Strange Libby Argument – Moon of Alabama

June 14, 2007

Strange Libby Argument

Libby has to go to jail for some 30 month soon. Unless he manages an unlikely immediate stay or appeal, he will have to frogmarch.

FDL live blogged the Libby sentencing. There is one issue in the liveblogging not mentioned in emptywheel’s immediate analysis.

Libby’s lawyer Robbins tried to set the presidency outside of any law review. Judge Walton would not have that.

(Note: I corrected some obvious typos in the following)

Walton: Wouldn’t that undermine the purpose of this statute, that everyone is accountable under the laws of the US? If you work in the WH you still have to follow the law. If the investigative agency is linked by the hip with an investigation, then the public can have no confidence that the investigation is fair and just. If we have to operate this way our system of government loses significant credibility with the average Joe on the street, who already thinks the system is unfair.

Robbins: This I believe is a red herring. I don’t think anyone believes Morrison was not sufficiently independent.

Walton: I recognize Weinberger had a significant job, but this case deals directly with the WH. Regarding following DOJ policy I think that’s crucial.

Robbins: This includes reporting significant events. But the ultimate vehicle of accountability is that the president has to stand before the voters every four years. This is the way the Constitution provides for accountability.

The liveblog is somehow unclear or interrupted at that point, but the following stuff by Walton or Robbins does not go deeper into the issue, so Walton obviously dismissed the bait.

According to Robbins’ argument, the White House is not primarily accountable under law, but only every four years through elections. The "ultimate vehicle of accountability" is not the law, but elections. Inbetween, the White House may presumely do whatever unlawful things it likes to do.

This is quite an outrageous argument to make. But it is consistent with Cheney’s lackey Addington’s view of executive privilege being above any law.

But if the laws do not apply for the president and the White House, what happens if the White House blocks elections after four years as demanded by law? What rules would apply?

Posted by b on June 14, 2007 at 19:37 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Executive privilege=impunity: Robbin’s argument is the monotonous presumption of totalitarian regimes. And if the privileged party can jimmy the elections when voting time comes around; then no one who sits in the big chair ever has to answer to the laws.
Just the other day I saw a Diebold van parked in front of a strip-mall.
The motto inscribed under the word DIEBOLD was this:
“We won’t rest…”. It’s a sobering thought, isn’t it?

Posted by: Copeland | Jun 14 2007 20:30 utc | 1

Or you know, they can resort to the old standby of strong arming…Judge Received Threats After Sentencing Libby to Prison in CIA Leak Case

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Jun 14 2007 20:41 utc | 2

…if the laws do not apply for the president and the White House, what happens if the White House blocks elections after four years as demanded by law? What rules would apply?

What rules apply? Why, I suppose the Codpiece Catch 22, a.n.a. National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive which gives the president as much dictatorial power as he deems needed to “ensure constitional government” — ah, but you and everybody here knows that already.

Posted by: Chuck Cliff | Jun 14 2007 20:46 utc | 3

Would not a one-party system save an awful lot of wasted
breath? Red Army, Blue Army, it’s still the same Soviet
Politburo. 58% of Americans now working in government,
or are contracting to it, that’s way past critical mass.
Even at 99.9% efficiency on those contracts, the egregious
“shrinkage” of tax coffers assures US government is anything
but a “competitive fair market”. We’re fucked.
Why waste all that energy and foo-faw over which color flag drapes the OO every four years? The Middle East is halfway
around the world. Nothing you or I say will change anything.
We should be investing our time working to divest ourselves of the Fascist Corporate deficit spendthriftocracy, easy credit, baubles and beads, bread and circuses, welfare state, and get back to basic pioneer values.
Blow up your TV, and dig a garden!
Taser your YouTube, pepper spray your MySpace, napalm your Google heirarchy of commercial crap, and dig a fish pond!
Telecommute, and convert your car into a solar collector!
Turn on, tune in, and drop out!
Gomer Says, ‘They Can’t Tax, What I Don’t Spend!’

Posted by: Meri Tocracy | Jun 15 2007 6:17 utc | 4

Back to Main