I saw that the DC Circuit denied his request 3-0. I guess they, unlike the profs who filed the brief before Judge Reggie Walton, didn't think anything was a close call in Libby's trial. (See Eugene's defense of the professors' amicus brief).
Personally, I didn't think the brief was very convincing: it essentially argued that Fitzgerald's appointment was likely unconstitutional because the Supreme Court might change its mind about such appointments, and say so here. That didn't strike me as a very persuasive argument, at least not as a practical matter, as you can say that about every law. I do think the Judge's snarky comments were uncalled for, but, hey, he's the Judge.
Now we'll see whether Libby has enough leverage to get a pardon before he goes to jail, or whether he'll have to wait. Seeing as Bush's ratings are permanently in the toilet, and he probably doesn't think Libby didn't anything wrong anyway, a pardon might well be forthcoming.
Libby was not a bail risk, obviously, so the issue was did he show a decent chance of getting a reversal. In my universe, the shortness of his sentence would also be a factor -- he might well serve over half of it before getting a decision on appeal. I would count shortness of sentence a lot for that reason.
Libby may not be a bail risk, but he's definitely a "pardon" risk - if he can remain free on bond and drag out the appeal process until January 2009 he'll never spend a minute in jail.
Now, I don't this is germane from a legal standpoint, but I don't think the shortness of the sentence is either. As I understand it, the legal bar for granting bond pending appeal is that the appeal "raises a substantial question under 18 USC Sec. 3143(b)(1)(B)." All the rest is sideline cheerleading.
I have been speculating that Bush will feel free to pardon Libby during Christmas '07, meaning Libby will only have to spend about 5 months behind bars. The timing works out well because ... (a) it's holiday time and people are less interested in the news for a few days; (b) it's just before the primary season starts, so the news coverage afterwards is about the primaries, not the pardon; (c) it's just before primary season, so it doesn't setup any GOP vs. Dems problems for the potential votes; and (d) the general election is 11 months later, which is quite a long ways away in an era of short news cycles.
this should properly be viewed as a question of how much juice Herr Cheney still has. i think it is fair to say he wants his scooter pardoned. bush doesn't really care as loyalty really is a one way street with him. rove is "probably" against it, but, as bush is so low already maybe he thinks it will produce a bump from the base.
the man to watch is Herr Cheney because, if a pardon occurs, it will have his fingerprints ALL over it.
personally, i think any speculation that he has lost some of his power over his suck-puppet busch are premature.
I think the easist thing for Bush to do if he doesn't want Libby in jail is grant a respite--which delays execution of the sentence--pending appeal. In effect, granting bail pending appeal.
Then, he can delay the question of pardoning or commuting the sentence (if it is not overturned) until shortly before he leaves office.
I like the Xmas scenario also because Scooter will have a taste of jail - making it hard to call the republicanal party a bunch of limp-wristed soft-on-crime hippies. I would not bet against Cheney though - if he says pardon before jail, I am 75% certain that will happen.
Yes, I also think it would be politically smart for Bush to resurrect some antiquated doctrine that no one has ever heard of. (Did you know George Washington granted a respite? And Woodrow Wilson too!!)
Seriously, if no one cares about creating the impression that there's a different sort of justice available for Bush's friends, then just grant a pardon and be done with it.
Hmmmm. Do you think a respite will go down much easier PR-wise than a pardon? Especially if the respite is followed by a pardon in Jan 2009?
Exactly. These "Scooter" threads also bring out a lack of sagaciousness. People just think, "I want Scooter free!" and so they come up with some "solution" that effectuates that desire.
It's not as if a "respite" will be understood as anything less than a pardon. And if the "respite" is granted pending the appeal, what happens when the D.C. Cir. affirms the conviction? It would be awfully hard to justify pardoning Libby after an affirmance.
this should properly be viewed as a question of how much juice Herr Cheney still has. i think it is fair to say he wants his scooter pardoned.
Cheney is pathological. He views people are objects - as means to his end. He does not care about Libby. Well.... He cares about Libby only to the extent that Libby's serving time in prison is an affront to him and his own personal power.
That you refer to Cheney as "Herr Cheney" yet fail to recognize this basic aspect of his personality makes you seem much less clever than you perceive yourself to be. (Referring to Cheney as "Herr Cheney, in any event, isn't clever at all. It just makes you look like a kook. And I say this as someone who thinks pretty lowly of Cheney.)
After three years of repeatedly proclaiming "no comment - we're staying out of this until the investigation runs it's course"*, don't you think it's rather disingenuous for them to muck with the process at this point?
Bush should just wait until Pelosi is out of the country making an ass of herself again. At a minimum, it would give the MSM whiplash trying to cover each story.
After three years of repeatedly proclaiming "no comment - we're staying out of this until the investigation runs it's course"*, don't you think it's rather disingenuous for them to muck with the process at this point?
Absolutely. I also think it would be disingenous to pardon him given the criteria for pardons the Administration has used for others.
I also think a number of the Administration's positions are quite disingenous, but also find they don't have much problem asserting positions that are contrary to their prior positions, or, indeed, common sense, so long as there is something that comes even close to sounding plausible to be used as a justification
Personally, I would be okay with a Christmas commutation or respite but having Libby serve his jail time until then. That way, the principle about not lying to grand jurors or the FBI will have been upheld, and Libby's time in jail will have been the equivalent of Martha Stewart's jail time for very similar offenses. I would not be okay with a pardon, as Libby doesn't meet the DOJ criteria for one, and why should he get one more easily than anyone else?
...so long as there is something that comes even close to sounding plausible to be used as a justification.
Well, you are aware that Clinton issued respites when he was in office. So they've got the "but...but...but...Clinton" card to play. Sounds like a slam dunk to me. (c:
Come up with a pardon for Libby signed by Bill Clinton and dated his last day in office; claim it was just found in the President's desk; congratulate WJC on his exceptional foresight; smiles all around.
Heck, it wouldn't even be the oddest Clinton pardon. ;^)
"Libby may not be a bail risk, but he's definitely a "pardon" risk - if he can remain free on bond and drag out the appeal process until January 2009 he'll never spend a minute in jail.
Now, I don't this is germane from a legal standpoint, but I don't think the shortness of the sentence is either. As I understand it, the legal bar for granting bond pending appeal is that the appeal "raises a substantial question under 18 USC Sec. 3143(b)(1)(B)." All the rest is sideline cheerleading."
If judges from now on want to start following the letter of the law in discretionary applications that's fine with me, but Libby's need not be the first case in which they do so. Who's kidding whom? If his name was Scooter Lightman or some such he'd have a better chance. Appellate judges shouldn't read so many newspapers.
Haven't seen this mentioned, so if it was, I apologize for duplication, but can not Libby apply to the circuit justice (Ch. J. Roberts?) for bail? I once did one of these pre-trial.
I find it amazing to see all these people who know the depths of Dick Cheney's soul. "He views people are[sic] objects...". And "personally, i think any speculation that he has lost some of his power over his suck-puppet busch are premature." "busch"? He has a beer for a sock-puppet?
Did anyone ever consider the possibility Cheney wants Libby pardoned because he knows his friend was the victim of a political vendetta? Fitzgerald knew there was no crime before Libby was even deposed.
And what did Sandy Burglar get for his (much more serious) crimes?
Since this "political vendetta" against Libby has been carried out by a Republican-appointed prosecutor, a Republican-appointed trial judge, and now a circuit panel with a Republican-appointed majority, I can only assume that Scooter is a well-known Democrat.
Technically, he has not been pardoned, he's had his sentence commuted. The conviction still stands, and he still has to pay the fine and deal with probation, but he doesn't have to serve any prison time. I assume we can all come together and applaud this even-handed compromise by our President.
And what did Sandy Burglar get for his (much more serious) crimes?
Sandy Burglar. Ha ha. That's really funny. Never heard that one before. You're quite a card, tsotha. Really a witty guy. Sandy Burglar. Good one. Gotta remember that.
He could have at least commuted it to one day in jail so we can pretend that the same justice applies throughout society. With that in mind, I'm going to smoke a joint on my porch in honor of Mr Libby.
Wow, W. really is a compassionate conservative. Maybe the other people convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice will have their sentences commuted, as well.
I think it was Bill Clinton that demonstrated how seriously we should take purjury by government officials. When is Plame's purjury trial? Wilson's?
I guess lefties are sore because these kinds of free pardons will make it so much harder to raise money by pardoning a bunch of common criminals on your last day in office. I mean, Marc Rich paid $200,000 for his - I can see the argument against letting pardons go downmarket.
tsotha -- exactly what do you mean? Republicans had an impeachment trial for Clinton, that seems like that demonstrates that perjury should be taken seriously.
The idea that a fine (that inevitably will be paid through gifts from others) and probation is sufficient is quite silly, it has little effect on Libby. If Bush commuted it to something like 30 days or 90 days, I think most people would have been fine with that -- the original sentence did seem rather harsh. Then Bush pardons him on his way out the door in 2009. Rule of law message is intact, no real fuel for the Democrats (any complaining at that point would be seen as ridiculous by a significant majority), and Scooter doesn't serve much time at all.
But I'm guessing Bush figured "F*** it, who cares?" His approval can't get much lower and the last big thing (immigration) he wanted passed is dead so any approval hit he might get doesn't matter anyway, so I'm guessing he probably figured he may as well do what he did.
I don't think Bush is likely to take an approval hit. What's going to happen, Democrats and Independents will decide they like him even less? The fact is, the only thing Bush can do at this stage of his Presidency to obtain any political capital whatsoever is to take actions that please the Republican base (which is quite annoyed about immigration of late). So I wouldn't be surprised if Bush picked up a point or two for this reason.
You might well be right. On the other hand, consider the fact that all of the leading Republican candidates seem to be openly pro-pardon. Are they all mistaken in assuming their stance is a political winner with the GOP base?
While the approval ratings question is interesting (I tend to agree with Steve; this isn't going to touch him in the polls only because there aren't many hearts and minds to be won or lost) I'm curious what other people think on a related issue: what effect, if any, will this have on Bush's "legacy"?
In my mind, for this to be anything but a negative mark on Bush vis-a-vis history, history has to not only conclude that the majority of Bush's foreign policy decisions were correct to a degree that required a great deal of unity and discipline within the ranks, but history must also conclude the prosecution and conviction of an individual involved in that discipline was therefore rendered a complete witch hunt and hoax. Otherwise, if history concludes that even though the sentence was hears, a jury rendered an appropriate verdict, Bush appears as (at best) an overly loyal partisan who helped out a friend, and (at worst) guilty of covering up some of the excesses of that "discipline".
I think Occam's razor suggests that the the "witch hunt" theory is less likely to gain traction. There would have to be an almost complete shift in perception over the years to vindicate the complete and preemptive commutation of a sentence rendered on an Administration official acting in the scope of his duties. More likely, this event portrays Bush in a negative light to future generations.
Given that, I also have to ask--why? Isn't it time for Mr. Bush to be focused on that legacy? We often see heads of state moderate their tone and behavior toward the end of their term, once their approval ratings fix and people move on to the new what next. Why hasn't that occurred here?
Well, likely primary voters are not necessarily representative of the party at large, and generally likely voters are not necessarily representative of the populace at large.
TyWebb,
I think the same polls I noted above support your view that pardoning Libby is a tougher sell than the President's policies per se. As for the why--I'm not sure this is an answer, but personal loyalty seems to be a very big deal with the President. Consider, for example, the damage to Bush's legacy done by nominating Miers or not asking for Gonzales' resignation (or, for that matter, not asking for Rove's resignation in light of his role in the Plame affair). I don't know if the President misperceives these issues or just doesn't care, but in any event the pattern is consistent.
Well, likely primary voters are not necessarily representative of the party at large, and generally likely voters are not necessarily representative of the populace at large.
Sure, but wasn't my point that the pardon would help Bush with "the base"? Don't make me scroll back up and reread it!
I thought the original question was whether he would take a general approval hit, and the links I gave go into the fact that Republicans, including Republicans who generally gave Bush a positive approval rating, were opposed to a pardon (as of March). Of course, President Bush shows no signs of caring about his approval rating.
Sure, but who says "Smokey" speaks for other Republicans?
Generally, every time people argue that President Bush has hit a hard floor of support, he finds a way to break through it. So, in theory at some point he may in fact be down to just the Smokeys of the world, but I don't think that point has yet been reached.
Oh, I'm not saying Bush can't fall any farther, but I don't think it will be because of the Libby pardon. I'd be quite gratified to be proven wrong; it would be reassuring to see that even diehard Bush partisans acknowledge that when you do the crime, you must do the time.
I guess my point is that Bush is currently supported by more than just diehard partisans. And I do think some of those other supporters likely have exactly that attitude (that the law does in fact matter).
Personally, I didn't think the brief was very convincing: it essentially argued that Fitzgerald's appointment was likely unconstitutional because the Supreme Court might change its mind about such appointments, and say so here. That didn't strike me as a very persuasive argument, at least not as a practical matter, as you can say that about every law. I do think the Judge's snarky comments were uncalled for, but, hey, he's the Judge.
Libby may not be a bail risk, but he's definitely a "pardon" risk - if he can remain free on bond and drag out the appeal process until January 2009 he'll never spend a minute in jail.
Now, I don't this is germane from a legal standpoint, but I don't think the shortness of the sentence is either. As I understand it, the legal bar for granting bond pending appeal is that the appeal "raises a substantial question under 18 USC Sec. 3143(b)(1)(B)." All the rest is sideline cheerleading.
the man to watch is Herr Cheney because, if a pardon occurs, it will have his fingerprints ALL over it.
personally, i think any speculation that he has lost some of his power over his suck-puppet busch are premature.
Then, he can delay the question of pardoning or commuting the sentence (if it is not overturned) until shortly before he leaves office.
Hmmmm. Do you think a respite will go down much easier PR-wise than a pardon? Especially if the respite is followed by a pardon in Jan 2009?
Seriously, if no one cares about creating the impression that there's a different sort of justice available for Bush's friends, then just grant a pardon and be done with it.
Exactly. These "Scooter" threads also bring out a lack of sagaciousness. People just think, "I want Scooter free!" and so they come up with some "solution" that effectuates that desire.
It's not as if a "respite" will be understood as anything less than a pardon. And if the "respite" is granted pending the appeal, what happens when the D.C. Cir. affirms the conviction? It would be awfully hard to justify pardoning Libby after an affirmance.
this should properly be viewed as a question of how much juice Herr Cheney still has. i think it is fair to say he wants his scooter pardoned.
Cheney is pathological. He views people are objects - as means to his end. He does not care about Libby. Well.... He cares about Libby only to the extent that Libby's serving time in prison is an affront to him and his own personal power.
That you refer to Cheney as "Herr Cheney" yet fail to recognize this basic aspect of his personality makes you seem much less clever than you perceive yourself to be. (Referring to Cheney as "Herr Cheney, in any event, isn't clever at all. It just makes you look like a kook. And I say this as someone who thinks pretty lowly of Cheney.)
I think it goes down more easily than a pardon or commutation now. It can be explained as merely giving him the equivalent of bail pending appeal.
--
*not a ver batum quote.
Absolutely. I also think it would be disingenous to pardon him given the criteria for pardons the Administration has used for others.
I also think a number of the Administration's positions are quite disingenous, but also find they don't have much problem asserting positions that are contrary to their prior positions, or, indeed, common sense, so long as there is something that comes even close to sounding plausible to be used as a justification
Well, you are aware that Clinton issued respites when he was in office. So they've got the "but...but...but...Clinton" card to play. Sounds like a slam dunk to me. (c:
Heck, it wouldn't even be the oddest Clinton pardon. ;^)
"Libby may not be a bail risk, but he's definitely a "pardon" risk - if he can remain free on bond and drag out the appeal process until January 2009 he'll never spend a minute in jail.
Now, I don't this is germane from a legal standpoint, but I don't think the shortness of the sentence is either. As I understand it, the legal bar for granting bond pending appeal is that the appeal "raises a substantial question under 18 USC Sec. 3143(b)(1)(B)." All the rest is sideline cheerleading."
If judges from now on want to start following the letter of the law in discretionary applications that's fine with me, but Libby's need not be the first case in which they do so. Who's kidding whom? If his name was Scooter Lightman or some such he'd have a better chance. Appellate judges shouldn't read so many newspapers.
So he's a German.
And Germans are a bad.
Because they are all still Nazis.
And Cheney is a Nazi.
QED, I suppose.
Did anyone ever consider the possibility Cheney wants Libby pardoned because he knows his friend was the victim of a political vendetta? Fitzgerald knew there was no crime before Libby was even deposed.
And what did Sandy Burglar get for his (much more serious) crimes?
Since this "political vendetta" against Libby has been carried out by a Republican-appointed prosecutor, a Republican-appointed trial judge, and now a circuit panel with a Republican-appointed majority, I can only assume that Scooter is a well-known Democrat.
Technically, he has not been pardoned, he's had his sentence commuted. The conviction still stands, and he still has to pay the fine and deal with probation, but he doesn't have to serve any prison time. I assume we can all come together and applaud this even-handed compromise by our President.
Sandy Burglar. Ha ha. That's really funny. Never heard that one before. You're quite a card, tsotha. Really a witty guy. Sandy Burglar. Good one. Gotta remember that.
Surely yes. Perjury, after all, is itself a kind of even handed compromise between the truth and one's own interests.
If they, or their wealthy friends, have $250,000 to pay, then I'm sure something could be arranged.
I guess lefties are sore because these kinds of free pardons will make it so much harder to raise money by pardoning a bunch of common criminals on your last day in office. I mean, Marc Rich paid $200,000 for his - I can see the argument against letting pardons go downmarket.
I don't think this event devalues pardons. Your confusion is cause by the fact that this is a barter exchange, not a cash exchange.
The idea that a fine (that inevitably will be paid through gifts from others) and probation is sufficient is quite silly, it has little effect on Libby. If Bush commuted it to something like 30 days or 90 days, I think most people would have been fine with that -- the original sentence did seem rather harsh. Then Bush pardons him on his way out the door in 2009. Rule of law message is intact, no real fuel for the Democrats (any complaining at that point would be seen as ridiculous by a significant majority), and Scooter doesn't serve much time at all.
But I'm guessing Bush figured "F*** it, who cares?" His approval can't get much lower and the last big thing (immigration) he wanted passed is dead so any approval hit he might get doesn't matter anyway, so I'm guessing he probably figured he may as well do what he did.
I'm not sure the polls support your position. See here:
Libby Pardon Polls 1
and here:
Libby Pardon Polls 2
Oops, sorry - 'witch-hunt'.
You might well be right. On the other hand, consider the fact that all of the leading Republican candidates seem to be openly pro-pardon. Are they all mistaken in assuming their stance is a political winner with the GOP base?
In my mind, for this to be anything but a negative mark on Bush vis-a-vis history, history has to not only conclude that the majority of Bush's foreign policy decisions were correct to a degree that required a great deal of unity and discipline within the ranks, but history must also conclude the prosecution and conviction of an individual involved in that discipline was therefore rendered a complete witch hunt and hoax. Otherwise, if history concludes that even though the sentence was hears, a jury rendered an appropriate verdict, Bush appears as (at best) an overly loyal partisan who helped out a friend, and (at worst) guilty of covering up some of the excesses of that "discipline".
I think Occam's razor suggests that the the "witch hunt" theory is less likely to gain traction. There would have to be an almost complete shift in perception over the years to vindicate the complete and preemptive commutation of a sentence rendered on an Administration official acting in the scope of his duties. More likely, this event portrays Bush in a negative light to future generations.
Given that, I also have to ask--why? Isn't it time for Mr. Bush to be focused on that legacy? We often see heads of state moderate their tone and behavior toward the end of their term, once their approval ratings fix and people move on to the new what next. Why hasn't that occurred here?
On the other hand, the polls Steve cites were taken four months ago, before the immigration fiasco. I'd be interested to see some more recent data.
Also, does it really matter to Bush if he loses a couple points? His days of running for office are over.
Well, likely primary voters are not necessarily representative of the party at large, and generally likely voters are not necessarily representative of the populace at large.
TyWebb,
I think the same polls I noted above support your view that pardoning Libby is a tougher sell than the President's policies per se. As for the why--I'm not sure this is an answer, but personal loyalty seems to be a very big deal with the President. Consider, for example, the damage to Bush's legacy done by nominating Miers or not asking for Gonzales' resignation (or, for that matter, not asking for Rove's resignation in light of his role in the Plame affair). I don't know if the President misperceives these issues or just doesn't care, but in any event the pattern is consistent.
Sure, but wasn't my point that the pardon would help Bush with "the base"? Don't make me scroll back up and reread it!
Due to that alone, Libby's 'get out of jail free' card is extremely satisfying to me.
I chuckle every time I think about it.
I thought the original question was whether he would take a general approval hit, and the links I gave go into the fact that Republicans, including Republicans who generally gave Bush a positive approval rating, were opposed to a pardon (as of March). Of course, President Bush shows no signs of caring about his approval rating.
Sure, but who says "Smokey" speaks for other Republicans?
Generally, every time people argue that President Bush has hit a hard floor of support, he finds a way to break through it. So, in theory at some point he may in fact be down to just the Smokeys of the world, but I don't think that point has yet been reached.
I guess my point is that Bush is currently supported by more than just diehard partisans. And I do think some of those other supporters likely have exactly that attitude (that the law does in fact matter).