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.

Gone-zales

Looks like AG Alberto Gonzales is in trouble, and maybe even from the GOP. Before getting to the meat of this post (USA PATRIOT and the Potted Plants), I'm a bit confused by AG Gonzales' statements in his press brief on March 13th. In one part he says,

I believe in accountability. Like every CEO of every major organization, I am responsible for what happens at the Department of Justice. I acknowledge that mistakes were made here. I accept that responsibility and my pledge to the American people is to find out what went wrong here, to assess accountability, and to make improvements so that the mistakes in this instance do not occur again in the future.

But at the end he says,

I stand by the decision. Again, all political appointees can be removed by the President of the United States for any reason. I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision. Thank you very much.

I'm just confused. If mistakes were made, but the decisions were the right ones, then what were the mistakes?

He also adds,

I accept that responsibility and my pledge to the American people is to find out what went wrong here, to assess accountability, and to make improvements so that the mistakes in this instance do not occur again in the future.

Good to know that he and OJ are out looking for the real killers.

From what I can gather, the decision to fire the state AG's was a fall back from firing all of them. Why the move to fire any of them? Best guesses are that the White House was moving to take advantage of a USA PATRIOT ACT provision that allows the Pres to nominate new AG's for indefinite terms while avoiding the "Advise and Consent" clause of that pesky ol' US Constitution. The kicker is that the new power came in the USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005. That's right, this is the improved version of the USA PATRIOT ACT. Yup, congress neutered itself even more in 2005. What's Potted Plant to do? Just a suggestion, but a potted plat becomes a man when it acts. Scrap the USA PATRIOT ACT, an act that clearly no one has full read, no one fully understands, and an act that clearly has provisions in it that have nothing to do with terrorism, and strip congress of its constitutional authority. Pass a series of bills, succinctly written with well defined purposes.

As always, when you give someone lots of power, you can't be surprised when they use it. Checks and Balances is the cornerstone of our system of Government. The way it's been destroyed is not only criminal, I think its treasonous.

Is Congress a "Potted Plant?"

Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA) made the following statement about Congress,

"We are not a potted plant watching the administration function, we are part of the decision-making process"

Proving once again, that when you have to tell people you're important, you're not. A little history.

In 2002 Congress passed HJ 114 and SJ 45, or as their collectively known, the "Congress is a potted plant" bills. See these were the bills that gave W unobstructed ability to do whatever he feels necessary as long as its a "national security" issue. And what are the parameters of national security? Let's take a look at the docs. "National security" is hereby defined to include the pursuit (by military force and invasion) of "international peace and security", and such interests will now include the entire "Persian Gulf region."

So Rep Lantos, Congress is, in fact, a potted plant. Like the old saying, if it sits and does nothing like a plant and if its as smart as a plant, its a plant. Your a plant. You gave up all your rights to advise, consent, shape, command, etc when you passed those bills. My bet is that, like the Patriot Act, few in congress actually read the bills (absolutely kills me), but someone wrote them, and whoever did (I'm looking at you White House) knew what was in them.

I'm pretty sure SOH Nancy Pelosi didn't read them. She keeps running around saying,

"I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."

The way I read the above bills, he does. See Iran lies within the area called "The Persian Gulf" and W has unfettered authority to do whatever in that region. I get that US high schoolers are famous for not knowing geography and low reading scores, but I expect better from the SOH. Maybe no president before could go into Iran without explicit congressional consent, but no president before was lucky enough to have a congress filled with one group of people who put party above all and would never dream of countering W, and another who were so incompetent and afraid that they would never dream of countering W. And as I pointed out in earlier post, it will take 2/3 votes to over-ride W's veto of any bill taking this authority away.

To make matters worse for the dems, if possible, is that every week or so they get all vocal about taking control, setting time-lines, linking progress, holding back money, limiting W's ability to go into Iran, and every week they back off all that and just pass the bill the White House wants. It seems like the only courage they have is the courage to continually go through this humiliating song and dance.

The latest retreat, where the dems stripped a bill of language requiring W to come to congress before attacking Iran sums up how confused they are about what W can and can't do given previous bills.

One, if, as Pelosi asserts, W doesn't have the authority to act without congress' consent, why was this language even necessary? Second, its yet another example of the Dems talking tough, then retreating when it looks like it won't be a cake walk. So either Pelosi is running around trying to sound like her congress is relevant when it isn't, or she enjoys pulling tough sounding provisions out of bills, maybe even both. I dunno, maybe she likes looking weak and uniformed to the American public and to the White House. Bottom line, the Democratically controlled congress has yet to put any pressure on either its Republican members or the White House. When the GOP had control they did a masterful job of putting pressure on the dems, and the dems always caved. Maybe my conservative friends are right. Maybe the dems have no guts. They didn't have the guts to stand up to GOP pressure when they were the minority, and they haven't shown the guts to withstand any pressure from the GOP now that the dems are the majority. It just looks like anything that resembles a "stumbling block" causes the dems to retreat.

Maybe Lantos is right. Maybe the dems aren't a potted plant, a potted plant can at least get in the way occasionally. The dems are more like mice. Just scrambling to stay alive, nibbling the left-overs in the pantry, and running whenever something enters the room.

Signing Statement Statement

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) sent W a letter asking him to say just what exactly he means with his last Signing Statement attached to a postal reform bill. While its clearly rhetorical (I don't imaging W sitting at his desk composing a reply) it did get me thinking. In this 100 hours of doing the people's biznezz, why not add legislation dealing with these Signing Statements? I haven't heard any real good reason for them besides just "I like W and W likes Signing Statements, so I like Signing Statements." Just about everyone else thinks they skirt the Constitution. So now that the Dems are in and we have hopes for Checks & Balances, the Dems should make a move to reestablish the power of Congress. My bet is that there's enough GOPers who are uncomfortable having congressional bill's vetoed sans veto to get it passed. W will veto, which means that Congress must come up with 2/3's, no easy task. But if they do, the White House will sue and the Supreme Court will have to decide. Hopefully with only two years left in W's term and a GOP that just got spanked SCOTUS will realize that a permanent GOP Presidency is not guaranteed and will quit promoting an all powerful Executive Branch.

Granted I'm not hopeful about overturning these Signing Statements. But at least legislation banning them will get focus on them, which will hopefully curb this "well isn't that legislation just the cutest little thing" practice.

Secret Service does it's job

The White House and the Secret Service apparently reached an agreement last year classifying records of who visited the White House. Prior to this agreement, the Secret Service owned those records, and as such, they were open to the public. But when the Abramoff scandal hit, and it wasn't playing at all well with the public, well, the Secret Service once again protected the president and signed an agreement stating that those records are actually presidential records, and are immune from the Freedom of Information Act.

Great for the W, and his supporters, but bad for the country. These records have been used in the past to investigate Executive Branch actions. Public oversight, and their effective use in the past, act as a shield against improper actions. Because of public oversight, and their effective use in the past, this White House has decided to remove this tool.

Goin' Postal

Not one week into the new year and W's back at it. Now he wants to read your mail. To a new Postal bill, he adds one of his signature "signing statements":

"The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.

Agreed that this doesn't sound like much. But the question remains, if as Tony Snow says, "this is not new," then why add the new language?

And yes Stalin, I admit my bias here. After 6 years of relentless (I said I was biased) attacks on our privacy, I'm not real keen on biting on, "Hey, I'm just sayin'." If its not new, or irrelevant then don't add it. Like my middle school teacher used to say, "When in doubt, KISS." No, she didn't mean "Knights in Satan's Service," but she did mean "Keep It Simple Stupid." It's almost like she's reaching through time to talk directly to W (sorry, couldn't resist the jab, remember I'm biased. Once I admit that, I'm allowed to say anything I want, its the power of honesty).