Newsweek: Where News is Weak

Just when I though Newsweek's Michael Isikoff's analysis of the pardon power could not be any less enlightening, he out-does himself. When we last left him (here), he was going on and on about how a Scooter Libby pardon would not be "consistent" with "guidelines" in the Department of Justice. Yes, he recognized that the "guidelines" in no way limited the President, and were never intended to do such. But he just had to spend an entire article mulling over what he saw as a "problem" anyway. It is also notable that Isikoff was going on and on about the possibility of a pardon. He had nothing at all to say about any of the four ways Bush could have kept Libby out of prison without granting a pardon much less any motive that the President might have in using any particular one of them.

Now comes this snoozer of an "analysis" from Isikoff and Newsweek (Link), full of idle speculation and featuring very little of substance. Indeed, most of it could have been written off the top of the head by even the most casual partisan, although most would have probably written something more interesting.

Isikoff says Libby's commutation came "swiftly, and with stealth." Which leads one to wonder what planet he has been living on for the last couple of months. People have been calling for a clemency for a long, long time and even the national news media had the very strong sense that something might happen if Libby were called to prison. But, no, this all jumped on Isikoff like an ape from the trees in the darkest jungle, "swiftly."

I have no earthly idea what "stealth" means in this context, unless Isikoff is pining for the good old days when the brothers, wives, brothers-in-law, wealthy donors, pop stars and well-connected lawyers could be traced (with very little effort) to clemency decisions. Isikoff reports "senior staff" was under "strict instructions" not to "give away" any information about what the President might do, but doesn't seem to have had the literary imagination that would have prompted one to ask any of the "senior staff" persons if they actually had any idea what the president might do.

I have to give him credit though. Isikoff did get this precious jewel of information from his behind-the-scenes, "inside" investigation of the dark and merky, "stealth" White House:

Bush was intensely focused on the matter.

Now, that is some Pulitzer Prize-winning stuff!

After having wasted readers' time stumbling over irrelevant "guidelines" in the Department of Justice, and after having entirely missed the fact that Bush did not have to pardon Libby to keep him out of prison, Isikoff goes into an amateur psychologist routine to explain the action that he did not see coming:

In part, Bush may have stopped short of a full pardon precisely to keep Libby and other White House aides from Democrats on Capitol Hill. Investigators in Congress are eager to call Libby to testify ...

Isikoff backs up this very precise conjecture with no quote from anyone on the "inside." He had to go "outside" for this information. Who knows where? He provides no example from history. Bringing all of the resources of Newsweek to the fore, he does not provide a single example of a president granting a pardon and the recipient being forced to testify in front of Congress without the benefit of constitutional protections. Nor does he address the obvious question: Have Libby's supporters been oblivious to this scenario all along? Have they been lobbying intensely for a pardon knowing all along that it would jeopardize the administration in some other way? Pardons are not Newsweek's cup of tea.