Misusing the pardon was expected by the Founders
Why do Republicans hate the Constitution?
Call It A Comeback
Misusing the pardon was expected by the Founders
Why do Republicans hate the Constitution?
It’s not Republicans. It’s elected Republican officeholders… And a very small sycophantic class of partisan regurgitators… (is “sycophantic” a word?)
60% of actual Republican voters disagree with the commutation and thought Libby should’ve done the time he was sentenced to.
Only 17% of Republicans want a pardon (which the commutation, after so few days in jail, comes damn close to being… and don’t give me that “But he has a huge fine!” He also has a huge bank account thanks to legal expenses fundraising efforts.)
Why voters keep supporting such people is unclear.
Illinois Review comments on Lee Newcom’s post about Jackson and Kirk are interesting. Let’s see if Newcom has the testicular virility to leave them posted.
We don’t hate the Constitution, Larry. We just think that we should follow it as written.
The authority to grant pardon and reprieve, as written in the Constitution, is unlimited. That means that you can argue all day that what the President did was an inappropriate, improper, or even a “misuse” of power, but you can’t really argue that it isn’t a legitimate use of power – which is what Jackson, and others, are trying to say. Conservatives complained, bitterly, that Clinton shouldn’t have pardoned the husband of a prominent contributor to his campaigns, but you’d be hard pressed to find someone that argued he didn’t have the legal authority to do so.
Congress can’t impeach a President for making a decision he is completely empowered to make just because they don’t like.
==The authority to grant pardon and reprieve, as written in the Constitution, is unlimited. That means that you can argue all day that what the President did was an inappropriate, improper, or even a “misuse” of power, but you can’t really argue that it isn’t a legitimate use of power – which is what Jackson, and others, are trying to say. Conservatives complained, bitterly, that Clinton shouldn’t have pardoned the husband of a prominent contributor to his campaigns, but you’d be hard pressed to find someone that argued he didn’t have the legal authority to do so.
==Congress can’t impeach a President for making a decision he is completely empowered to make just because they don’t like.
Which is a non-sequitur. Jackson raises the possibility that the pardon was an attempt at obstruction of justice–something contemplated by the founders as Rob quoted.
The point is relatively simple and illustrated by what Duke Cunningham did. Everything he did on behalf of the people who bribed him was within his power as a Member of Congress, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t do anything illegal. He used his power to enrich himself. The possibility Jackson raises, one that was very present when the pardon power was given, was that Cheney or Bush were acting to obstruct justice through the commutation.
It’s the same was when Bush I pardoned six people from Iran Contra–including Weinberger who was to stand trial for giving false statements/perjury. If Bush I did it to protect himself, that’s obstruction of justice.
Larry,
Fitzgerald stated immediately after Libby was convicted that the investigation was closed. What, exactly, did the commutation obstruct?
That’s the question isn’t it? And exactly why Congress should investigate. We’ve never answered the question of why Libby obstructed justice in the first place and it raises all sorts of interesting questions–especially since a commutation keeps the 5th Amendment open to Libby.
Larry:
First of all, thank God I finally have someone reasonable to debate this with.
Secondly, you are, however, missing the point. The special prosecutor didn’t seem too concerned about answering the question of why Libby obstructed justice in the first place. After all, when the verdict was handed down, he said that his investigation was over. If Congress was so dog-gone interested in finding out the answer to that question, why didn’t the pick up where Fitzgerald left off 6 months ago? Seems to me that they are simply barking at the moon in order to make political hay over an unpopular, yet perfectly constitutional, exercise of executive privilege.
Thanks–and as always, I appreciate your comments. I like being able to keep you and Greg around for good discussions.
There are two answers here I think that are relevant. First, Congress learned from Iran Contra not to get too far into hearings when there are criminal cases pending. In the case of North, they screwed up his conviction (the courts were absolutely correct to throw out the convictions because of the Congressional hearings).
Second, I would say that Fitzgerald made it pretty clear that he thought the VP was under a dark cloud. That was actually quite even handed in the sense that his point was since he couldn’t determine what happened the VP’s office looks bad–something that might not be the case if Libby hadn’t obstructed justice. Or it could mean that is why Libby obstructed justice. The argument being Libby either made others look bad when it didn’t have to be that way, or there was a reason for the obstruction.
Do I think that Congress would find enough to begin impeachment? No. I imagine the situation is muddied enough that there won’t be a clear answer.
Congress long ago allowed Presidents to get away with things that the Founders would have been horrified at and so I don’t expect Congress to start now impeaching a President for such actions–and by that I mean before Bush–hell before Nixon. I think Bush has taken the executive powers far, far beyond what others had done, but you probably don’t start with impeachment, but defunding of executive overreach.
However, oversight is a good thing. Congress held hearings on Marc Rich’s pardon. That’s a good thing. It was a dumb pardon–though I think it’s overplayed compared to three other Clinton pardons–two involving H. Clinton’s brothers acting as representatives of those getting pardons and Roger Clinton’s pardon. I find those more offensive than the Rich pardon (not that I don’t find it offensive, just less offensive).
I didn’t see the hearings into the Rich pardon as barking at the moon. I saw it as a legitimate exercise of oversight powers. I think the same here.
Also, remember that Mary Jo White, US Attorney in Manhattan did conduct a criminal investigation into the Clinton last minute pardons. I’m not proposing that unless something were to come out of Congressional hearings. I don’t really have an opinion on her investigation of Clinton because I simply don’t know anything about what sort of evidence she was dealing with at the time.