Pardon me?

Now that Lewis "Scooter" Libby has received his sentence, 30 months (plus a quick primer on sentencing guidelines), all the talk is about will he/won't he be pardoned. I will admit here that the actual crime and sentencing acts are waaaay out of my area of expertise. Maybe it was huge, maybe it was minor, maybe 30 months is excessive, maybe its too light. No idea. Also, I understand that the Presidents powers of Pardation (my word) are unlimited, but as this article points out, there are "guidelines" (by way of note, anytime you see guidelines in quotes, the quotes mean "these marks render the world guidelines totally meaningless. Do what you want, and have fun"). Anyway, here they are.

If Bush were to decide to pardon Libby, he would have to short-circuit the normal process. Under Justice Department guidelines, Libby would not qualify for a pardon. The guidelines require applicants to wait at least five years after being released from prison. The review process after the submission of an application typically can take two years before a decision is made. During more than six years in office, Bush has pardoned just 113 people, nearly a modern low, and never anyone who had not yet completed his sentence. He has commuted three sentences.

My take is that pardons are like national parks. Presidents name national parks and give out pardons at the last minutes as "gifts" to the nation, to establish legacy, and to pay back debts, so I don't get too worked up about them. But at my core, I like parks, don't like the power of the pardon.

In any case, I do feel that government officials should be exempt from pardation (I'm going to keep using the word in hopes that it becomes part of the national dialog). It creates a scenario where someone could lie under oath, or commit some other crime at the behest of the President, with the President saying, "Don't worry, I'll pardon you." And, even if that is not the case, it could be inferred, or perhaps worse, look that way to the public, killing the public trust. Such a powerful tool and incentive creates both too tempting an option and too dangerous a perception.
I also understand that this "solution" could also create a scenario where Congress uses its legal powers to harass the Executive branch, and that pardation keeps that potential at bay. That's really the only real use for Pardons. Kind of like diplomatic immunity.

What I do find interesting are the Republican answers to the "Would you pardon Libby" question. The next generation of GOP hopefuls seem to continue the trend of an all powerful White House. Keep in mind, all of this comes before the outcome of any Libby appeal.

Mitt Romney: Tries, as usual to have it both ways.

noting that during his four years as governor, he didn't pardon anybody "because I didn't want to overturn a jury."But, he said a pardon for Libby would be "worth looking at"because the special prosecutor in the case, Patrick Fitzgerald, "clearly abused prosecutorial discretion" by going after Libby when Fitzgerald knew he was not the original source of the leak.

This is a great quote because, one, as I said it is classic Mit "Both Ways" Romney. Two, it shows that Mr Romney believes that he has a better grasp of the case than the Judge and Jury. Thus, he feels he may need to sweep in and correct this terrible wrong. Unilaterally, and uniquely correcting a wrong will be the typical answer from the others.

Rudy Guilani: At least Mr Guiliani says he will wait for the appeals process to work, but then renders it meaningless by announcing that he feels the sentence was

"way out of line." Adding, "I think what the judge did today argues more in favor of a pardon because this is excessive punishment."

See, if the Court of Appeals finds his way then the ruling will stand, if they find in a way that displeases him, he will overturn it. Love that respect for Checks and Balances. Also, does this mean that Mr Giuliani will personally review all court cases and determine if the punishment was "excessive?"

John McCain, Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter: Dodged it, but left open the "Rudy Out" of waiting to see what the appeals process brings. Why does it matter?

Ron Paul and Jim Gilmore: No pardon for Mr Libby. But these guys have about as much chance of winning as I do.

Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo: It's Pardon Time! Whoo Hoo! Uh, oh, according to polls these guys are on the Paul/Gilmore boat to "waitingtodropoutville."

Why is it that not one potential winner said, "This man was charged and tried before of jury of his peers. He had the ability to find top notch defense, made said defense and was found guilty. He was then sentenced. I believe the sentence was too harsh, and will work with Congress to rationalize the sentencing of all Americans facing Mr Libby's crimes. But the pardation of one man will not change what allowed this excessive punishment to occur." None of the frontrunners showed any respect for Checks and Balances, and from reading the transcript, all seemed to go right for the unilateral and unchecked power of whim.

All I'm saying is that I find this very interesting.

Run RNC

The RNC and the White House want it both ways on the e-mail issue. Law states that staffers doing political work cannot use their White House email, which is why they all have parallel RNC emails (and also why every Congressman has an office just off the Hill to do political/fund-raising work). Hence, if you're doing the work of the people (all of them, not just Republicans) then you use the White House address, if its political, or personal use something different. Everyone knows this, its the law. Using the WH address gives you protections, but is also more public, and you have to obey the law. Using another address surrenders protections, but is more private, and you have to obey the law. Assuming everyone obeyed the law, RNC emails are just another private account independent of the WH. Why should the WH care? Clearly they weren't under WH jurisdiction, or they would have had a WH address. So why then is the White House insisting on having all relevant RNC email's reviewed by WH lawyers before Congress gets them? The way I understand it, the RNC is a private organization with open membership. Clearly some members of the RNC work for the WH, just as some members of AAA work for the WH. However, the way I remember my high school civics, Congress and the White House are equal. So why, in an investigation of a NGO, should the White House get preferred treatment? Unless, of course, WH staffers and RNC staffers were co-mingling their jobs. Maybe giving the RNC inside information or extra access to the WH, who knows? Just speculation, but my bet is that the 5 million "lost" emails aren't all related to Gonzo's woe's. More likely, there are/were many, many embarrassing and potentially illegal emails among and besides the AG references.

But in a legal investigation, the WH can't jump in front of a subpoena just because it may be embarrassed by its own actions. Equal branches boys and girls.

Congress looks to move up the biological ladder

Congress, in a move that may signal an end to the era of the "potted plant" (I would use another analogy having to do with getting its rhymes with "halls" back but this is a family blog "Hi Ma!").

Anyway, last week congress passed three bills.

• A bill that overturns a Bush Executive Order that overturned a prior bill (stick with me) that gave Presidents 12 years to turn over all papers. W's Order allowed President's to keep their papers confidential indefinitely and, for the first time, extended "Executive Privilege" to the VP and gave him the same power. Plus, it extended the right to keep public information private to the dead through their designees. The House brought the sunshine, put the pressure on the President to prove why the papers have to be secret, plus allowed sitting President's to override former President's decision to keep papers private, and took away the VP's new superpower. Just a big chunk of Presidential Kryptonite. W threatened to veto, but the bill passed with more than enough votes to override. I'm a huge fan of this bill.
• The next bill increased protection for Whistle Blowers. Again under veto threat, can't have people letting the citizens know when the government is messing up, how unimperial. Again, passed with enough to override. Again, big fan.
• The third bill wasn't that big, but is designed to speed requests for info under the Freedom of Information Act. Still, I like it.

Overall, three good bills, all designed to give the citizen more oversight and showing signs of life from congress. Granted, none is particularly groundbreaking, but, you know, baby steps.