Drudge: Cheney to be called as Witness against Libby

[Taco John]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN OCT 30, 2005 18:31:21 ET XXXXX

PROSECUTOR PLANS ON CALLING CHENEY AS WITNESS IN OPEN COURT; EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FIGHT LOOMS

**Exclusive**

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald is planning to call Vice President Dick Cheney as a witness in the trial of Lewis Libby, the DRUDGE REPORT has leaned.

But the high stakes move could result in an executive privilege showdown between the White House and Fitzgerald, a top government source said Sunday.

"If Mr. Fitzgerald is going to demand a public recounting of conversations between the vice president, or even the president, and his staff, on matters he, himself, has acknowledged are 'classified,' executive privilege will obviously be invoked."

Fitzgerald has made it clear to lawyers involved in the case that he prefers Cheney appear as a witness in open court.

"Mr. Fitzgerald is starting from the position that this should not be done on remote or videotape," the well-placed source said.

Fitzgerald and Libby's attorney Joseph Tate discussed possible plea options before the indictment was issued last week, TIME magazine reports in new editions. But the deal was scotched because the prosecutor insisted that Libby do some "serious" jail time.

Developing...

[Taco John]

So much for Oreilly's claim that this thing won't last over the weekend.

[patteeu]

Well I guess Bush will be forced to pardon Libby to preserve the integrity of White House communications then.

[Mr. Kotter]

Well I guess Bush will be forced to pardon Libby to preserve the integrity of White House communications then.

Well, if blowjobs warranted "confidentiality" in communications in the WH, certainly this argument can be made with at least as much credibility. Not that I buy it....

[go bowe]

how does executive privilege work in a criminal case?

have the courts ever recognized executive privilege as a legitimate shield from testifying in a criminal case?

this isn't like testifying before congress or giving up documents in response to a congessional subpoena...

the subpoena in this case would be to testify in a criminal case...

i don't know offhand, but i would think that would make a difference (that a court is issuing the subpoena rather than congress)...

[go bowe]

update: in the case of u.s. v. nixon in 1974, the supremes held that executive privilege is not absolute and may be overcome in the context of a criminal proceeding...

although nixon dealt with a subpoena for documents (and/or other physical evidence) rather than testimony, i suspect that that rationale will be used if and when this dispute comes to the supremes...

and my guess is that neither roberts nor alito would vote against enforcing a subpoena for cheney to testify at libby's trial...

[memyselfI]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN OCT 30, 2005 18:31:21 ET XXXXX

PROSECUTOR PLANS ON CALLING CHENEY AS WITNESS IN OPEN COURT; EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE FIGHT LOOMS


Fitzgerald has made it clear to lawyers involved in the case that he prefers Cheney appear as a witness in open court.



Hum, seems like last week a few folks here were insisting this was not a possibility and chuckling because some of us envisioned it was ... :hmmm:

[patteeu]

update: in the case of u.s. v. nixon in 1974, the supremes held that executive privilege is not absolute and may be overcome in the context of a criminal proceeding...

although nixon dealt with a subpoena for documents (and/or other physical evidence) rather than testimony, i suspect that that rationale will be used if and when this dispute comes to the supremes...

and my guess is that neither roberts nor alito would vote against enforcing a subpoena for cheney to testify at libby's trial...

The separation of powers and the fact that the Supreme Court does not represent a power superior to the Executive would be a factor if push came to shove. Nothing the Supreme Court says could force the POTUS to provide documents or testimony if he doesn't want to. But I don't think it would ever come to that as that would precipitate a constitutional crisis. If it came anywhere near that, IMO, the President would simply use his undisputed power to pardon Libby and the dispute over executive privilege would become moot.

[patteeu]

Hum, seems like last week a few folks here were insisting this was not a possibility and chuckling because some of us envisioned it was ... :hmmm:

Really? What were those folks saying?

[memyselfI]

Really? What were those folks saying?

IIRC, you or Ringleader.

[go bowe]

The separation of powers and the fact that the Supreme Court does not represent a power superior to the Executive would be a factor if push came to shove. Nothing the Supreme Court says could force the POTUS to provide documents or testimony if he doesn't want to. But I don't think it would ever come to that as that would precipitate a constitutional crisis. If it came anywhere near that, IMO, the President would simply use his undisputed power to pardon Libby and the dispute over executive privilege would become moot.i would have guessed that too, but the nixon case came down against executive privilege in the context of a criminal trial...

while the court can't exactly arrest the president (or in this case, the vice president), it did force nixon to turn over the tapes and/or other documents, iirc...

politically speaking, i have difficulty imagining that the vice president would defy a subpoena requiring him to testify only about his conversations involving valerie plame/wilson (because of political considerations more than anything else)...

similarly, i have a hard time imagining the president pardoning libby before a trial is held, again mostly for political reasons...

realistically, imo, libby will have to plead out to avoid the vp being subpoenaed in this case...

[Uatu]

I have a hard time seeing this happening. I don't see it likely that Cheney will see any kind of questioning. Libby will enter guilty and be done with it.

[go bowe]

i dunno about that, either...

according to press reports, libby already turned down a plea bargain proposal because fitzgerald is insisting on "serious" jail time...

i see no reason to think that fitzgerald will soften on his demands as the case gets closer to trial...

if anything, i would expect fitzgerald to want more jail time instead of less...

he wants libby to play ball (flip) so he can get more of the leakers, which may include cheney if he suggested the leak to libby...

this case gets more and more interesting every day it seems...

[Uatu]

i dunno about that, either...

according to press reports, libby already turned down a plea bargain proposal because fitzgerald is insisting on "serious" jail time...

i see no reason to think that fitzgerald will soften on his demands as the case gets closer to trial...

if anything, i would expect fitzgerald to want more jail time instead of less...

he wants libby to play ball (flip) so he can get more of the leakers, which may include cheney if he suggested the leak to libby...

this case gets more and more interesting every day it seems...

I guess I don't understand what C.T. exists that would have Cheney doing something illegal. All that I have heard was that at worst he discussed something with his chief of staff that they both have clearance to discuss. But I'm no lawyer and haven't been following this story tooth and nail.

[patteeu]

IIRC, you or Ringleader.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by "this" in post #8 then because if "this" means "Cheney to be called as Witness against Libby" I don't recall either of us saying it wasn't a possibility or even suggesting that it was unlikely (if the issue goes to trial of course). Maybe this is just another case where you got your facts wrong? :shrug:

[patteeu]

i would have guessed that too, but the nixon case came down against executive privilege in the context of a criminal trial...

while the court can't exactly arrest the president (or in this case, the vice president), it did force nixon to turn over the tapes and/or other documents, iirc...

politically speaking, i have difficulty imagining that the vice president would defy a subpoena requiring him to testify only about his conversations involving valerie plame/wilson (because of political considerations more than anything else)...

similarly, i have a hard time imagining the president pardoning libby before a trial is held, again mostly for political reasons...

realistically, imo, libby will have to plead out to avoid the vp being subpoenaed in this case...

I agree that it seems more likely that Cheney would testify than that there would be a to-the-limit battle between the executive branch and the judicial branch. Afterall, he's already testified once if I'm not mistaken.

I was just pointing out that a SCOTUS decision can't bind the president to anything without his consent. Nixon deferred to the SCOTUS decision, not because he had to, but because he decided to for whatever reason (politics, personal opinion about what the right thing to do was, lack of support from his own side, etc.). And I'm going one step further to say that if Bush came to the conclusion that the executive branch needed to block a subpeona of Cheney, or internal WH documents, or classified information, etc., he would probably pardon Libby and deal with that political fallout rather than precipitate a constitutional crisis between the executive and judicial branches.

[Ugly Duck]

Hey now.... these Republicans forced a president to public discuss his penis. They made the bed, now they can "lie" in it. Wuts good for the goose is good for the gander. Wut goes around comes around.

I just heard one of CNN news dudes say, "Scooter got his name from the way he scooted around his crib. Wait til you see how he tries to scoot around the cell to get away from Buba."

[go bowe]

I guess I don't understand what C.T. exists that would have Cheney doing something illegal. All that I have heard was that at worst he discussed something with his chief of staff that they both have clearance to discuss. But I'm no lawyer and haven't been following this story tooth and nail.i'm sorry, i don't know what "c.t." is...

it isn't that the vp is being subpoenaed because it's thought that he did something wrong, but only to prove that libby's notes correctly establish that libby learned of valerie plame from the vp and not from some reporter, as he has claimed (according to the indictment)...

tooth and nail? isn't that about fighting or something?

and i follow this story mostly by reading about it here in the d.c. forum...

but i have read the entire indictment...

the allegations in the indictment are almost certainly based on facts that have actually been proven to the grand jury rather than merely being bald accusations...

and based on the indictment, i'd say libby is looking at jail time if he doesn't cooperate with fitzgerald...

[go bowe]

I agree that it seems more likely that Cheney would testify than that there would be a to-the-limit battle between the executive branch and the judicial branch. Afterall, he's already testified once if I'm not mistaken.

I was just pointing out that a SCOTUS decision can't bind the president to anything without his consent. Nixon deferred to the SCOTUS decision, not because he had to, but because he decided to for whatever reason (politics, personal opinion about what the right thing to do was, lack of support from his own side, etc.). And I'm going one step further to say that if Bush came to the conclusion that the executive branch needed to block a subpeona of Cheney, or internal WH documents, or classified information, etc., he would probably pardon Libby and deal with that political fallout rather than precipitate a constitutional crisis between the executive and judicial branches.you're probably right...

[go bowe]

Hey now.... these Republicans forced a president to public discuss his penis. They made the bed, now they can "lie" in it. Wuts good for the goose is good for the gander. Wut goes around comes around.

I just heard one of CNN news dudes say, "Scooter got his name from the way he scooted around his crib. Wait til you see how he tries to scoot around the cell to get away from Buba."you'ver GOT to be kidding me...

first the wh reporter's crap about sloppy seconds and now this?

are these guys trying to compete with geraldo or something?

[unlurking]

The separation of powers and the fact that the Supreme Court does not represent a power superior to the Executive would be a factor if push came to shove. Nothing the Supreme Court says could force the POTUS to provide documents or testimony if he doesn't want to. But I don't think it would ever come to that as that would precipitate a constitutional crisis. If it came anywhere near that, IMO, the President would simply use his undisputed power to pardon Libby and the dispute over executive privilege would become moot.

In your example, you clearly empower the Executive branch over the judicial branch. I'm not sure if that was your intention, but that completely destroys the concept of checks and balances. I do believe that each branch should be equal, but in your situation, that is obviously not the case.

If something like this were to happen, I believe it would only be fair for every Republican supporting the move to be under gag order never to use the phrase "legislating from the bench", under the penalty of criminal fraud charges.
;)

[unlurking]

...he would probably pardon Libby and deal with that political fallout rather than precipitate a constitutional crisis between the executive and judicial branches.

As I stated earlier, I think that a move like that would be more detrimental. IMO this would usher in a true constitutional crisis as one branch of the government would basically be setting itself above all others, and removing the intended "checks and balances" within this country.

I'm not stating that the President should not have this power, but that the country seeing it used in this way would come to the conclusion that our judicial branch is nothing but a "token" power.

[patteeu]

are these guys trying to compete with geraldo or something?

ROFL

[Taco John]

Well I guess Bush will be forced to pardon Libby to preserve the integrity of White House communications then.


I think that would be awesome. Along with the impeachment trial that would follow...

[Taco John]

Vice President lied as White House sought to defuse leak inquiry
Jason Leopold


Print This | Email This


Did Vice President Dick Cheney help cover-up the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson in the months after conservative columnist Robert Novak first disclosed her identity?

That’s one of the questions Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is likely trying to figure out. It’s unclear what Cheney said to investigators back in 2003 when he was questioned—not under oath—about the leak, particularly what he knew and when he knew it.

Friday’s grand jury indictment sheds new light on a pattern of strategic deception by the Vice President and the White House to defuse an inquiry into who leaked the name of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson to the press. Months after Plame’s identity was disclosed by conservative columnist Robert Novak, Cheney continued to hide the fact that he and his aides were intimately involved in disseminating classified information about her to journalists.

Advertisement



What the Vice President denied knowing

The indictment against Cheney’s Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, clearly states that Cheney and Libby discussed Plame’s undercover CIA status and the fact that her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, traveled to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq tried to acquire yellowcake uranium from the African country in early June of 2003.

Yet the following month, Cheney and then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer asserted that the vice president was unaware of Wilson’s Niger trip, who the ambassador was, or a classified report Wilson wrote about his findings prior to the ambassador’s July 6, 2003 op-ed in the New York Times.

We now know, courtesy of the 22-page Libby indictment, that Cheney wasn’t being truthful. Cheney did see the report; he knew full well who Wilson was. He also knew that the CIA arranged for Wilson to travel to Niger, and he personally sought out information about Wilson’s trip to Niger, was briefed about the fact-finding mission, and even obtained classified information about Plame’s covert CIA status. He also came to know one other important nugget: that Plame may have recommended her husband for the trip.

Cheney’s public campaign and that of other White House officials to discredit Wilson and strategically lie about the Plame leak started on Sept. 14, 2003, during an interview with Tim Russert of NBC's “Meet the Press.”

During the interview, Cheney maintained that he didn’t know Wilson or anything about his trip.

“I don’t know Joe Wilson,” Cheney said, in response to Russert who quoted Wilson as saying there was no truth to the Niger uranium claims. “I’ve never met Joe Wilson. And Joe Wilson—I don’t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back... I don’t know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn’t judge him. I have no idea who hired him and it never came...”

“The CIA did,” Russert said, interjecting.

“Who at the CIA? I don’t know,” Cheney said. “He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.”

What happened once Cheney received information on Plame and Wilson in June 2003 remains unclear. But the indictment illustrates—in no uncertain terms—that the vice president’s office staged a concerted effort to undermine Wilson for questioning the veracity of the Niger claims.

Fitzgerald has eyed Cheney in seeking to ascertain who ordered the leak, as RAW STORY previously reported. While the Vice President stands accused of no wrongdoing, his role may come into greater focus during a trial.

In an interview with the syndicated radio program “Democracy Now,” Wilson argued that Cheney may have been lying to Russert when he said he didn’t know about the ambassador’s Niger trip.

“While we've never met, he certainly knows who I am and should know unless his memory is flawed and faulty,” Wilson said during the Sept. 16, 2003 interview. “There were at a minimum three reports that had been generated shortly after the Vice President had asked the question, ‘what do we know about this?’”

The Vice President certainly must have known Wilson during his tenure as secretary of defense during the first President Bush’s administration. In the weeks leading up to the first Gulf War, Wilson served as the acting U.S ambassador on the ground in Baghdad. In fact, Wilson was the only line of communication between Washington and Saddam Hussein. The White House held daily briefings with Wilson, and Cheney sat in on a majority of those briefings.

White House suggested investigation was waste of time

In hindsight, it now seems that the White House, including President Bush, attempted to steer reporters away from covering the Plame leak by saying the “leaker” would never be found.

On October 7, 2003, Bush and his spokesman, Scott McClellan, said that the White House ruled out three administration officials - Rove, Libby and Elliot Abrams, a senior official on the National Security Council, as sources of the leak - a day before FBI questioned the three of them - based on questions McClellan said he asked the men.

The very next day, however, Rove was questioned by FBI investigators and said that he spoke to journalists about Plame for the first time after Novak’s column was published - a lie, it appears - based on Time reporter Matthew Cooper’s emails which stated that Rove told Cooper about Plame.

Bush told reporters the same day he doubted that a Justice Department investigation would ever turn up the source of the leak, suggesting that it was a waste of time for lawmakers to question the administration and for reporters to follow up on the story.

"I mean this is a town full of people who like to leak information," Bush said. "And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's lots of senior officials. I don't have any idea.”

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) responded to the president’s statement in the New York Times.

“If the president says, 'I don't know if we're going to find this person,' what kind of a statement is that for the president of the United States to make?” Lautenberg asked. “Would he say that about a bank robbery investigation?”

Facing a deadline on turning over documents, emails and phone logs to Justice Department officials, Bush said that the White House could invoke executive privilege and withhold some “sensitive” documents related to the leak case. Democrats speculated that the White House had something to hide.

Classified leak or truthful rebuttal?

Unable to keep emails from investigators, the White House mounted a defense. They would seek to distinguish between “unauthorized leaks” and something perfectly legal: “setting the record straight.”

On Oct. 6, 2003, in response to questions about whether Rove was Novak’s source, McClellan tried to explain the difference between unauthorized disclosure of classified information and "setting the record straight" about Wilson’s public criticism of the Administration’s handling of intelligence on Iraq.

“There is a difference between setting the record straight and doing something to punish someone for speaking out,” McClellan said.

"There were some statements made (by Wilson) and those statements were not based on facts," McClellan said. "And we pointed out that it was not the vice president's office that sent Mr. Wilson to Niger.”

Wilson, it turned out, had never said that the vice president’s office had sent him to Niger.

[patteeu]

In your example, you clearly empower the Executive branch over the judicial branch. I'm not sure if that was your intention, but that completely destroys the concept of checks and balances. I do believe that each branch should be equal, but in your situation, that is obviously not the case.

If something like this were to happen, I believe it would only be fair for every Republican supporting the move to be under gag order never to use the phrase "legislating from the bench", under the penalty of criminal fraud charges.
;)

I don't see how you are getting executive superiority out of my example. When the judiciary makes an order that requires action on the part of the executive to fulfill, it isn't executive superiority for the executive to refuse to act. If there is something in the Constitution that I've missed that grants the judiciary branch the power to order the executive branch around, please point it out to me.

As I stated earlier, I think that a move like that would be more detrimental. IMO this would usher in a true constitutional crisis as one branch of the government would basically be setting itself above all others, and removing the intended "checks and balances" within this country.

I'm not stating that the President should not have this power, but that the country seeing it used in this way would come to the conclusion that our judicial branch is nothing but a "token" power.

A pardon might be politically detrimental, but it wouldn't cause any kind of constitutional crisis, real or perceived. The Constitution is quite clear that the President has the power to pardon and that it isn't subject to any check or balance that can frustrate that pardon.

[The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Article 2, section 2 - US Constitution.

[patteeu]

I think that would be awesome. Along with the impeachment trial that would follow...

Only if the US House is taken over by unscrupulous democrats in the 2006 elections. It will be a miracle if democrats take back the House at all that year.

[patteeu]

Vice President lied as White House sought to defuse leak inquiry
Jason Leopold


Print This | Email This

...
It’s unclear what Cheney said to investigators back in 2003 when he was questioned—not under oath—about the leak, ...

I had forgotten, if I ever knew it, that Cheney's testimony was not under oath. I stand corrected from what I said earlier in this thread on this subject.

[Taco John]

which part?

[patteeu]

“There is a difference between setting the record straight and doing something to punish someone for speaking out,” McClellan said.

"There were some statements made (by Wilson) and those statements were not based on facts," McClellan said. "And we pointed out that it was not the vice president's office that sent Mr. Wilson to Niger.”

Wilson, it turned out, had never said that the vice president’s office had sent him to Niger.

There was a common misconception being loudly publicized that the VP's office was behind sending Joe Wilson to Niger. The fact that Joe Wilson never said exactly those words has nothing to do with whether or not the record needed to be set straight. In fact, since the author wants to stick to the technical truth (in a manner that he is unable to use when reading the administration's case for war, no doubt), it is similarly technically true that McClellan's statement doesn't claim that Joe Wilson ever said such a thing.

Here are some examples of a journalist (in this case Chris Matthews) spreading the misinformation that Joe Wilson was sent to Niger by the VP's office:

MATTHEWS speaking to Congressman Wydon: Why would the vice president's office, Scooter Libby or whoever is running that office -- why would they send a CIA effort down in Niger to verify something, find out there wasn't a uranium sale, and then not follow-up by putting that information -- or correcting that information -- in the president's State of the Union? If they went to the trouble to sending Joe Wilson all the way to Africa to find out whether that country had ever sold uranium to Saddam Hussein, why wouldn't they follow-up on that?

...

MATTHEWS speaking to Al Sharpton: Well, let's talk about a big head. And former ambassador, Joe Wilson, said that this was cleared by the vice president's office. They are the ones who sent him to Africa to find out whether it was true or not, whether it was action -- there was traffic in nuclear materials between the country of Niger and the country of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. He came back and said there was nothing going on like that six months before the speech. Doesn't the vice president's office hold the greatest culpability here for not acting on that truth?

...

MATTHEWS talking to Tony Blankley: What about if the vice president's office knew, having sent Joe Wilson down to Niger and found out that there wasn't any such deal over uranium and allowed the president to say what they knew not to be true.

...

Attributed to Matthews MSNBC program Hardball, July 8, 2003 by talkleft.com (http://talkleft.com/new_archives/012922.html)

[patteeu]

Vice President lied as White House sought to defuse leak inquiry
Jason Leopold


Print This | Email This


...

During the interview, Cheney maintained that he didn’t know Wilson or anything about his trip.

“I don’t know Joe Wilson,” Cheney said, in response to Russert who quoted Wilson as saying there was no truth to the Niger uranium claims. “I’ve never met Joe Wilson. And Joe Wilson—I don’t who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back... I don’t know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn’t judge him. I have no idea who hired him and it never came...”

“The CIA did,” Russert said, interjecting.

“Who at the CIA? I don’t know,” Cheney said. “He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.”



While I know who Nicole Kidman is, I don't know Nicole Kidman in any sense of the word. For someone who is so technical about whether or not there was disinformation about who sent Joe Wilson to Niger to be cleared up, Jason sure doesn't make very fine distinctions when it is VP Cheney doing the talking. I think it's fair to say that Wilson never said he was sent by the VP's office, but I think it's equally fair to say that Cheney didn't lie in the above statements.

Taco, I think you're in for a big disappointment if RawStory is your handbook to the Plame incident.

[patteeu]

which part?

This is the part I'm correcting if that's your question:

I agree that it seems more likely that Cheney would testify than that there would be a to-the-limit battle between the executive branch and the judicial branch. Afterall, he's already testified once if I'm not mistaken.

I was just pointing out that a SCOTUS decision can't bind the president to anything without his consent. Nixon deferred to the SCOTUS decision, not because he had to, but because he decided to for whatever reason (politics, personal opinion about what the right thing to do was, lack of support from his own side, etc.). And I'm going one step further to say that if Bush came to the conclusion that the executive branch needed to block a subpeona of Cheney, or internal WH documents, or classified information, etc., he would probably pardon Libby and deal with that political fallout rather than precipitate a constitutional crisis between the executive and judicial branches.

[penchief]

Well I guess Bush will be forced to pardon Libby to preserve the integrity of White House communications then.

Don't you mean to preserve the secrecy of White House conniving?

[unlurking]

I don't see how you are getting executive superiority out of my example. When the judiciary makes an order that requires action on the part of the executive to fulfill, it isn't executive superiority for the executive to refuse to act. If there is something in the Constitution that I've missed that grants the judiciary branch the power to order the executive branch around, please point it out to me.

go bo already pointed out precedent in regards to Nixon. And I believe you are mistaken regarding the judicial branch "ordering" around the executive branch. This is a criminal case, and Dick Cheney may be VP, but he is being called as a man involved in the case. The important thing to remember is that HE, not the White House is being called. This is not ordering around the executive branch. You would be placing a man above the law at this point, which harkens back towards single supreme rulership (don't want to ruin the discussion with stupid labels). I seriously doubt this clause was intended to allow an administration to act above the law.

Yes it happens with EVERY President on their last day in office, but rarely is anyone paying attention. THIS people would pay attention to. I may be wrong, but I don't believe any administration has ever tested the full power of this clause to protect itself. Anyone know of any?

A pardon might be politically detrimental, but it wouldn't cause any kind of constitutional crisis, real or perceived. The Constitution is quite clear that the President has the power to pardon and that it isn't subject to any check or balance that can frustrate that pardon.

[The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Article 2, section 2 - US Constitution.



In this case I think you are wrong (in terms of detrimental effect). Several amendments have been pushed to limit pardon capabilities, including limiting them to convicted individuals only, overturn power by congress within 180 days, etc. If Bush were to pardon Libby right now (dismissing the case, as Cheney is "only a witness"), I have no doubt that this would be a MASSIVE rallying cry for the left. There is enough "circumstantial" evidence of cronyism already, and this would likely hurt the President and end up with legislation once again being introduced. Unlike prior attempts, there would finally be a reason that could be pointed to for these needed changes.

[patteeu]

go bo already pointed out precedent in regards to Nixon. And I believe you are mistaken regarding the judicial branch "ordering" around the executive branch. This is a criminal case, and Dick Cheney may be VP, but he is being called as a man involved in the case. The important thing to remember is that HE, not the White House is being called. This is not ordering around the executive branch. You would be placing a man above the law at this point, which harkens back towards single supreme rulership (don't want to ruin the discussion with stupid labels). I seriously doubt this clause was intended to allow an administration to act above the law.

Judicial precedent doesn't give the judiciary any more power over the President than the Consitution dictates. The only thing precedent would have going for it is political (and I agree that it would have powerful political impact because so many people, like yourself, see the judiciary as the final arbiter in matters such as these). But the truth is that the executive branch has an equal authority to interpret the constitution as the other two branches.

Yes it happens with EVERY President on their last day in office, but rarely is anyone paying attention. THIS people would pay attention to. I may be wrong, but I don't believe any administration has ever tested the full power of this clause to protect itself. Anyone know of any?

In this case I think you are wrong (in terms of detrimental effect). Several amendments have been pushed to limit pardon capabilities, including limiting them to convicted individuals only, overturn power by congress within 180 days, etc. If Bush were to pardon Libby right now (dismissing the case, as Cheney is "only a witness"), I have no doubt that this would be a MASSIVE rallying cry for the left. There is enough "circumstantial" evidence of cronyism already, and this would likely hurt the President and end up with legislation once again being introduced. Unlike prior attempts, there would finally be a reason that could be pointed to for these needed changes.

It might stimulate the passage of a constitutional amendment (although I'm skeptical), but no one would argue that it isn't within the President's Constitutional power to grant a pardon. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon at a time when continued investigation and a trial could have crippled the GOP to an even greater degree than what Nixon's Watergate problems and his resignation had already done. People didn't like it, but no one argued that it wasn't his perogative. It may have cost Ford a shot at re-election (although I'm not so sure that was his only problem), but there was no constitutional crisis.

[go bowe]

true 'dat...