SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
If we had to narrow the talk surrounding the Libby scandal down to just one question, then it would have to be this: to what extent was the decision driven by Vice President Dick Cheney? If he played a role, that would send the impropriety meter, already waving in the red zone, right off the scale. Cheney was known to be in the special prosecutor’s crosshairs from the outset. No prosecution could be mounted for one simple reason: the stonewalling and misrepresentations of Scooter Libby. If Cheney was behind the decision to pardon Libby, from any objective perspective that would be for one reason: to protect himself by preserving Libby’s silence. That would be issuing a pardon in furtherance of a cover-up, which is precisely the circumstance for which – in the famous exchange between George Mason and James Madison in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 – impeachment was said to have been intended.
Moreover, we know from the recent Washington Post series on Cheney that there really aren’t any major decisions in the White House from which Cheney was divorced.
So today Michael Isikoff takes a look at this question in Newsweek and what he says will only further sound alarms.
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.” (White House officials and Cheney declined to comment. “As you know, we don’t discuss internal deliberations,” a Cheney spokeswoman tells Newsweek.)
Sounds to me like we’re deep into impeachment territory.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”