home

A History Lesson For Tony Snow

By TChris, Section Lewis Libby Trial Coverage
Posted on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 06:32:44 PM EST
Tags: Libby Trial (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Responding to news that Rep. John Conyers has scheduled a hearing on President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence, Tony Snow asked: "And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?," referring to President Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich. But why, Mr. Snow, should Congress take a second look at the Rich pardon? Do you not recall that the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Rich pardon less than a month after it occurred?

If the Rich pardon was worthy of a hearing, what's the objection to giving the Libby commutation similar scrutiny?

Update (7/6/07) (TalkLeft): Lots more on this here and at Think Progress here. Also check out Dan Froomkin today, The Clinton-Did-It Flimflam.

< The Consequences of a Marijuana Conviction | Gunning For A Pulitzer? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A History Lesson For Tony Snow | 12 comments (12 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Ooops (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 06:39:13 PM EST
    Tony stepped in it didn't he?

    They don't know what they're doing (none / 0) (#7)
    by manys on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 09:27:00 PM EST
    He's just flying from the seat of his pants. They're not even trying to come up with good reasons, but thanks to the DC Press Gaggle's lack of ability to think on their feet, he probably won't have to worry about that.

    I think Democrats actually have the edge here, but whether they find anywhere to go from this ledge remains to be seen. The Administration is treating this (in public) completely on reactionary terms. Look at how many dismissive preambles Tony threw out this morning, possibly to try to throw any decent reporters of their game with a little aggression.

    Parent

    What's the point? (none / 0) (#2)
    by jarober on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 07:29:25 PM EST
    The Congress has no oversight over the pardon power, any more than the White House has power over the Congress' funding power.

    Sure, they can hold a hearing.  Will they undo the pardon?  No.  Could they possibly undo the pardon?

    No.

    So is the entire point to give mic time to a bunch of people who already love the sound of their own voices too much?

    Yes.

    The Rich investigation? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 07:47:48 PM EST
    Ahem.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#3)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 07:40:52 PM EST
    So is the entire point to give mic time to a bunch of people who already love the sound of their own voices too much?

    Since they wee Republicans, that seems likely.  They don't actually DO anything.

    Parent

    The point of the hearing ... (none / 0) (#5)
    by Peter G on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 08:30:54 PM EST
    ... it seems to me, is to determine whether the Executive (you know, that "unitary executive" that speaks only thru POTUS) has consistently misled and attempted to mislead either Congress or the Supreme Court as to whether existing criminal sentences, determined in accordance with Administration-supported (or should I say, Administration-revered) Guidelines, are reasonable or excessive.  After all, that very "Executive" (through its ostensible "Attorney General") has within the last month proposed making it illegal for a judge to impose any sentence lower than the one the Guidelines "recommend" (you know, like a two-year probation term in an obstruction of justice and perjury case, for example), unless the prosecutor endorsed that sentence as a reward for snitching.  Never, under this proposal, could a lower sentence be imposed on the basis, f'rinstance, that a large fine, coupled with loss of a professional license and family unhappiness, would be sufficient punishment.  (Just an example off the top of my head.) Has the Administration changed its position on that proposal? How many sentences now being served does the Executive consider to be "excessive"?  What legislative relief might Congress afford to those victims of the cruelty of the present sentencing system?

    This is most certainly Congress's business, since those Administration-promoted Guidelines and mandatory sentences have resulted in a near tripling of the federal prison population in the last 20 years, at enormous cost in dollars, both direct outlays and lost social productivity, mostly inflicted on nonviolent, lower-level drug offenders, and with little if any proven effect on crime.  

    Congress is also entitled to oversee the operation of the Office of Pardon Attorney in the Department of Justice, to determine whether applications are being processed and considered for recommendation to the Preznit in a fair and nondiscriminatory manner.  

    I could go on, but I'm getting really tired of this anger thing ....

    Double Standard (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 08:45:03 PM EST
    Never, under this proposal, could a lower sentence be imposed on the basis, f'rinstance, that a large fine, coupled with loss of a professional license and family unhappiness, would be sufficient punishment.  (Just an example off the top of my head.)

    Nice.

    Parent

    I'm just finishing reading the transcript (none / 0) (#8)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 11:32:09 PM EST
    of a Marc Rich congressional hearing into the pardon. I may write separately about it.  But here's one thing: Clinton waived executive privilege for the hearing and allowed all of his aides involved in the decision to testify, no holds barred.

    Will Bush do the same next week?

    Haha (none / 0) (#9)
    by Claw on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 11:40:52 PM EST
    Um, no.  

    And While YOu are COmparing (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 05, 2007 at 11:42:05 PM EST
    Howbout this:

    That's an extremely compelling argument for sure. But, I think they are missing the boat on this. There is a much better precedent for what Dubya did that actually could make this one pale by comparison.
    Remember this little Christmas present?

    It's a family tradition.

    I thought that since the Bushies made the mistake of bringing up past pardons, it was a natural opportunity to attack them back by dredging up Poppy's pardons of members of his own administration, which were very controversial in exactly the same way Junior's are.


    digby

    Yep (none / 0) (#11)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 01:52:17 AM EST
    I'm a big believer in not trying to explain or excuse in these TV debates --- attack the Republicans, right back, with their own misdeeds.


    Parent
    Another amazing Bush administration (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 12:23:30 PM EST
    moment.  There have been so many I have a really hard keeping track.

    A History Lesson For Tony Snow | 12 comments (12 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment