Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

President Bush commutes Scooter Libby’s prison sentence

By

Earlier today, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit rejected Scooter Libby’s request to remain free on bond pending the appeal of his conviction, upholding Judge Walton’s similar order.  That meant that Libby would be going to prison imminently.  But wait — just moments ago, President Bush announced that members of his administration may lie to a federal prosecutor and to a federal grand jury without significant consequences — unlike the rest of us.  From Bush’s statement:

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

We trust that President Bush will undertake his “own evaluation” of all other convictions for perjury and obstruction of justice currently in the system, and will commute their sentences according to his own as yet undisclosed criteria for what constitutes an “excessive” prison sentence.  Or not.

Oh, and courtesy of Poor Man, let us contrast Bush’s current stance with what he said as Governor of Texas:

I don’t believe my role [as governor] is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own, unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair.

Huh, interesting. 

So much for Republicans as the party of law and order.  Viva the culture of corruption!

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. You mean like Genarlow Wilson, who recieved a 10 year sentance at age 17 for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old gir?

    <

    p>
    http://www.ajc.com/m…

    <

    p>
    10 years for a teenage blow job, but no jail time for perjury and obstruction of justice? Buck Fush!

    <

    p>
    Isn’t this the same party that want’s the 10 Commandments in court houses? What’s that one again about bearing false witness?

    <

    p>
    Activist judges my ass. Why bother having any other branch of government outside of the Cheney/Bush branch? Honestly?

  3. …a subpoena from the congressional Democrats.  Question what his 5th amendment rights (against self-incrimination) are now that his sentence has been commuted.  It will be fun to see how this pans out.

  4. This line just kills me: “Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points.”

    <

    p>
    He replaces the jury, judge, and appeals courts with an analysis that seems to draw on the punditocracy, whose “arguments” he has “carefully analyzed.” And he covers this absolute boot in the face to the judicial system with an even-handed wiseman tone! Shocking.

    <

    p>
    No indication of why this case merits presidential review in the first place.

    • when he pardoned his convicted drug dealer brother.

      <

      p>
      Where’s the outcry there?

  5. This makes me want to pull my hair out!

    <

    p>
    If there is a silver lining, perhaps it is that this controversial commutation will bring renewed attention to the standards presidents use to decide on pardons and commutations and shame the president into granting them more often.

    <

    p>
    While the regulations of the Office of the Pardon Attorney are purely advisory and (as the Libby fiasco shows) do not bind the president, I think it’s worth noting that to the extent the president follows the guidelines, he will not pardon convicts who have not served their sentences, and he will not commute sentences except in exceptional cases. In the bad old days in England, where treason and felony were punishable by death, pardons were a way for the crown to exercise mercy, and they necessarily occurred before a sentence was executed. I don’t know enough about the history of pardons in America to know whether they were ever much used to free prisoners from prison before their terms were up. But would it be such a bad thing for the president or the governors to issue pardons now and then to people actually in prison who are not thought to be public safety risks? Is a little compassionate conservatism in order? I for one would like to see Bush be a little less stingy with pardons than he has been until now.

    <

    p>
    TedF

  6. A lot worse is being done by the Administration.  What do you want to do? Impeach Bush? Ha!  The real power is the VP.  Frying pan or fire?  This whole thing should be forgotten except for those that should be pardoned for far less serious “crimes”.

    <

    p>
    Maybe now is the time to get the pardon to Jonathan Pollard who has suffered behind bars since the Reagan Administration for the “crime” of loving his country.  Isn’t it time, too, to pardon Jack Abramoff whose “crime” was being a businessman. 

    <

    p>
    Let’s get off our toochis and let the government know how we feel about fairness.

  8. Remember he’s a man of faith:

    <

    p>
    “Please,” Bush whimpered, his lips pursed in mock desperation, “please, don’t kill me.”

  9. TPM cafe quoting Survey USA Poll.

    <

    p>
    40% say the prison sentence should have been left in place.
    32% agree with the commutation.
    26% say Libby should have been pardoned entirely.

    <

    p>
    So much for playing to the base.  At least Fred Thompson is happy.

    • Only a plurality of Republicans think that sentence should have been left in place. A majority of independents and an avalanche of Democrats think it should have been left in place.

      • in polls is that there are a lot fewer people who are willing to call themselves Republicans. If you were to include people who called themselves Republicans two or four years ago, I think you would see an even more negative sentiment. For instance, my mother has voted Republican for decades but has become thoroughly repulsed by the Bush administration and now asserts that she is going to vote for Democrats in 2008.

  10. Before you throw stones at Bush, check out the list of pardons handed out by Bill Clinton.

    <

    p>
    Of special interest is giving a pass to convicted cocaine dealer, Roger Clinton (Jan. 20, 2001.)

    <

    p>
    Actually, one notices many cocaine and other drug dealers being pardoned. Hmmmmm … wonder why our former Boy President did that?  Anybody?

    <

    p>
    So much for Bill Clinton and his coke-loving good ole boys.  Viva the culture of cocaine!

    • Are you saying small-time drug-dealing is a greater threat to our country than knee-capping our intelligence capability in a rush toward war and mayhem?

      <

      p>
      And frankly, circumstantial evidence tying lil George to cocaine usage is at least as strong as your implications here.

      • It was State Dept. Asst. Sec. Richard Armitage that originally disclosed Plame’s identity.

        <

        p>
        If this is an established fact, Libby then did not — could not have — been blamed for leaking Plame’s CIA status.

        <

        p>
        Furthermore, Plame was not an active undercover agent at that time Robert Novak wrote about her in his column. Her covert status was blown years earlier on tour in Russia.  This happens all the time, especially as one rises in tenure at the agency.  It’s natural.

        <

        p>
        Finally, she had been at HQ in Langley for 5+ years which by definition exempted her from the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

        <

        p>
        Nowhere in court was Plame’s CIA status established — or refuted. For that matter, the issue was treated as inadmissible so, in the legal proceedings, never introduced.  Only Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, after Libby’s trial, claims Plame was covert.  That’s his opinion.

        <

        p>
        Libby was not found guilty of disclosing Plame’s CIA status, covert or otherwise.  He was found guilty of obstruction and giving false testimony to investigators.

          • Libby did not.  He obstructed an investigation and misled investigators.

            <

            p>
            A minor, but distinct, legal difference.

            • Clinton has never been convicted of something. 
              Libby has been tried and convicted. 
              He’s a criminal, Clinton isn’t.

            • Clinton allegedly lied in a deposition in a civil suit.  He was never tried.

              <

              p>
              Libby was tried and convicted of lying before a grand jury, and thereby obstructing justice (the pursuit of other culprits, and perhaps himself on the base charge) in a criminal action.

              <

              p>
              A major legal difference.

              • If by base charge you mean “outing a covert CIA agent” or “kneecapping national security,” your progressive slip is showing.  I don’t recall any other charges being brought, against Libby or anyone else, beside obstruction and misleading investigators.

                <

                p>
                So, what was the “base charge?”

    • And I suggest you take a look at the first President Bush’s pardons, especially the ones granted on Dec. 24 1992, which suggest this sort of action is a family trait.

      <

      p>
      http://www.usdoj.gov…

      • because it wasn’t Libby that disclosed Plame ID.  Yet, that’s what everyone believes.

        <

        p>
        The conviction stands as it should.  The president commuted Libby’s sentence.  It’s not a pardon. Libby still was found guilty, and that’s not overturned.

        <

        p>
        All the evidence is in, and the bottom line is Richard Armitage was the one who disclosed Plame’s CIA employment.  Fitzgerald’s case was built on obstruction, not violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, though you wouldn’t know that from the comments on BMG … “Guilty of treason!” is the cry.

        <

        p>
        Libby was convicted of much lesser offenses than many committed by Clinton recipients of pardons and clemency.

          • Was convicted for obstruction and misleading an investigation.  I don’t condone that.  It was wrong.  And he was convicted. 

            <

            p>
            An apologist is someone who thinks it was ok for Bill Clinton to lie UNDER OATH, because it was only about sex.

            • We’re not saying “George Bush lied and needs to be punished” but “Bill Clinton lied and that was OK.”

              <

              p>
              That is just deliberate ignorance of the issue.

              <

              p>
              First of all, Bill Clinton was punished. George Bush and his administration are lying at a level that is almost incomprehensible, which is why, I believe, that people haven’t taken to the streets. Most people cannot conceive of lying with the frequency, nonchalance, and historical import of this administration. This is pathological, sociopathic lying. This lying has led to the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people, most of them civilians in a country Bush lied us into attacking. Deaths, and even more hundreds of thousands of serious, life-altering injuries, both physical and mental. And no one is being punished.

              <

              p>
              So if you’re going to pull out that stale “Well, Clinton did . . . ” with us, at least follow that to a logical conclusion:

              <

              p>
              If impeachment was, as you seem to agree, a reasonable punishment for lying under oath about sex–a lie that hurt exactly four people, then what kind of punishment do you think is reasonable for lying under oath about war–a lie that has killed, maimed, injured, and destroyed the families of hundreds of thousands of people?

          • Was convicted for obstruction and misleading an investigation.  I don’t condone that.  It was wrong.  And he was convicted. 

            <

            p>
            An apologist is someone who thinks it was ok for Bill Clinton to lie UNDER OATH, because it was only about sex.

            • but when you regurgitate lame wingnut talking points like this:

              Libby not convicted for lying under oath

              <

              p>
              You are ignoring the fact that:

              Libby’s jury trial concluded on March 6. He was found guilty of two counts of perjury, one obstruction of justice count, and one count making a false statement to federal investigators.

              <

              p>
              ‘Perjury’ means that Libby lied under oath.

              In order for a person to be found guilty of perjury the government must prove: the person testified under oath before [e.g., the grand jury]; at least one particular statement was false; and the person knew at the time the testimony was false.

  11. overturned the prison sentence of someone who appears to have committed a crime trying to hide administration activities. 

    <

    p>
    Is this a one-time thing? Or is the president willing to commute the sentence of anyone who is caught committing crimes on behalf of his administration? If so, what does that mean about the rule of law in this country? 

    • The Bush administration contempt for law and the constitution is well known.  Bush will protect his own, no matter what.

      <

      p>
      Bush Senior’s pardon of Casper Weinberger is similar: Prosecution of Weinberger would have shed light on the then Vice President’s role in Iran-Contra which, let us recall, involved the Reagan administration’s selling arms to one group of terrorists (the Iranians) in order to fund another group of terrorists (the Contras in Nicaragua).

      <

      p>
      Yes, this is a family trait.  Expect a full pardon for Libby as Bush leaves office.

      • “Bush will protect his own, no matter what.”  Clinton pardon his convicted drug felon brother — distribution, a far more serious crime than possession.  Isn’t that “protecting his own?”

        <

        p>
        And Susan McDougall … she knew everything about the illegal Clinton Whitewater scheme and tax dodge.  Did Clinton pardon to ensure her silence?  I could argue that.

        • … in relation to all his other actions (or lack therof) with the court’s decisions.  It is even more so against his ‘principals’ about such matters.

        • Roger Clinton was convicted of drug-dealing in 1985. His pardon came in 2001, long after his sentence was completed. The pardon here was largely symbolic.

          <

          p>
          Susan McDougal was convicted in 1996 and sentenced to 2 years in prison and an additonal year of probation. She, too, was pardoned in 2001 after her sentence was complete. Another symbolic pardon, as most pardons are.

          <

          p>
          Libby, though, conveniently avoids all prison time. Nothing symbolic here — this pardon has a real, tangible effect.

          <

          p>
          Does this answer your question?

          • …about the only thing that the pardon would do is restore the right to vote in states that refused to allow convicted felons to vote, even after they had served their sentences.

            <

            p>
            Prediction: Libby will be pardoned before Bush II leaves office.

            • It will be fun to watch the loathsome Chris Matthews and Chuck Shumer swallow their fetid tongues again.

      • Bush didn’t only pardon the criminal Weinberger, prior to trial (I might add).  He also pardoned.  five other criminals some of whom had been convicted relating to the Iran-Contra scandal.

        <

        p>
        On the other hand

        <

        p>
        Prosecution of Weinberger would have shed light on the then Vice President’s role in Iran-Contra…

        <

        p>
        …given the pardon, if Congress really wanted to, it could have called all of the pardoned felons to testify before Congress, since they could not claim 5th amendment “self-incrimination” reasons for not testifying.  At that time, Congress was still controlled by Democrats.  Query why Congress did not do so.

  12. Like it or not, presidents pardon people and commute sentences all the time.  Some of these people did awful things.  The DOJ list is quite an eye opener, all the way back to Truman and Eisenhower.

    <

    p>
    I didn’t like many of the pardons Clinton handed out but never did I think it was some sort of constitutional crisis or conspiracy cover-up like you cry babies think the commuting of Libby’s sentence is.

    <

    p>
    The thread of arguments and comment on the topic here show that (a) most posters (not all; thanks David for your accuracy) think this is a pardon and (b) clearly think Libby was convicted for disclosure of Plame’s alleged covert status.

    <

    p>
    Most posters also think the president’s decision to grant clemency is intended to further a cover-up.  But there was a trial where lots and lots of testimony was introduced.  It was all public, and now it’s over.  Libby’s crime was obstruction and lying to investigators, not outing Plame and not “knee-capping national intelligence.”

    <

    p>
    That the bloggers in this thread take Libby’s commutation as prima facie evidence of Bush/Rove/Halliburton treason is viable diagnosis of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

    • ..And by the way, these folk are radical liberals.

      <

      p>
      Progressive is a euphemism, just another word co-opted to veneer over a discredited political philosophy.

      • We’re coming to get you–with our crazed demands for clean air and water, well-educated children, equal opportunities for all Americans, safe products, affordable quality health care, five-day work week with vacations and sick days, public transportation, insured banking, electricity for all Americans, public safety, safety nets for those Americans temporarily down on their luck.

        <

        p>
        OOOOOh, SCARY!!!!

        <

        p>
        Such frightening ideas: civic responsibility, caring about fellow citizens, holding the powerful accountable to ethical and moral standards (and that silly little thing called the “law”).

        <

        p>
        Such a horrible word, “liberal”:

        1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. 2a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.

        The synonyms are also rather terrifying and not for the faint of heart:

        liberal, bounteous, bountiful, freehanded, generous, handsome, munificent, openhanded These adjectives mean willing or marked by a willingness to give unstintingly: a liberal backer of the arts; a bounteous feast; bountiful compliments; a freehanded host; a generous donation; a handsome offer; a munificent gift; fond and openhanded grandparents. See also synonyms at broad-minded.

        <

        p>
        Lock up your children! The liberals are coming!

        <

        p>
        Jeez louise, you really are close-minded, selfish, and intolerant. Have you ever read even the Preamble to the Constitution?

        We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

        Or the Declaration of Independence:

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

        <

        p>
        What would people like you think of the Founding Fathers? They were a right bunch of progressive liberal bastards, weren’t they. Opposed to their ruler doing such unimportant things like:

        He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
        He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
        He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
        He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
        He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
        He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
        He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.?He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

      • For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
      • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:?
      • For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
      • For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:?
      • For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
        He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
        He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

        • <

        p>
        I would hardly call “liberalism”

        a discredited political philosophy.

        Our greatest strides forward as a nation have been with leaders who have been “broad minded” and “generous” with regard to promoting the “general Welfare” of our country–leaders, imperfect yet inspiring, from both sides of the aisle: Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, FDR.

        <

        p>
        So back off and take a couple of history and civics courses before parading your fundamentally unAmerican opinions in public.

    • the “But Clinton did it!!!” mantra became really tiresome a long, long time ago.

      <

      p>
      Funny how the Red Party is willing to excuse every misstep, every undermining of the Constitution and every deliberate perversion of justice because of a presidency that was finished over SIX YEARS AGO.

      <

      p>
      Like Bush, they seem incapable of accepting responsibility for their own party leader’s actions.

      • Trying to argue with wingnut logic is pointless. These folks are in complete denial about what is happening to our country, and are frequently afflicted with something called “Bush Swallowing Syndrome”. It’s even worse than it sounds.

        <

        p>
        The idea that Bush commuting Libby’s sentence somehow translates into “It was all public, and it’s over” is pretty pathetic, but it’s a hallmark of the disorder. The Bush/Cheney WH will be continue obstructing justice and playing run out the clock, right until the bitter end, while the BSS crowd will still be screaming “Clinton got a blowjob”.

        <

        p>
        You can expect even more wailing and rendering of garments following the 2008 election. After the ass kicking that’s coming their way, the GOP will be pining for the “good old days” of 2006. These are the same geniuses who were so sure that the country had moved to the right, and that the Daddy Party GOP was going to keep them safe and sound from the nasty Radical Liberals, 4 evah! Sorry wingnuts, step by step we’re going to take the country back. Bush/Cheney/Rove may escape jail, but every day their actions prove John Deans contention that: ‘This administration is much worse than Nixon’

        <

        p>
        And if you want to see the future, take a look at NH. Trending Blue my wingnut friends, trending Blue!

        <

        p> 

    • I called it overturning a prison sentence. That’s what happened.

      <

      p>
      Besides the fact that you hate Bill Clinton, I’m somewhat puzzled that you don’t see a difference between a president granting pardons as he leaves office, and a president stepping in to prevent a member of his administration from being punished for committing a felony while in the service of that administration.

      <

      p>
      What George W. Bush did signals that top-level members of his administration will not have to face punishment if they commit felonies while doing the bidding of his administration. As a believer in the ideal of “a government of laws and not of men,” I find this particular action to be extremely chilling.

  13. What authority does Bush have to commute a sentence? The Constitution says the President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States”… is this an example of a reprieve?

    <

    p>
    Is this done very often? I know pardons happen all the time (usually just before the door hits the President in the ass), but this is the first time I’ve really been aware of a commutation…

    • is this an example of a reprieve?

      <

      p>
      Yes.

      <

      p>
      Long answer, query whether the commutation procedures prescribed by the DeptJustice described here followed?  The pResident isn’t required to follow the DoJ procedures, but it would be nice to know if he did not.  On the other hand, if the procedures were followed–at a minimum, a petition for commutation be submitted–I suppose that Congress could subpoena a copy of the petition from the DoJ, or even a copy of the petition from the pResident.

      <

      p>
      Going up a bit–on my 5th amendment issue–since Libby is already a convicted felon and probably wouldn’t face prosecution for previous acts, I suppose that Congress could grant him immunity and demand his testimony.

      <

      p>
      It will be interesting to see if this commutation backfires on the Republicans in the 2008 election.  There have been a number of high-profile pardons and commutations by Republican presidents of Republican felons (or likely felons) in recent decades, and it appears that they did not serve the party well.

      • …it appears that Shrub did not wait for the DoJ procedures.

        <

        p>
        Time for the Congressional Dems to start considering issuing subpoenas.

    • From this letter to the NY Times

      <

      p>

      First, I want to make some general comments about pardons and commutations of sentences. Article II of the Constitution gives the president broad and unreviewable power to grant “Reprieves and Pardons” for all offenses against the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that the pardon power is granted “[t]o the [president] . . ., and it is granted without limit” (United States v. Klein). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that “[a] pardon . . . is . . . the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by [the pardon] . . .” (Biddle v. Perovich). A president may conclude a pardon or commutation is warranted for several reasons: the desire to restore full citizenship rights, including voting, to people who have served their sentences and lived within the law since; a belief that a sentence was excessive or unjust; personal circumstances that warrant compassion; or other unique circumstances.

      The exercise of executive clemency is inherently controversial. The reason the framers of our Constitution vested this broad power in the Executive Branch was to assure that the president would have the freedom to do what he deemed to be the right thing, regardless of how unpopular a decision might be. Some of the uses of the power have been extremely controversial, such as President Washington’s pardons of leaders of the Whiskey Rebellion, President Harding’s commutation of the sentence of Eugene Debs, President Nixon’s commutation of the sentence of James Hoffa, President Ford’s pardon of former President Nixon, President Carter’s pardon of Vietnam War draft resisters, and President Bush’s 1992 pardon of six Iran-contra defendants, including former Defense Secretary Weinberger, which assured the end of that investigation.

      <

      p>
      hat tip Matt Drudge

  14. I thought it was odd that the Boston Globe didn’t dedicate a single word on its editorial/op-ed page to this “commutation”. It’s hard for me to care too much about local stuff while the outrages at the federal level continue unabated. I had hoped for some sort of a strong editorial statement from the Globe- perhaps tomorrow.

  15. It was funny to see George pontificating in his statement about the importance of telling the truth, “Saddam Hussein procuring Uranium from Niger”, et cetera notwithstanding. Maybe the Democrats will finally see fit to impeach these duplicitous, hypocritical swine.

  16. Who do you suppose pardonned William Jefferson Clinton and John F. Kerry? James Earle carter. Another scintillating example of left wing incompetence.

  17. So I called Representative Marty Meehan’s office to complain.  “There’s one thing Congressman Meehan can do before leaving after the election this fall – call for impeachment of both Cheney and Bush”.  Well, that was what I planned to say.  Then I learned that he’s gone.  Abandoned the office.  We have no representative in Congress. 

    <

    p>
    “If you have issues you can call the clerk of the house”, said the former Congressman’s staff-person.  If we need a flag kissed and flown above the Capital building, however, this gal can still help.

    <

    p>
    So I called the Clerk of the House.  “Your district has no representative.  You could try your Senator”

    <

    p>
    Marty’s been on the job just two days at U Mass (Lowell office) and today he can’t speak with me, “He’s in meetings all day”.

    <

    p>
    Tomorrow he’ll be in meetings, too.

    <

    p>
    This is about par for response.  Of the several letters we personally wrote to Marty, on those little nagging issues like  Guantanamo, Torture, Domestic Spying, Supreme Court nominations… his form letter arrived in rapid fashion – generally a few months after the event was long gone.  In them he blathered on about how reprehensible the Bush administration is, and how he’s “fighting” for our rights.

    <

    p>
    Now that Marty is installed I suppose editorials and being generally pissed off will have about as much impact as our letters and calls to his office.  And shame probably won’t really matter all that much, either.

    <

    p>
    U Mass was far more important than remaining in Congress to help us until we elected a replacement.  Contrasting the ship of state which is clearly going down by the bow, U Mass must be a Titanic, low in the water with crew jumping over the side.

    <

    p>
    Perhaps, given his performance, a vacant office will be just as effective.  So would one of his staff please just turn out the lights?

    • I empathize with your frustration of Congressman Meehan’s tardy, pro forma, and indifferent responses to your constituent political inquiries over the last several years.

      <

      p>
      I experienced similar frustrations in trying to persuade the Congressman from stepping away from the klieg lights and cameras thrust in his face by CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, and CBS to focus on some critical employment and economic development issues facing the 5th District. Alas, the Congressman’s ardor for seeing himself interviewed on national television and quoted in the New York Times surpassed the pedestrian political concern of attracting economic jobs and investment to the Merrimack Valley.

      <

      p>
      As far as those meetings Marty has been taking at UMass Lowell over the last two days, one should appreciate the hours of careful deliberation, discussion, and analysis required to distribute over $5 million in leftover campaign cash to his Democratic Congressional colleagues and aspiring political candidates in Massachusetts, New England, and throughout the United States. It takes quite a while to write out $5 million worth of $1000 checks per person while budgeting sufficent reserve $$$ for a future U.S. Senate run.

  18. I suspect that the pardon is a political necessity for the Bush administration.  Not as some kind of appeal to the Republican base, which Bush has lost, or to the Congress, which he has lost, but to his administration, which is the last thing he still has.

    <

    p>
    There are a lot of people who work in the administration who know that eventually, Bush will be a former president and that sooner or later an awful lot of shit is going to come out.  If Bush had allowed Libby to serve time, these folks would be running for the exits as fast as their feet could go.

    <

    p>
    I would expect a number of pardons for administration officials and employees on Jan 20, 2009.

  19. But, but, but Clinton……

    <

    p>
    What on earth would some of these conservatives do if they didn’t have their Pet Obsession, Bill Clinton, to roll out every time they were put on the defensive?  Clinton this, Clinton that.  Note to Dr. Johnson, swirling among the dust of the cosmos:  Bill Clinton and patriotism are the last refuge for scoundrels.  Who knew?

    • Can we expect any less of this party?

      <

      p>
      I mean, look who their inspiration is — a B-roll actor who left office almost 20 years ago!  They have no leadership to point to, nobody whose accomplishments they want to emulate for the last two decades, even though they’ve held the White House and Congress for the majority of that time.

    • I sure as hell am not!
      And I won’t be defensive when he extends it to a full pardon, either.

      <

      p>
      And you know why?
      Because it is the rule of law!

      <

      p>
      Just like when bubba pardoned drug dealers, embezzlers, international fugitives, and terrorists.

      <

      p>
      And if we didn’t like it?
      Tough!
      Too bad!
      Suck it up!
      Get over it!

      <

      p>
      Well we did.

      <

      p>
      Now, you can.

  20. The discussion here reminds me of an oldtimer that used to call such things, “An argument over virginity by hookers.”

  21. A lot of republicans feel quite negatively about Bush wishing to grant amnesty to criminals (illegal immigrants).  so does this grant of amnesty to Libby not stick in the craw of a lot of red staters?  if not, why?  what’s the difference?

  22. Just so you can have an example of what lies and perjury look like, here’s Clinton, the master:

    <

    p>
    http://www.washingto…

    <

    p>
    Libby committed perjury.  So did Clinton. 

    <

    p>
    Am I happy that Libby was pardoned?  Hmm – maybe, if only to thwart the whole Armitage-originated Plame game. 

Archives