Ask Me Help Desk - Rep. John Conyers to hold hearings on clemency

The Corner on National Review Online

Quote:

"In light of yesterday's announcement by the President that he was commuting the prison sentence for Scooter Libby, it is imperative that Congress look into presidential authority to grant clemency, and how such power may be abused," John Conyers said. "Taken to its extreme, the use of such authority could completely circumvent the law enforcement process and prevent credible efforts to investigate wrongdoing in the executive branch."

Conyers should read the little pocket Constitution that Rober Byrd likes to hand out . He will find that constitutionally the Presidents power to grant reprieves and pardons is absolute.

Artcle II, section 2 of the US Constitution reads

Quote:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

But ; since the ethically challenged Conyers... CNN.com - Congressman accused of using staff to baby-sit - Apr 12, 2006... plans on conducting this fishing expedition anyway ,and since Scooter Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer ,then perhaps it is relevant to mention the Clinton pardon of Marc Rich ;a fugitive from justice . [ Patrick Fitzgerald was the prosecutor in that case and Libby was the Defense Attorney... perhaps a reason for Fitzgerald's Javert-like zeal in pursuing this case beyond reason ]

Hello tom:

He does have the absolute right to do what he did.

However, if he did it to cover up his own (or Cheney's) crimes, would that be a crime in and of itself? I think it would. Therefore, I think congress is doing its job by looking into it.

Or, do you adopt the Nixonian argument that if the president does it, it's not illegal?

excon

What crime did Bush commit that he is covering up by granting clemency ?

Oh I get it ;just keep on investigating and maybe eventually some of the spaghetti sticks to the wall... maybe you can catch someone else having faulty memory regarding a conversation with a journalist who contradicted himself in testimony. That is good oversight in the Democrat's view I guess.

What is it I read in the paper almost every day from moonbats and other Democrats, that Bush is abusing the constitution one way or another? And what is it that Elliot likes to quote from George Carlin about your stuff being sh** and my sh** being stuff? This is just absurd, but obviously the irony and hypocrisy escapes these people. I've said it for years now, the Democrats only agenda is to gain power and to "get Bush." IF they were interested in justice this would have never gone beyond Armitage. When he said "oops, I think it was me," Fitzgerald had nothing more to investigate about who the "leaker" was.

Hello again, tom:

Outing a covert CIA agent is against the law. Cheney did that. I don't even think you deny it. Plus, it's a pretty damn unpatriotic thing to do. Don't you think so?

Oh, oh, I know you'll start by telling me that she wasn't covert, and thus and so... it goes on from there. I've heard it already. Of course, you'd spin it that way. I wouldn't expect anything else from you.

You call it political trickery. I call it oversight.

excon

PS> Frankly, I think your assertion that the judges became political to be absurd. The trial judge was a Republican appointed by Bush. 2 of the 3 appellate judges, who decided Libby should be in jail, were Republican Bush appointees. The Justice system that said Libby should serve 30 something months in the slam is replete with Republicans.

I don't know. This is beyond spin.

excon,

You are assuming that Bush committed some sort of crime that neededto be covered up in the first place. Do you have any evidence at all that there was any such crime?

Before you answer, please keep in mind that it was Richard Armitage, not Libby and not Cheney, who leaked Valerie Plame's name. Furthermore, please keep in mind that Valerie Plame was NOT a covert operative of the CIA. For those two reasons, there is no crime that Bush is covering up by pardoning Libby.

So I ask again, is there any evidence of any sort of crime that Bush is trying to cover up? If not, then there was nothing unethical about the clemency granted to Scooter Libby, is there. Not only is Bush LEGALLY within his rights as President of the USA, he is ethically within bounds as well.

(Not at all like Bill Clinton who pardoned his buddy Marc Rich a fugitive who really was guilty of financial crimes, and pardoned Hillary's co-worker Susan McDougal, who was convicted in the Whitewater scandal, and Bill Clinton's half-brother Roger who was convicted of drug charges. Also the pardons of Carlos Vignali and Almon Glen Braswell, who paid Hugh Rodham, Hillary's brother, $200,000 to "represent their clemency case", and Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, who paid Tony Rodham, another brother of Hillary, $107,000 in the form of unpaid loans to get them clemency. In all there were 140 pardons, including those of FALN terrorists and murderers by Bill Clinton. Those pardons were UNETHICAL in the extreme. But none of that is the topic of this string.)

The point is that there is nothing unethical about Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence. And therefore, there are no grounds for Conyers to be calling for hearings.

But hey, let him go for it. I'd love for him to have to publicly defend his position that we should ignore the Constitution because its too inconvenient for his political ambitions. Because that is what this is really about.

Elliot

I think it was a very important distinction that Plame was not covered under the provisons of the law about outing an operative .It was such a clear distinction that Fitzgerald did not bring it up during the trial .In fact he went out of his way to argue during the trial that it was irrelevant ;to exlude any testimony or defense about the issue during the trial .Then during sentencing suddenly it was the most relevant part of his case?? Then why was testimony /discovery /and defense excluded from even mentioning Plame's status ?

The fact is that he discovered early on in his investigation there was no crime. Then he went on a fishing expedition... just like Conyers.

Hello again, wingers:

Oh, I think it was unethical as hell. But I DO think it's a GOOD thing.

Indeed, I don't think the gravity of what he did, and the sea change it is going to foment has sunk in yet. Did you see my response in the commuted thread?? I'm thrilled he did this. In my view, this is going to have long lasting beneficial results. I think it might even be enough to outweigh the damage he did to the Supreme Court.

excon

Quote:

(Not at all like Bill Clinton who pardoned his buddy Marc Rich a fugitive who really was guilty of financial crimes, and pardoned Hillary's co-worker Susan McDougal, who was convicted in the Whitewater scandal, and Bill Clinton's half-brother Roger who was convicted of drug charges. Also the pardons of Carlos Vignali and Almon Glen Braswell, who paid Hugh Rodham, Hillary's brother, $200,000 to "represent their clemency case", and Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, who paid Tony Rodham, another brother of Hillary, $107,000 in the form of unpaid loans to get them clemency. In all there were 140 pardons, including those of FALN terrorists and murderers by Bill Clinton. Those pardons were UNETHICAL in the extreme. But none of that is the topic of this string.)

Or Henry Cisneros former HUD Sec. ; who had a pardon under circumstances very similar to this case.

The White House has spoken out:

Quote:

The White House on Thursday made fun of former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for criticizing President Bush's decision to erase the prison sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has scheduled hearings on Bush's commutation of Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence.

"Well, fine, knock himself out," Snow said of Conyers. "I mean, perfectly happy. And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?"

In the closing hours of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.

I don't know Arkansan for chutzpah, but we call those kind of people "varmints." Now pay attention 'cause here's the distinction between one pardon and the next:

Quote:

"I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted," [Bill] Clinton told a radio interviewer Tuesday. "You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."

Got it? The guidelines for pardoning a fugitive wanted for $48 million in tax evasion, 51 fraud counts and "trading with the enemy" who's wife raised over a million for the Democratic Party, gave $10,000 to their legal defense fund and gave them over $7000 in furniture - are different. Clearly, Libby should have fled the country, raised money for the GOP and given the Bushes furniture.

Quote:

Sen. Clinton, seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said the Libby decision "was clearly an effort to protect the White House. ... There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent."

But she apparently still doesn't know that Armitage was the leaker and Wilson contradicted himself in his op-ed and his 9/11 commission testimony.

Quote:

Former Vice President Al Gore said he found the Bush decision "disappointing" and said he did not think it was comparable to Clinton's pardons.

"It's different because in this case the person involved is charged with activities that involved knowledge of what his superiors in the White House did," Gore said on NBC's "Today" show Thursday.

Huh? Seriously, has nobody told the Democrats that Armitage was the leaker in this "CIA leak case?"

Quote:

White House Spokesman Scott Stanzel noted Thursday that the White House has received a flurry of inquires since Democrats took control of Congress in January, and has turned over some 200,000 pages of documents.

"They've launched over 300 investigations, had over 350 requests for documents and interviews, and they have had over 600 oversight hearings in just about 100 days," Stanzel said. "So that's about six oversight hearings a day."

Is that the "mandate" the people voted for last year, endless investigations and hearings? I don't think so, but keep it up guys, your approval ratings should be in the single digits before long.

Meanwhile not one of their agenda legislation has made it to the President's desk to sign except the minimum wage increase.

Quote:

Sen. Clinton, seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, said the Libby decision "was clearly an effort to protect the White House. ... There isn't any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent."

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/...infoil_hat.jpg

I think the reason for the pardon power is to allow the president to step into cases like this and prevent such miscarriages of justice. Now, when does the Armitage trial start?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Indeed, I don’t think the gravity of what he did, and the sea change it is going to foment has sunk in yet. Did you see my response in the commuted thread?? I'm thrilled he did this. In my view, this is going to have long lasting beneficial results. I think it might even be enough to outweigh the damage he did to the Supreme Court.

I bow to thy prophetic prowess. :D

Quote:

Crowd wants Ga. man freed in teen sex case

DOUGLASVILLE, Ga. - The Rev. Al Sharpton embraced the mother and sister of a man serving a 10-year sentence for consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old, joining hundreds of supporters Thursday demanding his immediate release from prison.

Genarlow Wilson has been in prison two years for taking part in the sex act when he was 17.

"This boy is not only her son, he's your son, he's my son, " Sharpton told the cheering crowd from the steps of the Douglas County Courthouse.

State Rep. Alisha Thomas Morgan called Wilson's punishment excessive and said it should be reduced, like the prison sentence for former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, commuted Monday by President Bush.

"Genarlow is the face of many other young black men who have received injustice, " Morgan said. "Somebody's got to stand up for them."

Wilson, now 21, is serving a 10-year mandatory sentence for aggravated child molestation stemming from a 2003 New Year's Eve party where he was videotaped receiving oral sex from a 15-year-old girl. The law has since been changed, but the state's top court said the new law couldn't be applied retroactively.

There you go, the first "Scooter defense."

Sounds to me that this is a state mandatory sentence and it is up to the Governor . A judge already reduced his sentence from the mandatory sentence. The Governor should act in this case because the Ga. Legislature has already changed to charge to misdemeanor ;but they failed to make it retroactive.

Of all excon's arguments ,the one that makes most sense is the critique of minimum sentencing .

There have bee a lot of controversial pardons. And some were convited treasons.

Read : The 10 Most Notorious Presidential Pardons - Whiskey Rebels - TIME

And again, what about the Armitage issue?