Liberating Libby
On July 2 President George W Bush commuted the 30-month prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, who had been convicted of perjury, lying to investigators, and obstruction of the investigation of the Valerie Plame case. He will still have to pay a quarter of a million dollar fine, however. Unless his conviction is overturned on appeal, which is unlikely, he will be barred from practicing law or holding any government position for the rest of his life.
Libby was convicted of telling the FBI that he heard about Plame's role as an undercover CIA agent from reporters, while the truth was that he heard it from his boss, the Vice President. Although the leak of this information to the press was ultimately traced to State Department official Richard Armitage, no else was charged in the case.
Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, commented " Only a president ...incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today."(1) But House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R, Mo.) said " President Bush did the right thing.....the punishment did not fit the crime."
Who is right? Who is wrong?
First , I will concede that there are many people sitting in federal prisons today convicted of offenses no more serious than those of which Libby was found guilty . Unlike Libby, they did not have powerful connections to the Bush White House, and the President does appear overly concerned over their incarceration. Although we aspire to equal justice for all, the fact remains that people with wealth and political connections fare better in the criminal justice system than the poor and unimportant. (Just ask O J Simpson!)
However, in the context of lying and misrepresentation in the White House, Libby' s sentence was unusally harsh and the commutation was justified. Here are some examples:
Richard Nixon: President Nixon told numerous lies about his knowledge of the Watergate break-in, and urged subordinates to lie to federal agencies and commit perjury. By doing so, Nixon was able to hide the truth until after he was re-elected, and it took more than two years for the truth to emerge. When it did, the credibility of the presidency was undermined for a generation.
While many of his underlings went to jail, Nixon received a full pardon from his successor Gerald Ford on September 8, 1974. When Ford died earlier this year, his decision to pardon Nixon was widely praised. Unlike Libby, Nixon (whose offenses were far more injurious to the nation) never had to contend with a trial , conviction or fine. If Ford's pardon was right, Bush's commutation was even more so. Let's see how many of those who praised Ford's action taken in 1974 will now salute the more modest clemency provided by Bush now.
Bill Clinton: President Clinton lied repeatedly about the Monica Lewinsky affair in a deposition under oath and in many public statements. After securing the dubious distinction of being only the second US President to be impeached (2), Clinton refused to resign and ultimately beat the rap in the Senate. He could have been indicted for perjury after leaving office in 2001, but the Bush Justice Department never pursued the matter. The term of Special Prosecutor Kenneth W Starr had expired, so Clinton incurred no penalty at all (aside from humilation) for his lies.
Iraq Lies: You might consider these examples as not applicable to the Libby case, since both Nixon and Clinton were President of the United States when they told their fibs. One might conclude that Presidents can lie with impunity, but appointed officials will be held legally accountable for doing so. Recent history actually shows that many officials have told lies about far more serious matters than the Valerie Plame case, and were never even charged.
Then Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in early 2003 that President Bush "did not have a plan for invading Iraq on his desk." Powell knew that Bush had planned to topple Sadam Hussein since becoming President (3), and had ordered the Defense Department to prepare a plan to invade Iraq. The fact that the plan was not "on his desk" at the moment that Powell made the statement is a "red herring" that does not detract from the the intentionally misleading nature of the statement.
Vice President Cheney said, at about the same time, that the President was certain that Sadam was developing nuclear weapons. Since we now know that the Iraq nuclear program was dead since about 1991, there was no way that President Bush could be certain that the program was succeeding. Of course, Cheney knew this when he made the claim.
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice spoke about an Iraqi "mushroom cloud" at this time, giving the American people the false impression that the Government had secret proof that Sadam had, or was about to have, atomic bombs. Like Powell and Cheney, Rice knew that the evidence for an Iraqi nuclear program was inconclusive at best.
None of these people, nor anyone else, has even been charged with lying about the pretext for attacking Iraq, which has resulted in far more harm to Americans and US interests than the Plame case.
Since Libby is no danger to the public, and will never have the opportunity to lie again as a government official, imprisoning him would really accomplish nothing. The "message" that the commutation sends to others in government jobs (now or in the future) is only that if you lie and get caught, you might be lucky enough to avoid jail via executive clemency. But then again, you might not be well enough connected to get the ear of the President, or he may have left office by time your trial is over. Either way, you will still lose your job, your career, and much (or all) of your life-savings. Is that enough of a deterrent?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 3, 2007, page 9A.
(2) Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 and narrowly acquitted. Nixon resigned before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on impeachment in August, 1974.
(3) As revealed by then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Powell was present when regime-change in Iraq was first proposed in 2001.
Libby was convicted of telling the FBI that he heard about Plame's role as an undercover CIA agent from reporters, while the truth was that he heard it from his boss, the Vice President. Although the leak of this information to the press was ultimately traced to State Department official Richard Armitage, no else was charged in the case.
Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, commented " Only a president ...incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today."(1) But House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R, Mo.) said " President Bush did the right thing.....the punishment did not fit the crime."
Who is right? Who is wrong?
First , I will concede that there are many people sitting in federal prisons today convicted of offenses no more serious than those of which Libby was found guilty . Unlike Libby, they did not have powerful connections to the Bush White House, and the President does appear overly concerned over their incarceration. Although we aspire to equal justice for all, the fact remains that people with wealth and political connections fare better in the criminal justice system than the poor and unimportant. (Just ask O J Simpson!)
However, in the context of lying and misrepresentation in the White House, Libby' s sentence was unusally harsh and the commutation was justified. Here are some examples:
Richard Nixon: President Nixon told numerous lies about his knowledge of the Watergate break-in, and urged subordinates to lie to federal agencies and commit perjury. By doing so, Nixon was able to hide the truth until after he was re-elected, and it took more than two years for the truth to emerge. When it did, the credibility of the presidency was undermined for a generation.
While many of his underlings went to jail, Nixon received a full pardon from his successor Gerald Ford on September 8, 1974. When Ford died earlier this year, his decision to pardon Nixon was widely praised. Unlike Libby, Nixon (whose offenses were far more injurious to the nation) never had to contend with a trial , conviction or fine. If Ford's pardon was right, Bush's commutation was even more so. Let's see how many of those who praised Ford's action taken in 1974 will now salute the more modest clemency provided by Bush now.
Bill Clinton: President Clinton lied repeatedly about the Monica Lewinsky affair in a deposition under oath and in many public statements. After securing the dubious distinction of being only the second US President to be impeached (2), Clinton refused to resign and ultimately beat the rap in the Senate. He could have been indicted for perjury after leaving office in 2001, but the Bush Justice Department never pursued the matter. The term of Special Prosecutor Kenneth W Starr had expired, so Clinton incurred no penalty at all (aside from humilation) for his lies.
Iraq Lies: You might consider these examples as not applicable to the Libby case, since both Nixon and Clinton were President of the United States when they told their fibs. One might conclude that Presidents can lie with impunity, but appointed officials will be held legally accountable for doing so. Recent history actually shows that many officials have told lies about far more serious matters than the Valerie Plame case, and were never even charged.
Then Secretary of State Colin Powell stated in early 2003 that President Bush "did not have a plan for invading Iraq on his desk." Powell knew that Bush had planned to topple Sadam Hussein since becoming President (3), and had ordered the Defense Department to prepare a plan to invade Iraq. The fact that the plan was not "on his desk" at the moment that Powell made the statement is a "red herring" that does not detract from the the intentionally misleading nature of the statement.
Vice President Cheney said, at about the same time, that the President was certain that Sadam was developing nuclear weapons. Since we now know that the Iraq nuclear program was dead since about 1991, there was no way that President Bush could be certain that the program was succeeding. Of course, Cheney knew this when he made the claim.
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice spoke about an Iraqi "mushroom cloud" at this time, giving the American people the false impression that the Government had secret proof that Sadam had, or was about to have, atomic bombs. Like Powell and Cheney, Rice knew that the evidence for an Iraqi nuclear program was inconclusive at best.
None of these people, nor anyone else, has even been charged with lying about the pretext for attacking Iraq, which has resulted in far more harm to Americans and US interests than the Plame case.
Since Libby is no danger to the public, and will never have the opportunity to lie again as a government official, imprisoning him would really accomplish nothing. The "message" that the commutation sends to others in government jobs (now or in the future) is only that if you lie and get caught, you might be lucky enough to avoid jail via executive clemency. But then again, you might not be well enough connected to get the ear of the President, or he may have left office by time your trial is over. Either way, you will still lose your job, your career, and much (or all) of your life-savings. Is that enough of a deterrent?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1)Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 3, 2007, page 9A.
(2) Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 and narrowly acquitted. Nixon resigned before the House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on impeachment in August, 1974.
(3) As revealed by then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Powell was present when regime-change in Iraq was first proposed in 2001.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 8:53 AM
1 Comments:
Another excellent, well written and well documented post.
However, there are two other aspects of this issue: i.e the comparison of presidential pardons, and the actual crime.
1.Comparison of pardons
You mentioned the pardon of Nixon, but many presidents have pardoned some very nefarious criminals, many of them for political reasons.
For example, Clinton pardoned Marc Rich, a felon who was convicted of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran, because Marc Rich was a large monetary contributor to Clinton's political career.
Therefore, when comparing those who were pardoned by presidents, the pardon of Scooter Libby by Bush is a very minor event.
2. The actual crime
Libby was convicted of lying about a lie. That is, Plame was outed by Armitage, yet Libby was convicted for lying that she was outed by a CIA agent rather than Cheney. But she wasn't outed by Cheney.
Is it even possible to lie about a lie?
This entire case was absurd after Armitage admitted that he leaked Plame's CIA association not Cheney or Libby or Bush or whomever.
This case is similar to the Nifong case. There was no crime to begin with and it should never have been prosecuted.
Bush should have outright pardoned Libby and he would have if he were not so politically weak and if this ocurred at the end of his term. Clinton pardoned Marc Rich on his last day in office in order to avoid political problems of his action.
This is just another case of a loyal Jew being stabbed in the back and hung out to dry by his non-Jew superiors. Jews are always expendible.
Post a Comment
<< Home