More on the Marc Rich pardon vis a vis the Libby commutation

in a post earlier today, stop defending clinton, i was probably not as clear as i might have been about my criticism of bill clinton... let me say right off the bat, in no way whatsoever am i qualified to comment on the legalities or the process followed by bill clinton in his pardon of marc rich, nor, by the same token, am i qualified to comment on those same aspects of george bush's commutation of scooter libby's sentence... but i CAN comment on something else, something i believe is more important...

forget about the legalities, forget about executive powers of clemency, and forget about the validity of the charges - in the case of rich, or the conviction - in the case of libby... there is something more fundamental that no one is addressing... more than any other elected or appointed public official, the president of the united states should be expected to avoid even the APPEARANCE of impropriety... i don't want to hear reasons, i don't want to be subjected to finely-honed legal arguments... clinton's pardon of rich and bush's commutation of libby's sentence both reek of impropriety, and, therefore, they had no business doing either...

jeralyn, in her ususal cogent, lawyerly way, does a careful, point-by-point comparison of the two situations, but neglects to mention that BOTH presidents INVITED the uproar that followed their decisions... BOTH clinton AND bush made decisions that, given their connections with the two individuals in question, shouldn't have even been considered, and that, to me, is the entire issue in a nutshell... if it's going to be perceived as a compromise of your ethics, why would you want to do it in the first place...? i think we've got a pretty good idea why george let libby off the hook, but clinton was no less heedless of the fallout from his pardon of rich...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Jokeline

btd at talkleft can't resist going after joe klein's "blathering..."

Joe Klein just asks for it. Now he blathers on the Scooter Libby sentence:

I have a different feeling about Libby. His "perjury" . . .[why in quotes joe? He was convicted of 2 counts of perjury and two counts of obstruction of justice] would never be considered significant enough to reach trial, much less sentencing, much less time in stir if he weren't Dick Cheney's hatchet man.

Joe Klein's basis for this statement? Why nothing but his own imagination. Lying to a grand jury and obstruction of justice are considered serious crimes by every prosecutor I know.

the more i follow people like joe klein, the more i realize that - like broder, novak, and friedman - his brand of so-called journalism is particularly insidious... he's polished, he's articulate, and he's well-placed at a major national news outlet that reinforces his ability to make pronouncements about the national scene... these people are an integral part of keeping the population in thrall and fit chomsky's description of the elites in this country and their masters perfectly...

the boundaries of klein's world - power and privilege - are identical to those of his masters, and he knows full well that taking a divergent or more thoughtful view would jeopardize his status in that world... it's not unlike what i've seen happen to so many people as they rise up the corporate ladder... at one point in their lives, they were ordinary human beings, but, in learning to blend in and play the system, they eventually became detached from their moorings without necessarily being conscious that it's even happened... and, if they are conscious of it, they will smother you in perfectly logical reasons why... but it's a very human response... why would anyone who had worked so hard for their success, repudiate the very system that bestowed it on him...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

BTD at TalkLeft demolishes the Libby Amici brief

big tent democrat over at talkleft develops a strong argument for why the amici curiae brief (PDF) filed by the 9 "concern troll"* constitutional lawyers (see my previous post here), contending that fitzgerald's appointment as special prosecutor was unconstitutional because it was, in legal terms, a "special office" that required presidential appointment and senate confirmation, is groundless...

from Weiss v. United States, 510 U.S. 163 (1994)...

[O]fficers of the United States who had been theretofore appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, we do not think that, because additional duties, germane to the offices already held by them, were devolved upon them by the act, it was necessary that they should be again appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. It cannot be doubted, and it has frequently been the case, that Congress may increase the power and duties of an existing office without thereby rendering it necessary that the incumbent should be again nominated and appointed.

it seems perfectly clear to me, even as one who doesn't know law from a bag of apples... as btd states...

Fitzgerald was already an appointed and confirmed United States Attorney when Acting Attorney General Comey appointed him as Special Counsel to investigate the Plame leak matter.

[...]

Fitzgerald was carrying out the exact role for which he was appointed and confirmed. There is nothing new in what Fitzgerald did in the Plame investigation that he did not do every day in his role as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

The discussion of whether Fitzgerald was appointed to an office requiring appointment is a red herring. The very cases that the amici cite for their argument demonstrate this. Fitzgerald would not need a second appoint and confirmation process to act as Special Counsel.

In short, the amici, who couch their brief in language of law professors expressing Constitutional concern, have merely rehashed a bad argument made by Libby's principal attorneys in poor and incomplete fashion. It is a bad piece of work.

one thing you can go to the bank on... if judge walton rejects this argument, these 9 trolls will seek a higher review...

* i'm deviating from the original definition of the term as contained in dKosopedia...

"Concern Trolls". Marginally more clever, they pretend at being progressive Democrats, but at every turn seem to suggest the most obviously damaging or boneheaded or offensive thing they can. These are easier to catch than you might imagine: since it hardly matters whether someone is an obvious concern troll or just an unmitigated idiot, sometimes it doesn't pay to think about it too hard.

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments