« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Davis: Pardon Scooter!
You don't hear many Democrats calling on Bush to grant Scooter Libby a full pardon. But today at the House Judiciary Committee's hearing on the president's commutation power, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) made an interesting case for it.
Davis' rationale? Since the commutation allows Libby continued appeals to contest his conviction, he would assert his Fifth Amendment rights in the event that Congress calls him to testify about the Plame leak.
"If a pardon had been granted this committee could have immunized him and brought him here," Davis said.
In this video, Davis runs his point by sentencing expert Prof. Douglas A. Berman of the Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law.
Advertisement
Comments (23)
Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 6:20 PM:Damned if he pardons Libby, and damned if he doesn't. LOL!!
alabama wrote on July 11, 2007 6:39 PM:artur davis is such a bright shining star from alabama we are very lucky that he is our congressman. Alabama is proud that Artur Davis is taking a stand against corruption.
Troll Patrol wrote on July 11, 2007 6:44 PM:Follow the trolls to: "trolls4jake" - a troll-dedicated blog.
Keep the threads clean.
Click on "Troll Patrol" (below) if you want to waste you time on troll-phenalia.
Bryan Emrys wrote on July 11, 2007 6:51 PM:Of course, Bush would then just tell him not to testify under Bush's Executive Privilege authority.
Rick wrote on July 11, 2007 7:07 PM:Wow, Jake, it took you only 7 minutes to troll this post. I guess being a professional troll means that you don't have other responsibilities that take up your time.
Me_again wrote on July 11, 2007 7:25 PM:Ah, well you don't hear may Dems calling for a pardon but as for NRO and David Brooks and all the BS they say - you DON'T HEAR MAY CONSERVATIVES CALLING FOR IT EITHER...appearently.
This article appeared in the back pages of the WP yesterday- did NRO and Meet the Press with David Brooks miss the conservative voter sentiment, or were they just channel the Bushie?
>Poll: Bush Move Unpopular in Libby Case
WASHINGTON -- President Bush's commutation of a prison term for a former aide to Vice President Cheney did not play well with the public or even Republicans, a survey found.
In a USA Today-Gallup poll released on Tuesday, 66 percent said Bush should not have intervened in the case of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, whose sentence for obstructing justice in the CIA leak case included a 2 1/2-year prison term.
Thirteen percent said the president's move was correct, and 6 percent said Bush should have given Libby a full pardon.
Bush didn't even receive much of a boost in support from Republicans. Among them, 44 percent said Bush should not have taken action in the case. Ten percent said he should have pardoned Libby while only 26 percent said Bush did the correct thing.
I don't know who the NRO writes for - just Bush, AND about how the Bush feels - all irregardless of conservative voters and they feel. As for David Brooks on Meet the Press, the guy the media stages as the moderate Repug - he pushes a 10% conservative voter opinion as IF half Americans agree with him instead of a very radical few.
Is this why Olympia Snowe is making ready to fly????
Me_again wrote on July 11, 2007 7:28 PM:hi
Cheryl wrote on July 11, 2007 7:29 PM:hi
Cheryl wrote on July 11, 2007 7:30 PM:Just testing - sorry
Cheryl wrote on July 11, 2007 7:33 PM:Oh the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/10/AR2007071001385.html?tid=informbox
Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 7:44 PM:Rick:
Is it my fault every time I check back here, there's some new idiocy posted?
Me_again:
Did the President's overall job approval rating go up or down since July 2nd?
Troll Patrol wrote on July 11, 2007 8:50 PM:Deep Breath.
Focus on the matter at hand.
Anonymous wrote on July 11, 2007 8:57 PM:Libby is a convicted liar. Why would anyone want to take his testimony? Would Congress really trust him to be truthful with them about the Administration, knowing he already proved his loyalty to the Administration by lying multiple times to the grand jury and FBI to cover up for the Administration? Fool me twice and all that....
FactsDontMatter wrote on July 11, 2007 9:39 PM:Wow. This IS an impressive Alabama congressman. I like his manner and I like his content. He laid this travesty out in a way that anybody could understand it. I like it!
Mooser wrote on July 11, 2007 9:58 PM:Did the President's overall job approval rating go up or down since July 2nd?
Jake
Has the President's overall job approval gotten past, oh, about 30% in the last year?
pointus wrote on July 11, 2007 11:10 PM:No, the SC tells me: It's been the 'same' or lower.
Jake, your BFF is doin' the Dead Cat Bounce!
Isn't it the case that Libby can be forced to testify simply by virtue of being granted immunity? Although I'm sure he's just as prone to "Republican Alzheimers" as the rest of that sorry lot.
DM wrote on July 11, 2007 11:11 PM:I don't see why the fact that Libby received a commutation and not a pardon prevents Congress from forcing him to testify. I understand that because he received a commutation, Libby still has a case on appeal, and generally speaking he still can invoke his right against self-incrimination. But Congress can grant him immunity. And my understanding is that if Congress grants him immunity -- whether the case is on appeal or not -- that would prevent Libby from invoking his right against self-incrimination. So I don't buy this explanation for the commutation (versus a pardon). Can't Congress compel Libby's testimony either way?
indie wrote on July 12, 2007 12:34 AM:Libby is a convicted liar. Why would anyone want to take his testimony? Would Congress really trust him to be truthful with them about the Administration, knowing he already proved his loyalty to the Administration by lying multiple times to the grand jury and FBI to cover up for the Administration?
I agree. With a pardon and the knowledge that he could say anything and be pardoned again, it wouldn't do any good to question him.
chuck wrote on July 12, 2007 12:54 AM:What kind of adult goes by the name of Scooter, anyway. It has to be emasculating.
I think getting your nuts chopped off is pretty much SOP for anyone who wants to advance in the Bush Administration.
And rightly so.
George wrote on July 12, 2007 7:27 AM:Well, since they loved to hear from another pair of liars, Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame, why not bring in a convicted liar as well?
Call it Liars on Parade, brought to you by the Democratic Congress, sponsored by the Lawyer Lobby.
Northern Observer wrote on July 12, 2007 5:13 PM:A jury of 12 Americans disagree George.
Lost Pilgrim wrote on July 13, 2007 4:27 AM:Dems are right, republicants are wrong and we all know who the liars are. It's too well documented to avoid George.
I heard John Dean on Rhandi Rhodes that the whole hubub about fifth amendment invocation against Congress is complete BS since Congress has the right to get testimony or something to that effect.
Cinderella Ferret wrote on July 14, 2007 3:05 PM:George: "Call it Liars on Parade, brought to you by the Democratic Congress, sponsored by the Lawyer Lobby."
Do you mean the lawyer Scooter hired to defend himself? Or do you mean the lawyer Pete Domenici hired to defend himself against possible ethics charges in the Senate? Or the lawyer Duke Cunningham, David Safavian, Bob Ney, Tom Delay, Karl Rove, or maybe you mean the Republican U.S. Attorneys (who happen to be LAWYERS)? Please clear it up for me. Would you sweetheart?