-03-07T22:50:00.000-06:00Slim, Heh. "simple matter of public record." I lov...Slim, <BR/><BR/><I>Heh. "simple matter of public record." I love it.</I><BR/><BR/>The courts have found both (a) Clinton said under oath that he did not have a sexual relationship with Lewinsky and (b) that he had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. So, yes, it is a matter of public record that he lied under oath. That's why he got disbarred, among other things.<BR/><BR/><I>You bring him up, of course, to distract from Libby.</I><BR/><BR/>What a fascinating conspiracy theory.<BR/><BR/><I> Let's try to get you focused --- Libby was convicted of a crime. There. Discuss.</I> <BR/><BR/>Er, ok... he was convicted. He'll either be pardoned, have the conviction overturned, or pay fines and/or do jail time. Does that about sum it up? Maybe he can use some of that Marc Rich money to pay the fine.<BR/><BR/>A much more interesting question, to me, is why so many people base their opinions on whether or not perjury is (a) a heinous crime or (b) nothing of consequence solely on the political affiliation of the liar in question. :)Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52303035188602079592007-03-07T22:39:00.000-06:002007-03-07T22:39:00.000-06:00where that request ultimately came from has no bea...<I>where that request ultimately came from has no bearing as to the truth of his statement.</I><BR/><BR/>The obvious point, which I already made and which you missed, is that Wilson's wife KNEW the VP's office wasn't behind his being sent to Niger. Which means, as I noted, that if Wilson isn't lying, his wife must have lied to *him*.<BR/><BR/>On a side note, it is amusing how the "that's what the CIA told me" defense works for Wilson but not for Bush, despite the fact that Bush was told, by the CIA, that Iraq definitely had WMDs. Funny.<BR/><BR/><I>unless you can provide evidence that wilson was not told this than anything you write in this regard is just obfuscation.</I><BR/><BR/>I would, perhaps, be inclined to give Wilson the benefit of the doubt about the unconfirmable parts of his story if it hadn't turned out that he'd lied about so many of the confirmable parts. Besides, what reason would the CIA have for lying about why they were sending him to Niger?Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-81477862040932155652007-03-07T21:12:00.000-06:002007-03-07T21:12:00.000-06:00Naked Lunch said... SlimIn fairness, I asked Reven...<I>Naked Lunch said... <BR/>Slim<BR/>In fairness, I asked Revenant. We were discussing the Clenis a day or so ago. So I'm the one that first mentioned Clinton. <BR/></I><BR/><BR/>this is a no-fact zone. please refrain from any future posts to this end.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-50235292081011419512007-03-07T21:10:00.000-06:002007-03-07T21:10:00.000-06:00SlimIn fairness, I asked Revenant. We were discuss...Slim<BR/>In fairness, I asked Revenant. We were discussing the Clenis a day or so ago. So I'm the one that first mentioned Clinton.eelpouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12357602804377047515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-11889260934761436092007-03-07T21:09:00.000-06:002007-03-07T21:09:00.000-06:00So let's see if I've got your story straight: desp...<I>So let's see if I've got your story straight: despite the fact that mentioning Plame's CIA status and identity is, according to you, illegal, and despite the fact that Libby, Armitage, and a few other people all admitted to having done it, and despite the fact that finding out if anyone had illegally mentioned Plame to the press was Fitzgerald's ACTUAL JOB... Fitzgerald didn't bother prosecuting anybody for it.<BR/><BR/>Well, it's certainly an *interesting* story, I'll give you that. </I><BR/><BR/>nice strawman. <BR/><BR/>i dont know whether revealing plame's classified status to reporters is a crime, though it certainly, on my speculative and nonresearched judgment, seems like it would be. <BR/><BR/>however, you said the prosecutors "knew" that there was no underlying crime when they questioned libby. that is false. the purpose of the investigation was to uncover what happened, libby's lies "threw sand in the air" and made it very tough for fitzgerald et al to discover just what had happened and if anything illegal had transpired. <BR/><BR/>the fact that fitzgerald did not prosecute anyone for the underlying crime means nothing. there is a multitude factors that underlie any decision to bring charges, actual guilt is only one of them.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-67823943382614919772007-03-07T21:02:00.001-06:002007-03-07T21:02:00.001-06:00Revenant said... Since when are the "office of the...<I>Revenant said... <BR/>Since when are the "office of the Vice President" and "Cheney" the same thing.<BR/><BR/>Maybe they mean the same thing and maybe they don't. I'll let you and other people have that fun argument.<BR/><BR/>In either case, as neither Cheney NOR anyone in his office had anything to do with sending Wilson to Niger, Wilson still either (a) lied or (b) was lied to by his own wife (since she's the one who got him to go) about why he was sent to Niger.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>this is the kind of willful obtuseness that can only be classified as intellectual dishonesty. <BR/><BR/>wilson said <I>he was told</I> that the request came from the office of the vice president. where that request ultimately came from has no bearing as to the truth of his statement. unless you can provide evidence that wilson <I>was not told this</I> than anything you write in this regard is just obfuscation.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-54441798039028316372007-03-07T21:02:00.000-06:002007-03-07T21:02:00.000-06:00Once again, grasping for Clinton. I admire your st...<I>Once again, grasping for Clinton. I admire your stamina.</I><BR/><BR/>I was simply making amused note of the fact that if wanting someone to escape punishment for perjury is "unconscionable" then almost no liberals, and not too many conservatives, can legitimately claim to have a conscience. You'd be on much stronger ground if you admitted to wanting Libby punished not for perjury, but for being a member of the Bush Administration.<BR/><BR/>I'm "grasping for Clinton" only in the sense that I note that he committed perjury too, which is a simple matter of public record.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41497733292825057732007-03-07T20:57:00.000-06:002007-03-07T20:57:00.000-06:00"The investigators knew that even IF Libby had men...<I>"The investigators knew that even IF Libby had mentioned Plame to the press, it wouldn't have been illegal to do so."</I><BR/><BR/><I>this is flat-out false. you guys like repeating this over and over as if that makes it so. it doesn't.</I><BR/><BR/>So let's see if I've got your story straight: despite the fact that mentioning Plame's CIA status and identity is, according to you, illegal, and despite the fact that Libby, Armitage, and a few other people all admitted to having done it, and despite the fact that finding out if anyone had illegally mentioned Plame to the press was Fitzgerald's ACTUAL JOB... Fitzgerald didn't bother prosecuting anybody for it.<BR/><BR/>Well, it's certainly an *interesting* story, I'll give you that.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-13108861902922230152007-03-07T20:43:00.000-06:002007-03-07T20:43:00.000-06:00Respectfully, I thought I asked you firstFair enou...<I>Respectfully, I thought I asked you first</I><BR/><BR/>Fair enough. You asked:<BR/><BR/><I>So you're going to admit the charges brought on Clinton with Lewinsky were a non-issue?</I><BR/><BR/>The two standards I used for judging perjury were my own ("it is always wrong") and another that I do not agree with but can still respect ("it is ok if the person has no business asking you").<BR/><BR/>It is obvious that, under either standard, what Clinton did was wrong. It is wrong under my standard because he lied under oath, and wrong under the other standard because he lied under oath in response to a question he himself had decided attorneys had every right to ask.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-76546865141916333122007-03-07T20:32:00.000-06:002007-03-07T20:32:00.000-06:00Clyde said... In a world where Sandy Berger is wal...<I>Clyde said... <BR/>In a world where Sandy Berger is walking around free after being convicted of stealing classified documents from the National Archives and destroying them, there is no way that Scooter Libby belongs in prison. <BR/></I><BR/><BR/>even though berger was not found guilty of perjury, i agree. there should be a "berger defense" that anyone accused of perjury should have at their disposal. upon its invocation, their innocense is immediately established and they are given a pony.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-39205218029299879032007-03-07T20:30:00.000-06:002007-03-07T20:30:00.000-06:00The investigators knew that even IF Libby had ment...<I>The investigators knew that even IF Libby had mentioned Plame to the press, it wouldn't have been illegal to do so.</I><BR/><BR/>this is flat-out false. you guys like repeating this over and over as if that makes it so. it doesn't.The Exaltedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18030346881185443267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-89616569686203340662007-03-07T20:24:00.000-06:002007-03-07T20:24:00.000-06:00You can boil down the arguments made by those outr...You can boil down the arguments made by those outraged by the Libby verdict as follows: If I, in my subjective belief that the underlying investigation is unfair, unwise, politically motivated, or otherwise not proper, I can lie with impunity to the FBI and to a federal grand jury and it doesn't matter, because I have reached the conclusion that they have no right to ask me those questions.dcwillyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00676240964453602350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-29279756287860187692007-03-07T20:03:00.000-06:002007-03-07T20:03:00.000-06:00In a world where Sandy Berger is walking around fr...In a world where Sandy Berger is walking around free after being convicted of stealing classified documents from the National Archives and destroying them, there is no way that Scooter Libby belongs in prison.Clydehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16736461252925227611noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47243793082080940872007-03-07T20:02:00.000-06:002007-03-07T20:02:00.000-06:00Some interesting things from the Libby trial that ...Some interesting things from the Libby trial that don't give me much confidence in the FBI; they lost notes (possibly exculpatory)from a critical interview, and they essentially lied to the Grand Jury.James Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18191610333762378070noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-41940615412102249422007-03-07T19:44:00.000-06:002007-03-07T19:44:00.000-06:00An important issue that many commenters have touch...An important issue that many commenters have touched upon in various ways are that Perjury and Obstruction are "process" crimes, i.e., they are crimes only relative to a logically antecedent investigation (or, in a civil suit, a good faith claim or defense by a plaintiff or defendant.)<BR/><BR/>The injustice in the Libby case is NOT that Libby was indicted on process crimes, and then LATER it was discovered that there was no underlying crime. The injustice is that AT THE TIMES Fitzgerald was sending the FBI out to interview Libby, hauling him before a grand jury, and then indicting him HE COULD HAVE HAD NO GOOD FAITH BELIEF THAT THERE WAS AN UNDERLYING CRIME. Thus, there was no actual justice process that Libby could have obstructed.<BR/><BR/>I always thought that the federal "1001" false statement offense should not exist as a crime, precisely because that statute has no requirement that the false statement actually obstruct an investigation, and if such a false statement DOES obstruct a bone fide investigation, then a charge could be brought under the "catch-all" 1503 federal obstruction statute.<BR/><BR/>But now it also looks like the courts are not doing what I thought they were doing: imputing or enforcing a materiality requirement in perjury and obstruction statutes. Perjury does have an explicit materiality requirement (in 1623: "knowingly makes any false material declaration..."); so it's damn curious that Libby could be convicted on that charge. Materiality is relative to the elements of some alleged crime, and at the time Libby allegedly lied, Fitzgerald did not have a good faith belief at that there was an underlying crime.<BR/><BR/>Apparently - I claim no expertise in this - the federal obstruction statutes do not have materiality as an explicit element, but some courts impute it, and some don't. (I can't find it in 1503, the obstruction charge Libby was convicted of, but it might be lurking in the phrase "due administration of justice.")<BR/><BR/>Maybe one thing that can come out of this injustice is the need to make the materiality element explicit and enforced in all process crimes.<BR/><BR/>And that's all.<BR/><BR/>But here's a law review article on the subject, called, strangely enough: "Should materiality be an Element of Obstruction of Justice?"<BR/><BR/>Below is a PDF link, and also a HTML link to the same article, for those who don't want to open Acrobat:<BR/><BR/>http://washburnlaw.edu/wlj/44-3/articles/podgor-ellen.pdf<BR/><BR/>http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:fB2o5odaF-wJ:washburnlaw.edu/wlj/44-3/articles/podgor-ellen.pdf+%22should+materiality+be+an+element+of+obstruction+of+justice%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=usBrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12517206341706066753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-2690894382194759942007-03-07T19:11:00.000-06:002007-03-07T19:11:00.000-06:00Are you implying that Clinton thought attorneys ha...<I>Are you implying that Clinton thought attorneys had no business asking such questions? If so, how do you reconcile that with the fact that Clinton is the one who explicitly *gave* them the right to ask such questions?</I><BR/><BR/>Respectfully, I thought I asked you first.eelpouthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12357602804377047515noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-66960332706267278072007-03-07T19:06:00.000-06:002007-03-07T19:06:00.000-06:00Sadly, a pardon is as inevitable as it is unconsci...<I>Sadly, a pardon is as inevitable as it is unconscionable.</I><BR/><BR/>Strangely, though, a majority of Americans (and basically all Democrats) considered it similarly unconscionable that Clinton even be removed from office for perjury, let alone jailed for it.<BR/><BR/>Apparently letting people get away with perjury is only unconscionable on those occasions when it isn't a moral imperative. :)Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-47710054064487772432007-03-07T18:51:00.000-06:002007-03-07T18:51:00.000-06:00The mentality that drove the movement to impeach B...The mentality that drove the movement to impeach Bill Clinton--sustained at its core by an overreactive call for harsh condemnation of, and punishment for, lying under oath, irrespective of the context--is a creepy, dangerous crud. We live in overly-prosecutorial times. I would've thought Libby was smart enough to not stick his feet in that stuff.<BR/><BR/>Now Mr. Bush must choose between the sacrosanctness of law and order, and the merciful (albeit politically motivated) dispensing of a presidential pardon.Bud Penningtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02997734499175164187noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-91853307486186902862007-03-07T18:18:00.000-06:002007-03-07T18:18:00.000-06:00"Personally, I think perjury is always wrong, but ...<I>"Personally, I think perjury is always wrong, but I can respect the viewpoint that it is fine to lie to people who have no business asking you questions in the first place."</I><BR/><BR/><I>So you're going to admit the charges brought on Clinton with Lewinsky were a non-issue? I think we were just discussing this as a matter of fact...</I><BR/><BR/>Are you implying that Clinton thought attorneys had no business asking such questions? If so, how do you reconcile that with the fact that Clinton is the one who explicitly *gave* them the right to ask such questions?Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.com