Cheney's role in the Libby commutation

[Lanya]

 (July 08, 2007 -- 03:15 PM EST // link)

One of the curious ambiguities of the Libby commutation controversy is what role Dick Cheney played in the process. As the recent Washington Post series made clear, not much happens in this White House without the VP's direct involvement (i.e., dictation), but what did Cheney do to keep his former chief of staff out of jail?

The Bush gang has been more than a little cagey about the details, which generally hints at the answer. The Post reported this week, "An unanswered question last night was Vice President Cheney's role in advocating leniency for his former chief of staff and alter ego."

Reporters tried to get a few more details out of Tony Snow on Tuesday, but came up short. At one point, Snow told the press corps, "I'm sure that the vice president may have expressed an opinion," but added shortly thereafter, "[Cheney] may have recused himself."

Michael Isikoff sheds some light on the subject, noting the internal deliberations. [link]

    The president was conflicted. He hated the idea that a loyal aide would serve time. Hanging over his deliberations was Cheney, who had said he was "very disappointed" with the jury's verdict. Cheney did not directly weigh in with Fielding, but nobody involved had any doubt where he stood. "I'm not sure Bush had a choice," says one of the advisers. "If he didn't act, it would have caused a fracture with the vice president."

Well, we certainly can't have that, now can we? (Bush may not have had a "choice"? It's good to know who's in charge in the West Wing.)

Isikoff also added an interesting detail I hadn't heard before: Bush asked White House Counsel Fred Fielding to help determine whether Libby's jury made the right call. Far from respecting the verdict, as the White House has been emphasizing all week, the president hoped to find that the jurors came to an unreasonable conclusion, which in turn would make it easier for Bush to intervene.

Fielding came up empty. As Isikoff explained it, he "reluctantly concluded that the jury had reached a reasonable verdict: the evidence was strong that Libby testified falsely about his role in the leak."

In other words, the president learned just how guilty Libby really was, but commuted the sentence anyway because he "hated the idea that a loyal aide would serve time."

Well, that and the fact that Libby still had plenty of damaging information about Bush and Cheney that they needed to keep under wraps.
-- Steve Benen

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

[BT]

Doesn't matter why Bush decided as he did.

Doesn't matter what input Cheney had.

What matters is the constitution allows for it.

[sirs]

But Lanya doesn't hate Bush       

[Lanya]

It matters to me.   If it doesn't matter to you, then no problem.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The issue was Libby being the hitman for punishing Wilson from telling the truth with the intent of keeping the nation out of a disastrous war that never should have happened.

This is a big deal. It is important that someone - preferably Juniorbush or Cheney - for doing at least a year or so of hard time for causeing the needless deaths of 3600 Americans and perhaps a hundred thousand Iraqis. It has cause the largest number of refugees in recent times. The War wqas a crime, and someone should pay.

The truth is important and no one should be permitted to punish anyone for revealing it.

The fact that Juniorbush could legally get away with commuting Libby's sentence is far less important than the prevention of this war.

[BT]

How is it punishing someone by revealing their wife works for the agenct that arranged for him to take the fact finding trip.

The status of Plame has not been settled, not during Libby's trial and not afterwords.

If Cheney is to be guilty of conspiring to punish Wilson  wouldn't it also appear that Wilson and Plame are also guilty of conspiring to punish the administration?

How else does Wilson get credibility on the issue other than to under take a mission for the agency?

[Plane]

Isikoff also added an interesting detail I hadn't heard before: Bush asked White House Counsel Fred Fielding to help determine whether Libby's jury made the right call. Far from respecting the verdict, as the White House has been emphasizing all week, the president hoped to find that the jurors came to an unreasonable conclusion, which in turn would make it easier for Bush to intervene.

Fielding came up empty. As Isikoff explained it, he "reluctantly concluded that the jury had reached a reasonable verdict: the evidence was strong that Libby testified falsely about his role in the leak."
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][]][][]


I don't understand that , haven't we heard one of Jurrors stateing that the jury considered Libbey a fall guy for the real wrong doers.  Didn't Lanya post an article in which it was stated that the prosicutor left the scene shamefaced?

If he had been more powerfull and his lie had been about his own wrongdoing  this would be a better comparison to the Clinton scandal , as it is he is convicted for remembering  a year old conversation differently than another person . O the subject of a .....crime?