Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
To the left: get over it, will you?
Posted by: McQ on Friday, July 06, 2007

The BDS addled among the left are still frothing over the Libby commutation. They're now taking Democratic Congressman Bob Wexler's attempt at censure (a "non-binding resolution simply expresses the sense of the House that Bush acted improperly and does not carry any other penalty.") to task and, of course, pushing for the usual instead:
If it was a quid pro quo, then it wasn't just improper - it was corrupt. And it was part of a 4-year-old Oval Office conspiracy - in which Bush and Cheney personally participated - to treasonously "out" a covert CIA operative to punish her husband for exposing a pre-war lie, and then abuse Presidential power to evade punishment. And of course that was just part of a 6-year-old Oval Office conspiracy to invade Iraq in defiance of U.S. law and the U.N. Charter, using lies to defraud Congress into consent.

It's long past time for Congress to confront these Oval Office conspiracies - both the small one involving Valerie Plame and the much larger one involving the whole Iraq invasion.

Call Robert Wexler's office at (202) 225-3001 with a simple message: Obstruction of Justice needs far more than a slap on the wrist - we need hearings, subpoenas, and Articles of Impeachment.
There you have it. Full-on screech mode in which they ignore the fact that the Constitutional power given the President in terms of commutation and pardon isn't limited, it is quite broad:
The President ... shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
So, using this commutation as a basis for impeachment, well, good luck. There are a few things the pardoning power can't cover and if Libby's commutation actually fell into one of those categories, then, and only then, might a case be made:
There are, however, things that a pardon cannot cover. The first and most obvious is impeachment, since it is specifically excepted in the Constitution. Civil liability cannot be excused - a harm against another can still be considered a harm even if there is no longer any criminal liability. Contempts of court cannot be pardoned, as they are offenses against the dignity of the court, and not necessarily offenses against the law. In the Constitutional Convention, a proposal to except treason was popular, but was defeated when the talk turned to granting the Senate only the power to pardon treason.
So, it's a no-go and other than froth at the mouth, not much there for the I-word gang.

There have been many questionable and unpopular pardons in the past.
There are several reasons for a President to issue a pardon, and they come from all sides of the political world. The pardons of President William Clinton can illustrate some of the various reasons. Clinton pardoned his brother, Roger, for obvious familial reasons. He pardoned a pair of Hasidic Jews convicted of defrauding the government, restoring their civil rights but leaving monetary penalties intact. In a controversial move, he pardoned fugitive financier Marc Rich, after application for clemency, in part, from the state of Israel, which had benefited from Rich's philanthropic gestures. President Ford pardoned President Nixon of any wrong-doing in order to put a close to the Nixon era for good. President James Madison pardoned army deserters in an attempt to refill the military's ranks for the War of 1812. President Abraham Lincoln pardoned all Civil War deserters on the condition that they return to their units to fight. Carter pardoned the Vietnam War draft dodgers to help in the long healing process the nation endured after that war.
This isn't anything new or unique. In this particular case it is just another in a long line of manifestations of extreme BDS. As I said before, if you don't like it, do what is necessary to change the Constitution.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"As I said before, if you don’t like it, do what is necessary to change the Constitution."

Why bother? We have judges who will do it for us.
 
Written By: Leftist
URL: http://
This is just politics as usual. The GOP were quick to investigate Clinton’s pardons. They know it won’t accomplish anything, it’s theater to keep the pressure on Bush and the Republicans with an election coming up. Political theater comes from the right and left, bread and circuses, you know.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
By the way, is BDS have anything in common with Clintonophobia, the epidemic that raged back in the late 90s and into 2000? They share some similar attributes, though each seems to affect a different segment of the population.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Do you know the difference between reprieve and commutation, McQ? I suggest you look it up, because they’re not the same and the constitution does *not* give the president the power to commute a sentence. The only BDS is that which afflicts his supporters, and anyone who wants an example of "screech mode" need only read your posts.
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
I suggest you look it up, because they’re not the same and the constitution does *not* give the president the power to commute a sentence.
Then pretty much every President has violated the Constitution, because every President has commuted sentences.

Reprieve means "to give relief or deliverance to for a time" (according to Miriam-Webster). Commutation of a sentence IS giving relief, by lessening the terms of the sentence.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
The key, steverino, is for a time. Figure the rest out, if you can.
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
The key, steverino, is for a time. Figure the rest out, if you can.
"For the rest of his life" is "for a time". Figure that out, if you have more than two functioning brain cells.

And you didn’t address the fact that a whole bunch of Presidents have commuted sentences over the years...with nary a Constitutional challenge.

Putz.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Get over it? Why? It’s a GREAT issue to ask Republican candidates about.

Was the President’s act within his powers? Absolutely.

Does it show profound contempt for the rule of law? Depends who you ask. Mr. Rita, whose case was just recently heard by the Sup Ct and decided adversely to him, for example might have very strong views about the purported grounds on which Bush decided to commute the sentence. The Sentencing Guidelines, when applied to him, are just fine according to the DOJ. But poor Scooter couldn’t possibly bear the strain of doing 30 months.
 
Written By: Francis
URL: http://
Get over it? Why? It’s a GREAT issue to ask Republican candidates about.
Please, I’m begging you, please keep carping on this issue. It makes the Democrats look even more pathetic than the Republicans did on Clinton.

Really.


A side question: was the $250,000 fine, probation, and possible disbarment not enough of a punishment for Libby? If not, why not? (And don’t talk about sentencing guidelines. The probation officer recommended a much shorter jail term, and even called out mitigating factors that could have resulted in mere house arrest for Libby. These were ignored by the judge.)
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
And this is all beside the point of Congressman Wexler lying in his description the quid pro quo.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
How insane is it that the CIA had a "secret" agent send her husband on a very public trip which he then wrote NYT op-eds and gave TV interviews about, in which he lied, repeatably and provably, including about WHO SENT HIM.

I’m going to hazard a guess no one at the CIA was ever disciplined for that egregiously stupid error.
 
Written By: TallDave
URL: http://www.deanesmay.com
Oh, and Plame perjured herself in the Congressional hearings, making the ridiculous claim "some guy in the hall" suggested her husband for the trip. Documentary evidence quickly proved this was a lie.

Plame belongs in jail, not Scooter.
 
Written By: TallDave
URL: http://www.deanesmay.com
Hypothetical, if someone gave a President one million dollars cash for a pardon (ie, straight-up bribe) would it be Constitutional or grounds for impeachment?

And for Francis, Just One Minute on Rita
 
Written By: abw
URL: http://abw.mee.nu
No matter where you stand on this issue, the end game is limited to one option, impeachment. The President absolutely has the authority to commute Libby’s sentence, or, as he will next December, pardon him. If Congress doesn’t like it, they have only one remedy, impeachment.

I think it is a waste of time to actually pursue impeachment, and I suspect that most people in government who are tossing the option around are of the same opinion, but I suspect that they think bringing it up will help them politically.

I am not so sure about that.

I am a bit surprised that the the elected bodies have done so little to protect their turf. Time was, a Republican Senator was more Senator than Republican. Same with the House. I think it damages the separation of powers to have abrogated so much power to the Presidency.

I want the office of President to be co-equal, not above Congress.

In a related story, can you believe that Tony Snow said this...
The executive branch is under no compulsion to testify to Congress, because Congress in fact doesn’t have oversight ability.


Compare this with the US Department of State understanding, not to mention the Constitution...
Congressional oversight prevents waste and fraud; protects civil liberties and individual rights; ensures executive compliance with the law; gathers information for making laws and educating the public; and evaluates executive performance. It applies to cabinet departments, executive agencies, regulatory commissions, and the presidency.(...)

Time and again, the oversight power of Congress has proven to be an essential check in monitoring the presidency and controlling public policy.
Constitutionally...
CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

Oversight is an implied rather than an enumerated power under the U.S. Constitution. The government’s charter does not explicitly grant Congress the authority to conduct inquiries or investigations of the executive, to have access to records or materials held by the executive, or to issue subpoenas for documents or testimony from the executive.

There was little discussion of the power to oversee, review, or investigate executive activity at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or later in the Federalist Papers, which argued in favor of ratification of the Constitution. The lack of debate was because oversight and its attendant authority were seen as an inherent power of representative assemblies which enacted public law. Historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., has noted that ``no provision in the American Constitution gave Congress express authority to conduct investigations and compel testimony.’’15 He added, ``but it was not considered necessary to make an explicit grant of such authority. The power to make laws implied the power to see whether they were faithfully executed. The right to secure needed information had long been deemed by both the British Parliament and the colonial assemblies as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the people to legislate.’’16

Oversight also derives from the many and varied express powers of the Congress in the Constitution. It is implied in the legislature’s authority, among other powers and duties, to appropriate funds, enact laws, raise and support armies, provide for a Navy, declare war, and impeach and remove from office the President, Vice President, and other civil officers.17 Congress could not reasonably or responsibly exercise these powers without knowing what the executive was doing; how programs were being administered, by whom, and at what cost; and whether officials were obeying the law and complying with legislative intent.

The Supreme Court made legitimate the oversight powers of Congress, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties, on several occasions. In 1927, for instance, the High Court found that in investigating the administration of the Justice Department, Congress was considering a subject ``on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit.’’18
Regardless of who the executive is, and from what political party he/she is affiliated, I WANT them to be subject to oversight, because if they are not, then our vaunted checks and balances are not worth the parchment they are written on.

As it stands, the current administration appears to have eliminated all checks except impeachment.

Disagree?



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Tony Snow said the Congress has no oversight role?! I assume he must have been talking only about this issue. I think I agree with pretty much everything Captain Sarcastic says above, especially the need for Congress to be a co-equal in government. Moreover, it is Congress which has indeed abdicated this responsibility, in part out of partisanship, in part because it is politically safer not to go out on a limb (especially in foreign policy matters).

Congress can investigate just about anything it wants, and it can impeach a President for using powers granted the President by the Constitution if Congress believes those powers were abused.


 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Uh Dr. Erb, when someone is granted UNCONDITONAL powers to grant pardons and commute sentences, well then there can be no:
it can impeach a President for using powers granted the President by the Constitution if Congress believes those powers were abused.
Because there can be NO "abuse."

And Congress has NO oversight in this. It’s a Presidential power, they can affect budgets and confirm appointments, but they have no direct say in what the President does in this area. Just as the President would have no remit in the area of "Private Legislation," that being subject to the rules of Congress.
As it stands, the current administration appears to have eliminated all checks except impeachment.

Disagree?
Uh yes Captin....pull that hyperbole bus over to the side of the highway before your hurt someone

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
So, using this commutation as a basis for impeachment, well, good luck.
Actually, it’s a perfectly legitimate basis for impeachment. Always has been, and The Federalist makes it clear that impeachment is the proper remedy for a president who uses the pardon and reprieve power in ways congress doesn’t like.

At the end of the day, an impeachable offense is whatever Congress says it is. The system was deliberately designed to give Congress wide lattitude to remove a president, and the impeachment power is one of the cornerstones of Congressional Supremacy.

Two-thirds of Congress can pretty much do anything they want.

Getting that two-thirds, of course, may be problematic. But it’s clear from the both the ratification debates and The Federalist that the Framers explicitly saw impeachment as a check on the president’s pardon and reprieve powers.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
Because there can be NO "abuse."
That is patently absurd.

Here is a simple hypothetical that shows why and how that statement is completely false.

President A instructs (or maybe he didn’t) Subordinate B to murder Candidate C. Subordinate B is brought up on charges and quickly pardoned by President A. This is technically within his authority, but is clearly an abuse of Presidential powers (unless he didn’t instruct Subordinate B to murder Candidate in which case it simply has the appearance of abuse) and would be (hopefully) met with a prompt impeachment and trial by the Senate ending with removal from office (if the President did instruct Subordinate B to murder Canidate A).

But what if there is no obvious evidence that President A instructed Subordinate B to murder Candidate C? Does the government end all inquiries or do they investigate, using the subpoena power of Congress to determine if there is evidence of abuse? And what if Congress does use it’s oversight authority to investigate the Executive and the Executive claims Executive Priveledge and does not comply with the subpoena’s? And what if the courts agree with the President’s application of Executive Priveledge? Can the Congress Impeach and remove the President from office for simply not complying with the Congress’ subpoena’s.

The answer is YES, they can, but as Dale points out, they have to have the votes to do so.

The debate here should not be about whether the President was right or wrong about commuting Libby’s sentence, the question is whether Congress has the authority to demand that the administration cooperate with a Congressional investigation or whether the President can decide that they acted properly and therefore do not have to cooperate.

If you agree with the latter, then you agree that the President is no longer subject to Congressional oversight. And if you agree with that, then consider President Hillary having this same supreme power.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
The debate here should not be about whether the President was right or wrong about commuting Libby’s sentence, the question is whether Congress has the authority to demand that the administration cooperate with a Congressional investigation or whether the President can decide that they acted properly and therefore do not have to cooperate.

If you agree with the latter, then you agree that the President is no longer subject to Congressional oversight. And if you agree with that, then consider President Hillary having this same supreme power.
Using your analogy we are at the point already trotted out PREVIOUSLY, about the "October Surprise" we have no evidence of wrong-doing but that’s why we must investigate? Congress can hold hearings on ANYTHING, it’s in their purview, but as far as oversight over the Presidential power, oversight as in veto, no, they have none. So tell me captin what crime occurred in the commutaion of Libby’s sentence? I do believe that known, convicted terrorists were communted in 2000.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
A side question: was the $250,000 fine, probation, and possible disbarment not enough of a punishment for Libby? If not, why not?
Maybe it won’t be enough.
Well, at least according to queries made by the judge in the case…
Before the holiday, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton asked lawyers on both sides of the Lewis "Scooter" Libby case to submit briefs outlining their positions as to whether the former White House aide should still be required to spend two years on probation now that President Bush has decided to overturn his 30-month prison sentence.

"Strictly construed, the statute authorizing the imposition of supervised release indicates that such release should occur only after the defendant has already served a term of imprisonment," Walton wrote Tuesday.
We’ll see.

Maybe we can get some of you shysters to weigh in.
But something tells me, that despite a fine and possible disbarment, Libby will land on his feet. Maybe even on top of a pedestal.

As far as this,
get over it
Heh.
That seems to be a popular answer from most of you here regarding this administration and the Republicans in general and their cloud of scandal and disrepute.

Yeah… “Get over it”…

They may just very well do that.

Say hello to President Hillary Rodham Clinton

Neolibertarians…

Good work!!!

 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Using your analogy we are at the point already trotted out PREVIOUSLY, about the "October Surprise" we have no evidence of wrong-doing but that’s why we must investigate?
Why do you constantly argue that evidence should be appear BEFORE an investigation? That’s backwards.

If something appears unseemly, it is appropriate for Congress to investigate. It is during the investigation that evidence would come to light. If your logic held true, then investigations would be unnecessary, all evidence would appear magically every time a crime is committed, and we could move directly from the crime to the prosecution.
Congress can hold hearings on ANYTHING, it’s in their purview, but as far as oversight over the Presidential power, oversight as in veto, no, they have none.
I have not asserted than the legislative branch has veto authority over commutations or pardons, but in it’s oversight powers, it can punish the President for abusing his authority in this area.
So tell me captin what crime occurred in the commutaion of Libby’s sentence?
As far as crimes committed in Libby commutation, I don’t know. If there was a crime, it was not the commutation itself, it would have been in the actual circmustances preceding the Libby investigation. The commutation would be an abuse of power if there was a crime.

It is unseemly having the President commute the sentence of a high level executive branch member who was convicted of lying under oath in an investigation invloving the Office of the Vice President. If there was a crime committed, without an investigation, and the accompanying testimony under oath, would you expect the perpetrators to just admit it? The power of the Congress is that that they can force the administration to offer testimony under oath as to whether they did commit a crime, and if they committed no crime, they can tell the truth to that effect. But if they did commit a crime, they can either admit the crime, or lie about under oath, and possibly be charged and convicted for perjury.

Nixon was not impeached for what he did, as he never admitted what he did, he was instead charged with obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress.
I do believe that known, convicted terrorists were communted in 2000.
Yes, some FALN members had their sentences commuted after serving 19 years in prison. And George HW Bush pardoned Orlando Bosch, a convicted terrorist. What’s your point?







 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"Strictly construed, the statute authorizing the imposition of supervised release indicates that such release should occur only after the defendant has already served a term of imprisonment," Walton wrote Tuesday.
Plenty of people receive probation without serving jail time. Unless his meaning is that there is no point to probation since there’s no longer any jail time involved, Walton may be nitpicking here.
Maybe we can get some of you shysters to weigh in.
But something tells me, that despite a fine and possible disbarment, Libby will land on his feet. Maybe even on top of a pedestal.
Libby won’t land on a pedestal, he will simply slip into oblivion. Unless the Dems use him as some obscure rallying point. "Remember Libby" isn’t going to stir the hearts of the faithful.

But you didn’t answer my question on whether the remainder of Libby’s sentence was enough punishment, and what would be proper punishment.
If there was a crime committed, without an investigation, and the accompanying testimony under oath, would you expect the perpetrators to just admit it?
Do you have any indication that a crime was committed? Any at all? Or are you just itching for a Congressional fishing expedition? I find it utterly amazing that the Democrats of today didn’t learn the lesson from watching the Republicans of the 90s.

Based on your other posts, Captain, it appears to me that you think Clinton should have gotten a pass on his perjury and his dubious pardons simply because he ran a budget surplus that wasn’t really a surplus and "won" a war. And you think that Bush should be investigated for commuting the sentence of Libby simply because Bush ran a bigger deficit and "lost" a war that isn’t yet over.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
Plenty of people receive probation without serving jail time.
True. But I think you may be referring to a suspended sentence.
A suspended sentence is a legal construct. Unless a minimum punishment is prescribed by law, the court has the power to suspend the passing of sentence (generally for a period of three years) and place the offender on probation. It is the passing of the sentence, not the sentence itself, that is being suspended. This means that if the person is convicted of another offence during the period when the passing of sentence had been suspended, then the person may be sentenced for the original offence.

Suspended sentence is necessary for probation, but in cases where the penalty is recorded as suspended sentence it is often given to mitigate the effect of the penalty. It is common practice for judges to hand down a suspended sentence to first-time offenders who have committed a minor crime, and for prosecutors to recommend a suspended sentence as part of a plea bargain.
Is there a difference? I dunno. Again, maybe some of you shysters can weigh in. (MichaelW… come on, man. You know you want to.)
But you didn’t answer my question on whether the remainder of Libby’s sentence was enough punishment, and what would be proper punishment.
Gee Steve, sorry man. I’ll try.
First of all, your question would be a whole lot easier to answer if there were any consistency within this administration with there application of its constitutional authority.
Just last week, the Supreme Court upheld a 33-month prison sentence for a decorated Army veteran who was convicted of lying to a federal agent about buying a machine gun. The veteran had a record of public service — fighting in Vietnam and the Gulf War — and no criminal record. But Justice Department lawyers argued his prison term should stand because it fit within the federal sentencing guidelines.

That Bush chose to make an exception for a political ally is galling to many career Justice Department prosecutors and other legal experts. Federal prosecutors said Tuesday the action would make it harder for them to persuade judges to deliver appropriate sentences.
But since there is not, it’s a little difficult to answer.
Seeing as how Libby’s sentence was within the norm of DOJ guidelines, it seems that his commuted sentence is not “enough”. Equality under the law, and what what. (You probably don’t see it that way, though. Special treatment for those close to the government, huh?) You’re a real conservative, right Steve?

Personally, I think the sentence for lying about a relatively inconsequential occurrence is a bit harsh. Considering that I lie to authorities all of the time.
Oh, you’re from the government. Then go f*ck yourself. I’ll tell you anything that I believe may make my dealings with you less painful.

But of course, a Republican politician whose name you would recognize*, adds…
“I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”
Cheers.



*name of politician withheld. As per the standards deemed acceptable within the neolibertarian world.

Just accept it as fact, man. Stunning admission, isn’t it?

This politician…

Big, dude…
Real big.

 
Written By: PogueMahone
URL: http://
Do you have any indication that a crime was committed?
An unseemly commutation warrants an investigation, if only to show that there was nothing improper despite the seeming unseemliness.
Any at all? Or are you just itching for a Congressional fishing expedition?
There is something in between the witch hunt of the 90’s and no Congressional investigations into White House conduct.
I find it utterly amazing that the Democrats of today didn’t learn the lesson from watching the Republicans of the 90s.
I find it utterly amazing that Republicans use their own abuse of Congressional authority as a reason not to investigate this President at all. This reminds of that entertaining definition of Chutzpah, killing your parents and asking for leniency because you’re an orphan.
Based on your other posts, Captain, it appears to me that you think Clinton should have gotten a pass on his perjury


Clinton lied under oath in a deposition in a civil suit about about a consensual sexual relationship and he was given no pass, he was, if you recall, impeached for this though subsequently acquitted in a Senate trial, and then in a separate ruling, disbarred in Arkansas and charged with contempt of court.
and his dubious pardons
You make my point for me, the Clinton pardons WERE investigated. Federal prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate the pardons. She was later replaced by James Comey. Comey found no grounds to indict Clinton.
simply because he ran a budget surplus that wasn’t really a surplus and "won" a war.


I never said that Clinton should be spared and Bush should be investigated simply because he did his job so much better, I am just pointing out that Bush has made extraordinarily bad decisions and in my estimation warrant investigation far more than anything Clinton did. But there have been no investigations into the Bush WHite House, and the WH is not cooperating now.
And you think that Bush should be investigated for commuting the sentence of Libby simply because Bush ran a bigger deficit and "lost" a war that isn’t yet over.
No, I believe the pardons should be investigated for the same reason that the Clinton pardons were investigation, to address the appearance of impropriety.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
As it stands, the current administration appears to have eliminated all checks except impeachment.

Disagree?
Snow is exactly correct. Note the last sentence of your cite:

The Supreme Court made legitimate the oversight powers of Congress, subject to constitutional safeguards for civil liberties, on several occasions. In 1927, for instance, the High Court found that in investigating the administration of the Justice Department, Congress was considering a subject ``on which legislation could be had or would be materially aided by the information which the investigation was calculated to elicit.’’18

First, I’d like to see examples of instances other than the 1927 case that the court ruled on "several occasions," but other than that, what legislation is being materially aided by Henry Waxman’s "oversight" of the executive’s adherence to it’s own orders?

What this has devolved into over the years is a means by which political partisans in Congress may hector the President and Vice President into paralysis. As such it threatens the separation of powers, which in turn threatens the Constitution itself, which in turn destabilizes our Republic.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: peter jackson
URL: www.liberalcapitalist.com
Captin: I think that "appearance of impropriety" is not something that should be investigated. I think "reasonable cause to believe actual impropriety" is a better standard.

The mere appearance of impropriety, as a standard, means everything can/should be investigated, because someone can always claim that, for any action.

(I don’t think Clinton should have been investigated either, offhand - I also didn’t give a damn in 1999 or 2000, and I still don’t.

The only good reason I can think of to investigate a pardon is if there’s reason to suspect bribery as the cause, as bribery is listed as an impeachable offense in Article II. Thus while the fact of a pardon wouldn’t be impeachable, being bribed to give it would be.

I don’t see any reason to think Clinton got paid off to pardon anyone, and not even the craziest Bush-hater I’ve ever heard has suggested Bush was paid to pardon Libby, either.)
 
Written By: Sigivald
URL: http://
"...then in a separate ruling, disbarred in Arkansas...
Sigh. What is it with liberals? Liberals and the truth seem to be mutually exclusive. Clinton resigned from the bar to avoid being disbarred.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Anyone on the left screeching about the commutation of the sentance should be made to comment on the various Clinton pardons. In fact, Hillary and Bill overreached and stupidly commented on this issue, leaving them open to heavy counterstrokes from the White House. In many papers and MSM broadcasts, I’ve seen the shady Bill pardons rehashed. A very bad misstep on their part.

Impeachment will never be brought over this. The box it would put Hillary in would be exquisite. She’ll never allow it.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Of course, there’s always the power of the purse. Which is Constitutional; it just requires the huevos to do it. Which is why Democrats have no luck with it, as we’ve seen over Iraq.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
Sigh. What is it with liberals? Liberals and the truth seem to be mutually exclusive. Clinton resigned from the bar to avoid being disbarred.
Notherbob... the dangerous combination of arrogance and ignorance

Disbarment
In a separate case, Clinton was disbarred from his Arkansas law license for five years and ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to that state’s bar officials.[108] The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue federal perjury charges against him.[109] In October 2001, Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court and, facing disbarment from the high court as well, Clinton resigned from the Supreme Court bar in November.[110]

Did I say he was disbarred from from the Supreme Court or did I say he was disbarred in Arkansas? Oh yeah, and you quoted me...
"...then in a separate ruling, disbarred in Arkansas...
So... truth and who are mutually exclusive?

Now Homer, just slap yourself in the head and say D’oh.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Anyone on the left screeching about the commutation of the sentance should be made to comment on the various Clinton pardons. In fact, Hillary and Bill overreached and stupidly commented on this issue, leaving them open to heavy counterstrokes from the White House. In many papers and MSM broadcasts, I’ve seen the shady Bill pardons rehashed. A very bad misstep on their part.
Frankly, I don’t mind if Hillary gets burned in this little fire, I don’t think A. she can win or B. She can be an effective Executive.

So by all means, let’s throw that stone and see if we get the two birds of a fruitful investigation and a painful rehashing of the Clinton pardons.

 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Anyone on the left screeching about the commutation of the sentance should be made to comment on the various Clinton pardons. In fact, Hillary and Bill overreached and stupidly commented on this issue, leaving them open to heavy counterstrokes from the White House. In many papers and MSM broadcasts, I’ve seen the shady Bill pardons rehashed. A very bad misstep on their part.
Maybe. But Hillary is being advised by Bill Clinton, probably the greatest political stategist of my lifetime. The Clintons clearly made the decision to lance the boil; Hillary couldn’t continue to run and hide every time perjury, pardons, presidential misconduct, etc. came up in the campaign. Was it the right tactic? Time will tell. but I wouldn’t bet against Bill Clinton’s tactical political judgments.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
"In a separate case...The agreement came on the condition that Whitewater prosecutors would not pursue federal perjury charges against him."
This is a case, perhaps, of arguing the meaning of "is". The point is that President Clinton was not disbarred unilaterally, but was allowed to bargain an agreement as opposed to the way in which Mr. Nifong was treated. Because there were additional penalties, the agreement required a "disbarment", so I concede that Captain Sarcastic has a point.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Seeing as how Libby’s sentence was within the norm of DOJ guidelines, it seems that his commuted sentence is not “enough”. Equality under the law, and what what. (You probably don’t see it that way, though. Special treatment for those close to the government, huh?) You’re a real conservative, right Steve?
It was also within DOJ guidelines for Libby to serve only house arrest. So, there’s a wide range that the sentence could have fallen into. How much jail time should he have served?

You can look at all the sentences handed out over a few years and find a wide disparity among them; that doesn’t necessarily mean there is some endemic inequality. But stop using Rita as an example. Near the top of this thread, abw posted a link on the Rita case; you should check it out. It points out that Rita had a prior conviction, but it was far enough in the past that it wasn’t considered for sentencing.

I believe in the punishment fitting the crime. Since Libby wasn’t the actual leak, his lying about what he said to a reporter — a lie that didn’t materially hinder the investigation — is less of a public threat than someone lying about making machine guns. YMMV
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
This is a case, perhaps, of arguing the meaning of "is". The point is that President Clinton was not disbarred unilaterally, but was allowed to bargain an agreement as opposed to the way in which Mr. Nifong was treated. Because there were additional penalties, the agreement required a "disbarment", so I concede that Captain Sarcastic has a point.
Wow, almost an admission.

You certainly twisted yourself into a pretzel over that one when it is clear that you simply had mistaken the Supreme Court move toward disbarrment that was preempted by Clinton’s resignation as a Supreme Court litigator for his DISBARRMENT in Arkansas. Not a unforgiveable mistake, but your "What is it with liberals? Liberals and the truth seem to be mutually exclusive" comment sure you makes you look silly.

The rest of your twisting is irrelevant, I simply made a statement of fact, not qualified, and not related to Nifong, and you initially claimed that it was not true.
and then in a separate ruling, disbarred in Arkansas
Sigh. What is it with liberals? Liberals and the truth seem to be mutually exclusive. Clinton resigned from the bar to avoid being disbarred.


 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
I believe in the punishment fitting the crime.
Do you know people who don’t believe in the punishment fitting the crime?

The appropriate punishment is usually closely aligned with the relationship or favorability of the defendant or victim. A rape victim and her family would usually fall closer to capital punishment of life without parole, whereas the family of the rapist would fall closer to probation, both claiming that their suggested punishment fits the crime.

Since not all defendants have the sentences reviewed by an executive with the power to commute sentences, the only punishment that actually fits any crime is the punishment handed down by our judicial system.

Nonetheless, just as Presidential authoirty to commute sentences exists a an authority, to be used wrongly or right, investigating Presidential commutations is within the purview of Congress, to be used wrongly or rightly. They cannot veto the commutation, but if the investigation shows evidence of illegal activities, Congress can punish, or cause the perpetrators to be punished.

IF the voting public disagrees with having an investigation at all, they can make their feelings known and perhaps influence whether it occurs. From my perspective, the conservo-neo-republican-libertarians, are doing their best to advance this opinion, and that’s fine. But Congress, like the President, will do what it wants, and whether it is right or wrong may or may not be borne out in the future.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
"...it is clear that you simply had mistaken the Supreme Court move toward disbarrment that was preempted by Clinton’s resignation as a Supreme Court litigator for his DISBARRMENT in Arkansas."
First, let me confirm that Captain Liberal is correct in that I had mistaken the Supreme Court outcome with the Arkansas outcome. I made a mistake. Was that unclear to anyone? Did my response attempt to finesse the issue? Sorry. That would make me like Professor Erb. Regardless of the issue, would I wish to go there?

Observe the liberal who was shamed into doing some (very rare) research. He then (happily) discovered that he was right. He is now overdosing on euphoria at being in the rare position of having some facts to substantiate his posturing. Captain Sarcastic had simply assumed that President Clinton had been disbarred and was very, very glad to discover that, indeed, that was the case. Note the capitals. ("Wheeee! Damn! I’m actually right on the facts!")
"...Captain Sarcastic has a point."
Captain Sarcastic, that statement is an admission. There is (as is clear to all readers) no pretzel-twisting going on here. Just the facts; understandibly, with which you are unused to dealing.

Being so used to operating "above the facts" Captain Sarcastic has embarrassed himself in his inability to resist overweening gloating when the facts support his position. Look away.
 
Written By: notherbob2
URL: http://
Sorry
You could not possibly leave it at that, and this entertains me and tells me a great deal about you.

I am wrong quite often, as are you, anyone that tries to deal with as many bits of minutia as we do, mostly from memory, is bound to get bits wrong.

When I think someone else is wrong, I tell them. I don’t make broad idiotic statements like their ideology precludes them from being truthful, because I am not a pompous condescending screwhead.

When someone else shows me to be wrong, I do not dance around it, I thank them for the correction and apologize for my error.

I dragged this out because I could see how difficult it was for you, and in light of your personality, seeing you seeth over the slightest of errors just makes me laugh.

Think about this though, if you had said, "Cap, you were wrong about Clinton’s disbarrment in Arkansas, he resigned before he could he could be disbarred", and left it at that, I would have posted the facts, you could have said you stand corrected, and it’s all over, no harm, no foul.

But no, you had to post this...
Sigh. What is it with liberals? Liberals and the truth seem to be mutually exclusive. Clinton resigned from the bar to avoid being disbarred.
So that gem lets me make you dance, little monkey.

Now I wonder whether you can resist the temptation to entertain me further, ignoring the first rule of holes.

I hope not.

Cap
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider