The founders were exceptionally clear on the question of what should be done if a president abuses his privilege to pardon an associate, or by extension to commute the sentence of an aide.

James Madison, who is rightly referred to as “the father of the Constitution,” wrote extensively about the times in which impeachment would be necessary. “[If] the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty,” observed the man whose notes provide the essential outline of the deliberations of the Constitutional convention.

Madison’s Virginia compatriot, George Mason, who was an even more ardent advocate of impeachment, was similarly concerned about abuses of the power of the president to keep the law from touching his associates. The man now remembered as “the father of the Bill of Rights” feared that a future president might attempt to shield himself by preventing the prosecution or jailing of an aide who could testify to the president’s involvement in a high crime or misdemeanor.

Mason suggested that impeachment would surely be in order were a president to attempt “to stop inquiry and prevent detection” of wrongdoing within his administration — as the Bush White House is currently doing with its use of executive privilege to undermine congressional investigations of the politicization of federal prosecutions. Equally, the thoughtful founder suggested, impeachment would be in order were a president might to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” — as Bush has essentially done with the commutation of the sentence of his own former counselor and the chief of staff of his vice president.

Outing a covert opoerative in a time of war is treasonous. Especially one involved in gathering intelligence on Iran’s nuclear program.

The crime was lying under oath (perjury) and obstructing justice. Fitzgerald has said Libby was a barrier to the truth. Libby has no incentive to come clean; he faces no prison time and his fine has already be raised.

Might want to visit FactCheck.org to see what they say about this. Its a non-partisan site.

Cheney, Bush, and the neocons have done everything they can to conceal their fraud, lies, corruption and massive incompetence in their invasion and occupation of Iraq.

They need to keep Libby from talking, which is why there’s a commutation, rather than a pardon. Libby can still plead the fifth amendment and continue to to protect Cheney, Rove, and Bush,. This latest attempt to obstruct justice is a small part of an ongoing pattern of criminality and cover-up.

Please help me with this case. Libby was convicted of not telling the truth to the government in the course of an investigation. That is a serious crime and anyone who does that (Libby or Clinton) deserves a significant penalty. He was not convicted of outing a classified intelligence agent; Mrs Plame was/is not an agent working in a classified category covered by that law. In addition, her outing was done by Richard Armitrage, a vocal opponent of the Iraq conflict. That is a fact beyond dispute. My confusion is this: what was Libby covering up? Again, he did not out Plame, and Fitzgerald knew that at the time of the prosecution. And Plame’s outing did not fall under the purvue of the law protecting classified intelligence agents. So, what was his motivation to lie to the feds? I honestly wonder. Any ideas?

That said, Art, where is your coverage of the story?