Obama aide wants Libby pardoned

[MalloyLiberal]

By Sam Youngman
June 14, 2007
Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) top lawyer publicly made the case yesterday for a presidential pardon for convicted White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Obama general counsel Robert Bauer did not ask his boss, a presidential candidate, for permission to write the article, published on HuffingtonPost.com.


But Obama’s campaign said the senator would not ask for Bauer’s resignation, adding that he is “still our lawyer.”

...
later

..

“It also raises some interesting questions in terms of what he expects if Obama wins the campaign,” Christy writes. “Last I checked, people who work on campaigns generally hope to gain a position in a subsequent administration if their candidate wins … If Mr. Bauer thinks that the rule of law is malleable in terms of politically expedient questions of the moment, then we ought to be asking the questions now rather than in a confirmation hearing later, don’t you think?”

[Bullet1987]

1. What does Obama's lawyer and his views have to do with him?

[MalloyLiberal]

2. Read last paragraph I just updated

[AX10]

3. He would also pardon Cheney if he were convicted too.

:argh:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

9. well, he doesn't think Bush and Cheney have committed "grave" crimes

:puke:

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. well that's messed up

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. First he goes to Colin Powell (R-war crimes) for policy advice and now this...

[KittyWampus]

40. actually, this is old news.

[Capn Sunshine]

6. Old News

but not too old for the anti- Obamans at DU

Party on, Garth

[MADem]

11. Well, it's news to me. But I don't hold it against the Senator. I think the lawyer is simply a

disloyal asshole.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. Yeah, let's ignore whether Obama's top legal aide cares about the rule of law

It isn't as if high-ranking campaign aides ever get high positions in their guy's administration if he wins...this guy could become Obama's chief counsel, like Gonzales was at the beginning of *'s term, or attorney general under a prez Obama.

[Ethelk2044]

14. Obama disagrees with him. End of Discussion Old News

[draft_mario_cuomo]

18. Why doesn't he fire him? How can his top legal aide not believe in the rule of law? nt

[MADem]

31. I have to say that I initially thought this was a big deal, and now I do not.

I found the article and it's clear that the guy divorces his remarks from the campaign.

I have some news for anyone shopping that "rule of law" complaint. Presidential pardons FALL WITHIN THE RULE OF LAW. Like it, or not, they do. No law is broken when a President issues a pardon, so that gripe just has to go. I was pleased when Clinton pardoned Susan McDougal--I really thought she was treated harshly for purely political reasons.

The guy writing the piece/working for Obama is a lawyer, Libby is a lawyer. Well liked in DC, too, with many friends on both sides of the aisle (believe it or not). For all we know, they're buddies. It happens. David Boies, who's all over the place, repped Al Gore and pals around with GOP baastids.

The author-lawyer-Obama employee also suggests that a pardon by Bush is helpful in that it fingers him as a conspirator, more or less:

In his posting, entitled “The Progressive Case for a Libby Pardon,” Bauer laid out what he sees as the reason those on the left should want to see Bush intervene, presumably so the president would instantly become more involved in the scandal.

“A pardon is just what Bush’s opponents should want,” Bauer wrote. “A pardon brings the president into the heart of the case. It compels him to do what he has so far managed to avoid: accept in some way responsibility for the conduct of his Administration in communicating with the public about national security and in its treatment of dissent.”
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-aide-wants-libby-pardoned-2007-06-14.html

My take? Tempest in a teapot. It's crazy to try to pin this on Senator Obama. Should Obama win, and want to make this guy the AG, well, it might be worth revisiting. But given the full story, laid out in this article, it's not a big deal. IMO.

[Ethelk2044]

16. Then we need to worry about Edwards since he may change his mind as well

[MADem]

32. Presidential pardons fall within the rule of law, like it or not. NT

[maximusveritas]

7. This is 2 weeks old

Are you guys recycling your attack pieces now?

[MADem]

8. Gee. what a helpful baaaastid....NOT.

Got a link to the article? Is there a disclaimer on it at all (My employer, the Senator and Presidential candidate, remains entirely unafilliated with these, my very personal views) perhaps???

I dunno, with friends like that, who needs enemies?

If you NEED to weigh in on a subject where you differ from your high profile employer, you need to resign first. IMO. Anything else is attention-seeking, craven behavior.

[MalloyLiberal]

23. It's called The Hill.

[MADem]

27. It's customary to PROVIDE the link to the readers of your thread when quoting from an article.

Thusly: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-aide-wants-libby-pardoned-2007-06-14.html

And this IS an old article--two weeks old, almost.

And it really isn't a news story--the article plainly states that the lawyer is speaking for himself and his remarks have no association with the campaign.

It's important to represent the full story presented if one wants to be taken as serious and credible:

Obama’s campaign and Bauer told The Hill yesterday that Bauer was not speaking on behalf of Obama when he wrote the piece, and the blog entry carries a disclaimer to that effect.

“Never at any time have I written for a candidate or asked a candidate’s approval, and I have not done so in this instance,” Bauer told The Hill. “The truth of the matter is, to sound humbly, I’m just his lawyer.”...Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said in an e-mail Wednesday: “Bob Bauer was speaking on his own behalf without consultation with the campaign. Sen. Obama’s position on ensuring that Libby is held accountable for breaking the law is clear.”

When asked if the campaign was concerned about supporters seeing Bauer’s post as being affiliated with Obama, Psaki said: “We are confident that people will recognize that Bob Bauer was speaking on his own behalf without consultation with the campaign.”





I initially thought the guy was an unhelpful baaastid, now I see this as a NON-NEWS story. Gee, someone has a different opinion than his boss. He makes it clear that his opinion is distinct from the boss, too. Both he and the campaign emphasize that fact. There's no convergence with the Libby pardon and the official campaign position.

WOW. Stop the presses... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

:eyes:

[MalloyLiberal]

29. He's gonna expect a favor

Why would Obama associate himself with scum?

[MADem]

33. You didn't read the article too carefully (in addition to not providing the link)

The thesis is that Bush pardoning Libby brings Bush deeper into the Libby scandal. It's one way of looking at it. It's not way 'out there' in a larger, progressive scheme of things.

And the article doesn't tarnish Obama at all. The first thing you see is the DISCLAIMER after the title.

Here, reread the effort: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-aide-wants-libby-pardoned-2007-06-14.html

And here's the ORIGINAL work by the lawyer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-bauer/the-progressive-case-for-_b_51983.html

The Progressive Case for a Libby Pardon
Posted June 13, 2007 | 12:09 PM (EST)
All the views expressed in this post are those of the author and not of any client of his firm.

....Bush's opposition has braced for a pardon and its rage at the prospect is building. To Bush's antagonists on left, a pardon would be only another act in the conspiracy -- a further cover-up, a way of getting away with it. But this is the entirely wrong way of seeing things.....A pardon brings the president into the heart of the case. It compels him to do what he has so far managed to avoid: accept in some way responsibility for the conduct of his Administration in communicating with the public about national security and in its treatment of dissent. If the pardon would be politically explosive, then this is what the administration's critics, hungering for accountability, have been waiting for. The case against this government on the larger charge of abuse of power is diminished, made even laughable, by resolving into a 30-month sentence for an obscure figure named Libby.

From the beginning, the president has had his reasons for encouraging the Wilson/Plame case along, keeping a lofty distance, until it all came crashing down on Libby. Mr. Bush announced that he would tolerate no law-breaking; he wished nothing less than a full and independent investigation. His Deputy Attorney General selected a tough and independent prosecutor for the mission. Whatever wrongdoing occurred, however much of it was detected, it could have nothing to do with him. If there was criminal conduct, it was rogue criminal conduct; if it was a benefit to his administration.....So Bush kept clear of the case, as it had nothing at all to do with him. And the case that unfolded, in the natural course, offered additional benefits to his administration, more consequential in the long run than the sniping at Plame and Wilson. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald, doing the job he was assigned, chased resolutely and relentlessly every bit of evidence from any source. It took him to the press, and there he made an enduring mark, squeezing prominent journalists and dispatching to jail the one who held out longer than the others. A government in war-time, criticized for hounding dissenters and for hostility to dissent, could enjoy the spectacle of a national security investigation and prosecution fully compatible with those aims. And this advance in the weaponry available to the National Security State is one that the administration could point to as proof of its commitment to the rule of law.

A presidential pardon is finally an intervention by the President, his emergence from behind the thick curtain he has dropped between him and these momentous events involving his government, his policy, his Vice President. By pardoning Libby, he acknowledges that Libby is not really the one to confront the administration's accusers. Now the president, the true party in interest, would confront them, which is what his opponents have demanded all along.

Nothing in the nature of the pardon renders it inappropriate to these purposes. The issuance of a presidential pardon, not reserved for miscarriages of justice, has historically also served political functions -- to redirect policy, to send a message, to associate the president with a cause or position. Gerald Ford radically altered the nation's politics with the pardon of Richard Nixon. Credited with an act of national healing, he also spared the man who had selected him for the vice presidency and whose prosecution might have haunted his party even more than the act of pardoning him. He reshaped with a stroke of the pen the national agenda: this pardon, he told Congress, was meant to "change our national focus." George W. Bush's father expressed his contempt for the opposition's "criminalization" of policy differences, with a batch of pardons for high Republican officials convicted in the Iran-Contra scandals .

In each of these cases, the president who issued the pardons was, by determining the course of a criminal matter, redefining its political significance and acquiring in it a personal and lasting place. By pardoning Libby, Bush will have done the same. Presidential fingerprints, so far nowhere to be found in this case, will surface at last....Libby is said to be unpardonable because the act of lying, a subversion of the legal process, cannot go unpunished. Yet this is mere glibness. ....Progressives are not so much appalled by Libby's lies as they are frustrated that this is all they have: Libby and only Libby...But if the President pardons Libby, and by this act makes the case his own, he will have picked up a portion of the cost. Libby will fall back, restored to obscurity. Bush will step forward and take the lead role. He will have to explain himself; he will have to answer questions.....

Read the whole thing. The lawyer makes a very interesting case. It's not as though he's "ignoring the rule of law" at all, or even advocating that Libby get off scot-free. What he's saying is that the pardon will dog Bush all of his live-long days, and that's not a bad thing, certainly not from an historical perspective.

I don't like it when people do some 'unfair painting.' I remain undecided, but this sort of thing doesn't drive me away from Obama, it makes me want to look more closely at his campaign.

This whole ancient faux imbroglio has absolutely nothing to do with him.

[Buck Rabbit]

10. He didnt make the case for a presidental pardon of Libby.

He pointed out that such a pardon would blow up on the GOP like Ford's pardon of Nixon. He made the case that such a pardon would work against the GOP, not that Libby deserved to be pardoned.

[MADem]

34. Say, you read it too!!!

Talk about a tempest in a teapot. It's not as though he's saying "Poor Libby"--he's saying a pardon would end up sticking to George like liquid dogshit....

[Buck Rabbit]

37. Amasing what happens when you read the original source.

I am not a big Obama supporter but doing a complete 180 degree twist of the facts is just too much.

[Ethelk2044]

13. Everyone has a right to their Opinion Obama Disagrees with Him

[Ethelk2044]

15. Also you are full of Shit. You know very well Obama has already stated he disagrees.

With your rationale Then what about Hillary and Edwards. They may say they are not for it now, but they may change their minds once they get elected.

[Buck Rabbit]

19. The attorney himself disagrees. The OP is a 180 degree twist.

He was talking about what a political cost the GOP would take if they gave a purely political and unjustified pardon to Libby.

If he thought Libby deserved to be pardoned there would be no political cost or backlash to the GOP. He was merely speculating on the political outcome if the pro-pardon Republicans prevailed and Bush pulled the pardon trigger and shot them all in the foot.

[zulchzulu]

17. Here we go again with this half-wit horseshit...

Did you read Bauer's statement? The point was that by Bush pardoning Libby NOW and not December 24, 2008 WHEN HE WILL, it would gravely hurt the Republicans in the 2008 elections.

He knows the law. He knows Libby is an asshole traitor. He just wants Bush to show his cards NOW, not later after the election when it wouldn't hurt the Repugs.

Bush is going to pardon Libby whether we like it or not. If he pardons Libby now, it will make the Repugs have to defend the act.

Get it?

[William769]

21. Yes lets talk horseshit.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3343202&mesg_id=3343202

:eyes:

[zulchzulu]

24. Pres. Candidate lying about her name's origin vs. A story about A 2-bit Crook

They're related?

Is a story about Rezko getting drunk in high school also a possible relevant "Obama" story?

[William769]

30. "Is a story about Rezko getting drunk in high school also a possible relevant "Obama" story?"

Wheres that thread? I never saw it.


The deals made between that criminal and Obama when he was a State Senator is relevant.

[ronnykmarshall]

41. Barry.

[jaysunb]

20. Pat Paulson for President !

that should solve this...:evilgrin:

[MADem]

39. You're no spring chicken!!! Neither am I!! How many are saying Pat WHO? Heh, heh NT

[madrchsod]

22. obama is the anti -christ

[tammywammy]

25. So? Obama's already said he disgree with him

Non-story and it's a non-story that's two weeks old at that.

[MalloyLiberal]

26. Read the last paragraph

This lawyer is gonna expect a favor.

[tammywammy]

28. But I don't think he was saying the rule of law is malleable

He was saying if they're going to pardon him, it should be done now, and not later.

And so what if he's expecting a favor. Don't all the higher ups in campaigns expect "favors"? And how many of them get them?

He's allowed to voice his opinion, period.

[MADem]

36. He wasn't. The meaning of the lawyer's treatise has been mangled in the OP.

And backed up with a quote from some anonymous clown who doesn't understand that Presidential pardons actually DO fall within the "rule of law."

I posted links to the Huffpo article and the Hill article elsewhere.

This is a bad smear job. Bad, because it's a waste of effort. None of the smearing sticks....

[tammywammy]

38. Oh, I know he wasn't

I'm just being nice while trying to clear things up.

As I said it's a two week old non-story.

[MADem]

35. So says some asshole named "Christy" who we don't even know anything about.

Come on, you have to do better than that.

This is a shitty attempt at a "hit" against Obama. You really should be ashamed of yourself. If you read the actual source document, the original essay by the lawyer, you discover that:

The lawyer isn't a cheerleader for Libby.

He wants Bush to feel the heat of association with a pardon.

He wants Bush to be forced to answer questions about the entire Libby imbroglio as a result of the pardon.

In essence, he wants Bush linked to the scandal by the act of pardoning.

Oh, and I'm still a plainly undecided voter, hoping for Gore, but keeping my options totally open at this stage, so I'm not on the "Obama Team." When people shit on Clinton with unfair assertions, I defend HER, too. And Edwards. And anyone that takes an unfair hit, which this plainly is.

As Democrats, we can do better than this when we're debating who might be the best candidate. This isn't a "finest hour" by any stretch.