tags: Keith Olbermann, politics, political opinion, streaming video
By pardoning commuting Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, Bush ignored the rule of law so he could do what is best for his cronies, NOT what is best for this nation. Expressed verbally, the real message Bush was sending to the people of the United States could have been sent with just two words (the first word starts with the letter "F" and the second is "you"); expressed physically, Bush's underlying message could have been conveyed with just one finger -- guess which one? In pardoning commuting Libby's punishment, Bush made himself an accessory to the obstruction of justice [10:06]
- Log in to post comments
More like this
See here. Words fail me at the moment.
Update: Ed makes a good point,
Ethically, it's repulsive but not exactly anything new. The solution is to amend the Constitution to set limits on the president's ability to pardon and commute sentences. At the very least, they should be forbidden from…
...And
tell me what the poll means.
These are from a poll conducted on July 5, 2007, by the
href="http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/" rel="tag">American
Research Group (sorry, no permalink):
cellspacing="0" width="90%">
Question:
Do
you approve or disapprove of President George W…
It's amazing what a difference a few short years can make. Once upon a time, many prominent Republicans believed that perjury was a crime so heinous as to warrant throwing the president out of office. Today, however, we find that many of these same characters believe that any sort of jail sentence…
There really isn't much to say about this, if you adhere to the notion
that if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at
all...
src="http://www.mlive.com/images/article/grp_news.gif"
alt="Grand Rapids Press" border="0" height="50"
width="333">
href="http://www.…
New poll results: IMPEACH
IMPEACH! !
"Bush's underlying message could have been conveyed with just one finger -- guess which one?"
The little one
President Bush didn't pardon Libby. And, by the way, the tone of any political debate is brought down to gutter level by childish ad hominem attacks. I have never seen such a pack of hounds baying for blood. Most of you, I'm sure, have no idea what the powers of the executive branch are--and if you did, you would most likely be ashamed of your comments because they would so blatantly displayi such incredible ignorance. For some perspective, try looking at the reasoning behind such presidential power and peruse the history of other presidents' so-called "abuse" of power. Then, maybe, get a grip.
By "abuse of power" one means that he is abusing the trust of the people who put him in power, that he should not have used the power he DOES have (you can't abuse something if you don't have it!) to do something which is deemed immoral or unethical- NOT that he is doing something illegal, or beyond the actual power he has. You can still follow the law to the letter and abuse your power.
Grrl- whoopss. I posted under a hybrid e-mail and only noticed after I had clicked the post button... but that WAS me. Sorry for the double post.
I was suprised when I first found out that US Presidents have the power to commute sentences and overule the judgment of the courts by simple fiat (it was a long time ago that I found out and it still suprises me). This is a power that I thought belonged only to anointed rulers.
Is there a justification given in US law why the president has such powers?
Given that all US Presidents have used this power to a greater or lesser extent, I wonder what the fuss is all about?
GWB uses the power to prevent a friend from being incarcerated whilst his appeal is being heard, Clinton to free a convicted criminal who was a large party donor, Carter to free those he thought unjustly judged etc. They, of course, also used the power to commute the sentences of lots of people we'll never hear about.
Perhaps the US legislators need to see about rescinding this presidental power. Will a Democratic congress vote for such a bill if there is a Democratic president?
Sheesh...usually I'm a big fan of the First Amendment, but listening to this overwrought windbag makes me wish Bush was a little more effective at "suppressing dissent."
Impeach? I really don't think James and his friends will like that.
Bob
Technically Bush did not pardon Libby but commuted the prison sentence and because of another technicality Libby won't be placed on parole either. The Bush administration has said that a full pardon is still possible.
What is different from this and other presidential pardons is that the Libby controversy was about the Bush administration misleading the country into war and to its efforts to silence critics who tried to exposed the administration's lies.
Well I'm not sure how this differs in type from other presedential pardons/commutations. In all cases the president overules by fiat the findings of the courts (I see appeal courts without juries to be abrogating powers they shouldn't have as well).
Who gets pardoned/paroled/released? Depends on the president, some do it for hundreds of people from a list prepared by their party faithful and/or interest groups. So how do they choose? They can't check each and every case, so they trust their advisors to pick those that will help them or their party most.
I'm trying to recollect which president pardoned his brother and there was one who seems to have pardoned people who'd lent his wife money or somesuch http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022501a.htm .
In times of insurrection & rebellion the right to pardon may be acceptable but in peacetime it appears to have become a fundraising tool and a way to get friends/family out of jail.
GWB differs in that he hasn't pardoned hundreds of people and this is a high profile political situation, but really is it that different from any other president http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1184118.stm especially the one lots of Democrats think was so wonderful (I mean the sexual predator).
It should also be remembered that US Governors also have the right to pardon people and commute sentences is some states. I wonder how they decide.
This Jurist editorial looks at pardons http://www.rvc.cc.il.us/faclink/pruckman/pardoncharts/JEdit.htm
I would suggest that people offended by GWBs pardon of Libby write to their representatives and demand the rescinding of the right of presidents and state governors to grant pardons by fiat, excepting in time of revolution/sedition and then only by agreement with the senate and/or congress.
Personally, I don't think that politicians of either of the US parties will go for this, too much money involved and whoever heard of a politician wanting to take power away from their honest upright president, it is the other parties corrupt/evil president that needs to be constrained.
Yes; I do have similar thoughts about some of the sovereign powers exercised by the British PM. I write to my MP but I'm not sure that he can read.
When is a pardon not a pardon?
When it's a turkey of course :o)
http://george.loper.org/trends/2000/Nov/84.html
Oh just for interest.
Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, so interesting stuff about this person Clinton pardoned.
Marc Rich he fled the country after an indictment for what was then the largest tax evasion case in the history of the nation. Scooter Libby was his attorney throughout the 1990s.
Less than a decade earlier, the United Steelworkers and a departmen of the AFL-CIO campaigned against Rich, who controlled a steelmill in Ravenswood, WVA.
Kate Bronfenbrenner and Tom Juravich wrote a book on the subject, and Clinton well knew about this labor dispute.
Who remembers now?
You can find out who George Washington pardoned, it's on microfilm. Can you find out the names of the people pardoned by any president since 1934? Even better try finding out if any reason was given for the pardon.