Obstruction of Justice Merits More Punishment than Censure

by emptywheel

Let me say straight out. Punishing Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence with censure would be like punishing Libby's obstruction of justice with just 400 hours of community service. It would simply reinforce the notion that Bush's Administration is above the law. It would be a punishment wholly unfit for the crime that has been committed: Obstruction of Justice. Bush's obstruction of justice piled up on top of Libby's obstruction of justice, all to prevent the American justice system from holding this Administration accountable for its actions.

I love Swopa. But I am astounded that he misses this fact: in a post arguing against getting lost in the minutiae, he presents the issue as one of Bush "coddling criminals," and not as one of Bush using his pardon power to hide his own (and Cheney's) involvement in a crime. It was not Libby who came up with the idea of leaking Valerie Wilson's identity to Judy Miller, it was Cheney, and he did so with the authorization of Bush.

This is not a mistake Wexler makes. Indeed, his resolution defines in clear terms what Bush's commutation amounts to:

[Bush's] decision to reward the perjury of Mr. Libby ... effectively protected President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other Administration officials from further scrutiny.

Given that Wexler has such a clear understanding of the issue here, it is unfortunate that he stops at censure. Sure, it'd make for bad press for the President. On Tuesday. But by Thursday, Bush could rest easy that he had ended all scrutiny into his actions, once and for all. Censure would amount to a closing off of inquiry; it would provide a way for the Republicans to defeat any effort to get the grand jury materials that Fitzgerald and his team spent so much effort putting together. It would end this thing, at precisely the moment when the country is finally beginning to understand the magnitude of what Bush and Cheney did.

In fact, our forefathers gave us clear instructions what to do at a time like this, when a President uses his pardon authority to cover up his own crimes.

In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection."

James Madison responded: [I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty..

It doesn't take minutiae to prove that Bush has "sheltered" someone whose crime was "advised by himself." It takes Libby's notes and grand jury testimony.

The punishment for the abuse of the pardon power is clear: impeachment. Just as the punishment for Libby's obstruction was clearly 30 months. If we're going to complain about the commutation itself, we have no business letting Bush off with nothing more than censure.

Comments

[oldtree]

If the rule of law were important, this president and vice would be on trial by now, and due to the crimes committed, the proscribed end would be execution for treason. since the rule of law is now a joke, history should be interesting in relation to what happens to that grand experiment of democracy. we saw it perverted before by these same people.
will we allow it again?

[rxbusa]

I agree with you that impeachment is the most appropriate path (actually, I think both Bush and Cheney and few others should be impeached, removed from office, and then shipped off to the Hague), but why do you think it has to/or would stop with censure? Is there some reason why an investigation has to be closed once a censure vote passes, or do you just think it puts an emotional period at the end of a statement and will be used to say our poor officials have suffered enough?

[phred]

I have heard people argue that censure is a first step to impeachment, but I think it is fundamentally a waste of time. Even if the censure gets a majority behind it, nothing will change. The administration stays in place, with the realization that they can continue to break the law with impugnity. Meanwhile, the Rethugs in Congress can point out that they have publicly chastised the President and that is punishment enough (I like your analogy to it being the equivalent of 400 hours of community service EW).

Bush has just obstructed justice. Congress needs to stop shuffling their feet and come down like a ton of bricks on Bush and Cheney. The time for impeachment is NOW.

Thanks EW for this post and for posting it over at FDL as well. This message has to reach as broad an audience as possible. I truly believe the Libby commutation will be a tipping point, we just need to help tip it over the edge...

[Neil]

Republic congresscritter enablers are the first to say Censure is meaningless political theatre. Then they'll vote 'present' or 'in opposition' of cloture on the resolution. Unfortunetly, the gambit works. They get to sound like they're in opposition of Bush's malfeasence but they keep the fundraising benefits and other reelection support from the Republic party.

Their game is to speak prevarication to power - bluff, and then fold in silent complicity.

Nonetheless, if Censure would be an effective trial balloon for impeachment (and not create political support in opposition of articles of impeachment) then give it a go. I just dont see how. It's a half measure and I doubt it would increase support for impeachment.

[Jodi]

>>when a President uses his pardon authority to cover up his own crimes.<< that says it all.. how does the country want to respond to that is the question..

[Neil]

I love Swopa. But I am astounded that he misses this fact: in a post arguing against getting lost in the minutiae, he presents the issue as one of Bush "coddling criminals," and not as one of Bush using his pardon power to hide his own (and Cheney's) involvement in a crime. It was not Libby who came up with the idea of leaking Valerie Wilson's identity to Judy Miller, it was Cheney, and he did so with the authorization of Bush.

That is exactly the point. Bush's use of his clemency powers to commute Libby's sentence BUT NOT PARDON HIM is a clear circumstantial case of OBSTRCUTION OF JUSTICE. I think we have probable cause.

It's too bad Congress and not Judge Walton or a jury of peers would be making the determination.

[P J Evans]

I'm a little tired of the cries of treason from various people.
I'm told that it requires more than just outing a covert agent: there has to be material aid and comfort.
If Shrub and Cheney are sending money to people who buy stuff for Al Qaeda or the Taliban, and they know it will be used that way, that's treason.
If they're revealing classified information, knowing it will be used against us in some way, that's treason.
Let's go for 'high crimes and misdemeanors' instead.

[LabDancer]

Ms. Wheel - This is unfairly off-thread - it actually aims at something which has occurred to me of relevance to your post 070704 titled: July 04, 2007 "Is this the Evidence that Libby Knew Plame Was Covert?" I wasn't sure what to make of those parts of your post which report on the relevant Q&A BTW Good Sir Fitz & the Dragon Addington. It occurred that it might be possible you reported strictly off your FDL live blog or that plus notes you & the other pups made while there, so I reviewed the trial record Waas & Jeff published - but found NO PART OF THIS Q & A reported there - of which I make nothing more than that they both missed it & you nailed it, which as news is just like dog bites man [both of them are limited by gender, which of course they can't help]. But now I have this problem - I wish to comment on that Q & A - particularly the "A" part & to a lesser extent the "Q" part as well - but I don't know to what extent it is safe to treat what you've reported as coming out of their mouths as verbatim. It might very well be so & on this point I would accept your assurance as sufficient - but if what is there simply reports1 on the GIST then that doesn't assist my quest as my approach necessitates it be verbatim. FWIW what I'm thinking of addresses the question which the theme of your post, albeit AOT. If you think this too obscure for publication in reader commentary here I could send you more on my thinking via email. I've got a window of about 5 or so hours right now so whatever you think please let me know soon if able & so choose [I you aren't or choose otherwise no problem - like all others here of pure heart - therefore excepting the resident trolls - I serve at your pleasure].

Mostly unrelated yet vital breaking news: The resident herd boss where I bunk turns a magical age tomorrow - in consequence of which is to receive a gift of a gorgeous black lab youngster the breeder named - no kidding - "Marcie" - tho it appears more likely that came about from being one of a brood sired by a certain "Marki Mark". Spelling errors in pets' names are subject to correction on re-registration, of course.

[albert fall]

PJ--

"Treason" is catchier.

[Katie Jensen]

I am with you on impeachment, the censure seems a true waste of time and money. I am glad to see discussion, but saddened that the amercican people are so passively waiting for congress to tell us what it's going to do. I do wish the american people would tell congress. I know most of us here have done just that.

There must have 15 different pundits saying "we don't like what Bush has done but there is nothing that can be done about it." It made me sick. Yes, just take your whips america.

We need an investigation. We need controversy. We need the discussion and we need to see people arguing and fighting it out.

Okay...now back to writing letters. We just need to keep pushing for the honest discussion about this behavior of lawlessness. Lawlessness. Lawlessness. Our president lawless.

[Davis X. Machina]

Section 9 of Article One, against Nixon:

9. endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

Good enough to impeach then, good enough now.

[Neil]

President Bush and VP Cheney Lawless.

[albert fall]

If the Dems have so much Hollywood support, why not get just one good screenwriter to help prepare the "through-line," the catchy narrative to tell the story to the public--put it up like Whitehouse's chart with the boxes, something so simple even the MSM can understand it.

[William Ockham]

Censure is a waste of time only if it is the end game. As a step towards impeachment it offers some advantages. It forces Republicans to take a stand (something most of them in Congress are avoiding). It keeps the issue front and center in the news. It keeps the pressure on the Administration, putting them on the defensive.

There is no reason that a censure resolution takes anything away from beginning impeachment proceedings.

[J. Thomason]

So the crew cut guy on CNN is talking about "eliminating" the "radical elements" in Pakistan. How can we talk about impeachment when genocide seems to be what CNN is pushing.

[Neil]

I wrote Rep Lynch, Sen Kerry, Sen Kennedy, House Speaker Pelosi and Rep Wexler and made the case for Impeachment not Censure.

Wexler dosen't accept email from out of district constituents but you can email him from his re-elction">http://www.wexlerforcongress.com/contact">re-elction web site. Pelosi publishes her email address for ALL to contact her: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov

[GulfCoastPirate]

This may be off topic for this post but something has been bothering me from the beginning about this case and, although I've seen a couple of others ask similar questions, I've never seen an answer. So here goes .....

Why are we all assuming that the objective was to get back at Wilson by outing his wife? What if his wife was actually the target all along? Wilson writes his op-ed, Cheney learns about the relationship between Wilson and Plame, her job (and Brewster Jennings) and they can't believe their good luck. The cronies can get rid of a future pain in the arse (Plame and Brewster Jennings) while making it look like they are attacking the husband because of the op-ed.

What exactly was Brewster Jennings working on and what did Mrs. Wilson know? I remember reading back when this all started that Mrs. Wilson had been spotted in Turkey, apparently looking into the possibility that Israeli and Pakistani operatives were selling nuclear parts to the Iranians. Is it possible the Iranians were being set up and Mrs. Wilson (through Brewster Jennings) was beginning to suspect something? Where are the Iranians procuring the parts for their nuclear program? How is it that the Israelis (and the cronies) supposedly know so much about the Iranian program? If the parts are being smuggled into Iran why not stop the smuggling? It's not exactly as if centrifuges and other nuclear parts are made in every garage.

I simply fail to understand why an op-ed from an obscure ex-Iraqi ambassador would have been sufficient cause to get top officials to commit these types of crimes. Why would they take that kind of a chance over an op-ed?

[Andrew Foland]

A bibliographical note the Mason-Madison exchange is recorded in original in http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID @lit(ed00318)):">the third volume of Elliot, pages 496-498.

The whole of the Constitutional debates are online: J. Elliot, The">http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html">The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution

[Katie Jensen]

Gulf coast pirate,

My gut has said and I think Marcy has certainly discussed this possibility that outting valerie may have been more about stopping her than stopping him. She certainly would have been in a position to dispute the President's claims about wmd.

There was an interesting story on Dkos yesterday about the anthrax scare. Again, there is growing evidence that our government planned to strip us of our constitution rights throught he use of fear, from the very beginning. I have long said that the anthrax scare and the attempt to pin it on the cia guy who clearly wasn't having it, was very fishy. If the anthrax scare was indeed government sponsored, then we get even closer to the notion that 9/ll was allowed, and that the current plan was the plan to begin with.

There is enough evidence to have the serious discussion and for the american people to take interest.

There needs to be public hearings so that the case can be made and so that the republican party retains not one shred of credibility.

[Boo Radley]

"What if his wife was actually the target all along?"

Then, why wait until Wilson's op-ed to destroy Brewster Jennings? If Brewster Jennings was the original target, Cheney of all people didn't need an op-ed in the New York Times for cover.

[bmaz]

OUTSTANDING STATEMENT EW! As you can probably guess, I agree wholeheartedly. Failure to take the initiative on impeachment is literally tantamount to failing to protect America from attack. I would make a "that's so pre-9/11" joke but this is no laughing matter. The damage done, and continuing to be done, by the Bush administration is light years more damaging to this country's health as the nation it was formed to be than any series of terrorist attacks could ever hope to be. If you are on the other side of the political spectrum from the general bent of most here, you should similarly demand an impeachment investigation. It will either exonerate the Bushies, or it will convict and damn them; in either case you will accomplish the best for your party and country. And "Strict Constructionists" take note, as EW ably notes this is EXACTLY what the founding fathers explicitly intended. Want more proof? Read the Federalist Papers and other historical background contemporaneous with the drafting and adoption of the Constitution. This is our duty as a Constitutional government of laws and men; to continue to shirk it is dereliction of everything we are supposed to stand for.

[bmaz]

William Ockham - The only way a censure will fly is if it IS the endgame; and that is a big no go as far as I am concerned. Wexler needs to be geared up on real accountability, not a spitball to punish and elephant.

[William Ockham]

bmaz,

I agree completely with your comment from 12:14, but I don't understand your response to me at 12:23. Are you making a political assessment? If so, I disagree, but I'm interested in your thinking on the subject. Are you arguing that the only way the Republicans (and some of the more cowardly Democrats) would agree to vote on or for censure is to keep impeachment off the table?

[Mimikatz]

Maybe it's both. Maybe the Kristoff article and CNN appearance caused Cheney to put 2 and 2 together--Valerie Plame, the thorn in his side at the CIA, who was studying WMD in Iraq as well as Iran, and Joe Wilson, the guy who had been to Niger and then talked to Kristoff.

Adding 2 and 2, Cheney might have been afraid they had shared what they knew with each other, and that through his contacts in the media and his credibility as a former ambassador, Joe would be able to expose the lies about WMD that the Admin had used to sell the war by stifling the CIA. Wilson's op-ed thus would have compounded Chenehy's fears, and is why he went ballistic.

But not just the lies about the WMD--we couldn't have anyone getting too close to those Niger "documents" and investigating where they came from and how they kept being fed to the CIA . . . .

So Cheney did what he did. He got people to smear Wilson, rolled up Valerie's operation and deflected everyone's attention onto Joe and Valerie and off of himself and the lies. Almost worked, too.

[emptywheel]

LabDancer

That passage does appear in Jeff and Murray's book--starting on page 192. I ended up taking it from the transcript, so there may be a line or two that's not in the book, but it's from the transcript.