George Bush commutes Libby Sentence.
Never has an American President held the rule of law, the Divinely inspired United States Constitution, and those rights that are objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition . . . and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, in such disdain and contempt as has George Bush.
Hypocrisy Thy Name is Bush
Andrew Sullivan
Moderate Voice
New York Times
Talk Left1
Talk Left 2
Talk Left 3
TPM
Washington Post
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Statement:
Reid: Bush’s Commutation of Libby’s Prison Sentence Endorses Administration’s Culture of Corruption
Washington, DC — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today after President Bush commuted the prison sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby for obstruction of justice:
“The President’s decision to commute Mr. Libby’s sentence is disgraceful. Libby’s conviction was the one faint glimmer of accountability for White House efforts to manipulate intelligence and silence critics of the Iraq War. Now, even that small bit of justice has been undone. Judge Walton correctly determined that Libby deserved to be imprisoned for lying about a matter of national security. The Constitution gives President Bush the power to commute sentences, but history will judge him harshly for using that power to benefit his own Vice President’s Chief of Staff who was convicted of such a serious violation of law.”
Other democratic leaders’ comments via Daily Kos
Additional Washington reactions via CNN
Editorials
Los Angeles Times
Washington Post
New York Times
Chicago Tribune
San Francisco Chronicle
Detroit Free Press
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Editor and Publisher
July 2, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Amen, brother.
July 2, 2007 at 6:11 pm
[...] Clark Link to Article george w bush Stitting On His Throne In A State Of Thoughtless Stupor » Posted [...]
July 2, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Why should we suppose the pardon authority is in the Constitution in the first place, if not to provide for the remedying of such questionable miscarriages of justice as this one?
Libby was convicted for giving an inconsistent account of a series of events that no two other witnesses could independently agree on, events where there was no underlying crime, something the prosecutor knew from the beginning.
If the President allowed his prison sentence to stand he would be doing the country an enormous disservice – by allowing such prosecutorial excesses to discourage any rational person from ever serving in the executive branch. Why serve if you run the risk of being sent to prison for immaterial and inconsequential lapses of memory?
July 2, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Mark D.
There was no questionable miscarriage of justice in this case. Judge Reggie B. Walton, the experienced federal judge, appointed by George Bush himself, who tried and sentenced Mr. Libby stated at the sentencing that the evidence of Mr. Libby’s perjury was “overwhelming.”
Libby was convicted of lying to the FBI, perjuring himself in front of a grand jury, and obstructing justice, not for:
I guess my response to your question is that if high government officials cannot serve without lying to the FBI, perjuring themselves to grand juries, or obstructing justice, well, perhaps they just shouldn’t serve.
July 2, 2007 at 8:19 pm
It may very well be the case that Libby is in technical violation of the law. The problem is that it is highly questionable that he had any criminal intent in doing so.
No underlying crime occurred. So how could he materially be obstructing justice? He never should have been prosecuted in the first place.
There are many others in this case who could have been prosecuted for similar or more serious violations. Victoria Toensing delineates a long list in the Washington Post here.
July 2, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Guy,
You said, “Never has an American President held the rule of law, the Divinely inspired United States Constitution, and those rights that are objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition . . . and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, in such disdain and contempt as has George Bush.”
Really? What about Clinton?
July 2, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Mark D.
You seem to miss the point. The jury conviction of a high ranking government appointee for obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to the FBI is not a mere technical violation of the law, no matter how many times you insist otherwise.
All of Libby’s convictions reflect the underlying crimes, of which he was guilty.
As I have already pointed out, Judge Reggie B. Walton who tried this case disagrees with your conclusions. The evidence was overwhelming. Your quarrel then, appears to be with the prosecutor and the judge in this case, both of whom were elevated to their respective offices by the current Oval Office occupant.
I give greater weight to the opinions of the federally appointed career prosecutor who prosecuted this case and the Federal Judge who tried it, than that of Victoria Toensing, notwithstanding her status as a political partisan.
July 2, 2007 at 10:01 pm
The only remedy is impeachment and removal.
July 2, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Brian D.
Bill Clinton, for all his faults (and there were many) didn’t hold a candle to George Bush’s abuse of power and authority. To name just a few:
1. The manipulation of intelligence and misleading the country to justify an immoral, unjust, and unnecessary preemptive war in Iraq.
2. Directing the government to engage in domestic spying without warrants, in direct contravention of U.S. law.
3. Conspiring to commit the torture of prisoners, in violation of the Federal Torture Act and the Geneva Convention.
4. Ordering the indefinite detention without legal counsel, without charges and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention — all in violation of U.S. law and the Bill of Rights.
Today was just another in the long list.
July 3, 2007 at 6:18 am
My quarrel is with the prosecutor in particular – I believe the case against Libby is an abuse of prosecutorial discretion. Supposing that Libby did go out of his way to deceive the FBI and the grand jury, what possible motive could he have for doing so? What did he have to cover up? Nothing.
And supposing that despite having no motive for doing so, he went out of his way to deceive investigators about the timing and contents of a few conversations with some journalists, what harm has been done to anyone except himself?
The punishment should fit the crime. He has lost his job, his reputation, and remains convicted of a felony with a heavy fine. That is more than enough penalty for whatever misstatements he may have made. Bush was right to commute his prison sentence.
It is worth noting that President Clinton was impeached for similar violations – lying to investigators and obstruction of justice. I don’t recall him spending any time in prison. Or consider the case of Sandy Berger, National Security Adviser to President Clinton, who stole highly classified documents from the National Archives. No prison time for him either.
I consider it hypocritical for anyone to push for the imprisonment of Libby, unless he is equally willing to imprison Clinton and Berger for the crimes they committed.
July 3, 2007 at 6:49 am
The Clinton argument has merit. Both Libby and Clinton lied in response to questions that were not legitimately asked. It is in nobody’s interest to have prosecutors manufacturing crimes by political figures the way Ken Starr and Patrick Fitzgerald have done. Both of those investigations should have been shut down long before the fatal questions were asked. Hopefully, this will send a message to prosecutors to stay within their mandates.
In the meantime, Libby’s fine is still double what Clinton had to pay.
July 3, 2007 at 7:10 am
Never? What about Andrew Jackson or Richard Nixon? And just how is exercising the constitutionally appointed authority to pardon, showing a contempt and disdain for the constitution and the rule of law?
July 3, 2007 at 7:30 am
Jackson, Nixon and LBJ seemed to think the law was a mere afterthought. I don’t disagree, but you sound a little like Dan with that opening statement.
July 3, 2007 at 7:31 am
I should say, I don’t disagree with the premise of the post—
July 3, 2007 at 8:06 am
Sorry, I really wasn’t trolling. I don’t disagree with the premise of the post either, my objection is more about its tone. It would seem to only appeal to readers who already hate Bush. Moderates like me, who merely dislike Bush, tend to be put off by posts like this, because reason is replaced with rhetoric. There are plenty of good reasons to dislike Bush, but I don’t see the connection between exercising the pardon power and disdain/contempt for the constitution.
July 3, 2007 at 8:25 am
Mark D.
Mark, there is no supposing. The man was convicted. He did go out of his way to lie to the FBI and he did perjure himself to a federal grand jury, while he sat as the most trusted adviser to the United States Vice President.
His motive? Obvious, to cover up and protect Dick Cheney’s involvement in the Plame matter. Who knows who else he was protecting. Apparently we’ll never really know.
His punishment now is nothing. Libby never needs to work again a day in his life. He will write his tell all book, earn millions, and he will have done it because he is a convicted felon, who was de facto pardoned and lied to protect the Vice President of the United States.
President Clinton was not convicted, so of course he would not have spent any time in prison, nor was he forced to leave office. That said, however, I think Clinton’s actions in lying under oath were despicable. I thought at the time he should have resigned. It would have been the honorable thing to do. We seem to have lost that concept of honor in our leaders and those who advise them. It’s not just a republican short coming. Mr. Clinton shares blame as do others.
Again Sandy Berger was not charged or convicted; however, had he been, I believe he should have served whatever sentence the judicial system would have imposed.
And finally, your question:
what harm has been done to anyone except himself?
The harm, Mark is that which has been done to our system. Our democracy requires that leaders, their advisers and even the people themselves act honestly. The justice systems depends upon people telling the truth. We cannot have one standard of justice for the vast majority of Americans, and a separate and unequal system of justice for friends of the President and Vice President of the United States. Our democracy cannot survive and flourish in such a Machiavellian system.
Last Lemming:
I think I have addressed the Bill Clinton thing above. The prosecutor didn’t manufacture any crimes here. It was not the prosecutor who lied under oath, lied to the FBI, or obstructed justice. Those acts alone rest with Mr. Libby, the senior most adviser to the Vice President of the United States. Don’t you think we ought to have just a bit higher standard of conduct of such individuals?
dakwegmo:
Yes, Never! I once thought Richard Nixon was the most unethical Oval Office occupant; but, even he did not pardon Haldeman, Erlichman, or Mitchell. I think with Bush’s track record from Iraq, to torture, to wiretapping, to detentions, to his disdain for Congress and the Judicial system, that Bush in fact descends below even Richard Nixon.
Sherpa:
I agree with your laundry list of scoff laws–I just think Bush now is the clear leader of that rat pack. And, I guess I figured that since Dan hadn’t yet posted on this, I’d start things off
But, overall, I think you and I agree more than we disagree on this.
July 3, 2007 at 8:38 am
dakwegmo
I didn’t consider your response a troll. I recognize that my tone was rather harsh. And, the fact is, I don’t hate George Bush; but, I do hate many of the things he has done. I hate what he has done to the principles upon which our Divinely inspired Constitution rests. I hate how he has tarnished America’s reputation at home and abroad. I hate how he has sacrificed so much of America’s wealth and blood in such a frivolous endeavor in Iraq. But, most of all I hate his self righteous attitude. His actions that suggest he and his friends are above the law is reprehensible and unforgivable.
Certainly others will disagree. But, for me, this latest abuse of Presidential power was just more than I could bear. It’s not just this exercise of power that leads to my conclusions. It’s his entire focus and scope of the exercise, or what I consider to be the abuse of power since 9/11. It’s the inclusion of the wiretapping, the torture, the war, his refusal to consider any other alternatives, his ignoring of the Baker-Hamilton commission recommendations. I could go on and on.
Thanks for your comments.
July 3, 2007 at 8:44 am
We do. I don’t know if this Administration has done as much as the others…for sheer lack of imagination..but I do agree that they’re up there.
July 3, 2007 at 9:17 am
Hey Guy, regarding this statement:
“Again Sandy Berger was not charged or convicted; however, had he been, I believe he should have served whatever sentence the judicial system would have imposed.”
Sandy Berger pled guilty to the misdemeanor of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material and got an extremely good plea bargain:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Berger#Convicted_of_mishandling_classified_terror_documents
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/08/berger.sentenced/
So, remove “highly classified documents” from the archives and destroy them: Get a $50,000 fine and community service.
Commit perjury and obstruction of justice where no underlying provable crime occurred: Get a $250,000 fine and a 30 month prison sentence.
I believe President Bush was correct in his determination that Libby’s punishment was excessive given the circumstances.
July 3, 2007 at 9:32 am
Another thought Guy, based on post #9 am I correct in assuming that you are in agreement that the commutation of Libby’s prison sentence, when considered separately, isn’t that big of a deal when compared to previous Presidential pardons?
IOW, it’s the fact that President Bush did this, who carries a lot of negative baggage for you, that is the problem, not the action itself.
July 3, 2007 at 9:33 am
Aluwid:
You are right. I stand corrected on Berger. Thanks for the links and for correcting that misstatement. It appears, however, that Mr. Berger fully served his judicially imposed sentence without commutation. He also eventually acknowledged responsibility as well as contrition. Do you suppose we might see something similar from Mr. Libby?
July 3, 2007 at 9:39 am
Aluid:
In a vacuum the Libby commutation was likely on a par with prior Presidential pardons, not that many of them or this was was a responsible exercise of that presidential power. Unfortunately Mr. Bush is not operating in a vacuum.
It’s the consistent abuse of Presidential power by Mr. Bush that is the problem, not just the one abuse by itself or the man personally. At least that’s how I see it.
July 3, 2007 at 9:46 am
Guy,
Your guess is as good as mine if President Bush will grant him a full pardon on his final day in office. I’d prefer he didn’t unless there is evidence of a tainted jury (e.g. if they were trying to express their displeasure of Bush/Cheney by sending Libby to jail). Still as you said the pardon itself wouldn’t be out of the realm of past Presidential behavior. It pays to have high connections after all, especially if you get caught in the middle of a politically motivated case.
July 3, 2007 at 9:57 am
Aluwid,
I’m not sure I follow you on the politically motivated part. The federal judge was a Bush appointee. Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel by the Bush Justice Department to specifically investigate the Plame name leaking. So, it was the republicans who were politically motivated to conspire and convict Mr. Libby?
July 3, 2007 at 10:39 am
Guy,
I don’t believe it was obvious political bias on the part of the prosecutor or the judge no. But the high stakes involved created a very large motivation for the prosecutor to bring some sort of result to justify the time (2 years) and money spent in the case. Libby’s perjury was the easiest case to make (perhaps the only one).
This creates an atmosphere that makes it less likely for Libby to receive leniency. Again contrast it to Sandy Berger and the incredible plea bargain he was able to wiggle out with. The politics behind the cases make all the difference in my opinion. Prosecuters don’t operate in a vacuum, outside pressures have an impact on the way that cases are handled.
July 3, 2007 at 11:57 am
Anyway Guy…it doesn’t surprise me too much, but it still unnerves how much this Administration has thumbed their fingers at the law, and the American people. The nerve of this is just amazing.
July 3, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Guy,
Do you suggest that the justice system is infallible? If so, why don’t we just dispense with appellate courts? The Supreme Court could be the first to go.
July 3, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Aluwid:
I don’t see how the prosecutor brought about any sort of result. A grand jury, composed of normal every day citizens brought an indictment against Mr. Libby.
The prosecutor moved forward by prosecuting those indictments in a court of law, before a jury selected by both defense counsel and the prosecution, presided over by an experienced federal judge, appointed by George Bush.
At any stage of the proceedings, if the case was purely political as you suggest with no merit, it could and should have been halted. For example, the grand jury could have declined to return any indictment, concluding the evidence was purely political, weak, or simply non existent.
At the pre-trial and early trial stages the defense could have brought motions to dismiss for lack of evidence. The federal judge presiding could have granted such motions to dismiss for lack of evidence. None of this happened. The prosecution prevailed by evidence which demonstrated guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest evidentiary burden in our judicial system.
The grand jury indicted. The specially appointed prosecutor moved forward, presented evidence subject to the rules of evidence, and cross examination by defense counsel and moderated by the federal judge. An impartial federal jury, selected by both sides heard the evidence, then convicted Mr. Libby based on that evidence, which the judge described at sentencing as overwhelming.
The sentence was imposed pursuant to and consistent with federal sentencing guidelines. The entire trial was conducted in public with both the public and press attending and reporting day by day. Everything was done by the book.
Mr. Libby even took his case on appeal, and attempted to stay the appropriate sentence pending his appeals. The trial judge and even appellate court disagreed with Mr. Libby’s legal position.
After all this judicial due process afforded Mr. Libby, George Bush, without consultation with the justice department, which is the norm for commutation and pardons decided on his own the sentence was inappropriate despite the rigorous federal guidelines that were followed.
Given all these facts I really think your conclusion of political motivation or pressure or some foregone result is simply unsupportable.
As for Mr. Berger and his plea–well, perhaps Mr. Libby should have thought of a plea rather than stonewalling all the way through trial. Perhaps he should have shown some contrition and taken some personal responsibility for his actions. Perhaps he too under those circumstances might have obtained a more lenient sentence.
July 3, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Sherpa:
Yeah, I agree with you. Bush’s incredible arrogance as demonstrated time and time again throughout his presidency is just infuriating.
Mark D.
No. I do not suggest that any mortal, temporal system is infallible. Yet, again, I recognize that the American criminal justice system has many built in safe guards, all of which were afforded to Mr. Libby. I don’t see any evidence of a politically motivated verdict, sentence, trial or appeal in Mr. Libby’s case. Can you point to some? The only area where this whole process got off track, was at the point Mr. Bush exercised his presidential prerogative to commute the sentence.
Perhaps a more judicious use of his presidential power was in order. If Mr. Bush thought 30 months was to harsh, despite the fact it was within the federal sentencing guidelines, maybe he should have commuted the sentence so that Mr. Libby served only 24 months, or 20, or 15, or 10, or even 1. But, zero time for the crime, is just not right. And, a majority of Americans feel this way. It is not a partisan issue. At least it doesn’t seem that way to me.
July 3, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Guy,
“Although it is a very serious crime under state and Federal laws, and while prosecutors often threaten prosecution, the number of actual prosecutions for perjury is tiny.”
http://criminal-law.freeadvice.com/white_collar_crimes/perjury.htm
Do you believe that Fitzgerald prosecutes everyone that he could prove in court has committed perjury? I don’t. Again I don’t think it has anything to do with his personal politics, in truth I wish he had been assigned to the Berger case, then maybe he’d have spent two years investigating exactly what information Berger was trying to hide from the 9-11 commission and why (and who was involved in the decision to get rid of the evidence). But given the attention that politics gave to the Plame case, he was more apt to go after any possible misstep very aggressively. Libby is the only one that messed up enough to be found guilty so he was the lucky winner.
July 3, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Guy,
One of those safeguards is the appeals process. Once the pertinent appeals are exhausted I will be more convinced that Libby is actually guilty. More distinguished commentators than I feel this way as well. The editors of the Wall Street Journal believe that Libby is an “innocent man who lost track of what he said, when he said it, and to whom.” See here.
As far as Fitzgerald is concerned, he gives every indication of a prosecutor out of control. Case in point – he made the argument in court that although Libby had committed no crime in revealing Valerie Plame’s identity, he should be sentenced as though he had. That is both manifestly unjust and positively ridiculous. He is an embarrassment to his profession, and a case study in why we would likely be better off without an independent counsel statute to begin with.
July 3, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Aluwid:
I don’t think it matters how many of these types of cases are actually prosecuted. It is quite unlikely that most people accused of perjury and obstruction of justice (which your link did not deal with at all) are the closest advisers to the United States Vice President. This conduct in such an individual is particularly egregious. It was after all this administration which campaigned on restoring dignity to the White House and government in Washington.
I don’t know; but, I do know he was specially appointed to investigate the Plame matter. I also know that prosecutors have a duty not to prosecute where there is no case, or weak evidence. From what I have read of Mr. Fitzgerald, I don’t believe him the type of prosecutor who would prosecute a case for political gain or under political pressure. I am aware of no evidence that Mr. Fitzgerald was politically pressured to prosecute this case.
July 3, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Aluwid, you are forgetting that Libby was also convicted of obstruction of justice, and that Patrick Fitzgerald made it quite clear why it was important to hold him accountable for this as well as for his lies. Libby’s obstruction precluded the prosector from ever determining whether his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney had broken the law and what role the White House had played in outing Plame. “There is a cloud over the vice president,” Fitzgerald said in his closing argument. “That cloud is there because the defendant obstructed justice.”
July 3, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Mark D.
I agree. I wish the appeals process would have been allowed to play out without the intervention of Mr. Bush. But, the appeals process did establish that the merits of Mr. Libby’s appeals were not strong, which is why the appellate court upheld the trial court’s ruling that Libby could not remain free while on bail.
I disagree Fitzgerald is out of control. He argued what was available to him under federal sentencing guidelines. He was doing his job. The defense team argued for no jail time. The probation department recommended, I think, 16 months. It was Fitzgerald’s job to argue for the most stiff sentence allowed under the guidelines.
Quite frankly, the obstruction of justice conviction was so egregious in this situation that I think the 30 month sentence was in fact appropriate. The stiffer the sentence for this type of conduct by high government officials is exactly what is needed to deter such conduct.
Let us not forget that not only was Scooter Libby the closest adviser to the Vice President of the United States, but he was also a member of the bar. He was a licensed attorney, who had sworn to uphold not only the rule of law but the United States Constitution.
July 3, 2007 at 10:26 pm
From today’s (7/3/07) Washington Post on the Libby sentencing:
I fail to see how the sentencing of Mr. Libby in this case was anything but appropriate given the circumstances and facts of the case, as well as the current sentencing guidelines.
July 3, 2007 at 11:14 pm
More on the federal sentencing issue and the apparent hypocrisy of Mr. Bush in his stated rationale for the commutation. This is from the New York Times
From what I can tell from these stories, it is not Mr. Fitzgerald out of control as the special prosecutor on the sentencing. Rather it is the Bush Administration and its own justice department which are now apparently at odds with each other given Mr. Bush’s rationale for commuting this sentence.
See also this blog
July 4, 2007 at 6:11 am
“Libby’s obstruction precluded the prosector from ever determining whether his boss, Vice President Dick Cheney had broken the law and what role the White House had played in outing Plame. “There is a cloud over the vice president,” Fitzgerald said in his closing argument. “That cloud is there because the defendant obstructed justice.””
Translation: “If only Libby had cooperated more, then I’d have Dark Lord Cheney’s neck on the chopping block instead. Please consider that in your deliberations jury.”
This is the way I see the situation, speaking as a semi-interested observer. After two years of investigation Fitzgerald was unable to prove that any crime had been committed as far as the Plame leak. At that point he could have thrown up his hands and said:
“Sorry to disappoint you lefties, but the worst President in history and his evil cohort are going to get off the hook because I can’t prove they did anything wrong. Please don’t take out your bloodlust on me.”
Instead he was able to identify that Libby had said contradicting or incorrect statements in some of the various testimonies that he gave. So he charged Libby for perjury/obstruction of justice so Libby could be held up as a scapegoat and all blame for the wasted investigation could be deflected on him.
July 4, 2007 at 7:07 am
Aluwid:
Nice theories. If you happen to find any factual support for them, please be sure to post the links. In the interim, here’s another entry on the sentencing issue, comparing Libby’s sentence to another very similar sentence for another defendant convicted of similar crimes. Food for thought.
July 5, 2007 at 6:48 pm
It’s funny to see conservatives use Clinton as an excuse to commit serious crimes. Because Clinton did it, so can they. How seriously lame.
July 5, 2007 at 7:08 pm
The most hilarious part of the whole sordid mess is that Libby was Marc Rich’s lawyer. He represented that crook for fifteen years.
July 5, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Dan,
I’ve never understood this rationale. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. Lame is an apt description. I found it fascinating how Mr. Libby has already been able to pay is $250,000 fine—such a harsh penalty indeed. That coupled with the fact he will never practice law again—oh my! I just don’t know how he’ll be able to survive.
July 5, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Bill,
Agreed–ironic indeed.
July 5, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Guy,
Are the parallels cited instructive because of similarities in the structure of the “crimes”, or because of a similarly ludicrous failure of the “justice” system?
For years, I have entertained the private suspicion that there is a massive conspiracy being staged, aimed at destroying public confidence in our courts and lawyers. An unqualified fiasco like the Fitzgerald show couldn’t possibly be an accident.
July 6, 2007 at 4:07 am
This is about the time that reporters ought to ask Mr. Bush about his campaign promise to restore “honor and dignity” to the White House. That comment was, after all, a remark about Marc Rich’s pardon………
July 6, 2007 at 4:33 am
[...] Other good posts on this travesty are from Guy Murray and Scarecrow at [...]
July 9, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Must I shoot a simple-minded soldier boy who deserts, while I must not touch a hair of a wiley agitator who induces him to desert?”
-Abraham Lincoln
If watching porn is bad, then distributing porn to millions of people is worse.