LIBBY PARDON MAKES HYPOCRITES OF THEM ALL: Surely no one's memory can be that short. Doesn't anyone remember Clinton's pardon of the FALN terrorists?

Nancy Pelosi

Byron York writes:

It seems that after Clinton's FALN clemency, the House passed a bill "Expressing the Sense of the Congress that the President Should Not Have Granted Clemency to Terrorists." A number of now-outraged Democrats voted against the bill, including House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, now speaker, didn't vote. But she later explained that she was against criticizing the president's decision:

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, on the last vote, H. Con. Res. 180, I was detained in traffic while returning to the Capitol. Had I been present, I would have voted "no."

John Conyers

Kathryn Jean Lopez quotes a friend who writes:

I read your post on how Conyers is going to hold a hearing on clemency, and how such power “may be abused.”

Is this the same Conyers that voted AGAINST a resolution condemning Clinton for giving clemency to TERRORISTS?

[EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE CONGRESS THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED CLEMENCY TO TERRORISTS — (House of Representatives - September 09, 1999)]

NOTE: The resolution (H.Con.Res. 180) passed by a vote of 311-41; 72 voted ‘present.’ (Tally available here.)

And here’s what Conyers had to say THEN:

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to what is clearly a politically motivated and totally senseless resolution. We are a Nation of laws, and if any matter is abundantly clear by our Constitution, it is that the President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency. Is there any Member that does not understand that? Every President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency…Now the reason that he has the power to grant clemency is that it is that the President is uniquely positioned to consider the law and the facts that apply in each request for clemency.” [emphasis added]

Bill Clinton

Andy McCarthy writes:

I'm not kidding. I swear. He really said this: “I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted. You’ve got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”

I don't even know where to start ...

One can start with the record of the Democratic Congress thus far. John Hinderaker at Powerline wrote on May 15:

In January, the Democrats took over Congress with fanfare and promises. So far, though, not much has been delivered. Congressional Quarterly writes:

Democrats face a legislative traffic jam that threatens to leave the party without a single high-profile domestic victory heading into the Memorial Day recess.

On issues ranging from energy policy to a lobbying overhaul, Democrats acknowledge that they must show as soon as possible that they can govern.

So far, the Democratic Congress has been able to enact a mere 26 laws, 12 of which "changed the name of a federal building, post office or national recreation area."

The Washington Post on May 3 also noticed:

Not a single priority on the Democrats' agenda has been enacted, and some in the party are growing nervous that the "do nothing" tag they slapped on Republicans last year could come back to haunt them.

Congress is certainly free to disagree with President Bush and can take a vote condemning the Libby pardon the same way both the House and the Senate condemned Clinton's pardon of the FALN terrorists. But calling into question the power President Bush has to commute Libby's sentence is just a further waste of the Congress' time.

Technorati Tag: Scooter Libby and President Bush and Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers. and Democrats. and Democratic Congress.