Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search

 

Patricia L Johnson: Pardon Me?

Pardon Me?


By Patricia L Johnson

I Lewis Libby, also known as “Scooter Libby” was recently convicted of 4 of the 5 charges against him as follows:

COUNT CHARGE VERDICT
1 Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503) GUILTY
2 False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001 (a))
False statements to FBI investigators (concerning
conversations with NBC newsman Tim Russert) GUILTY
3 False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001 (a))
False statements to FBI investigators (concerning
conversations with Time reporter Matt Cooper) NOT GUILTY
4 Perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1623)
Perjury to the Grand Jury (Tim Russert conversation) GUILTY
5 Perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1623)
Perjury to the Grand Jury (Matt Cooper conversation) GUILTY
Source: Department of Justice - NBC News

Although the charges carry the possibility of up to 25 years in prison, only time will tell whether or not Libby will spend a night behind bars. His attorneys will be requesting he remain free for both a retrial and an appeal, if the request for a retrial is denied.

Then there’s always the possibility of a pardon. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides the President of the United States with the power to grant pardons for any offense against the United States except in the case of impeachment:

“… and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”

On February 22, 2001 President Bush was specifically asked about the power of the pardon during a press conference and provided the following response:

Excerpt

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, David.

Q Other Presidents are commenting on this matter. On the Rich pardon specifically, former President Carter said that in his opinion, it was "disgraceful." Do you not have an opinion on a power that is absolute and is vested in you as the President?

THE PRESIDENT: My opinion is I will -- should I decide to grant pardons, I will do so in a fair way. I'll have the highest of high standards.

Is it possible a ‘fair’ pardon could be granted by President Bush for Scooter Libby using the ‘highest of high standards’?

The media continually reports the fact that Scooter Libby was Vice-President Cheney’s Chief of Staff but seldom acknowledges, as indicated in the Grand Jury indictment, that Libby was also employed as “ASSISTANT to the PRESIDENT of the UNITED STATES.

In other words he worked directly for President Bush. Should the President of the United States be allowed to pardon a personal assistant when the personal assistant has been found guilty of charges against the U.S.?

How can the people of this country accept a judicial system that will put a man behind bars for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family, but allow a pardon for felony convictions against an employee of the executive branch of government?

When our forefathers wrote the constitution did they really intend to give the President the power to give get-out-of-jail free cards to anyone convicted of breaking the law, including people that may have been told to break the law by the office?

While members of congress are contemplating the answer to that question, they may also want to give some consideration to the wording of Article II, Section 2 in the U.S. Constitution.

“… and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”

The word “he” might tend to put a damper on any pardons considered by a female president.

*************

Patricia L Johnson is a writer residing in Northeastern Illinois.

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 


Ian Powell: Are we happy living in Handy's Age of Unreason?

On 19 June the Sunday Star Times published my column on the relationship between the Labour government’s stewardship of Aotearoa New Zealand’s health system and the outcome of the next general election expected to be around September-October 2023: Is the health system an electoral sword of Damocles for Labour... More>>


The First Attack On The Independents: Albanese Hobbles The Crossbench
It did not take long for the new Australian Labor government to flex its muscle foolishly in response to the large crossbench of independents and small party members of Parliament. Despite promising a new age of transparency and accountability after the election of May 21, one of the first notable acts of the Albanese government was to attack the very people who gave voice to that movement. Dangerously, old party rule, however slim, is again found boneheaded and wanting... More>>


Binoy Kampmark: Predictable Monstrosities: Priti Patel Approves Assange’s Extradition
The only shock about the UK Home Secretary’s decision regarding Julian Assange was that it did not come sooner. In April, Chief Magistrate Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring expressed the view that he was “duty-bound” to send the case to Priti Patel to decide on whether to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to the United States to face 18 charges, 17 grafted from the US Espionage Act of 1917... More>>


Dunne Speaks: Roe V. Wade Blindsides National

Momentum is everything in politics, but it is very fragile. There are times when unexpected actions can produce big shifts and changes in the political landscape. In 2017, for example, the Labour Party appeared headed for another hefty defeat in that year’s election until the abrupt decision of its then leader to step aside just weeks before the election. That decision changed the political landscape and set in train the events which led to Labour being anointed by New Zealand First to form a coalition government just a few weeks later... More>>

Digitl: Infrastructure Commission wants digital strategy
Earlier this month Te Waihanga, New Zealand’s infrastructure commission, tabled its first Infrastructure Strategy: Rautaki Hanganga o Aotearoa. Te Waihanga describes its document as a road map for a thriving New Zealand... More>>


Binoy Kampmark: Leaking For Roe V Wade
The US Supreme Court Chief Justice was furious. For the first time in history, the raw judicial process of one of the most powerful, and opaque arms of government, had been exposed via media – at least in preliminary form. It resembled, in no negligible way, the publication by WikiLeaks of various drafts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership... More>>