Bush Opts for Continued Protection Over Payback

When Cheney’s people wanted to shore up the cover story for Dick Cheney’s involvement in leaking Valerie Plame’s identity, they went to Michael Isikoff. So I guess it’s not surprising that Isikoff would be the outlet for conservative fury over the news that Bush did not pardon Scooter Libby.

In a move that has keenly disappointed some of his strongest conservative allies, President Bush has decided not to pardon Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, for his 2007 conviction in the CIA leak case, two White House officials said Monday.

[snip]

But the decision not to pardon Libby stunned some longtime Bush backers who had been quietly making the case for the former vice presidential aide in recent weeks. A number of Libby’s allies had raised the issue with White House officials, arguing that as a loyal aide who played a key role in shaping Bush’s foreign policy during the president’s first term, including the decision to invade Iraq, Libby deserved to have the stain of his felony conviction erased from the record. In the only public sign of the lobbying campaign, The Wall Street Journal published an editorial strongly urging Libby’s pardon.

"I’m flabbergasted," said one influential Republican activist, who had raised the issue with White House aides, but who asked not to be identified criticizing the president. Ambassador Richard Carlson, the vice chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a neo-conservative think tank, added that he too was "shocked" at Bush’s denial of a pardon for Libby.

"George Bush has always prided himself on doing the right thing regardless of the polls or the pundits," Carlson said. "Now he is leaving office with a shameful cloud over his head." Carlson, who was among those who recently weighed in on behalf of Libby with the White House and previously raised money for his legal defense fund, said that Libby had taken a "knife in the heart" from critics of the president and deserved to have his conviction erased.

Apparently, none of these conservative wailers understand that pardoning Libby would negate Libby’s ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment if, say, John Conyers ever held a hearing on George Bush’s role in leaking Valerie Plame’s identity. And so Scooter Libby will remain a felon–at least until the time when another Republican lands in the White House and pardons him.

Likewise the other people whose pardons would have exposed Bush to some serious trouble: Rove, Yoo, and above all Alberto Gonzales.

In fact, one of the more interesting details from Bush’s last acts is this list: the dead-enders who accompanied Bush on his trip back to Texas.

Among the passengers, longtime Bush family, friends, and staffers included the former president’s mother and father and daughters Jenna and Barbara, Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, Dan Bartlett, Josh Bolten, Joel Kaplan, Jared Weinstein, Mike Meece, Andy Card, Don and Susie Evans, Blake Gottesman, Clay and Ann Johnson, Ed Gillespie, Barry Jackson, Joe Hagin, Israel Hernandez, Jeanne Johnson Phillips, Margaret Spellings, Alberto Gonzales, Brad Freeman, Jim and Debbie Francis, and Roland and Lois Betts. [my emphasis]

Huh. Gonzales sticking with W until the end. Given that Gonzales was recently whining that he had not yet received any wingnut welfare, I’m hoping, for his sake, that Bush’s rich friends have addressed that oversight (well, okay, I’m actually taking some pleasure that Gonzales remains unemployable).

Because it sure appears that Bush stayed true to himself: putting his own welfare above that of those who have protected him for so long.

image_print
    • perris says:

      now that would be sheer genious if obama wanted information, he would shut the wing nuts down and possibly get information we’d need to prosecute treason

      if scooter then didn’t testify he could serve for obstruction and contempt

  1. perris says:

    Because it sure appears that Bush stayed true to himself: putting his own welfare above that of those who have protected him for so long.

    could not have expected otherwise could we

    now let me ask something emptywheel, your opinion and others who might understand international law;

    suppose scooter was indeed pardoned, subpoena issued

    couldn’t he still invoke his 5th amendment siting the international implications of incriminating himself under jurisdiction not bound by presidential pardon?

        • BoxTurtle says:

          He can’t invoke the 5th for that. He CAN invoke National Security, if Obama will back him.

          Boxturtle (Gonzo might be hearing footsteps)

          • perris says:

            why couldn’t gonzales invoke the 5th since testifying about torture would incriminate himself if he travels abroad?

            would the decision be “don’t travel abroad”?

            • BoxTurtle says:

              Hmmmm. I can’t find caselaw, but I’d bet that isn’t correct. 5th amendment applies in US courts, nowhere else.

              I’m still wondering what will be filed against BushCo in the international forums. It would be sweet revenge if nobody in BushCo could safely leave America.

              On that note, we DID set a precident in Bosnia that it’s okay for foreign troops to hunt down wanted war criminals in their own country over the objections of that government. The vision of a bunch of French commandos cuffing and stuffing Cheney amuses me.

              Boxturtle (It’ll never happen, but I can dream)

              • Petrocelli says:

                Maybe they can do a twofer and pick up our Prime Minister as well.

                *sigh*
                … Canada has the last Bushie in power … hopefully this ends next week.

                • phred says:

                  We’ll be keeping our fingers crossed for you. Yesterday was a pretty grand day down here : ) I allowed myself to enjoy a bit of Hitchcock’s “willing suspension of disbelief” to wallow in the good vibe of democracy in action and all that : ) It remains to be seen whether all that hope and goodwill will pan out in the end…

  2. oldoilfieldhand says:

    Can we agree that the former president should heretofore be referred to as “Disgraced Former President, George Bush”.

  3. BoxTurtle says:

    I say give Libby immunity and make him talk. He can nail the VP and likely the President for treason. That’s a worthy trade.

    Ditto Yoo. That will lead right to Gonzo who can then be offered a plea agreement for rolling over on Bush.

    Will any of the USA villians roll over on Karl in return for a lighter sentance? I dunno. Karl isn’t the powerful patron he used to be.

    I think BushCo made a serious tactical mistake here. True enough, Obama is NOT interested in hunting them down. But the USA scandal is already in the courts, the EFF is all over evesdropping, and Gitmo is about to bust open.
    I’m thinking we don’t care what Obama doesn’t do, this is coming to a courtroom.

    Boxturtle (Either dismiss the case or put Interrogation team #12 on the stand)

  4. Rayne says:

    There’s a train that travels through our town every night during the wee hours; because it carries a load of toxic chemicals they’ve called it the “death train” for years.

    Sounds like a similarly toxic load of freight…

    BTW, did you happen to see Freep’s Brian Dickerson’s column calling for immunizing Cheney? Jeebus, what a moron.

  5. skdadl says:

    Because I am a faithful Wheelie, I knew right away what Isikoff and the conservative wailers were missing / leaving out (although the conservative wailers would probably react to this –

    pardoning Libby would negate Libby’s ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment

    – by spluttering, “But but but … that would mean there was an underlying crime!”).

    So I wasn’t surprised about no pardon for Scooter. I really was surprised about Rove, Miers, and Bolten, though. I agree with Boxturtle on this score: “this is coming to a courtroom.” A number of this-es are.

  6. JohnJ says:

    A real important point is that this crime syndicate deludes itself that the law is what THEY say it is. You don’t need to pardon when you couldn’t possibly break any laws (see Nixon-Frost interview).

    To pardon would be an admission that they recognized another law beside their own and that the world changed at noon yesterday.

  7. phred says:

    EW, I agree that Bush puts his own interests first. However, do you think it is possible that he is also delusional enough to think that the magical powers that he bestowed upon himself (via Yoo, Addington, and Bybee’s memo writing skills) are sufficient to keep him and his cohorts out of prison? What if he actually believes in Cheney’s view of the Presidency? It seems likely to me that he might actually believe that his conduct was legal and therefore pre-emptive pardons were unnecessary.

    • BlueStateRedHead says:

      Phred,I think it was clear that this is he mind (if you call it that) set.

      I believe it came through in the exit interviews.

      but then, I did not have a strong enough stomach to watch all of them.

  8. Leen says:

    EW can any legal move ever trump someone taking the fifth? Sure would like to watch some of the thugs who outed Plame held accountable.

    Still in D.C. Was able to get a pack of silver tickets from Senator Sherrod Brown. Which meant we were just behind the reflecting pool. The echo of the sound system really messed with folks ability to hear. Stood next to Steven a yound African American who has served in Iraq. His job was putting dead soldiers in body bags. Heavy conversation.

    Will share quickly that one of the most moving moments of the whole day was when thousands sang “na na na na heh heh good bye” as Bush flew over the crowd leaving

  9. BoxTurtle says:

    It seems likely to me that he might actually believe that his conduct was legal and therefore pre-emptive pardons were unnecessary.

    I still worry that we’ve been somehow punked, but I must admit the above it the most likely theory.

    Boxturtle (*mutter* secret pardons *mutter* Secret DoJ opinions *mutter* Secret Court *mutter*)

  10. maryo2 says:

    I think that Cheney was on teevee over the last two weeks claiming to believe that torture isn’t torture just to have statements on the record proving to courts that he really does believe it. I don’t think there was any legacy polishing going on at all. Cheney doesn’t care what people think about him.

    • Petrocelli says:

      I worked with a guy whose motto was, “If I want yer opinion, I’ll give it to ya !”

      … sounds like Chin-ee’s MO …

  11. maeme says:

    Marcy:
    Small note — file video showed only Barbara Bush(twin daughter) getting on the plane with mom and dad, while Jena and her husband waved good bye, Laura turned and walked over and hugged her; turned again, then precided to walk to get on plane with W and Barbara. HW and Laura probably arranged for group on the plane since they could see the depression in W’s face; first enablers; look at him at the swearing-in during Obama’s speech. He knows he is most hated man in the world.

    I had no idea that Brad Freeman had such close contact with Bush; he is on MSNBC all of the time; interesting?

  12. cinnamonape says:

    Personally I’m glad that the whole crew is out of Washington. But somehow I suspect these people will be sucking on the public teat for a long while.

    Bush Appoints transition staff for the “Bush Institute”

    Post-tenure impeachment bars the impeached from holding any “office of trust, honor, or profit under the United States of America”. Thinks like being a registered lobbyist, working for a government contractor, receiving Federal loans or grants, retaining Federal emoulments of prior office (everything from franking privileges and offices to pensions, Secret Service, and the ability to block examination of Presidential records) can be terminated…by Congress.

  13. JohnLopresti says:

    WHC website not yet restored. In an instance of mainstreamMedia publishing a citation to its own archive without atribution or live linkthru, WashingtonPost yesterday quoted a renewed January 16, 2009 presidential order to Harriet Miers last week that she not testify.

  14. WilliamOckham says:

    I think there were multiple motivations involved here. Ew has nailed the Bush selfishness. I don’t know if anybody remembers all the pundits extolling Bush’s loyalty back in the day, but I suspect they all realize now that it was a one way street, not unlike mafia loyalty.

    On the other hand, I really think that Cheney was driving this decision. His goal was always to establish what I would call tyranny and he would call a strong presidency. It was always more important to him to establish precedents rather than accomplish any particular goal. The sad fact is that we tortured all those people just because Dick Cheney wanted to prove he could get away with it. I don’t think he even got any sadist kicks out of it (although Bush might have), he just wanted to prove that point. I don’t think he ever thought Jose Padilla was a real threat, he just wanted to know ifhe could kidnap a U.S. citizen off the streets and throw him in a military brig to be tortured and get away with it. As soon as it looked like the judge he chose was going to rule against him, he dumped him back on the DOJ. Once you’ve pushed all those limits, handing out pardons is more or less an admission of failure. That’s why he sent Crawford out to say we tortured al-Qatani. It was his way of sticking his tongue out at Obama and saying, “Nyah, Nyah, you can’t catch me.”

    Bush and Cheney may have miscalculated. As Scott Horton reports, the United Nations Rapporteur responsible for torture investigations says:

    with George W. Bush’s head of state immunity now terminated, the new government of Barack Obama was obligated by international law to commence a criminal investigation into Bush’s torture practices.

    “The evidence is sitting on the table,” he stated. “There is no avoiding the fact that this was torture.” He pointed to the U.S. undertakings under the Convention Against Torture in which the country committed that it would criminally prosecute anyone who tortured, or extradite the person to a state that would prosecute him. “The government of the United States is required to take all necessary steps to bring George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld before a court,” Nowak said.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Once you’ve pushed all those limits, handing out pardons is more or less an admission of failure. That’s why he sent Crawford out to say we tortured al-Qatani.

      I can see that in the worldview you describe, handing out pardons looks like an admission of failure. And it’s the kind of error that seems to be highly likely to lead to serious miscalculations that no one would ever follow up and prosecute. Here’s hoping….

    • Leen says:

      “It was always more important to him to establish precedents rather than establish any particular goal”

      That seems to be “so” and has been terribly frightening. Set up the division of Iraq for oil deals in private, lie about WMD’s with the media’s help, start an unnecessary war, out a undercover CIA agent etc etc.

      I believe the last interview with Cheney was with Jim Lehrer. Lehrer kept poking Cheney giving him plenty of room to demonstrate one ounce of conscience. Cheney did not.

      The image of Cheney folded up in that wheelchair at the Inauguration sure stands out in my mind.

      How can this nation truly move “forward” without holding those responsible for the unnecessary deaths, injuries and refugees in the Iraq war ACCOUNTABLE? The family members of the dead, those individuals with a conscience in this nation and around the world are waiting, pushing and watching.

  15. TraditionalConservative says:

    Bush and Cheney won’t be prosecuted for any phony “crimes”, libs. Get over it. He was President for eight years, and beat you every time.

    • rwcole says:

      Yeah the 06 midterms were an amazing victory for ol Clusterfuck! Are you enjoying your private social security account that Clusterfuck got for you by beating the dems? Yer a scream!

    • RieszFischer says:

      And a fine president he was, too. Yeah, he sure put us in our place. He showed the world how powerful and effective a conservative government could be.

  16. Knut says:

    EW. Here’s what I don’t understand. Suppose Libby is given limited immunity to force him to testify. Doesn’t that end-run the Bush move? He’s already been convicted, and we know he was just the conveyor belt, not the engine of the crime. So why not immunize him, and force him to testify on pain of serving time for contempt of court or congress? And this time it would go through.

  17. FreedomNow says:

    No, the real loyalty is that US Citizens…the folks that still backed the President and the Vice President will not permit their leaders to be put on trial. I think Bamster and his minions know that would start a Rebellion that would put the Civil War to shame–a Rebellion between Red and Blue but within states as well…I don’t think he worked that hard to be elected to create that dilemma.

    • redX says:

      Umm – I think not.

      The US just lost a few trillion dollars and a few millions jobs, you think people are going to riot over and Dick in a Bush going to jail?

      And TradConsv… a troll, how funny – what a throw back to the old days.

      Should check the IP’s if two show up as its always funny when you go from 0 to 2 trolls – as if someone need to validate their own opinion.

    • readerOfTeaLeaves says:

      Umm, my off-the-cuff hunch is that you should talk a bit more to Americans who have to work and travel overseas for business. Even ‘conservatives’. Despite Nixon’s lawlessness, he never tortured. And no matter what anyone says about Haldeman and Erhlichman and others, they did their time in prison. And that was before the world was ‘global’, prior to the rise of international websites, etc.

      You can’t associate Nixon with the images of Abu Gharib.
      But those images are deeply linked with Bush, Cheney, Addington.

      The old pardon era of Jerry Ford does not fit today’s situation. If we don’t prosecute the crimes done in our name, then they continue to pollute us.

  18. rwcole says:

    I don’t see how Libby can take the fifth on the basis that he might incriminate himself on a charge for which he was already convicted. Doesn’t seem to make any sense.

    • Hugh says:

      Scooter was convicted on lying and obstruction. He still has legal jeopardy for the underlying crime of outing a covert agent and leaking classified documents.

  19. RieszFischer says:

    I thought I read that Andy Card was expected to turn on Chimpy because he had his sister committed.

    • victoria2dc says:

      I thought I read that Andy Card was expected to turn on Chimpy because he had his sister committed.

      The DOJ dropped all of the charges against her.

      Did you notice that Card was on the airplane going to back to TX? Small wonder that Mukasey dropped the charges. He was involved in the mess.

  20. Hugh says:

    Conyers could still extend use immunity to Libby and jail him for contempt if he didn’t answer or see him prosecuted if he lied again.

  21. JoeBuck says:

    If anyone is granted immunity, it should start with lower-ranking officials. The mistake made in Iran-Contra was granting immunity to North and Poindexter, the main guilty parties. This allowed George HW to cut off prosecution of anybody significant by pre-pardoning Caspar Weinberger. This left the special prosecutor with nowhere else to go, other than to try to prosecute Reagan, and that would have been a weak case: the Alzeimers was already setting in, and it was unlikely that he knew any details beyond an expressed desire to find a creative way to help the Contras.

  22. Hugh says:

    TraditionalConservative is a troll that had begun showing up on threads. He/she never puts forward an argument but just throws out Republican talkingpoints.

  23. rwcole says:

    Goopers got the AG vote delayed a week- want Elder to promise not to investigate or prosectute anyone for torture.

  24. BMcGarth says:

    Isikoff why is it I am not surprised.He has been a wing nut outlet for yrs.Just go back a month ago when Blago corruption was coming to the fore,Isikoff was on MSNBC geeful & stating that “the Prez elect was being dishonest about contacts with Blago”.I remember writing on some blog at the time that Isikoff was absent for 8 yrs but finally returned to root-out corruption in the new Admin.He is slime,the more folks realized how disgusting people like Isikoff are the better we will be.Jsst try & get your hands on some of his reporting during Clinton to see ,vomitt is better than Isikoff,Evan Thomas & the whole gang.

  25. zadig says:

    Interesting that Dana Perino wasn’t on that list. Is she (wisely) trying to distance herself from the failed Bush administration?

  26. MarkH says:

    Apparently, none of these conservative wailers understand that pardoning Libby would negate Libby’s ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment if, say, John Conyers ever held a hearing on George Bush’s role in leaking Valerie Plame’s identity. And so Scooter Libby will remain a felon

    Hmmm, maybe Holder, Obama & Libby could make a deal for testimony and an Obama pardon. Would Libby like to make a deal?

    • Leen says:

      Was Libby Marc Rich’s attorney? These folks sure run in small corrupt circles.

      Clinton’s pardon of Rich was disgusting. Holder’s support for that pardon pathetic.

      I believe Rich renounced his U.S. citizenship