“I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive…The Constitution gives the president the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby’s case is an appropriate exercise of this power.” So, once again, we see what “restoring honor and dignity to the White House” means to these jokers. As y’all know, the main bit of news this past week, the 231st anniversary of our independence from the perversity of monarchical prerogatives, was that Dubya the decider chose to commute White House consigliere Scooter Libby’s sentence of 30 months in prison for lying to the American people. (Said prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald of the decision: “It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals.” For their part, the GOP are crying Marc Rich.) To be honest, I’m not sure what’s worse: the fact that, in flagrant defiance of both our judicial process and the public’s very real ethical concerns about this administration, Dubya actually let his guy off the hook…or that, given all we’ve seen from this gang over the past seven years, his shameless decision ultimately wasn’t all that surprising.
Category: GOP
Leahy/Conyers: Not so Fast.
“We had hoped our Committees’ subpoenas would be met with compliance and not a Nixonian stonewalling that reveals the White House’s disdain for our system of checks and balances…The veil of secrecy you have attempted to pull over the White House by withholding documents and witnesses is unprecedented and damaging to the tradition of open government by and for the people that has been a hallmark of the Republic.” In a “barbed” letter to the administration, Judiciary Committee Chairmen Conyers and Leahy demand that Dubya explain his rationale for executive privilege (which he invoked earlier in the week to thwart subpoenas concerning the persecuted prosecutors case.) Thus far, the White House has described the letter as “another overreach.“
Shields Up.
“‘This is a further shift by the Bush administration into Nixonian stonewalling and more evidence of their disdain for our system of checks and balances,’ said Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. ‘Increasingly, the president and vice president feel they are above the law.'” The Dubya administration invokes executive privilege to thwart the recently-issued congressional subpoenas for info pertaining to the persecuted prosecutor scandal. Instead, Dubya has offered Miers and Taylor for untranscribed private interviews (not under oath), an offer Spineless Specter, among others, thinks the Dems should take. “[C]onstitutional scholars cautioned that this area of law is so unsettled that it is impossible to predict the outcome if the matter ends up in court.”
One Sick Puppy.
Where do they find these people? The GOP leadership has already given us Dr. William “Catkiller” Frist, he of the feline felonies. Now comes word that Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney apparently sees nothing wrong in strapping his family pet to the top of a moving car for twelve hours at a time. (To him, Seamus the Irish Setter just “likes fresh air,” so much so that I guess he’d move his bowels in abject terror only occasionally.) Um, Governor, Berk likes fresh air too, but that doesn’t mean I bolt him down to the top of speeding NYC taxis. Here’s a tip: Having animals ride atop moving cars…good for Teen Wolf, bad for dogs.
My Clinton Concerns | State of the Field.
“‘You can look at this stage and see an African American, a Latino, a woman contesting for the presidency of the United States,’ Clinton said. ‘But there is so much left to be done, and for anyone to assert that race is not a problem in America is to deny the reality in front of our very eyes.'” Unfortunately, I missed the third Democratic debate at Howard University debate last night, so I can’t comment on the performances of Clinton, Obama, Edwards et al. I can say that this new NBC poll showing that 52% of the electorate wouldn’t consider voting for Hillary under any circumstances conforms to one of my major concerns with her nomination. As I said before, she’s a smart, talented, and impressive politico who’d undoubtedly sail the ship of state much more smoothly than the current administration. (Of course, so would you, I, the night-janitor at the local McDonalds, or almost anyone else one can think of.) But, really: [1] she’s thoroughly lousy on campaign finance reform, to my mind the issue that bears on virtually all others; [2] she apparently didn’t have the wherewithal or leadership instincts to realize the Iraq war was a terrible idea in 2003 (it didn’t take all that much to figure it out, particularly when you figure how much more information Clinton had access to than we did); [3] her view of centrism is apparently to act like Joe Lieberman every so often; and [4] most of the nation has already decided for various reasons that they don’t like her. With the Republicans scattered and in retreat, their ideology in eclipse, why do we keep throwing up marginal, tired candidates — Gore, Kerry, Clinton — on the off-chance that the electorate will manage to surmount their strong negatives, hold their collective nose, and vote for them?
To be fair, the other Dems haven’t been all that great at articulating a progressive alternative to Republican-lite DLC-ishness yet either, but at least there’s some potential for it there. Sen. Obama‘s got all the right JFK moves, and this all-things-to-all-people ambiguity may be one of his strongest political assets. But right now I think he’s relying too much on his initial spate of public goodwill, and missing a chance to really draw the nation’s attention to the issues that concern him. And John Edwards‘ son-of-a-millworker-made-good brand of populism, while laudable, doesn’t yet seem fully formed to me. But, at the very least, Edwards — unlike some of his more-willing-to-triangulate opponents — seems more often than not to let his flag fly, and act from the courage of his convictions. Right now, particularly with McCain hopelessly derailed by his blatant compromises of principle, Edwards may be the closest we’ve got to a Straight-Talk-Express this year (well, this side of Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul.)
At the moment, I’m still leaning towards Obama, just because of his tremendous upside — he, unlike virtually every other candidate, has the possibility to transform, revitalize, and realign our current political debate if he plays his cards right. But, Edwards is still in my estimation, and I’ll be taking a long hard look at him over the coming months (and either, in my humble opinion, are preferable to Senator Clinton, for the reasons listed above.)
Fein Gold.
“In grasping and exercising presidential powers, Cheney has dulled political accountability and concocted theories for evading the law and Constitution that would have embarrassed King George III…As Alexander Hamilton advised in the Federalist Papers, an impeachable offense is a political crime against the nation. Cheney’s multiple crimes against the Constitution clearly qualify.” Former Reagan Assistant Attorney General Bruce Fein makes the conservative case for Dick Cheney’s impeachment in Slate.
The Big Lie, Buried.
By a count of 14-0 (Russia abstaining), the UN Security Council votes to shut down their inquiry into Iraq WMDs. Well, so much for that particular casus belli. From the vaults: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” — Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 29, 2002. (There’s another one for the impeachment file.)
Shame of the Nation, continued.
“‘Here…comes…that famous General Taguba — of the Taguba report!’ Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice.” Well, the agency and the time may have changed, but it’s increasingly clear we still have a lot to answer for, thanks to the actions of those who would claim to protect our way of life. The inimitable Sy Hersh of The New Yorker (who also played a role in 1974 in getting the CIA docs released — take that, Woodward) reports in with the tale of General Antonio Taguba, the head of the Army’s original investigation into Abu Ghraib who, like so many other truth-tellers in the administration, was eventually hung out to dry for his candor. Hersh’s frightening and sadly plausible piece not only makes clear that Rumsfeld, Dubya, et al had more knowledge of the nightmare of Abu Ghraib than they’ve publicly let on, but also suggests that those repellent images we’ve all seen from the prison may only be the tip of the iceberg of the horrors that occurred in our country’s name. “Taguba said that he saw ‘a video of a male American soldier in uniform sodomizing a female detainee.’ The video was not made public in any of the subsequent court proceedings, nor has there been any public government mention of it.“
The People v. Dick Cheney.
“He’s saying he’s above the law…It just seems to me this is arrogant and shows bad judgment.” Also in related news, historians probably shouldn’t expect a similar classified document dump a quarter-century from now: Word leaks from a congressional committee that Cheney has refused to comply with the National Archives in preserving classified documents over the past four years and even tried to abolish the office responsible for enforcing the law. “Cheney’s office declined to discuss what it called internal matters…The Justice Department confirmed yesterday that it is looking into the issue.” Another day, another imperial prerogative attempted by these lawless yokels in the White House.
Nope, can’t have those either.
Think I’m being shrill? Ok, here’s another: After listening to former Attorney General John Ashcroft discuss internal differences over Dubya’s illegal surveillance program yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-3 to issue subpoenas for White House and Justice Department documents regarding the eavesdropping system. “The White House made no move to comply.“