Bush Pardon of Libby is Imminent (plus Impeachment potential)

[berni_mccoy]

I say this because Libby pleaded not guilty. This means that a trial is most likely and in turn that Cheney will be required to testify.

The Bush Cabal will never let that happen.

I'm fairly certain Libby will be pardoned before Cheney is required to testify. Of course, they will likely stall and fight it as long as possible.

The stall tactics will be aimed at not having to pardon before 2006 elections. But if they need to, they will, even though it means very bad things for republican Congressmen. If it comes to that, we may have what we need for impeachment.

There is nothing more important to GOP politicians than saving their own skin, and it may very well come to that.

I'm going to have to be judicious with the popcorn... don't want to put on too much weight. But I've got mine ready nonetheless :popcorn:.

[Sparkle]

1. I thought Libby pleaded not guilty?

[berni_mccoy]

4. sorry, corrected it. I meant to type *not* guilty.

[jsamuel]

2. .

:eyes:

[truebrit71]

3. Libby pled guilty?

To what? Wearing a bad rug?

[wtmusic]

5. Can't be pardoned before he's been tried

if he's pleaded innocence.

[gordianot]

8. My understanding he can be pardoned by Bush before tried.

Nixon was pardoned by Ford before any charges were leveled. Presidential pardon is a powerful tool and is one way the whole gang of criminals can get off.

[berni_mccoy]

9. Charges aren't even necessary for pardons.

Nixon was never charged and Ford pardoned him.

Carter pardoned all the draft dodgers and Lincoln pardoned all confederate soldiers... no charges/trials required.

[wtmusic]

15. My mistake

so right! :thumbsup:

[myrna minx]

12. Bu$h will invent the preemptive pardon.

:evilgrin: I wouldn't put it past him. Laws are for the unwashed masses, for the haute patricians.

[Jackpine Radical]

54. He can't invent it.

Poppy already did. E.g. Cap Weinberger

[sabbat hunter]

14. sure you can

ford pardoned nixon, but he wasnt tried. the president can pardon anyone who is under investigation even before trials. called a blanket pardon.

[GiovanniC]

60. Just Another Example, Look at Kentucky's Ernie Fletcher

Preemptively pardoned quite a few members of his corrupt administration.

[Jersey Devil]

6. NG means nothing - a not guilty plea at arraignment is routine

In some jurisictions they wouldn't even let you plead guilty at an arraignment even if you insisted on it.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. I think he has to be convicted first

for there to be a pardon. He's innocent until proven otherwise, hence no crime.

After the conviction, all bets are off, though.

[berni_mccoy]

10. Nope, read my post #9 above. Pardons can come before charges even.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

19. No Way! you are kidding!

That doesn't make sense to me. Travesty.

[kestrel91316]

24. Ford did it for Nixon, remember?

[jaxx]

11. Yeah, if dubya pardons him when Libby says he's innocent

dubya is telling the world he was guilty. He is that dumb, I know.

[berni_mccoy]

21. Pardons have been used to avoid charges/trials in the past

That doesn't mean the pardoned individual is guilty. It means that the president wouldn't consider it a crime. And the way the RW nut jobs are spinning it as if it weren't a crime, it's like a setup for just this scenario.

[goforit]

57. So what is Fitzgerald gonna do with this scenario?

[papau]

13. no conviction necessary - Nixon pardon was for any crimes he may have

committed.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

20. I feel stupid

I lived through that and you are absolutely correct. He wasn't even charged. DUH.

[mzmolly]

31. Don't feel stupid, we all need refreshers and were all here to learn!

I learn something here every day! :hi:

[KoKo]

32. It would be very risky for him to to that, though.

It would throw the country into crisis and open up cans of worms that would bring him down.

[berni_mccoy]

36. Hehe, exactly why Bush would do it.

Dividing the country is Bush's M.O.

[sabbat hunter]

16. nopes

after all some of the people clinton pardoned werent convicted of a crime.

[MadisonProgressive]

17. No, he can be pardoned right now

"for anyhing that transpired between these 2 dates"

[mzmolly]

18. In order to restore democracy we have got to eliminate the presidential

pardon power. It means any President can send his henchmen to do anything and they will not be accountable. It's an open invitation to an abuse of power.

[berni_mccoy]

23. The pardon power does have it's uses...

For example, Carter's pardoning of the draft dodgers (who dodged an injust war)... and Lincoln's pardon of the confederate soldiers.

However, I agree limits should be placed on the pardon. A pardon should not be allowed to be issued when it's for the president's own staff and the charges are related to WH corruption. That's like the president pardoning himself, and since the president can not be indicted and only impeached, this is unconstitutional.

[mzmolly]

26. I would prefer a different avenue to these decisions?

I realize it's had a benefit historically, but we need something for goodness sakes besides the ultimate power of one person to usurp our entire justice system.

I like this point:

A pardon should not be allowed to be issued when it's for the president's own staff and the charges are related to WH corruption. That's like the president pardoning himself, and since the president can not be indicted and only impeached, this is unconstitutional.

Agreed!

[hang a left]

33. I think that pardons should be exempted from anyone who commits

crimes while in public office. Officials that are either voted in or that are appointed.

[mzmolly]

35. Definitely!

It's a no brainer, and this President is capitalizing on every possible opening to corruption imaginable.

[berni_mccoy]

39. What about soldiers, law-enforcement officers, gov't paid workers?

Many times these guys don't have a choice (or don't feel they have a choice)... They can be forced into breaking the law, especially if they are being setup as a fall-guy... If they are and the president recognizes it as such, should he/she be able to pardon them?

[hang a left]

46. Soldiers, law enforcement, government workers are not what I had

in mind when I said "officials". If perpetrators of crime knew that there wasn't going to be any get out of jail free cards, I think we might be able to cut down on some of the corruption.

[MGKrebs]

27. Would take an amendment to change, right?

The pardon power is Constitutionally granted.

[berni_mccoy]

29. Correct... and that would take years. But it should be done.

It only takes one jerkoff to abuse a privelage and then we have to go and limit it for everyone.

[mzmolly]

37. And this would be that jerkoff.

I'm certain we'll question many of our current laws when he's out of office.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

22. You are just speculating. You have no news.

[berni_mccoy]

25. Yes, I am just speculating, but think about the possible outcomes

Libby goes to trial and Cheney MUST TESTIFY?

There is no way they will let that happen.

Cheney would have to invoke the 5th amendment and that would cause the Congress to impeach him (or the GOP would totally lose Congress).

It's like the end-game of chess. There are only so many logical moves left, it's just a matter of check-mate or stale-mate at this point. I'm guessing Bush will chose stale-mate.

[gordianot]

34. My guess is Bush will go into pardon mode soon.

I take him at his word he does really care for polls or how his actions impact others. This is a common characteristic of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Give them all pre-pardons that way no one testifies, that is why I figure Reid and the other Democrats are taking this to the Senate, it is in the end the only way the truth might come out. What does a President with 38% approval rating really have to loose? Being a deserter, miserable business failure and loser has never bothered Bush in the past his inflated ego and issues have been sufficient he has always managed to blame others.

[mzmolly]

40. Here is how they are going to do it. First they have to try to turn

public opinion.

The talking points are/will be as follows:

* Over zealous prosecutor
* She was not undercover
* Libby was too busy to recall specifics
* These charges are laughable HA HA

They've already begun with that. If they can keep Republicans under their grips with this ridiculousness and we allow them to brain wash the public, we've got a pardon on our hands.

We have to continue to do what Reid did the other day and NOT let them set the agenda/tone.

Now if Fitz gets more than one of these guys?? That may change the plan.

[gordianot]

45. I think that is the plan but so far it doesn't seem to be working.

Finally some Democrats are fighting back. I also suspect there is a considerable segment in the intelligence community that hates Bush and is willing to seek revenge. The Democrats seemed to be very confident Monday.

The heating bills this winter will not help Bush recover lost ground.

[mzmolly]

48. I agree, so far it's not working.

That is a good thing. Heating bills, gas prices, war ... none of this is helping Bush.

[Swede Atlanta]

28. Not sure a pardon can be done yet

I don't believe a pardon can be granted until Libby is convicted. I don't think a President has the power to stop the wheels of justice running their course prior to a conviction. He can then step in and pardon or suspect a conviction.

[berni_mccoy]

30. Read post #9 above please.

[No Exit]

38. Good point--a pre-2006-elections pardon would be disastrous for

Shrub and the Shrub party, wouldn't it??

Hey, maybe Harry Reid should have a little talk with Shrubby. "George, you really need to pardon Scooter before this thing goes any further. You know and I know that Scooter was a fine public servant and he was just doing his job."

Just like good old Harry advised Shrub, "Yeah, George, I think Harriet is a FINE pick for Supreme Court. Go with it!"

I love Harry Reid.

[gordianot]

41. When has Bush really thought of the welfare of anyone?

His ultimate concern is only for himself and his own welfare. Narcissism is not easy to overcome.

[MGKrebs]

50. Surely they will be able to delay this until well past the election

next year. I mean, I'm not trying to defend Libby or anything, but Fitz has been working on this for 2 years. Libby's lawyers will want to review all that data. I would say that this trial is unlikely to be held even before the 2008 elections!

[No Exit]

59. Federal trial proceedings move fast, much faster than most

states' systems. That said, it is true that Scooty-boot's defense will drag their feet about things like security clearances and documents and reporters' alleged "1st Amendment privileges"--although that last thing has already been litigated up to the federal appeals court, and the court DIDN'T side with the reporters. When an issue has already been litigated, they aren't required to start all the litigation over from square one, so that should help speed up Scooty's trial a little, at least.

Plus, to me, it's not really the trial/verdict itself that matters so much as how much news coverage it gets. As long as the matter remains frequently in the news, I don't really care about the rest. Just having it in the news will put a damper on the repukes--even regardless of the trial's ultimate outcome.

What about all those people who said Scooty would cave right away to protect his dark masters?? I had a feeling he wouldn't. Because, after all, while Scooty-boot wasn't, like, the vice president, or anything so high and mighty, he was STILL a very high-placed and powerful Scooty-boot in his own right. Even Cheney might hesitate to ask his close blowbuddy Scooty to just summarily fall on his sword.

And like most guys who aren't used to being accused of crimes, and who are from a fairly affluent family, Scooty is NOT just going to fold if it means the "shame" of jail.

[MGKrebs]

64. "it's not really the trial/verdict itself that matters"

I agree! The chances of this EVER getting to trial are slim (in my opinion). But the POSSIBILITY that it might will force somebody's hand. And this has everything the media loves: Spies, politics, scandal, courtrooms. All we need is a little sex to add to the mix for this to be front page for the next 6 months!

Bush is in a bad place right now. If this goes to trial, it could get ugly for him and the GOP. The only way to be sure it DOESN'T go to trial is to pardon, which the consensus seems to be would be disastrous for the GOP.

[bmcatt]

42. A pardon could be good - no 5th amendment coverage for Libby

Ok, so let's follow that through... Bush pardons Libby for anything related to the leak.

Fitzgerald, I believe, then gets to haul Libby's butt before a grand jury and tell him, "Ok. So you're immune. Guess what? That means that you *must* testify truthfully. You can't take the fifth because you can no longer incriminate yourself. And if you lie to me again, I get to go get another indictment and we can play this game back and forth - I've got all the time in the world."

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't see that a pardon actually helps Libby, nor the administration.

[H2O Man]

43. No chance

of a pardon in the near future.

[soothsayer]

44. I'm with you! All the pukes running for reelection would turn on him

for a bonehead move like that

[riderinthestorm]

63. This is actually for Waterman and Soothsayer

Why do you discount voting fraud in 2006? You obviously don't think that Bush and Co. are going to manipulate the vote so the Reps don't have to worry about a pardon...

What makes you so certain of that?

I believe it's a no-brainer for this crew. They certainly don't want Libby, Cheney et al on trial. I believe Bush and Co. will make sure they don't go to trial by pardoning any and all who are indicted. And I believe they could care less what the fallout is going to be since they are assured of winning in 2006 no matter what.

I'm genuinely curious how you come by your faith in a fair election process?

[gordianot]

49. I hope you are right!

You sure have been correct in the past.

[berni_mccoy]

51. Ok, maybe not near future, but what if Cheney is forced to testify?

Do you think Bush will pardon Libby so that Cheney won't need to testify?

[H2O Man]

52. No.

Spiro Cheney will not be in office in 12 months. There are a number of things going on within the White House now. They include, but are not limited to:

1- Bush is being advised by the party elders to separate himself from the scandal. George has a cowardly nature, and he recognizes this as being a fight he can't win. He lacks the ability to make connections with other people as distinct individuals -- he sees them as extensions of himself. Thus, in order to protect himself, he will change advisors as easily as you will change footwear to walk outside in the winter.

2- Cheney is feeling trapped. He has a significant network in the congress, but even more so in the business world. Because those in congress will jump when Dick says jump, because they know future campaign contributions hinge on it, you hear the "unnamed republican sources" saying Karl needs to go. That's Dick talking through his puppets.

3- Karl's friends include the slimiest inhabitants of the Washington septic system. Think of people like Dick Morris. Note that two days ago, Dick Morris had an op-ed in the New York Post. In it, he pointed his finger at Dick Cheney. He was brutally honest, which can only mean Dick Morris has an evil reason for telling the truth. Karl's connections are trying to promote the idea that if Cheney is sacrificed, Karl can safely stay on. Karl is even willing to say, "Sorry" to the Wilson. Gosh, he's just like Dennis the Menace.

4- Libby is pissed at Rove. He knows that Rove gave him up, with the information from the 4th chat with the grand jury about discussions with Libby about the Novak call. But Scooter can't fuck Karl. Not now, anyhow, though in the future, Libby will be dogging Karl. All he can possibly do is make a deal with Fitzgerald using Cheney.

Look closely at Libby's attorneys. Sharp men. Smart men. When they harp about "no plea," and a jury trial, they are talking to the White House, not to Fitzgerald. Remember this: Libby's detailed description of his conversation with Russert is the "checkmate" for any trial. It is powerful evidence of consciousness of guilt -- and can NOT be explained as a faulty memory. In fact, it is one of two (or three) things that he talked to Cheney about that Fitzgerald needs.

Again: look at the firm the second Libby attorney is from. Think of who "won" the 2000 election for Bush. The influence of James Baker III is being felt in this case. No one can save Bush, Cheney, and Libby now. No one. Men like Baker are only interested in saving the president.

[vogonity]

53. Can you clarify your last sentence?

Are you saying that no one can save all three together (Bush, Cheney, Libby) but Baker et al are trying to save only Bush and will not hestitate to screw Cheney & Libby?

As I read your post again, I am pretty sure that is what you mean. I will post this anyway as a thanks to you for your posts here at DU. I have been reading them longer than my low post count might indicate.

[H2O Man]

55. Correct.

It might be more accurate to say that those who seek to save Bush will not hesitate to sacrifice anyone else. Leaving Bush's personality out of it, and without putting any moral or ethical values in play, we do best to view it as a "systems model."

There is a line from, of all places, Vine Deloria's 1970 book, "We Talk, You Listen," worth examining: "There has never been a system yet that would not gladly sacrifice one of its own for a moment's peace, no matter how brief." (page 66)

Bush needs to be separated from the scandal, and actually made to look like he approves of Fitzgerald's investigation. He can not afford to embrace corruption publicly at this point in his presidency. The indictments against Libby have exposed Cheney, so far as the public goes, as taking part in the lies to bring the country to war. There are obviously a few other scandals brewing, some closely connected to Plame. Bush will attempt to step far away from them.

[understandinglife]

62. Agree with your assessment. I think the gotcha for Bush, however, ...

... are the conversations between AF1 and AF2 as Bush was flying to Africa. Ari, Powell, Libby, Rove, & Cheney were all likely participants in one or more calls when it is quite reasonable to assume Bush gave the "f*&# Wilson" go ahead.

If that is the case, and if Powell or Ari, in particular, have already sung to Fitzgerald, then Bush is toast.

Apart from that, I think Fitzgerald's pursuit of Gov Ryan demonstrates what the man can do with one indictment and five years worth of continued discovery and prosecution. In that context, if Fitzgerald has already informed Bush's criminal lawyer that Bush is under investigation, and if Cheney's criminal lawyer has similarly been informed, then we have a rather interesting scenario -- one that is very different from the Ford - Nixon paradigm.

Ford was not under investigation for any crime.

At this point, for Bush to attempt to pardon Libby, or anyone else within the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation, might just earn Bush an obstruction of justice charge, along with conspiracy to ..... (fill in the blank).

So, I think the situation is way less transparent than some may want it to be. I do not think we have historical precedent for the current situation.

We have a President who lied to the Nation and the Congress as he moved in a premeditated way to launch a war of aggression on Iraq.

We have multiple members of the President's administration potentially involved in a conspiracy to destroy intelligence assets.

We have at least one direct report to the President (Libby) for whom evidence exists that he did destroy American intelligence assets.

These destructive events transpired while the Nation is at war -- irrespective of whether the war is legal or Constitutional -- i.e., the destruction of intelligence assets directly involved in protecting the Nation from WMD happened while the Nation was supposedly at war with the intent of keeping the enemy from deploying WMD. That's a real bad one.

So, if Bush, a potential "unindicted co-conspirator," interferes in any way with Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation, I'd say Bush would become the test case of a President being indicted for obstruction of justice (at a minimum) prior to articles of impeachment being filed.


Peace.

[DemReadingDU]

67. Are phone calls taped abroad AF1 and AF2?

If so, Fitzgerald would have quite a bit of evidence what exactly was said in regards to the conversations about outing of Plame.

[understandinglife]

70. Don't know. Given this Administration, if they have control of it, ...

... you know they've been destroyed. However, if the NSA or some other agency records communications to and from AF1 and AF2, well .... ???


Peace.

[DemReadingDU]

66. Would Russert have had his phone calls routinely taped?

Otherwise, it's Libby's word against Russert's word. Fitzgerald is confident that Russert is telling the truth, and Libby is lying. It seems to me, that Russert's phone calls must be taped.

[H2O Man]

69. Russert versus Libby

in this case is a mismatch. Libby's story is clearly concocted to cover-up the truth. There are six or seven White House officials who can and will show that what Libby is saying about the Russert conversation is not true. Hence, with the evidence already on record, it is not "he said/he said."

[riderinthestorm]

47. The Reps own the voting machines. They've already won the 2006 elections

So Bush can pardon away with impunity, and the Congressional Reps don't have a single care about any fallout.

Until we get voting reforms, they don't have to worry about winning. They don't have to even pretend to think about impeachment.

[EFerrari]

56. Bingo!

:hi:

[DemReadingDU]

65. Exactly, if we can't get our voting system changed

whatever office the Republicans want bad enough, they will win. I don't like to be so cynical, but I've read enough to see there are way too many concidences that throw the election to the Republicans.

[Lucille]

58. That's where a civil suit could come in

Pardons are a nice get out of jail card, but the Wilsons still can bring civil charges against Libby, which could require testimony of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, and others. The precedent for civil suits against a sitting president was, of course, Clinton.

[Mme. Defarge]

68. I have posted this elsewhere in the DU Forum

and gotten nary a comment. So, here goes one last time.

Remember the beginning of Libby's indictment? It starts off with reference to a confidentiality agreement he signed as an employee of this administration. This means that Rove has undoubtedly signed one as well.

So, now that it is known the Rove is "Mr. A" -- the person who disclosed Valerie Wilson's identity as a CIA agent to Robert Novak -- it seems obvious that Rove has violated the terms of his employment. This disclosure of confidential information has not only caused harm to Valerie Wilson and her family, it has also damaged the CIA's intelligence capabilities, and therefore our nation.

If the Wilson’s are considering a civil lawsuit as a result of the damage done to Mrs. Wilson, why can't we, the citizens of the United States, file a class action lawsuit against Mr. Bush and Mr. Card for negligent retention of an employee who has damaged the nation as a result of his gross misconduct, not to mention reckless disregard, depraved indifference, etc.?

[DearAbby]

61. Libby goes to trial and Cheney MUST TESTIFY - What it

Chenny is indicted before the Libby trial, or named as an un indicted co-conspirator? It seems possible.