Posted on 06/17/2006 11:10:30 PM PDT by RWR8189
WASHINGTON -- Now that top White House aide Karl Rove is off the hook in the CIA leak probe, President George W. Bush must weigh whether to pardon former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the only one indicted in the three-year investigation.
Speculation about a pardon began in late October, soon after Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald unsealed the perjury indictment of Libby, and it continued last week after Fitzgerald chose not to charge Rove.
"I think ultimately, of course, there are going to be pardons," said Joseph diGenova, a former prosecutor and an old Washington hand who shares that view with many pundits.
"These are the kinds of cases in which historically presidents have given pardons," said the veteran Republican attorney.
The White House remains mum on the president's intentions. Spokeswoman Dana Perino declined to comment Friday.
Bush has powerful incentives to pardon Libby, however. They range from rewarding past loyalty to ending the awkward revelations emerging from pretrial motions, a flow that could worsen in his trial next year.
Libby was indicted for lying in Fitzgerald's probe into who in the administration leaked the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame to reporters in 2003, apparently to undercut her husband's attack on Bush's war-justifying claim that Iraq sought uranium in Niger.
By demanding sensitive, sometimes embarrassing materials, some say, Libby appears to be goading the White House into issuing a pardon. Libby's spokeswoman did not respond to questions about a pardon.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
Richard Nixon became the thirty-seventh President of the United States on January 20, 1969 and was reelected in 1972 for a second term by the electors of forty-nine of the fifty states. His term in office continued until his resignation on August 9, 1974.
Pursuant to resolutions of the House of Representatives, its Committee on the Judiciary conducted an inquiry and investigation on the impeachment of the President extending over more than eight months. The hearings of the Committee and its deliberations, which received wide national publicity over television, radio, and in printed media, resulted in votes adverse to Richard Nixon on recommended Articles of Impeachment.
As a result of certain acts or omissions occurring before his resignation from the Office of President, Richard Nixon has become liable to possible indictment and trial for offenses against the United States. Whether or not he shall be so prosecuted depends on findings of the appropriate grand jury and on the discretion of the authorized prosecutor. Should an indictment ensue, the accused shall then be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, as guaranteed to every individual by the Constitution.
It is believed that a trial of Richard Nixon, if it became necessary, could not fairly begin until a year or more has elapsed. In the meantime, the tranquility to which this nation has been restored by the events of recent weeks could be irreparably lost by the prospects of bringing to trial a former President of the United States. The prospects of such trial will cause prolonged and divisive debate over the propriety of exposing to further punishment and degradation a man who has already paid the unprecedented penalty of relinquishing the highest elective office of the United States.
Now, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and seventy-four, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and ninety-ninth.
GERALD R. FORD
Although Bush, as president, could pardon Libby even prior to any conviction, he shouldn't do a pardon before or after any conviction. Libby's a scum. Worked for traitor Marc Rich - and congratulated traitor Marc Rich on his own Clinton-crafted pardon. It's embarrassing enough that Libby was able to weedle his way into a Republican administration. The embarrassment shouldn't be compounded by having a Republican president who is known for moral rectitude sully that reputation by pardoning this creep.
But then, they'll remind Bush that Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer, and Libby congratulated Rich on his pardon! Bush doesn't need to get any of Libby's smell on him. A pardon of this criminal mouthpiece shouldn't happen. Libby's got his reward - $2 milion at least, by some estimates, for representing criminal traitor Marc Rich. Let him keep that cash - and, if he's convicted of lying to law enforcement, let him keep the title, "felon"
If he perjured himself, I'd' rather see him convicted. But that's just me, I have a problem with perjury - - - I know that some folks don't think it's a big deal, when their "side" does it. I first signed onto FR when Clinton was doing it - and freepers thought perjury was bad. I though it was bad then, and I still do.
This is utter lies and nonsense. Mr. Libbey will never be pardoned because he will never be tried, much less convicted. The charges are crap and will be dropped eventually.
I bet you and others here were all bawling about Clinton's crooked pardons back in Jan. 01.
If Bush uses the pardon, he is just like Clinton on this issue also.
This article is nuts.
First thing that needs to be done is shut off all money to Fitz and fire his stinking butt. Take the charges and shove them up Fitz' butt and be done with it.
The purpose of this article is not about a pardon, but about the "fact" Libby is guilty and, therefore, will need a pardon to escape jail.
B.S.
I want the next POTUS, George Allen, to hire Libby as the chief of staff and announce when hired that he will grant Libby a pardon for anything for which Fitzgerald manages to get a jury conviction on Libby.
Right, but he'll write a book and go on the talking heads circuit. He'll end up better than before.
Uh, wait a minute. Indicted is not the same as found guilty. He still has to have a trial. If he is not found guilty, there is no need for a pardon!!!!
If Libby perjured himself, I agree. I'm not suggesting he be excused of anything. It should be an agregious example of perjury though. If he was in a meeting three years prior for a few minutes and didn't remember it, I don't think he should have the book thrown at him over it. If it was a material issue and he flat out lied, then he should pay the penalty for it.
I will say though that a case like this where there was nothing material shown to have taken place, I find it very difficult to accept someone's carreer should be destroyed in the process, although I can see some circumstances that would warrant it.
Should Allen also hire Libby's buddy Marc Rich, the traitor pardoned by Clinton (with Libby's support?)?
I'm no lawyer, but don't you have to be convicted of something before being pardoned?
Just askin'
Can the lawyers or jury consultants ask political affiliation when selecting jurors?
No, they can not. Of course, other, less direct questions might elicit responses that would allow one to know where the juror is coming from.
LOL
Can the lawyers or jury consultants ask political affiliation when selecting jurors?No, they can not. Of course, other, less direct questions might elicit responses that would allow one to know where the juror is coming from.
In a case with political overtones it doesn't seem logical that a single jurisdiction - particularly a city in an era when cities are notably different philosophicaly than suburban/exurban areas - should be the source of the jury pool.What constitutional principles would be involved in getting a change of venue? Wouldn't an act of Congress suffice to allow some possibility that the jury pool wouldn't be demographically wired against a representative of a particular philosophy (even tho Libby is not a Republican)?
"What constitutional principles would be involved in getting a change of venue?"
There are procedural rules that govern motions to change venue of a trial. Ultimately, the most important consideration is whether the defendant will be able to have a fair and impartial trial in the original venue. The most common reason in high profile cases is pretrial publicity that causes potential jurors to form a prejudiced (pre-judged) opinion on the case.
Sometimes, the convenience of witnesses is a consideration.
The DAs in the OJ case could have tried that case in a more conservative county, but inexplicably chose the downtown venue.
Arguing that the jury pool will be overwhelmingly partisan in this case might be worth a shot if that's what his lawyers believe will benefit their client; the pretrial publicity route may be the better way to go.
I don't see any way in hell he can get a fair trial in D.C. That is the place where a jury would not convict John Hinckley for the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.
Imagine it had been Bill Clinton instead of Ronald Reagan. Do you think Hinckley would have had a prayer of being found not guilty by reason of insanity?
I think the best he could hope for in D.C. would be for one person to hang the jury. Acquittal on the charges is inconceivable to me no matter how thin the evidence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.