That’s fucking hilarious. Oh boy oh boy would I ever love to hear the discussions currently going on about this in the upper circles of power, and especially between Cheney and the President. One thing is certain: Bush is going to come under enormous pressure to pardon Libby. If he does, he looks very, very bad, and probably prolongs the political agony. If he doesn’t, then a) he pisses Cheney off to no end; and b) he sends a signal to all his underlings that he won’t cover for them when they lie to cover for him and his monumentally inept administration.
{ 2007 03 06 }
Aaron | 06-Mar-07 at 3:01 pm | Permalink
If he grants a pardon, Libby won’t be able to “take the fifth”. He is convicted, but he has a number of post-trial motions and an appeal ahead of him, during which time he cannot be compelled to testify.
I would expect them to work hard to get an appeal bond, make expressions of faith in Libby and in the system, and to put off the pardon as long as they possibly can.
Chris | 06-Mar-07 at 3:18 pm | Permalink
But can’t Bush prevent this from going any further by granting a Nixon-style pardon, declaring preemptive immunity from conviction. That would prevent Libby from needing to take the fifth.
Or am I confused? What would he be compelled to testify about if he were pardoned? The on-going investigation?
Aaron | 06-Mar-07 at 3:22 pm | Permalink
I am assuming that if there is an ongoing investigation, Libby would be called as a witness by a prosecutor who would delight in his not being to “take the fifth”. It’s what I would do.
Chris | 06-Mar-07 at 3:38 pm | Permalink
Huh. Interesting. I thought you could take the fifth whenever.
upyernoz | 06-Mar-07 at 3:59 pm | Permalink
I thought you could take the fifth whenever
what aaron is alluding to is that the fifth can only be taken if your words might incriminate you. if you’ve already been convicted and pardoned, you can’t be prosecuted again for the same crime. so you can’t take the fifth if that fifth taking is predicated on being incriminated.
the problem with aaron’s theory is that libby was prosecuted for obstruction of justice and perjury. he wasn’t prosecuted for outing valerie plame. so he can still claim the fifth on the theory that his words might incriminate him with regard to that crime. there’s been no adjudication either way on that matter.
that aside, i think a presidential pardon is all but inevitable. bush has never shyed away from actions just because they might make him look “very very bad.” and one thing he does prize is loyalty. all signs point to a pardon. the only question is when: whether he will do it soon, so libby avoids any time in the slammer, or later after the 2008 election. if he does it pre-2008 election, we may get to see the republican establishment finally make a definitive break with bush, and run away from his legacy.
Aaron | 07-Mar-07 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
I disagree that, under the facts as established, he would be able to credibly claim a Fifth Amendment privilege over “outing” Valerie Plame. If he were called as part of a federal investigation and tried to make that assertion, assuming the judge bought it, I’m sure the U.S. Attorney would be happy to provide a letter of declination or a promise of use immunity.
Such a tenuous claim of possible future prosecution may be more viable in the Wilson/Plame civil suit, but I would again be skeptical that a judge would buy into that claim. The first person to leak Plame’s identity was apparently Richard Armitage, not Libby. What’s Armitage charged with, again?
upyernoz | 07-Mar-07 at 3:08 pm | Permalink
If he were called as part of a federal investigation and tried to make that assertion, assuming the judge bought it, I’m sure the U.S. Attorney would be happy to provide a letter of declination or a promise of use immunity.
that’s probably right, but what you’re describing is independent of libby’s recent conviction.
The first person to leak Plame’s identity was apparently Richard Armitage, not Libby. What’s Armitage charged with, again?
as i understand it (and to be clear, even though i am a lawyer, this is all waaaaaay outside my area of expertise), it doesn’t matter who was the first person to leak the info. info remains classified until it is declassified. if armitage let it slip, that doesn’t give carte blanche to anyone else to talk about it either.