November 09, 2005

Who Cares What The Democrats Want?

Remind these folks that the power to pardon is a presidential prerogative established by the Constitution – and that their advice and consent is neither required nor desired.

The Senate's top Democrats challenged President Bush on Tuesday to rule out a pardon for I. Lewis Libby, a former top White House aide who faces trial on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury in the CIA leak case.

"We also urge you to state publicly whether anyone in the White House - including White House counsel Harriet Miers or Vice President Cheney - has already discussed the possibility of a pardon with Mr. Libby," added the letter, signed by Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and three other members of the leadership.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to rule out a pardon when asked about the issue by reporters before Democrats sent their letter. "I'm not going to discuss an ongoing legal proceeding. And I'm not going to speculate about any matters relating to it," he said.

At a news conference, Reid launched an extraordinary attack on Cheney, whom he said had been involved in the "manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq" as well as "leaking classified information to discredit White House critics."
He challenged the president in personal terms, urging him to "avoid falling in the footsteps of his father who pardoned six men, some were convicted, some were indicted in the Iran-Contra scandal."

I’ll half agree with Half-Truth Harry Reid on this matter. The President does need to learn from his father. But the lesson needs to be that he should not give in to Democrat demands – for if he does, their attacks will continue and they will add criticism of his weakness to his list of faults.

And Mr. President, I urge you to pardon Scooter Libby – on November 5, 2008, as the final votes are counted for the election of your successor. Do not leave this loyal American twisting in the wind for a manufactured crime that resulted from an investigation of a legal activity.

Posted by: Greg at 01:45 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

1 "Manufactured crime that resulted from an investigation of a legal activity . . ."

Where have I heard that before?

Posted by: Dan at Thu Nov 10 00:37:10 2005 (aSKj6)

2 The difference is that in the case of the Clintons, there were plenty of real crimes and convictions for them.

In this case, this is a question of whether Libby had an actual memory lapse or whether he lied about when or if he had a conversation -- not a a lie about a material fact.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Nov 10 11:18:56 2005 (Pbli1)

3 Clinton got impeached for lying about oral sex that was absolutely nobody's business other than him, his wife, and Ms. Lewinsky. I hope that when the Democrats recapture congress in '06, they do NOT engage in the sort of nonsense that allowed Ken Starr to run crazy.

Posted by: Dan at Thu Nov 10 17:17:32 2005 (aSKj6)

4 Actually, he was impeached about perjury in a civil case regarding sexual harassment of a suboirdinate. As such, questions regarding his sexualized behavior towards other subordinates was a perfectly legitimate avenue of inquiry. You, as a lawyer, know that.

Now, if you want to argue that sexual harassment and sexual behavior with a subordinate in the workplace are "nobocy's business" despite the fact that they arguably cross numerous legal ines, then you are welcome to do so.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Thu Nov 10 17:41:00 2005 (T6ru2)

5 Darn it! I have to admit that you're right about the sexual harassment case.

Posted by: Dan at Fri Nov 11 03:16:45 2005 (YWw/F)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
8kb generated in CPU 0.0037, elapsed 0.01 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0073 seconds, 34 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]