Olbermann's special comment to Obama re: FISA

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-07-01 01:42am

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/3 ... 10114.html

I love Keith Olbermann.

Turns out that the FISA bill's immunity portion only applies to civil lawsuits; there's no criminal immunity for anyone involved. Not the government officials who willfully broke the law and not the large telcos that helped them do it. If the bill passes with the immunity, it leaves the the door for the next president to start criminal investigations.

So maybe this is why Obama gave an unexpected measure of support to the amendment rather than as part of a "move to the center" strategy. Remember, he said that he'd vote against immunity, but it wasn't a deal-breaker for him so he'd vote for the bill even if it included the immunity. And if there's only civil immunity, I can definitely see why.

Sure it'd be nice for customers to be able to sue in civil court, but if the Democrats can get this version past the whining chorus of Republicans and onto Bush's desk for a signature (which he's already agreed to provide) without sacrificing potential criminal prosecution, then that's a totally acceptable compromise from where I'm sitting.

I've been trying to understand what the hell Obama was thinking with his kinda-sorta support for telco immunity because it just didn't jive with everything else he's said and done. If he actually read the amendment and concluded that it wasn't a huge threat to his principles, that would make a whole lot more sense. And if so, he's one smart bastard.

Mr. Sinister · Post by **Mr. Sinister** » 2008-07-01 02:14am

I've been following this issue since John Dean first mentioned this fact on Olbermann's show last week. I was wonder what the hell Obama was thinking as well until I heard them discuss it, and then it started to make sense. One thing concerns me, though.

If I listened to the commentary correctly, the only thing stopping Bush from issuing a blanket pardon would be it would confirm that what they did was actually illegal. How does that actually stop him, though? Even if it confirms that their actions were illegal, the pardon still stands and there is no way to convict. I'm I missing something?

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-07-01 02:26am

Because Bush would never issue a blanket pardon for anyone involved in the illegal wiretapping, right? I love KO, but this is clearly just a case of apologism for Obama's voting to allow the Telecoms immunity, just like when he was trying to put all of the Clinton campaigns outright offensiveness on her advisers.

Questor · Post by **Questor** » 2008-07-01 02:34am

I think issuing a blanket pardon would be political suicide, as it would be an admission that they broke the law. Bush has to much pride to admit this, so I don't think he would.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2008-07-01 02:40am

Jason L. Miles wrote:I think issuing a blanket pardon would be political suicide, as it would be an admission that they broke the law. Bush has to much pride to admit this, so I don't think he would.

Bush has been openly flouting the laws for a very long time. Why would this change now?

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-07-01 02:40am

Jason L. Miles wrote:I think issuing a blanket pardon would be political suicide, as it would be an admission that they broke the law. Bush has to much pride to admit this, so I don't think he would.

Political suicide for whom, Bush? He doesn't give a flying fuck about political anything once he's out of office. Fuck, a blanket pardon would make perfect sense from his deranged POV.

Academia Nut · Post by **Academia Nut** » 2008-07-01 02:44am

If McCain loses the election, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush starts handing out pardons like party favours, but I bet the Republican Party is thinking just long term enough to realize that if Bush starts openly admitting to illegal activities and such then it could completely torpedo the chances of anyone trying to get elected in 08, especially for the position of president.

Yogi · Post by **Yogi** » 2008-07-01 02:49am

Academia Nut wrote:If McCain loses the election, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush starts handing out pardons like party favours, but I bet the Republican Party is thinking just long term enough to realize that if Bush starts openly admitting to illegal activities and such then it could completely torpedo the chances of anyone trying to get elected in 08, especially for the position of president.

The American people don't give a shit. If they did, they would have started getting pissed off much MUCH sooner.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-07-01 02:51am

Academia Nut wrote:If McCain loses the election, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush starts handing out pardons like party favours, but I bet the Republican Party is thinking just long term enough to realize that if Bush starts openly admitting to illegal activities and such then it could completely torpedo the chances of anyone trying to get elected in 08, especially for the position of president.

You think Bush gives enough of a flying fuck what the Republicans want from him that he won't do whatever the fuck he thinks he has to do to "protect his vision" before turning over the WH to Obama? Have you not been paying attention for the last 8 years? I'd expect blanket pardons even if McCain somehow won.

Really, what the fuck does he have to lose by handing out pardons? Hell, he has more to lose by not issuing blanket pardons. And I'm talking about shit like the Justice Department's illegal hiring practices, and the Valerie Plame leak, too.

Mr. Sinister · Post by **Mr. Sinister** » 2008-07-01 02:57am

I think I understand, now. If there are holes, please feel free to shoot this down. By accepting the pardons it would be an acknowledgment that the actions they performed were illegal. That would mean that they performed illegal actions under the behalf of Bush, thus opening himself up to criminal culpability. Bush can pardon the telecoms, Bush can pardon government officials, but Bush cannot pardon himself. By issuing blanket pardons, he is basically admitting that he has ordered people to break the law. And unless McCain wins the election, then there is no one to pardon him.

That's my understanding of it.

Questor · Post by **Questor** » 2008-07-01 03:00am

Mr. Sinister wrote:I think I understand, now. If there are holes, please feel free to shoot this down. By accepting the pardons it would be an acknowledgment that the actions they performed were illegal. That would mean that they performed illegal actions under the behalf of Bush, thus opening himself up to criminal culpability. Bush can pardon the telecoms, Bush can pardon government officials, but Bush cannot pardon himself. By issuing blanket pardons, he is basically admitting that he has ordered people to break the law. And unless McCain wins the election, then there is no one to pardon him.

That's my understanding of it.

That, along with his pride, was what I was thinking.

And even if he can't be prosecuted, all congress has to do is hold hearings, and implicate anyone he misses in the pardons.

Also, I am not sure how specific the wording has to be on a pardon, could you lawyer a pardon away on technicalities?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2008-07-01 03:10am

I'm not so sure Olbermann is right as per Obama coming out and saying it.

See, that just signals to the GOP: You're screwed. Make sure you get pardons issued. And game over for any prosecution anywhere.

Obama has declared he will investigate the Bush administration's actions during his Presidency if he wins. That's more than most Presidents ever do. Is it really wise to openly let your opponent know, seven months early, you're going to hit them in the jaw? By then, they might have dodged.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-07-01 03:11am

Academia Nut wrote:If McCain loses the election, I wouldn't be surprised if Bush starts handing out pardons like party favours, but I bet the Republican Party is thinking just long term enough to realize that if Bush starts openly admitting to illegal activities and such then it could completely torpedo the chances of anyone trying to get elected in 08, especially for the position of president.

Most Presidents hand out their mass of controversial pardons just before they leave office (meaning, after the election that either unseats them or succeeds them), so I doubt politics will keep Bush from doing a blanket pardon (it didn't stop Bush Sr. from pardoning those involved in the Iran-Contra scandal). For that matter, Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence even though Bush wasn't a lame duck yet, and Libby was actually convicted of perjury pertaining to the Valerie Plame Affair.

I'm sorry, I like Keith Olbermann, but he's really reaching here to try to justify what Obama did. Never mind the fact that all of this is based on an assumption about what Obama might do - that he'll actually bother following through with prosecution of the Telecoms once he's in office, rather than letting bygones be bygones (like many Presidents) and focusing on his own agenda.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-07-01 03:13am

Obama has declared he will investigate the Bush administration's actions during his Presidency if he wins. That's more than most Presidents ever do.

Are you so certain that he'll actually do it? I have my doubts, for the reason you stated above - most Presidents just don't bother with it.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-07-01 03:16am

Flagg wrote:Because Bush would never issue a blanket pardon for anyone involved in the illegal wiretapping, right? I love KO, but this is clearly just a case of apologism for Obama's voting to allow the Telecoms immunity, just like when he was trying to put all of the Clinton campaigns outright offensiveness on her advisers.

Bush can't pardon himself. If he gives everyone else a pardon, the only fish left to fry is him, and those pardons would be used against him in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, if he issues preemptive pardons, his cronies have no incentive not to implicate him if federal prosecutors put the squeeze on them using whatever other illegal activities they've committed and haven't been pardoned for.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2008-07-01 03:20am

Durandal wrote:
Flagg wrote:Because Bush would never issue a blanket pardon for anyone involved in the illegal wiretapping, right? I love KO, but this is clearly just a case of apologism for Obama's voting to allow the Telecoms immunity, just like when he was trying to put all of the Clinton campaigns outright offensiveness on her advisers.
Bush can't pardon himself. If he gives everyone else a pardon, the only fish left to fry is him, and those pardons would be used against him in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, if he issues preemptive pardons, his cronies have no incentive not to implicate him if federal prosecutors put the squeeze on them using whatever other illegal activities they've committed and haven't been pardoned for.

You're assuming Obama actually has the balls to go after a former President with a criminal indictment, something which has never happened, AFAIK, in the history of the Presidency no matter how corrupt the Presidency. Not to mention that he'd have to spend political capital and time that would normally be used implementing his own agenda in the first term of his Presidency fighting through all the shit that would be flung his way in trying to do the above.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-07-01 03:31am

I'm only assuming that Bush won't do something that would so directly implicate him in criminal activity. The only thing his administration has proven good at is shielding him from direct implications of breaking the law.

Besides, a blanket pardon would almost demand a follow-up investigation.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-07-01 03:34am

Guardsman Bass wrote:
Durandal wrote:
Flagg wrote:Because Bush would never issue a blanket pardon for anyone involved in the illegal wiretapping, right? I love KO, but this is clearly just a case of apologism for Obama's voting to allow the Telecoms immunity, just like when he was trying to put all of the Clinton campaigns outright offensiveness on her advisers.
Bush can't pardon himself. If he gives everyone else a pardon, the only fish left to fry is him, and those pardons would be used against him in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, if he issues preemptive pardons, his cronies have no incentive not to implicate him if federal prosecutors put the squeeze on them using whatever other illegal activities they've committed and haven't been pardoned for.
You're assuming Obama actually has the balls to go after a former President with a criminal indictment, something which has never happened, AFAIK, in the history of the Presidency no matter how corrupt the Presidency. Not to mention that he'd have to spend political capital and time that would normally be used implementing his own agenda in the first term of his Presidency fighting through all the shit that would be flung his way in trying to do the above.

Essentially. And frankly, I don't think the public will be at all interested in lengthy investigations trying to catch Bush underlings in lies so they can try to use perjury indictments to get them to roll over on Bush. Frankly, I'm not interested in seeing Obama essentially waste his presidency on that.

The time to make the stand was on allowing Telecomm immunity in the first place and he chose the route of political expediency. Why anyone would be surprised at that is beyond me. The guy is a politician for fucks sake.

Lord of the Abyss · Post by **Lord of the Abyss** » 2008-07-01 03:39am

Durandal wrote:Bush can't pardon himself.

Are you sure ? As I understand it, legally a President ( probably ) CAN pardon himself. It's just that no President has had the gall/lack of dignity to do so. Yet.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-07-01 03:43am

Flagg wrote:Essentially. And frankly, I don't think the public will be at all interested in lengthy investigations trying to catch Bush underlings in lies so they can try to use perjury indictments to get them to roll over on Bush. Frankly, I'm not interested in seeing Obama essentially waste his presidency on that.

What you're interested in him doing and what he's willing to do are two different things. Do you think Nixon would've been pardoned if he pardoned everyone involved in Watergate before resigning?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-07-01 03:44am

Lord of the Abyss wrote:
Durandal wrote:Bush can't pardon himself.
Are you sure ? As I understand it, legally a President ( probably ) CAN pardon himself. It's just that no President has had the gall/lack of dignity to do so. Yet.

That would literally put a sitting president above the law.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-07-01 03:50am

Durandal wrote:
Flagg wrote:Essentially. And frankly, I don't think the public will be at all interested in lengthy investigations trying to catch Bush underlings in lies so they can try to use perjury indictments to get them to roll over on Bush. Frankly, I'm not interested in seeing Obama essentially waste his presidency on that.
What you're interested in him doing and what he's willing to do are two different things. Do you think Nixon would've been pardoned if he pardoned everyone involved in Watergate before resigning?

Considering who was replacing him? Yeah. And that set a very bad precedent. One I doubt anyone will ever overturn.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2008-07-01 03:53am

Lord of the Abyss wrote:
Durandal wrote:Bush can't pardon himself.
Are you sure ? As I understand it, legally a President ( probably ) CAN pardon himself. It's just that no President has had the gall/lack of dignity to do so. Yet.

I don't think so, but there is a perfectly sound way to get around that. Bush pardons Cheney and resigns on January 20, Cheney is sworn in as President and pardons Bush, then Obama or McCain is sworn in on January 21. It's just sleazy enough that it's perfect for the Bush administration. It also gets King George out of having to attend Obama's inauguration.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-07-01 03:55am

Again, political suicide. Bush cares too much about his legacy to risk a guaranteed thrashing in the history books. He may not be able to see why the Iraq invasion has already done that, but it's not hard to see how people would interpret a blanket-pardon.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2008-07-01 03:59am

Flagg wrote:
Lord of the Abyss wrote:
Durandal wrote:Bush can't pardon himself.
Are you sure ? As I understand it, legally a President ( probably ) CAN pardon himself. It's just that no President has had the gall/lack of dignity to do so. Yet.
I don't think so, but there is a perfectly sound way to get around that. Bush pardons Cheney and resigns on January 20, Cheney is sworn in as President and pardons Bush, then Obama or McCain is sworn in on January 21. It's just sleazy enough that it's perfect for the Bush administration. It also gets King George out of having to attend Obama's inauguration.

Such a scenario would almost certainly get dragged in front of the Supreme Court, who've already smacked him down on detainee rights more than once. It would essentially be the case that would destroy executive authority, and Cheney's neo-con buddies wouldn't approve of taking that risk.