Can’t.. Resist… Urge…
Okay, I was wrong. There is a lot more to say about the Libby commutation, especially after reading more news reports. I go on for a bit here, but still there is so much more out there on this case that it’s hard to believe. One of the main conclusions is that Bush did not give Libby clemency to please his base–that would have merited a full pardon–but he did so to shut Libby up. The reasoning is that a full pardon would have erased Libby’s Fifth Amendment right to not testify on certain matters that could incriminate Cheney or the president. Not doing anything would have given Libby the choice of a prison cell or testifying. One can only imagine the communication between Libby and the Bush White House in brokering this deal–or perhaps it was all settled long ago, and Libby agreed to take the fall if he would be granted clemency before having to serve time in jail. Whatever the case, Bush’s actions clearly point to far more than “fairness” or even appealing to his base.
DailyKos has the goods on how Bush twisted the truth in his rationalization of commuting Libby’s sentence: he said that the judge “rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.” Except that the probation office recommended 15 to 21 months in prison rather than two years. But such a downward departure would only be warranted if the judge ruled completely in Libby’s favor, accepting every single argument on his behalf. In other words, Bush was faulting the judge for not swinging every single point of judgment fully in Libby’s favor. And Bush criticized the judge for being “excessive.”
What’s more, this judge is one that Bush appointed himself, and one could hardly make the claim that he’s been appointing anything but hardcore right-wingers.
People are also talking about how Libby deserved a lesser sentence because his career was “damaged,” “destroyed,” or “devastated.” Bullcrap. If anything, his career is now enhanced. Libby is now a conservative hero, and say what you want about conservatives, they take care of their own. Look at Ollie North and G. Gordon Libby; neither are wanting for anything due to their “damaged” careers. If Libby does not get a lucrative talk-radio gig or book deal, he’ll at the very least get a cushy job at a lobbying firm or a major corporation. Libby will live in the lap of luxury, and now that the prison term has been commuted, his penalty will be that he’ll have to visit a probation officer monthly for a few years. The financial hit is temporary, and will be more than offset by the goodies certain to come his way.
At the very least, Libby is still a felon. Normally I would hope for the right-wingers who support Libby to be at least a little embarrassed about all the slams about liberals and felons in elections… but we’re talking about right-wingers here, and so double standards are the norm.
Here’s one prime example: the right-wing blog PowerLine said,
The problem is that there are no formal or informally agreed upon standards with which to evaluate a president’s decision in these cases. One can look at the practices of past presidents, but it’s a very imperfect guide. For example, we wouldn’t want our presidents to emulate President Clinton’s practice of pardoning those whose family members contributed to his presidential library.In the Libby case, there are several factors that militated in favor of commuting the sentence (and made out an arguable, though less compelling, case for a pardon). The two most important factors are Libby’s public service and the fact that, at the time Libby made the false statements in question, the prosecutor already knew the answer to the question he had come to Washington to investigate. Indeed, it seems likely that but for the high profile and political context of the investigation, the prosecutor would not have asked Libby these questions. In addition, it may also be relevenat that Bill Clinton was never prosecuted for committing perjury with respect to matters where, unlike here, the facts were not yet known.
Talk about revisionist history! First, they bring up the favorite right-wing cliche, “Clinton did it and worse!” Then they argue that Libby’s case was entrapment, unlike Clinton, where “the facts were not yet known.” Bull. Starr got tapes from Linda Tripp on January 12, 1998, in which Lewinski made references to an affair with Clinton; the next day, Starr had Tripp meet with Lewinski wearing a wiretap to get as much from her surreptitiously as was possible. Starr had fully half a year to develop that evidence before Clinton gave the denial under oath that he was impeached for–on August 17, 1998.
In short, the right wing justifies its double-standard by flat-out lying. Inadvertently, the wingnut just defended Bill Clinton while trying to attack him. And I would have to check out the suggestion that Fitz knew the answer to the questions Libby lied about, or asked them in an attempt to solicit perjury, as was so clearly the case with Clinton.
But in the case of the Plame leak, it’s not just the right-wing bloggers who are full of it. When the leak was first announced, Bush said, “There are too many leaks of classified information in Washington. There’s leaks at the executive branch; there’s leaks in the legislative branch. There’s just too many leaks. And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. … we’ll take the appropriate action.” Um, yeah, right.
Again, some liberals are calling for impeachment; the downside, of course, would be the “Quayle Effect” of putting Cheney into office (which is really just a formal distinction anyway). Can Congress impeach both the president and vice president at the same time? That would do nicely.
So far, conservatives have been mute on the issue. If they agree with Bush’s action, they align themselves with him on an unpopular action which stinks of corruption and cronyism, thus damaging their credibility with the all-important independent voters; if they criticize it, then they risk alienating the Republican base, and thus harm their chances in the primary process. Look for statements issued after a longish wait to see how the wind is blowing, and even then statements which will be as lukewarm, vague, and noncommittal as is possible.
Except for Fred Thompson, who released this statement:
I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children. While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the President’s decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life.
It would seem that Thompson is trying to be Reaganesque: folksy, warm, decisive, and unabashedly loyalist, even if it contradicts reason, morality, or plain common sense. Not very hard to see his game plan as being one of the Second Coming.
Talk about revisionist history! First, they bring up the favorite right-wing cliche, “Clinton did it and worse!” Then they argue that Libby’s case was entrapment, unlike Clinton, where “the facts were not yet known.” Bull. Starr got tapes from Linda Tripp on January 12, 1998, in which Lewinski made references to an affair with Clinton; the next day, Starr had Tripp meet with Lewinski wearing a wiretap to get as much from her surreptitiously as was possible. Starr had fully half a year to develop that evidence before Clinton gave the denial under oath that he was impeached for–on August 17, 1998.
Does this mean you agree that Fitgerald entrapped Libby? You don’t spend any time making the case that he didn’t.
Because a case can’t be made otherwise. Libby’s guilty of obstruction, sure. But what did he prevent Fitzgerald from finding out? Fitzy already knew Armitage was the leaker, so he didn’t obstruct that part of the investigation. Fitzy could have indicted Rove for discrepencies in his testimony. He didn’t. He could have indicted Armitage for hiding his conversation with Woodward. He didn’t. I wonder why.
You imply what Libby lied about is Big Bad Cheney conspiring with Rove and Libby to leak the status of Valerie Plame. Prove it. Where’s the evidence of conspiracy? Where’s the evidence that Libby and Rove lied about that? All we know is Libby lied about something that had nothing to do with the original, more pressing matter.
And don’t say the reason there is no evidence is because of Libby’s lying. The reason why there’s no indictment of any leakers is because of Plame’s unclear nature of her covert status, as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Libby’s obstruction had nothing to do with that, either.
Cc: read farther into the post–I stated that I did not know the specifics of the Libby case. If it was entrapment, and if it was political in nature, then there may be a case.
However, the claim about Libby’s entrapment is not mine–it is yours and PowerLine’s–and so far as I can tell, neither of you present any evidence to support the claim. That’s your burden. I have already proved mine, and shown up PL to be dead wrong as well as accidental Clinton supporters.
So where’s your evidence? What do you have to support the claim that Libby was entrapped?
Fine. You got me. I can’t prove Libby was entrapped. I can only make a reasonable conclusion based on the circumstances at hand. I can’t see how one can conclude otherwise.
But okay, entrapment, not entrapment… even if it wasn’t, what President Bush did was entirely justifiable. I’ve read many articles (which I’ll be more than happy to provide links to) which make an excellent case for a commutation (or a pardon, for that matter.) They also make it clear as crystal just how corrupt this investigation was. At the trial, Fitzgeral said there was no underlying crime, and that Libby didn’t leak the info that sparked the investigation. But then he claimed Libby seriously undermined the law. Um, which is it, Fitzy? Now, the whole brouhaha was unclear from the beginning, with all this sparring about whether Plame was covert or not covert at the time of the “leak.” Great, there should have been an investigation to clear that up. I have no problem with that. But how exactly did it degenerate into a partisan debate into the Iraq War? How did Libby get caught in the middle?
No one else was indicted for anything. Certainly not Armitage. Basically, Libby was indicted a) for his vagueness, and b) because Fitzgerald was so determined to pursue him, a jury was cowed into finding him guilty. So, pleased excuse some of us if we think it looks like entrapment on the face of it. But okay, whatever. If they were convinced he lied to divert an investigation, there’s not much to be done about that. And I’ll grant that even if he wasn’t covering up anything, had he lied anyway he should be convicted. But the sentence was utterly unjustified and unwarranted. Before this ridiculous mess happened, Libby served his country with not a single controversy to his name. And not only does he half to pay a quarter of a million dollars and serve probabtion. He also had to serve 30 months in jail. By any reasonable standard, that’s ridiculous.
Frankly, everyone has gone overboard about this. It’s just a commutation. The conviction still stands. And for those who believe Bush will pardon Libby in the future, all I can do is LOL! Just read his statements! There’s every indication he’s not going to pardon him at this time. And if he does, it’s his Constitutional right, lest everyone forgets.
So, Bush has committed no miscarraige of justice, end of story. Of course, all the Bush haters are making this out to be the most despicable, heinous act of law breaking or something like that. Too bad you all can’t see the truth. Not only is what Bush did fair, it’s one hundred percent justifiable.
They also make it clear as crystal just how corrupt this investigation was. At the trial, Fitzgeral said there was no underlying crime, and that Libby didn’t leak the info that sparked the investigation. But then he claimed Libby seriously undermined the law. Um, which is it, Fitzy?Here you are proceeding on the mistaken assumption that there must be first proof that a crime has been committed for an investigation to take place; this is what Bob Novak took hold of in order to make it seem like it was not a legitimate investigation. However, there were potentially crimes that had been committed–unless you think that it’s perfectly legal to blow the cover of a CIA operative, spilling state secrets. In case you’ve forgotten, Bush himself agreed that this had to be investigated. Fitzgerald explained it thus: Investigators do not set out to investigate the statute, they set out to gather the facts.It’s critical that when an investigation is conducted by prosecutors, agents and a grand jury they learn who, what, when, where and why. And then they decide, based upon accurate facts, whether a crime has been committed, who has committed the crime, whether you can prove the crime and whether the crime should be charged.Agent Eckenrode doesn’t send people out when $1 million is missing from a bank and tell them, “Just come back if you find wire fraud.” If the agent finds embezzlement, they follow through on that.That’s the way this investigation was conducted. It was known that a CIA officer’s identity was blown, it was known that there was a leak. We needed to figure out how that happened, who did it, why, whether a crime was committed, whether we could prove it, whether we should prove it.And given that national security was at stake, it was especially important that we find out accurate facts.President Bush agreed:”If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. “If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.”I welcome the investigation. I am absolutely confident the Justice Department will do a good job.So, explain to me how it is corrupt? Even Bush was not sure that a crime had been committed–he said “if” there was a leak–and yet he welcomed the investigation.
So, in short, your primary premise for seeing corruption is completely and utterly mistaken. It was not corrupt, and Fitzgerald held to high standards, no matter what Bob Novak said.
By the way, Fitzgerald never said there was “no underlying crime” before the investigation started–you are quoting Bob Novak, which explains why you misunderstand the case as you do.No one else was indicted for anything. Certainly not Armitage. Basically, Libby was indicted a) for his vagueness, and b) because Fitzgerald was so determined to pursue him, a jury was cowed into finding him guilty.Here is another error on your part: you are concluding that since no one other than Libby was indicted, and because Libby was not indicted for leaking the name, that therefore the name was not leaked illegally and no other crimes were committed. That also is faulty logic. Bill Clinton was not indicted for perjury (impeachment is not a criminal trial), does that mean he never perjured himself?
Furthermore, one of the charges against Libby was obstruction of justice. As Fitzgerald put it: And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He’s trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.In other words, your argument is that the case against Libby is bogus because no one was charged with the underlying crime–when Libby was indicted for preventing the investigation from discovering the underlying crime.
I would ask again the basic question here: do you really see it as not illegal or improper for officials in the White House to blow the cover of a CIA operative, thus degrading national security and endangering that agent’s sources, and doing so as a means of retribution for the agent’s spouse showing up the president for using false information the State of the Union speech?
Honestly, now: had it been Clinton who lied, and Gore and his people who set out to blow the cover of a CIA agent whose spouse had criticized Clinton–would you be defending the person indicted for perjury and obstruction in just the same way? Hell, no–you’d be apoplectic with rage over the matter.
So you might want to reconsider your argument.