No Pardon For Libby?

Bob Novak, writing about Bush as isolated from the Congressional Republicans, closes with this:

Regarding Libby and Gonzales, unofficial word from the White House is not reassuring. One credible source says the president will never -- not even on the way out of office in January 2009 -- pardon Libby. Another equally good source says the president will never ask Gonzales to resign. That exactly reverses the prevailing Republican opinion in Congress. Bush is alone.

Time will tell; presumably Cheney will argue the case for a Libby pardon.

But I am intrigued by the "strategy" here - is the White House really not worried that Libby, fearing abandonment, will look for a better deal from Fitzgerald?  Personally I don't think Libby has a damaging "true" story to tell, but I have no doubt he could generate headlines with which the White House would prefer not to deal.

So why leak anything at all on this subject?  Or why get dragged into telling one story to the press and another through more direct channels to Libby?  Why create buzz on this?  Baffling.  But since the theme of the Novak column is the incompetence of this Administration, maybe not so baffling.

SEPARATING THE WHEAT FROM THE CHAFF:  I love this headline from Rush:

Did Valerie Plame Lie Under Oat?

As long as they were not wild oats...

Comments

[Will]

Its not like the MSM wouldn't do a 180 and proclaim Libby the second coming of John Dean.

Incompetent is Novak being kind, incompetent for this White House would be an improvement.

[AMDG]

What are Walton's options when it comes to sentencing? Does he have the option of jailing Libby while appeals are going on or are bail terms automatically extended?

Is it possible that all avenues of appeal can be exhausted prior to December 2008?

Would the idea of Libby actually spending time in jail affect Walton's sentencing decisions or even his decsion on whether to grant a new trial - especially given juror statements that show that his instructions were ignored.

[hit and run]

The problem isn't incompetence.

It's incontinence.

(aka the spine issue Tom has suggested before)

They pee their pants when confronted with anything brought by the Dems.

That's an overstatement in my opinion. But hey, the play on words is what I was after.

[sbw]

If Bush were interested in clarity, why not invite Tenet, Wilson, Plame, Plame's boss, Harlow, Armitage, Grossman, assorted sniveling DOJ staffers and CIA briefers, Ari, and Cheney to the White House for a command de-briefing.

On the record they could document who they talked to, about what and when and clarify the covert crap. There are enough outstanding questions on this blog to ask.

If they won't answer, they could invoke the Fifth Amendment and we could all pack up and go home, leaving this steaming pile for the dustbin of history.

[Huggy]

A few have made the case that W plays for the long haul. If that is true then it makes perfect sense.
Scooter could have just as easily served in a Democratic administration. Who is going to be all cosy with the media if they might be discomforted the way he has.

[Gideon]

We know that unlike a typical DC reporter who just waits for the phone to ring, Novak has been known to sometimes do actual research. (Like checking Who's Who.) Nobody may have given him an outright leak about plans to pardon Libby, but with a little research it he may have read it between the lines.

"Incompetence" may be Novak's way of saying they were trying to hide their position but he was able to piece it together with an afternoon of work.

[km]

Rush probably saw "My Cousin Vinnie" over the weekend, in which Joe Pesci tells the judge about "yoots."

[Spartacvs]

W plays for the long haul.

Yes, he's going for a complete rout of Republican candidates for office in '08 in order to bury the concept of a permanent Republican majority for a generation.

Heck of a job GW.

[Alcibiades]

And just who is a "credible source" for Novak these days.

[Pofarmer]

Yes, he's going for a complete rout of Republican

Because the Dim contenders look so good?

Look at the approval ratings for Congress.

[jerry]

Considering that Novak has said that he talks to Rove around three times a week, I'd guess Karl and/or W aren't too happy about the "scapegoat" strategy unveiled at the start of the Libby trial.

Who knows, perhaps they're not happy with Cheney either. Aside from generally bad advice, maybe Dick did go off and have Libby deliberately out a spy.

But then there's Cheney's note about Libby in the "meatgrinder" over the "incompetence of others." Hmm, who could those "others" possibly be (and I won't accept 'the CIA' as an answer)?

[Spartacvs]

Look at the approval ratings for Congress.

That's a very slim reed on which to cling in a raging flood.

Presumably Republicans running for office in the House and Senate must overcome that statistic in equal measure with Democrats. Or is it your contention that Democrats have already proven themselves far more venal, corrupt and lazy than the recently ousted Republican controlled Congress of the Bush years? Republican candidates for office also have the disadvantage of running as the party of the most unpopular President since Nixon, a distinct advantage for Dems.

Enjoy.

[Other Tom]

Right, Spartacus--that must be why Hillary is doing so well vs. Rudy in all those polls.

To respond to a question above, I believe that Walton has the option to leave Libby out pending appeal, and given that there is no ongoing investigation of a conspiracy and he has no prior record, I assume he will do so. I am informed by Clarice, who practices in DC, that the normal appellate track in that jurisdiction would cause the appeal to still be pending when the 2008 election rolls around.

As to what Bush will do, I have given up trying to figure the man out. I simply settle for (and constantly celebrate) the fact that he is neither Al Gore nor John Kerry, and he has given us Mr. Justice Alito and Mr. Chief Justice Roberts, who will both be vexing the Moonbats long after my time has expired.

[Rick Ballard]

Alcibiades,

There is a Secret Service agent's nephew's second cousin who is still willing to talk to Novak. The agent is retiring next week, so that will wipe out Novak's access to the WH completely.

I don't doubt that a few congresscritters still talk to him. It's a little bit interesting that Novak doesn't have the courage to write about the issues mentioned as being communications failures rather than actual errors. Dan Bartlett and Cathie Martin must have some sort of hold over him.

Bartlett did a decent job on electioneering but he is currently a sterling affirmation of the Peter Principle. He just doesn't have the chops for the job. It really doesn't matter who the flack is if the message is consistently incoherent.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Bush needs to think long and hard about this debate, because that's what he is facing:

-------quote-------
Schwarzenegger appeared on Limbaugh's radio show, and the exchange was lively and telling. Limbaugh railed against the $1.25 increase in the minimum wage. Schwarzenegger defended himself, saying the Democrats wanted $2.50.

The exchange continued in that vein, until Rush closed with this telling summary: ``The problem with that is the liberals and the Democrats aren't going to punt their ideology, because it defines them. And so when we end up agreeing with them just to get compromise, even if the numbers they want aren't as much as they wanted, we are still compromising our ideology. They are not.''

If you could find a workable crystal ball and tune it forward to the first major debate of the Republican presidential primaries, my guess is that the main point of contention would be the same.
------endquote------

[sferris]

Without majority in Congress to protect the White House from hearings I imagine things are only going to get a lot worse for the Administration. Six years of unitary government let to incompetence, cronyism, and corruption.

[Spartacvs]

Right, Spartacus--that must be why Hillary is doing so well vs. Rudy in all those polls.

A Rudy Presidency would be ok by me so long as it comes with significantly increased Democratic majorities in the House and Senate in order to hold his feet to the fire. It's only right that one Republican President should get to clean up the mess left by another, especially given the unprecedented combination of incompetence, neglect and cronyism which is the legacy of the Bush Presidency.

[sferris]

It's disingenuos of Cheney to be asking for Libby's pardon. Bush stated when near the beginning of administration "...should I decide to grant pardons, I will do so in a fair way. I'll have the highest of high standards.:" His promise would preclude a pardon for Libby based on a waiting period of at least five years. Libby had his day in court and was found guilty on four counts. If he loses his appeal he should do time.

[owl]

Six years of unitary government let to incompetence, cronyism, and corruption

Perfect. Are you MSM or the new Repub?

[bio mom]

I have thought a lot about this. I think the lack of Congressional Republican support, and perhaps even the media to some extent, has to do with Bush refusing to be a schmoozer. He goes to bed by 9 or 10 at night and does not do the cocktail party thing. So the Congressional Republicans feel slighted. They are used to their strokes. (The Dems too, of course, but this is a Republican president). The media, in addition to being natural left-leaning types, probably relied a lot on those kinds of networking contacts too and resent it being harder to get from Bush. I always hear how Bush is a poor communicator of his message. But maybe a lot of that is in the eye (or ear in this case) of the beholder.

[lurker]

Things will get worse between now til '09 as long as the Democratic Congress continue with their non-scandal show trials and hearings. They won't find much there there.

[Tom Maguire]

Considering that Novak has said that he talks to Rove around three times a week, I'd guess Karl and/or W aren't too happy about the "scapegoat" strategy unveiled at the start of the Libby trial.

Who knows, perhaps they're not happy with Cheney either. Aside from generally bad advice, maybe Dick did go off and have Libby deliberately out a spy.

I really and truly don't think they cared that much about the trial theatrics. However, it is possible they would have cared if the defense had continued down that road 9which they didn't, mainly because there didn't seem to be any road down which to go. Well, unless Libby was going to disclose the existence and powers of the Rove Mind Control Ray, which would really have peeved them.

That said, your point about no love lost between Rove and Cheney is a good one. Assuming Rove is vaguely aware of contemporary reality, he may not be wholly satisfied with the new Republican minority; he may also think that Cheney is behind the worst of Bush's ideas, starting with the inept execution of this war.

Who knows? But finger-pointing and displacement are pretty common human emotions, so I can see where Rove would rather blame Cheney than Bush for a lot of the current situation.

Interesting - that means that Libby's ghastly headlines ratting out Cheney don't exactly worry Rove either - it's not a bug, it's a feature!

Or take Rove out of it - somewhere in that White House must be folks happy to stick a knife in Cheney.

[sferris]

In the midst of the DOJ scandal, another scandal is looming. The GSA, the department responsible for managing federal contracts, has the potential to be another huge problem for the Bush administration.

GSA Chief Is Accused of Playing Politics

[Spartacvs]

we are still compromising our ideology

Note, your ideology has already been already compromised by the six years of the Bush Presidency and the rubber stamp Republican Congress that enabled him. That's a lot of ground to make up with an electorate that no longer looks to Republicans for answers on any of the signature issues of the day.

GWOT? gay marriage? taxes? - have at it, be my guest and dig yourselves into an even deeper hole.

[lurker]

And Mac Ranger quickly provided a response regarding the GSA contracts:

http://www.macsmind.com/wordpress/2007/03/26/waxmans-selective-campaign/

"Waxman's Selective Purge"

About right. This will become a dead-end story again.

[cathyf]

Or why get dragged into telling one story to the press and another through more direct channels to Libby?

Well, one plausible scenario is that there are those in the WH who see the damage to the rule of law in the Libby prosecution as being the most serious issue, and a pardon probably makes that worse --and an anticipated pardon is even worse than an actual pardon. If everyone believes that they can play whatever political games they want because Bush is going to pardon Libby anyway, they will do much more mischief with much clearer consciences. I would argue that this was going on with the jurors. They did not take their oaths to justice seriously because they believed that the president would clean up the pesky little collateral damage from their political theatre.

The appointments clause issue has been ruled on by Walton, and the only way to reverse it is to get a higher court to reverse it. If there is no case to appeal, then the ruling -- and precedent -- stands. Walton made a whole raft of pretty dubious rulings, and they will be showing up into legal briefs unless an appeals court repudiates them.

[sferris]

"..somewhere in that White House must be folks happy to stick a knife in Cheney."

The final denoument of the Bush Administration.

[lurker]

From Mac Ranger:

"Waxman continues his “crusade” while ignoring oversight on anything that doesn’t pass the “Bush + Rove + Republican” litmus test. Absent any other ‘evidence’ it looks like Doan is being done in by democrats within the GSA - and internal reports have cleared her thus far. Fact is that Doan has been cutting back at the budgets that are near and dear to Democrats like Waxman."

[hit and run]

So, wild conspiracy theory! (not to be taken seriously - and no I don't think I NEED to provide that caveat, it should be apparent, but you never know and at least this way I can ramble on for a bit while the other half of my brain finishes tidying up the theory)

Cheney approaches Bush - please pardon Libby. Bush hems and haws. Cheney goes to Rove - we've got to pardon Libby. Rove says, No.

Cheney then says, "Then by God I am going to run for president and pardon him myself."

[SunnyDay]

And just who is a "credible source" for Novak these days.

Posted by: Alcibiades | March 26, 2007 at 12:28 PM

***************

My thought exactly.

[sferris]

"I am eager to have the chance to set the record straight and provide a full and complete record to Congressman Waxman and the Committee and refute these allegations," Doan said. Pass the popcorn.

[jerry]

"I really and truly don't think they cared that much about the trial theatrics...."

TM, you left out the best part (for screwy me), the "incompetence" allusion in Novak's article to Cheney's note about Libby in the meatgrinder.

Remember how Novak said he was lucky to get an interview with a very senior official in the WH and they told him all about Plame, then he backed away, then Armitage became this super important person (hard to see Novak running off the CNN set, and losing various jobs, over Armitage BTW). EW has argued that Novak didn't learn Plame's name or covert status from Rove or Armitage, perhaps an "incompetent" high official was his original source? Hmm.

I'll take off the tinfoil now.

[Other Tom]

Just so you understand, Spartacus, we really couldn't care less whether or not a Republican president is OK by you. And of course Ronaldus Maximus showed us how, even with almost uninterrupted majority control of both houses by the opposition, wondrous things can be acheieved. Huge tax cuts, robust economic growth, and victory in the Cold War. He'll be on Mt. Rushmore eventually, even as they continue to erect statues of him throughout Eastern Europe. And you can rest assured there will never be a USS Bill Clinton.

[sferris]

For anyone wanting to help Libby in his sentencing trial, William Jeffress has a few tips for you. According to Jeffress it is "acceptable . . . to express a view that Scooter's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice is inconsistent with your knowledge of his character and integrity." Jeffress says it would be helpful to mention "how long, and in what context, you have known Scooter" and to tell the judge things about him "that relate to his public and private service and his qualities as a person, such as personal and professional integrity, helpfulness, generosity, commitment to his family . . . good deeds, dedication to our country or the welfare of others."
What is "not acceptable?" Jeffress asks that you do your best not "to criticize the jury, the prosecutors, or the court, or to denigrate any person involved in the process including the witnesses."

Get busy JustOneMinute posters, this maybe your last chance to help Libby.

[PeterUK]

"Did Valerie Plame Lie Under Oat?"

That should be "oaf" she was in bed with Joe at the time.

[PeterUK]

"And you can rest assured there will never be a USS Bill Clinton."

Not even a garbage scow?

[sferris]

Regan on Mount Rushmore, not likely since park rangers say there is no room for another head and the addition would endanger the already fragile structure. Regarding Clinton - "You can rest assured there will never be a USS Bill Clinton" - I wouldn't bet on it. The next election doesn't look very favorable for Rebublicans.

[sferris]

Will the Iraqis erect a statue of George Bush seems to be a more pertinent question. Good luck George.

[Spartacvs]

Not even a garbage scow?

Name's taken, GW Bush.

[PeterUK]

That was piss poor Pratty,looks like the nearest you'll get to Comedy Gold is smoking it.
No George Bush will get an aircraft carrier named after him,something for you to remember him by.

[Spartacvs]

The USS Codpiece?

[sferris]

Iraqis will NEVER erect a statue to GWB. Sorry, Bush.

[PeterUK]

Very apt for Billy Jeff,couldn't really have the "USS Banging the Intern".

[Jane]

I simply settle for (and constantly celebrate) the fact that he is neither Al Gore nor John Kerry, and he has given us Mr. Justice Alito and Mr. Chief Justice Roberts, who will both be vexing the Moonbats long after my time has expired.

I also appreciate the fact that he didn't whine and moan after 911 all while sitting on his hands and agreeing to put women in Berkha's ala ALcarbonoffsetGore.

[markg8]

"Yes, he's going for a complete rout of Republican"

"Because the Dim contenders look so good? Look at the approval ratings for Congress."

Look at the approval ratings for Bush's foreign policy in the military. They're the people who have to win the most important policy initiative of his presidency, Iraq, and they aren't buying it anymore.

[Larry]

Hillary will be the nominee. Fred or Rudy will kick her ass. You read it here first.

Posted by: PeterUK | March 26, 2007 at 01:53 PM LMAO! Best of the week, so far.

[Larry]

My bad,wrong attribution.It should be.

"Did Valerie Plame Lie Under Oat?"

That should be "oaf" she was in bed with Joe at the time.

Posted by: PeterUK | March 26, 2007 at 01:53 PM

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Six years of unitary government let to incompetence, cronyism, and corruption.

Posted by: sferris | March 26, 2007 at 12:59 PM

I can think of no one better equipped to talk about incompetence and cronyism.

[sferris]

The problem for Republicans is they have to run to run against George Bush to have any chance of winning. It also true that it will be immpossible for any Republicn nominee to run against GWB and win the nomination. It's conundrum. GWB also has 22 months left in his lame duck presidency and it's not looking any better.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Iraqis will NEVER erect a statue to GWB. Sorry, Bush.

Uh, sferris, I believe there is already at least one, in the Kurdish areas.

[sferris]

It's amazing how fast Bush's presidency has unraveled in only three short months of Democratic leadership in Congress.

[sferris]

Interesting the Kurdish area was virtually independent before the Iraq war isn't it?

[sbw]

I occasionally try to figure out the purpose of Spart and Sferris on this website. While it could be pure self-absorption, perhaps its a variation of what is pointed to Instapundit Glenn Reynolds: "INFORMATION WAR: "Islamic terrorists are encouraging their supporters, who can write in English, to get on American web sites..."

It would be nice if they put their names at the beginning of their spam posts so we could ignore them and scroll on by.

[Larry]

"It's amazing how fast Bush's presidency has unraveled in only three short months of Democratic leadership in Congress."

Leadership? Its like watching the Osbournes.Rumour has it Tehran sent out a fatwa ordering all Iranian ex-pats to vote Democrat.

[Rick Ballard]

"I occasionally try to figure out the purpose of Spart and Sferris on this website."

It's just a job. When you don't have the skill to flip a burger, drop down to thread louse. The pay is the same but they don't get any free food.

[BarbaraS]

would be nice if they put their names at the beginning of their spam posts so we could ignore them and scroll on by.

I look to see who posted anyway and scroll on by when I see lefty names. Not interested.

[Jane]

would be nice if they put their names at the beginning of their spam posts so we could ignore them and scroll on by.

I've written and erased that sentiment 12 times today already. Well maybe 2 times. But I'm with ya!

[Larry]

sbw,
""Islamic terrorists are encouraging their supporters, who can write in English, to get on American web sites..."

Ferris,Spartacus,Tom, Dalton,markg8 is a professional blog roach,Spartacus may be his sock puppet,Tom and Dalton are one and the same idiot,my money is on ferris.

[Daddy]

Did Valery Lie under oat? Absolutely, in Lib's its in-grain-ed.

[sferris]

Fredo's sock puppet Sampson is going to take the 5th at senate hearing. Interesting.

[sferris]

Correction: DOJ official and liaison to the White House, Monica Goodling, is the one going to take the 5th at upcoming congressional hearing. Who is she protecting?

[cathyf]

Who is she protecting? Well, if she watched the Libby trial and has half a brain, she is protecting herself.

[hit and run]

Traditionally "taking the 5th" has meant exercising your right to not self-inciminate. But I heard that Bush put in a signing statement on some bill saying witnesses could take the 5th to protect Rove.

[cathyf]

Hmmm -- normally I miss typos, but "self-inciminate" struck me as pretty funny.

[Sua Sponte]

Does anybody remember the Clinton era staffer who claimed under oath that he lied in his own diary? I want to say his name was Stein but can't remember because there were so many scandals back then.

Or, how about the Congressional Hearing (Travel Gate), where the Democrat refrain was, "so what".

[hit and run]

LOL. Took me a minute even after you pointed it out.

[Terrye]

I think we shoud ignore Novak, the old troublemaker.So far he has not exactly been helpful.

And you know what? Whenever a Democrat comes forward and shows a passing interest in the NSA leaks and other national security breaches which represent real crimes rather than playing their scandal of the fortnight game {which is no doubt already boring the hell out of the American people}...then I will believe they give a damn about the Truth.

As for Bush getting a statue in Iraq, I think he has one as well. Of course if it had been left up to folks like sferris all the Kurds might well be dead right now, but that is the problem for those little strange brown people, not sferris.

For the reality based community there remains the child like belief that if there had not been a war Saddam would have just jumped on his unicorn and ridden through fields of laughing flowers as he disappeared into a rainbow colored sunset.

And I think it would be nice if all these whiney self styled conservatives stopped jumping through hoops for the Democrats. Bush is not incompetent, he is just constantly harassed by a hostile press, an unethical opposition and a bunch of Republicans who really do eat their own. The very fact that this nonscandal with Gonzales is even getting the attention it is defies rational explanation.

For instance, Gonzales has been working on the NSA leaks and the grand jury testimony has thus far not been leaked {!}.It includes the testimony of some important people who might not want the rest of us to know the truth about these leaks. After all that information came from somewhere and only certain people have that kind of access. Like say, Rockefeller.

Now, if they can hurt Gonzales or get rid of him, they have a better chance of killing the investigation. The lefties do not care, their desire to see justice done is just a cover they use to bitch about Bush. If they can't get him, the law does not matter.

The Republicans are helping the Democrats by doing what they do best...turning on each other.

Well Congress, {Democrats and Republicans alike} is in no position to be discussing someone else's competence.

The Democrats have already lost the support of most Americans, their numbers stink and what about the price of gas? I thought they were going to do something about that? Maybe they could take a break from bugging Bush long enough to do what the people elected them to do.

But I doubt it.

[sferris]

Is it excusable for people in the Justice Department to take the 5th amendment to avoid testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee? I am sure it's not unprecedented, but doesn't cast a great light on the DOJ. And it isn't going to go help Fredo save his job.

[azaghal]

Fine observation by AJ:

What
The Plame Game Has Wrought

Money quote:

Monica Goodling, a Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

“The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real,” said the lawyer, John Dowd.

He said that members of the House and Senate Judiciary committees seem already to have made up their minds that wrongdoing has occurred in the firings.

[SunnyDay]

I look to see who posted anyway and scroll on by when I see lefty names. Not interested.

Posted by: BarbaraS | March 26, 2007 at 03:04 PM

****************
same here

[PeterUK]

"Is it excusable for people in the Justice Department to take the 5th amendment to avoid testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee?"

Perhaps it would encourage people if the Senate Judiciary Committee took a oath at the same time,truthful questions get truthful answers kind of thing.No omissions,all the truth.

[sferris]

Republicans in Congress don't want to be seen carrying water for the White House over the DOJ scandal, especially when DOJ officials take the fifth. The White House has very little leverage with Congressional Republicans when they're mired in 30% approval ratings.

[SunnyDay]

Good for Monica Goodling. She can always find another job if she has to. All of them can.

What the h*** did they think would happen?

[Sue]

Is it excusable for people in the Justice Department to take the 5th amendment to avoid testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Sure. Every employee with republican leanings should take the 5th until democrats are no longer in power. They are not looking for answers, they are looking to score political points. They will get them either way, so the employee would be stupid not to take the 5th.

[azaghal]

And what decile are Congressional approval ratings mired in? And MSM trustworthiness ratings?

[Sue]

What the h*** did they think would happen?

That's the problem. They didn't think. They merely wanted to score political points and win an election.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Very Off Topic.

I was just watching a report on Katie Couric's interview of the Edwards decision to stay active and to keep campaigning despite
Elizabeth's incurable and metastasized cancer. Apparently there are contradictory opinions on whether they are doing the right thing.

I think it is laudable and probably a good thing from Elizabeth's perspective to stay active and to live as normal and as active life as she can.

That said, I have to wonder if John Edwards is thinking down the road about what will be required of him and her as the cancer continues to spread and she becomes more and more ill? A President pretty much has to be married to the job during his term. There are worldwide considerations here, not just the considerations of a single couple. Can a President walk out of an important summit to be by his suffering wife's side? Can he give his full attention to her needs when she reaches the point of being unable to care for herself without the Presidency suffering?

Sadly, most of the doctors I've heard on the subject say she is now in Stage IV and that the likelihood of survival, even with aggressive treatment, is about 5 years. If John Edwards should happen to win, will he be able to function at full capacity if his wife is terminally ill or if she dies. I think anyone who has lost a very close loved one knows that those first couple of years of grief are very hard and very mentally and emotionally draining.

I applaud the Edwards for not giving in to this crisis, but I'm not sure the voters should go along with that decision.

[Sue]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm>Clinton

There is not going to be an executive branch left. Clinton should tell them to "F" off. The president has the power to issue pardons regardless of whether congress likes who he pardoned or not. Get over it.

[Sue]

I applaud the Edwards for not giving in to this crisis, but I'm not sure the voters should go along with that decision.

Did you hear one their responses to Couric about their children? Baby birds, needing to learn to fly? Couric responded they are 6 and 8 and Edwards said never too soon to learn how to fly. I think they are nuts. My sympathy, of course, goes out to them, but nuts they are, IMO.

[PeterUK]

Openly taking the Fifth in this way is rather a clever move,it is stating that the Senate Judiciary Committee cannot be trusted.Looks like the Libby Effect is beginning to set in.
Next employees will demand immunity in their conditions of employment - brilliant move by the liberals,from the Land of the Free to the Land of the Fifth.
There never was an institution that the liberal couldn't play with until it was broken.

[Enlightened]

Hmmm, I notice the brainless no-see-ums have slithered back to the mothership - I think someone pulled a fast one on them by taking the 5th - time to regroup! Time to re-arrange the talking points! Time to parse another statement into a conspiracy! Time to recharge the broken record! Lots of work to do, it's been 100 hours x 14....tick tock.

[sferris]

When Goodling takes the fifth, whatever Republican support was left on the Senate Judiciary Committe for the DOJ and White House, will be sucked out of the room.

[SunnyDay]

They've FUBARed this for sure.

[sferris]

When you take the fifth when you work at the DOJ do you lose your job?

[PeterUK]

It is about time a Special Prosecutor was appointed to investigate the misuse of Senate Committees.

[Enlightened]

I think they should just answer using the Bill Clinton model:

FROM THE WASHINGTON TIMES: In the portions of President Clinton's Jan. 17 deposition that have been made public in the Paula Jones case, his memory failed him 267 times. This is a list of his answers and how many times he gave each one.

I don't remember - 71
I don't know - 62
I'm not sure - 17
I have no idea - 10
I don't believe so - 9
I don't recall - 8
I don't think so - 8
I don't have any specific recollection - 6
I have no recollection - 4
Not to my knowledge - 4
I just don't remember - 4
I don't believe - 4
I have no specific recollection - 3
I might have - 3
I don't have any recollection of that - 2 I don't have a specific memory - 2
I don't have any memory of that - 2
I just can't say - 2
I have no direct knowledge of that - 2
I don't have any idea - 2
Not that I recall - 2
I don't believe I did - 2
I can't remember - 2
I can't say - 2
I do not remember doing so - 2
Not that I remember - 2
I'm not aware - 1
I honestly don't know - 1
I don't believe that I did - 1
I'm fairly sure - 1
I have no other recollection - 1
I'm not positive - 1
I certainly don't think so - 1
I don't really remember - 1
I would have no way of remembering that - 1
That's what I believe happened - 1
To my knowledge, no - 1
To the best of my knowledge - 1
To the best of my memory - 1
I honestly don't recall - 1
I honestly don't remember - 1
That's all I know - 1
I don't have an independent recollection of that - 1
I don't actually have an independent memory of that - 1
As far as I know - 1
I don't believe I ever did that - 1
That's all I know about that - 1
I'm just not sure - 1
Nothing that I remember - 1
I simply don't know - 1
I would have no idea - 1
I don't know anything about that - 1
I don't have any direct knowledge of that - 1
I just don't know - 1
I really don't know - 1
I can't deny that, I just -- I have no memory of that at all - 1

[windansea]

Former President Clinton requested to testify before House Committee
Mon Mar 26 2007 17:22:23 ET

Washington, D.C. - Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith (R-TX) today asked Former President Bill Clinton if he would be available to testify at the Democrats' Thursday hearing on presidential pardon authority.

"Former President Clinton is no stranger to controversial pardons, most notably the pardon of Marc Rich on his last day in office," stated Ranking Member Smith. "I can think of no better person to address this issue."

At Thursday's hearing of the Judiciary's Crime Subcommittee entitled, "The Appropriate Use of the Presidential Pardoning Power," Democrats are expected to explore what is and is not the appropriate use of pardons, despite a president's plenary power to issue pardons.

President Clinton granted pardons or commuted the sentences of nearly 500 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose wife donated $450 thousand to the Clinton Library. Other pardons included a person accused of cocaine trafficking and a former Democratic committee chairman indicted on political corruption charges.

The Constitution gives the President the absolute authority to grant clemency, commutation, and remission of fines for offenses. Despite this absolute authority, presidents are not immune from criticism and even congressional attempts to restrict pardon authority.

"Mr. Clinton's exercise of his pardon authority would be of real interest to Members of the Subcommittee," concluded Smith. "I hope he will lend his expertise

[lurker]

Bravo, Gooding and her lawyers! If she does show up before the Democratic Senate, then all she should say, is "I don't recall.", "I do not know". And that is it.

[lurker]

The New Media Math: 3 + 2 = 2.5

Misleading reporting!

The Worst Political Advice Tom Bevan Has Ever Offered...

Prolly a good thing that Novak will lose his source.

[lurker]

Well, enlightened, I am willing to bet that the Republicans will break Clinton's "I don't recall" record by the time it's all over with.

If Gonzales goes up before the Senate, it would behoove him to take the Clinton Recall "amendment".

[Spartacvs]

When you take the fifth when you work at the DOJ do you lose your job?

Well one would hope so.

I have a feeling there are many more Regency University Alumni types like her that are going to have to be ferreted out of government departments once the Boy King's reign is done.

[willem]

Of course they'll be a USS Bill Clinton. It'll be a submarine, and they'll have one hell of time taming that periscope.

[globalmom]

All the leftie trolls need to be very very careful They need to remember all the constitutional powers of the presidency they are trying to usurp can't be put back in place for a president of their choosing and all the investigation precedents the set won't be forgotten when they loose the House and Senate. Despite claims of a vast majority it was a SLIM SLIM (slime?) Margin. Changes, and votes, have consequences.

[sferris]

Clinton hasn't been president for over six years. What right-wing posters have hard time accepting it there Boy King's approval ratings are substantially lower then Clinton's were even during his impeachment trial. Clinton isn't the bogeyman. He is more popular in this country then Bush is. The country doesn't like Bush and they doen't trust him either.

[sferris]

Fredo explains why he didn't do anything wrong to NBC - "I don't recall being involved." Is this your final answer Alberto? Also, please stop the shameless pandering before you close the door on your way out.

[sferris]

From FindLaw:

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives individuals the right to refuse to answer any questions or make any statements, when to do so would help establish that the person committed a crime or is connected to any criminal activity.

Does Goodling think she committed a crime?

[Looking_for_a_way_out]

Just saw Alberto on Harball and had to stop by for a quick hit. Man was that a weak performance by someone that is supposed to be the nation's top law enforcement official. He just now realizes that words have meaning and he has to be careful about how he says something.... In what country did he attend law school? Did he pass the bar somewhere?

Here's a simple answer for you on why Bush would hang Libby but hang with Alberto. Libby can't do Bush any harm. Gonzo can. Though Bush might not realize Alberto will do the harm whether or not he's AG. Pardonng Libby might "tarnish" Bush's law and order reputation even after it has no political impact. Bush didn't grant anyone clemency from the Texas death penalty, regardless of the circumstances of their conviction. Many people applaud that. Pardoning Libby would not be consistent with his personality, unless Libby could harm him somehow.

[Enlightened]

Ferret - Will you answer the questions?

Are you implying that Goodling should go under oath and just say she does not remember, recall or other, like the previous administration did? And that will exonerate her, as you morons have repeatedly done? Thereby relieving her of any further conspiracy theories, or innuendos of what she is hiding?

Or should she opt out for Constitutional Rights since you assholes won't believe anything she says under oath, because she is part and parcel of your BDS sysdrome?

Bill Clinton is popular? Hah - to whom? People of like habits and mind I assume.

[Syl]

Has anyone heard from MayBee?

The earthquake was over 200 miles from Tokyo but I imagine internet connections may be pretty messed up. Perhaps she knows people in the area and has gone to help.

But I don't think she has posted at all since the quake.

[Ralph L.]

"And you can rest assured there will never be a USS Bill Clinton."
The Navy retired the F-14 Tom Cat fighter plane, too.

Sue, I agree with you, but the parents are political animals now, which means they're not normal people, and a presidential campaign is their idea of fun.

Unfortunately, if the cancer has spread to her liver as is feared, she'll be lucky to live a year. My mother lasted 8 months after diagnosis, and I don't think treatment for liver cancer has advanced much in 20 years, and it was debilitating. For their children's sake, I hope they'll change their minds.