Odds that Bush Will Pardon Libby?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mactastic, Jun 20, 2006.

  1. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #1
    What do you think? I'm guessing Bush will pardon Libby after the midterm elections are over in November, and before Libby's trial is due to start in January.

    The trial balloons are floating upward right now, and since there doesn't seem to be a lot of reaction from theliberalmedia and the chattering pundits, so I'm guessing this is a near-certainty unless things change soon. If there's no downside from the public reaction, the upside of being able to avoid having Cheney dragged into these court proceedings will be too much to resist.

    Of course I'd expect all the righties who flipped their lids about Mark Rich to lambast Bush too... right?
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    How is this allowed? It's a licence for corruption.
     
  3. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #3
    It's in the Constitution. The President's pardon power is unlimited, and his (or hers) alone.

    Remember that Bush 41 pardoned the people who were involved in Ray-Gun's Iran-Contra affair (which is, I'm sure, the only reason Poindexter is still allowed to have a security clearance), and Ford pardoned Nixon for his misdeeds as well.
     
  4. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #4
    Yes, but why? With all those famous "checks and balances", why did this obvious anomaly get through. It serves nobody but the corrupt.
     
  5. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #5
    I don't think it was intended to be used for partisan political cover, but rather to right injustices when all else had failed.

    Obviously the founders didn't intend for it to be used as it has been.
     
  6. Danksi macrumors 68000

    Danksi

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Location:
    Nelson, BC. Canada
    #6
    Perhaps Bush should wait until after the trial... no need to pardon someone if they're found not guilty eh? :rolleyes:
     
  7. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #7
    Libby will be 100% pardoned by our Lie & die president. That im sure of because they both work for Dick draft dodging Cheney.
     
  8. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    I think from Bush's perspective, they'd rather not have senior WH officials put under oath and forced to testify publicly. There's already been enough embarrasing information uncovered by PatFitz.

    Ultimately any pardon of Libby won't be for Libby's benefit, but rather for George Bush's.
     
  9. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #9
    How quaintly monarchical and old-fashioned. We have the "Royal Pardon" over here, of course, but it's only nominally in the Queen's gift, being driven entirely by the judicial review process. And it's only granted after the sentence has been served.
     
  10. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    That's Old Europe for ya...

    ;)
     
  11. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #11
    State governors have rights of pardon and commutation of sentences as well. Since this power goes back well into the 18th century, I suspect it follows some fairly ancient precedents, which I presume is how it found its way into the Constitution.

    Remember the hullabaloo when Clinton pardoned Mark Rich? When pardons seem to have political overtones, they don't go down very well, which tends to mitigate against them being used for political cover. Personally, I'd like to see Bush try to pardon Libby. I think it might just be the final nail in his political coffin.
     
  12. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #12
    Keep waiting for that. Trying to be optimistic. Be a death knell for any Republican candidate after that, but who knows. People still support Bush, just like they did Nixon. If the Dems don't make significant inroads, I'm sure he'd try.

    I don't think it would fly with anybody paying attention, and it certainly would raise some unwanted questions if he did, so I think he might just let Libby rot so long as he doesn't talk.
     
  13. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    I'll say it again: It's not Libby talking that they're worried about. It's having to have Dick Cheney called to the stand, under oath, in a public trial.

    That was Clinton's undoing, and you can bet BushCo. knows that damn well.
     
  14. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #14
    I suspect so. This is why I still expect Libby to cop a plea.
     
  15. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #15
    I don't. I expect a political pardon so Libby doesn't have to plead guilty.

    A guilty plea means he did something wrong, which the opposition could exploit. A pardon means the GOP can blame a 'partisan political prosecution' even though it was nothing of the sort.
     
  16. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    I think a guilty plea, presumably to some lesser charge, would fall off the radar pretty quickly. IIRC, the trial isn't even set to begin until after the election. A pardon, OTOH, would have some political legs, especially if it occurred between now and November.

    Another issue here is the potential for a civil suit filed by Wilson and Plame. I've got to suppose that the White House is pretty determined not to give them any more ammunition, which they may well get from the Libby trial. There's going to be a lot of pressure on Libby to take the fall.
     
  17. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #17
    Did anyone watch the Frontline special on this last night on PBS - really good.

    OMG I've come full cricle - I'm watching the socialist brodcasting system. :p :D
     
  18. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #18
    I did. Glad to hear I wasn't the only one. Not that I haven't thought it before, but this documentary left me asking myself, "how could these people be running the country?"
     
  19. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #19
    That was exactly what I was thinking. I had no idea how badly Powell got thrown under the bus, for one.
     
  20. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #20
    There's no reason a pardon would have to occur before November. In fact I could see it coming during the Xmas season when people aren't paying much attention to the news.

    A guilty plea to just about anything would give the Wilsons ammunition in any civil suit, whereas a pardon gives Libby cover to deny everything when the civil suit comes.

    I don't see this as being about Libby taking the fall. I see this as being about keeping elected members of the upper echelon of the GOP off the witness stand. I guarantee Cheney does not want to face Fitz in public.

    Imagine if Rove's testimony had come publicly. He wouldn't have been able to tell the prosecution one story and the public another. THAT'S what has the WH worried.
     
  21. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    Simply pleading guilty, especially to a lesser charge, probably doesn't give Wilson and Plame much more to go on. They're probably hoping for testimony. Recall, the main charge against Libby is obstruction. If he and other administration officials are put on the stand, we might even find out who outed Plame. Then they've got a prime target for a civil suit, which they evidently haven't got now, or they'd have filed it already I suspect.
     
  22. mactastic thread starter macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #22
    I'm not sure about that. I remember the families in the OJ case being very clear about wanting to wait until the conclusion of any criminal trial before filing their civil suits because they wanted to see what came out at trial.

    You may be right about copping to a lesser plea; that would effectively save Bush from having to pardon him, but I still think a pardon is more likely than a plea.
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    On the first point, I believe this case is different. Libby is being charged with obstruction, not the crime of outing Plame. I presume for civil purposes, that Plame will sue over having her career as a covert agent destroyed by someone at the White House. I expect it would be helpful to know who did the actual deed, which they might be able to find out in a Libby trial. Otherwise, who do they name as defendants in the suit?

    Second, I suppose another possible scenario is Libby pleading to a lesser charge, and then Bush pardoning him of that, say next year or when some other big story gives him cover. Then we could both be right. ;)
     
  24. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #24
    yes. it put into better perspective into whose actually running the country, imo.
     
  25. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #25
    Are they even going to offer Libby a plea bargain do you think? Seems more like the prosecutors are after bigger fish, and just couldn't get anything solid on Rove. Libby is probably taking the fall because he's afraid of what would happen if he squealed and is expecting a pardon when it doesn't matter anymore. Like after the '06 or '08 election. I'm sure they're after Cheney, and Bush himself, but if they can't get anything and no one is talking, Libby could be a dead end. They'll nail him, he'll put up a fight for show, but take it without actually giving them anything good on the higher ups, and the bad guys get away with it.

    Maybe I'm just being cynical.
     

Share This Page