Splitting The Baby Gains Bush Little
Gauging from the reaction of pundits, George Bush did himself few favors in commuting Scooter Libby's sentence yesterday. As I predicted, critics of the administration railed against his supposed abandonment of the rule of law, while conservatives complained that Bush didn't go far enough. The end result may be a net zero for Bush politically, but according to Mike Allen at The Politico, that wasn't Bush's concern:
What were the calculations? One of the few people who actually knows something about the deliberations tells Playbook that no political factors were considered.
That seems to be the reason Bush chose this outcome. He could have pardoned Libby outright, and he could have chosen to do nothing at all, and he could also have commuted the fine and probation. In the end he chose none of these options, only acting to keep Libby from prison but leaving all other punishments in place. It puts Libby on a par with Sandy Berger, who stole classified information and destroyed it, and ultimately pled guilty to a felony and paid a $50,000 fine but avoided incarceration.
That hasn't quieted his critics, however. From the Left, the New York Times inveighs against what it sees as Bush's contempt for the rule of law:
When he was running for president, George W. Bush loved to contrast his law-abiding morality with that of President Clinton, who was charged with perjury and acquitted. For Mr. Bush, the candidate, “politics, after a time of tarnished ideals, can be higher and better.”Not so for Mr. Bush, the president. Judging from his decision yesterday to commute the 30-month sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. — who was charged with perjury and convicted — untarnished ideals are less of a priority than protecting the secrets of his inner circle and mollifying the tiny slice of right-wing Americans left in his political base.
And from the right, the Wall Street Journal takes Bush to task for a lack of courage:
President Bush's commutation late yesterday afternoon of the prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby will at least spare his former aide from 2 1/2 years in prison. But by failing to issue a full pardon, Mr. Bush is evading responsibility for the role his Administration played in letting the Plame affair build into fiasco and, ultimately, this personal tragedy.Mr. Libby will have to pay a fine of $250,000 and serve two years probation. This reflects the leniency that was previously recommended by the federal probation office but was rejected by Judge Reggie Walton in his vindictive sentence.
These columns have had cause to defend the Bush Presidency from what we've seen as often meritless or exaggerated partisan attacks, notably over national security and the Iraq war. This, however, will stand as a dark moment in this Administration's history.
Overseas, the Financial Times warns that Bush has unleashed a hornet's nest:
Some political analysts viewed the move as an attempt to restore morale among Mr Bush’s conservative base - much of which viewed the case against Mr Libby as a liberal conspiracy - after a torrid few months of political setbacks for the Republican party.But the decision threatened to further poison the political atmosphere in Washington and galvanise Democrats to step up a series of investigations into alleged wrongdoing by the Bush administration.
Even the Washington Post, which editorialized that Libby's sentence was excessive, criticized Bush's actions in commuting it:
IN COMMUTING I. Lewis Libby's prison sentence yesterday, President Bush took the advice of, among others, William Otis, a former federal prosecutor who wrote on the opposite page last month that Mr. Libby should neither be pardoned nor sent to prison. We agree that a pardon would have been inappropriate and that the prison sentence of 30 months was excessive. But reducing the sentence to no prison time at all, as Mr. Bush did -- to probation and a large fine -- is not defensible.
It's a good thing that Bush didn't take political calculation into consideration, because he's not going to benefit from splitting the difference. The Financial Times has this correct; the commutation will increase the momentum for an array of crippling Congressional investigations and political fishing expeditions, just when it had petered out in the Justice probe of the fired prosecutors. It won't mollify most conservatives angered over Bush's attacks on them in the immigration debate. It probably won't satisy Libby's legal team, which has publicly pressured the White House to issue a complete pardon.
Could the President have reduced the sentence rather than commuting it altogether? The Post seems to indicate that as a possibility, although my understanding of his commutation power has it limited to eliminating a prison sentence altogether and not reducing it to anything other than time served. Perhaps CQ readers can illuminate those possibilities; if that option was open, would it not have been better for Bush to act to reduce the "excessive" sentence rather than eliminate it altogether, down to the 12-15 month range suggested by some as more appropriate? For an administration that has insisted on strict adherence to federal sentencing guidelines, probation looks rather hypocritical for offenses that carry prison time for anyone else.
If Bush wanted to take action, commutation in some sense makes the most sense, and was the wisest choice among options for action. I still think it will eventually reduce the Libby issue to yesterday's news. However, I'm not convinced that the administration should have intervened at all. The sentence fit within the sentencing guidelines championed by Republicans for years as a bulwark against soft-on-crime federal judges, even if it was on the long end of the guidelines by some interpretations. The underlying crimes go to the heart of the rule of law, and those who commit perjury and obstruction should go to prison -- especially those who occupy high offices in our government.
After all, Libby had plenty of opportunity to take the Fifth Amendment. Had he done that, he could have avoided the entire problem. He would have found himself discredited and probably out of a job, but not a convict who needed extraordinary relief to avoid prison.
UPDATE: Timothy Noah surprisingly says that Bush did the right thing in commuting the sentence:
I don't take lightly the fact that Libby lied to federal prosecutors about his role in unmasking Valerie Plame as a covert CIA employee. The underlying offense probably wasn't illegal—because Libby probably didn't understand that Plame's identity was a government secret—but it was nonetheless disgraceful. Libby understood that, and that's why he committed perjury. His prosecution was appropriate because Bush administration officials need to know that they are not above the law. Libby's trial and conviction, I hope, got that message across to at least some of them.But Judge Reggie Walton went overboard in sentencing Libby to 30 months. This was about twice as long as the prison term recommended by the court's probation office, and if Libby hadn't been a high-ranking government official, there's a decent chance he would have gotten off with probation, a stiff fine, and likely disbarment. Walton gave Libby 30 months and a $250,000 fine, then further twisted the knife by denying Libby's routine request to delay the sentence while his lawyers appealed it.
Noah's wrong about the "routine request". Federal courts normally only extend bail in cases that have a substantial likelihood of reversal on appeal, and the 4th Circuit ruling yesterday upheld Walton's judgment on that score. That's what prompted the commutation order.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on July 3, 2007 9:33 AM | Comments (64) | TrackBacks (1)
Comments (64)
Posted by Tom Holsinger | July 3, 2007 10:18 AM
Ed,
The pardon was damage control.
Not pardoning Libby would have set an unhealthy precedent for the next administration when a whole lot of Bush administration officials might be needing pardons. Whether or not they had done anything wrong during this administration, a bad memory years from now, or former friends making accusations to avoid the consequences of their own bad memories, could easily lead to financial ruin and even criminal conviction for events occuring during the next administration.
So, had Bush let Libby go to jail, a whole lot of Bush administration would officials would be in a flipping panic right now. And start turning informer, or at least bailing out with Bush unable to find replacements.
Posted by Monkei | July 3, 2007 10:41 AM
Captain, I agree with your post.
Politics is getting to the point (well actually we have been there for awhile now) that both parties are corrupt and liars. I think while many on here want to point to Burger and Clinton as excuses the fact is both parties, Congress and the President, simply no longer do the work of the American people but of American business. When it comes time for either party to step up and say the other party was wrong and then take actions to clean their own houses neither do so. I have serious doubts that anyone of us can point to our Congressman or Senator and say "he does what's right for his district or state" instead they all toe the party line and do what's right for the lobbyists who they represent.
But we have the 25% in each side of the isle that will always agree with their party, with Olberman or O'Reilly, no matter what the circumstances dictate.
I just wish someone somewhere would unit the 50% of us now who don't like either extreme and find ways to fix our government, throw out the lobbyists, fix healthcare, fix SSN, fix the political system which is now broke.
This is no longer a right vs left, conservative vs liberal problem, it is a problem of extremes running the government.
Posted by Strick | July 3, 2007 10:43 AM
While the lynch mob on the left is particularly ugly and the complaints from the right are loud if half hearted, this one probably just won't have legs, not outside the blogs or the Beltway. Another blogger unintentionally hit the nail on the head. He likened this to the Foley scandal. Only it's not just a few weeks to an election. If you ask most people about the Foley scandal, they go "who?" We've got nearly 18 months to forget this one.
It's all smoke and heat for now, but no long term flames will come of it.
Posted by Lew | July 3, 2007 10:44 AM
How can anyone be showing contempt for the "Rule of Law" by issuing a perfectly lawful commutation consistant with the powers of their office? How can acting lawfully be contemptuous of the law? I don't get it!
And please, the Democrats don't need any reason to accelerate investigations or any other part of their guerrilla campaign against any Republican administration. In their world, being a Republican holding elective office is prima facia evidence of a crime in itself. They are a constant in this equation, not a variable!
It seems to me that the message from all this is for anyone employed in any political capacity in any administration, who finds themselves being interrogated by anyone needs to "shut up and lawyer up" as fast as they can. Hand over whatever records are subpeonaed and stand mute before the court, because anytime you open your mouth in in front of a prosecutor you are in danger of loosing everything. Prosecutors prosecute! Its what they do!
Posted by Kojiro Vance | July 3, 2007 10:45 AM
Cap'n - how is commuting Scooter Libby's sentence any different from pardoning Susan McDougal?
Are not both little fish in a failed investigation?
Posted by FDR_Democrat | July 3, 2007 10:50 AM
Captain -
Just wanted to compliment you on your thoughtful and well-written blog and for your sense of integrity. I am a staunch Democrat but the pardons at the end of the Clinton Administration disgusted me. The Scooter Libby commutation fails into the same category - special justice for the well-connected. A President has a responsibility as a role-model who leads the whole country, not simply a politician from one party. These crass panderings to the elite are a disservice to our nation and feed cynicism about our system of justice.
Posted by John Gault | July 3, 2007 10:51 AM
In December, 1997, Cisneros was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, giving false statements and obstruction of Justice. Medlar used some of the Cisneros hush money to purchase a house and entered into a bank fraud scheme with her sister and brother-in-law to conceal the source of the money. In January, 1998, Medlar pleaded guilty to 28 charges of bank fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and obstruction of justice.
In September, 1999, Cisneros negotiated a plea agreement, under which he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI, and was fined $10,000. He did not receive jail-time or probation. He was pardoned by President Bill Clinton in January 2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cisneros
Posted by Bruce Anderson | July 3, 2007 10:54 AM
Commuting part of the sentence means that LIbby's appeal can go forward. Eventually, his appeal could be upheld, his verdict overturned, and the ball back in the Justice Dept.'s court regarding retrying. Libby can be found Not Guilty. A pardon, on the other hand, is Guilty but Forgiven. Two very different states.
The "prison now, appeals court later" was a squeeze play Fitzgerald was running on Libby, a "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" bullying. That just got taken off the board.
Posted by NahnCee | July 3, 2007 10:59 AM
How do we get Fitzgerald Nifong'd?
Posted by Jeanette | July 3, 2007 11:09 AM
If you or anyone else thinks Bush did this for political expediency you haven't been following his presidency to well. If he wanted to be popular he would withdraw the troops from Iraq.
This was overkill by an overzealous judge and an overzealous prosecutor.
Since the leaker Armitage was known at the beginning of the investigation by Fitzgerald the case should have started and ended there. The problem was Fitz was determined to get Cheney and/or Bush and, failing that, went after Rove and Libby.
Testifying for hours in a grand jury room with no notes to refresh his memory is a good way for someone to honestly forget what conversation took place when.
This way Libby has a chance to appeal if he still wishes and maybe overturn the whole verdict.
If that happens and he had served 30 months in prison as an innocent man it would have done no good.
He's not a violent criminal and what Bush did was exactly the right thing.
Posted by Matt B | July 3, 2007 11:10 AM
Bush often scores higher on the principle-to-politics ratio than most politicians these days, i.e. making decisions based on his principles moreso than on politics. This is even more true now that he's more than half way through his final term. I don't think he cares what his poll numbers are, and frankly, I can't understand why anyone thinks he should. He has the Liberty of Lame-Duckedness (feel free to borrow the phrase).
In addition, I think he chose commutation because that's what Libby wanted...keeps him out of jail while he works on his appeal. Libby would rather clear his own name.
Posted by Karen | July 3, 2007 11:11 AM
Did you see that disgraceful press briefing at the White House? I thought those partisan hacks called journalists, heads would explode. Who the hell do they think they are to impose their judgement on this case? No one made them judge and jury.
That said, I did hear on the radio yesterday that there is speculation that the attorneys for scooter libby might be wanting to take the appeals forward to try to clear his name legally. However, I am not sure the court of appeals is friendly to his case. Who appointed those judges? Dems or Reps? This is just plain messy.
Once they found that Armitage had leaked the name and it was not leaked where that statute applied, they should have not moved forward. They did and went on an inexcusable fishing expedition on a NON issue.
Meanwhile the NY Times splashes private US national security secrets all over the front page. Seems to me there are CIA employees who are in bed with the libs who want to ruin this country with their loose lips.
Posted by Mike M. | July 3, 2007 11:12 AM
I do happen to agree that the jail sentence for perjury was excessive, especially in light of the context of the case.
But this commutation certainly is not going to boost Americans' faith in our government, it will likely only make it worse.
This sadly is how our corrupt system works. Sandy Berger does no time for stealing documents that would have implicated his Democrat bosses, and Scooter Libby does no time for committing perjury because he kept his mouth shut and didn't rat out his Republican bosses. At the highest levels of the system, one hand truly does wash the other.
The noble concept of equal justice under the law remains little more than a fantasy, and everybody with a brain knows it. We have at best a two-tiered system of justice, and in reality it's probably more like a three or four-tiered system.
Posted by kingronjo | July 3, 2007 11:12 AM
cap,
let the crime fit the punishment. And looking at all the felonious activity by Clintons cabinet members and his pardons of them, that should be the standard. Clinton set a lot of stndards that stink quite frankly, but he did.
For you to think that Burglars crime and Scooter's are on the same page is, IMHO, a colossal error in judgment.
Stuffing top secret docs down your pants and destroying ( so he says destroying them- we only have a thiefs word for it) them is not the same as telling false statements concerning who blabbed (and if you believe Berger you have to believe Scooter that he just made an error) about a non-secret agents identity. Put this trial anywhere but not 90% Dem DC and no commutation would have been necessary.
Posted by Monkei | July 3, 2007 11:20 AM
Cap'n - how is commuting Scooter Libby's sentence any different from pardoning Susan McDougal?
I seem to think Ms McDougal actually went to jail.
I still am chuckling over those who somehow seem to think this is more than what the Captain has mentioned time and time again, it is about a person who lied under oath and got caught, a person who had many opportunities to get out of this problem he faced but chose to lie, lie and lie ... that is what he was convicted of.
But, I am sure you wackos will find a way to blame Clinton now that the expiration date on Carter is gone.
Posted by McGehee | July 3, 2007 11:27 AM
Carter has an expiration date? Somebody please tell him that.
As for Clinton, I don't know about an expiration date, but he was past his "Sell By" date before he got elected in the first place.
Thanks, Monkei, for giving me the excuse for a couple of throwaway one-liners.
Posted by Okonkolo | July 3, 2007 11:30 AM
Nahn; Fitzgerald is a Bush appointee. He could fire him at any time, though he won't. Bush was careful in his statement not to dispute Fitzgerald's performance or decisions.
Karen; the two appellant judges that denied Libby's appeal to stay out of jail or that the sentence was excessive were both Republican appointees. As was the judge that heard the case.
This is going to be a burden for the "law and order" GOP candidates. No doubt past quotes regarding the outrage of Clinton's pardons are going to haunt some of these guys, particularly ex-porsecutor Guliani.
Posted by Monkei | July 3, 2007 11:31 AM
your welcome Mac ... at least they made a lot more sense then those wackos trying to excuse lieing under oath away!
enjoyed them!
Posted by McGehee | July 3, 2007 11:33 AM
Of course, it works both ways -- the Democrats can't uphold Libby's sentence unless they're willing to admit Clinton deserved to go to prison (which, I notice, he didn't).
Posted by Monkei | July 3, 2007 11:36 AM
You want to play that game you would have to admit that Nixon got a get out of jail card also. Hell we could go tit for tat forever.
the best thing we as Americans can hope for is that someday we stop blaming the other party and take ownership, but alas I don't think I will ever see that in my day. to many extremists on both sides who will always blame the other side.
Posted by Okonkolo | July 3, 2007 11:36 AM
Nahn; Fitzgerald is a Bush appointee. He could fire him at any time, though he won't. Bush was careful in his statement not to dispute Fitzgerald's performance or decisions.
Karen; the two appellant judges that denied Libby's appeal to stay out of jail or that the sentence was excessive were both Republican appointees. As was the judge that heard the case.
This is going to be a burden for the "law and order" GOP candidates. No doubt past quotes regarding the outrage of Clinton's pardons are going to haunt some of these guys, particularly ex-porsecutor Guliani.
Posted by Del Dolemonte | July 3, 2007 11:37 AM
Monkei said:
"I seem to think Ms McDougal actually went to jail"
Actually, she went more than once. She was convicted in 1996 of 4 counts of fraud and conspiracy related to Whitewater.
I think what you're referring to is her next jail stint, where she rolled over for Bubbah and refused to answer 3 questions under oath about his allegedly lying under oath, specifically about a $300,000 loan. For her faithful service, Bubba gave her a pardon. It should be noted that the Judge who threw her in the pokey for contempt of court was none other than former Clinton law student Susan Webber Wright, who also later ruled that Clinton himself was in contempt of court.
Posted by Matt B | July 3, 2007 11:47 AM
I disagree Okonkolo...in this case Libby will still pay a substantial penalty (5 x Berger by the way), and Bush issued the commutation in the "light of day" fully explaining his reasons, not on his way out the door. Die-hard Dems and cynics will complain or say "politics as usual" but most everyone else won't care that much as Libby has a long record of public service and otherwise had a good reputation.
Posted by Monkei | July 3, 2007 11:48 AM
I think what you're referring to is her next jail stint, where she rolled over for Bubbah and refused to answer 3 questions under oath about his allegedly lying under oath, specifically about a $300,000 loan
well there you have it Pineapple, I don't know what kind of lawyer Libby is or what kind of lawyer he plays on tv or if he actually stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but it seems like law 101 to answer questions (I don't recall) instead of lieing under oath ... but then again, that's just me.
But please, go ahead and further excuse him, it's fun reading all the GOP reasons why I should never tell the truth under oath ever again. Afterall, if you can't trust the GOP to tell the truth under oath, can you ever expect them to tell the truth when they are not under oath. And you though the GOP was the party of morals.
Posted by brooklyn | July 3, 2007 11:50 AM
Another ethical action from a fine President...
Some of the critics from the right are just far too overt in cynicism these days.
They are tainted in seeing everything from the Bush Administration in the worst light, which is absurd.
This list of positives is mighty, including Alito - Roberts, going on OFFENSE in the GWOT, tax cuts, etc...
Before a full Pardon, Mr. Libby will want a chance for an appeal to clear himself anyway.
Posted by McGehee | July 3, 2007 11:54 AM
You want to play that game you would have to admit that Nixon got a get out of jail card also.
Have I ever given you a reason to think I wouldn't admit that? I was 12 years old when Nixon resigned, and had not yet renounced the Democrat leanings instilled in me by my parents.
Posted by doubled | July 3, 2007 11:57 AM
How come Fitzgerald gets a pass from all this B.S.? The whole investigation crumbles on the lie of ONE man? How could there not have been other avenues to persue to determine the REAL PERPETRATOR of this 'heinous' crome? Either Fitz is grossly incompetant or he's covering up for somebody (Armitage?).
Posted by Hagar | July 3, 2007 11:59 AM
Pardoning Libby now would have left the case moot and obviated further proceedings. Commuting the prison term keeps Libby out of jail while his appeal goes forward, which it should, since there are a good many issues to be resolved around this case other than Libby's problems.
Posted by doubled | July 3, 2007 12:02 PM
And you thought the GOP was the party of morals.
When talking politics , there is no such thing as the party of morality.
Posted by brooklyn | July 3, 2007 12:02 PM
Of course, it is interesting to see Democrats push for Libby going to jail, as these are the same folks who made excuses for Bill Clinton...
Posted by Continuum | July 3, 2007 12:06 PM
Our President was absolutely correct. The sentence was way too severe.
My God, man, don't you know how Scooter's golf game would have suffered, if he had to play on those Club Fed courses for 30 months. According to the Dukester, they don't even properly groom the bunkers.
Sure, I hear you say, Scooter could just concentrate on his tennis game. But, to the best of my knowledge absolutely none of those Club Fed courses have well kept clay courts.
I truly do not understand why you liberal Democrats are so in an uproar. Finally, the President demonstrates his "compassionate conservatism" and yet you still find fault. Clearly, you people are just not the "right sort of people" to govern this country.
Now, if I could only explain to you the genuine compassion in the words "let them eat cake".
Posted by Continuum | July 3, 2007 12:11 PM
Our President was absolutely correct. The sentence was way too severe.
My God, man, don't you know how Scooter's golf game would have suffered, if he had to play on those Club Fed courses for 30 months. According to the Dukester, they don't even properly groom the bunkers.
Sure, I hear you say, Scooter could just concentrate on his tennis game. But, to the best of my knowledge absolutely none of those Club Fed courses have well kept clay courts.
I truly do not understand why you liberal Democrats are so in an uproar. Finally, the President demonstrates his "compassionate conservatism" and yet you still find fault. Clearly, you people are just not the "right sort of people" to govern this country.
Now, if I could only explain to you the genuine compassion in the words "let them eat cake".
Posted by Dan Kauffman | July 3, 2007 12:17 PM
I would like just ONE person to ask someone ranting about Libby's pardon what they think should happen to Armitage
Posted by Del Dolemonte | July 3, 2007 12:18 PM
Monkei said:
"well there you have it Pineapple, I don't know what kind of lawyer Libby is or what kind of lawyer he plays on tv or if he actually stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but it seems like law 101 to answer questions (I don't recall) instead of lieing under oath ... but then again, that's just me.
But please, go ahead and further excuse him, it's fun reading all the GOP reasons why I should never tell the truth under oath ever again. Afterall, if you can't trust the GOP to tell the truth under oath, can you ever expect them to tell the truth when they are not under oath. And you though the GOP was the party of morals."
Funny guy! All my post did was report what Susan McDougal went to jail for. Not once in my post did I ever "excuse" or "defend" Libby-in fact, I never mentioned his name in my post at all.
The fact that I accurately mentioned that Suzie took a dive for Bill, and was rewarded by him for doing so later with a pardon (which Libby never got from the "corrupt" Republican now in the Oval Office), obviously struck a raw nerve with you folks. Keep up the good work!
Posted by Hagar | July 3, 2007 1:00 PM
Please note that the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, originally was charged with 1. investigating who leaked Valerie Plame's name and occupation to Bob Novak, and 2. establishing Ms. Plame's "covert" status at the time of the leak; neither of which Mr. Fitzgerald has done.
Scooter Libby is charged with lying to the FBI in telling them that Tim Russert was the first to tell him about it - nothing about who, if anyone, he told - and though he corrected this before the Grand Jury and testified that he had checked his records and found that he first heard the story from Dick Cheney, but he still claimed to have forgotten this and at the time of his FBI interview sincerely believed he was telling the truth.
Few, if anyone, believe this, but neither can we prove otherwise, since it is all about what Scooter Libby believed at the time with NO independent facts or statements by others to go on.
That being so, and since it is hard to see that any of this in any way hindered Mr. Fitzgerald in investigating what he was not investigating anyway, I do indeed think the sentence was intemperate and unreasonable.
Posted by Robert I. Eachus | July 3, 2007 1:09 PM
I think most people are missing the real story here. Will the appeals court overturn Libby's conviction? Very unlikely. No appeals court--except of course, the Ninth Circuit, would consider making new law in a case like this. However, what the Supreme Court will do is a much more interesting question.
I expect the Supreme Court, assuming the appeals are taken that far, to uphold in part, overturn in part., or more likely return the case to the appeals court to consider what the Supremes have to say.
In other words this is may turn out to be one of those bad cases that makes good law, rather than the reverse. The Supreme Court rarely gets to hear a case that involves testimony before a grand jury by someone not indicted for any crime other than that testimony. If Scooter had been indicted, this case would go out the window in a flash. The problem is that it is easy to see in hindsight what could not possibly have been known in advance.
In the case of the Duke lacrosse team members, the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence aftwe the players were indicted. The sanctions against the prosecutor in that case were pretty extreme, and may not be over yet. But in this case we have a prosecutor who knows who is guilty and doesn't share that information with other suspects. Looks the same from outside, but that is the way the game has been played.
I expect the Supreme Court to see a Fourth Amendment issue. If a search warrant was issued to seek evidence in a crime, any court would throw out evidence of other crimes--if the government had already found the object of the search. If it were found elsewhere before the search warrant was issued? Even more reason to exclude the evidence.
What we have here is a case where a grand jury was convened for a specific purpose, the prosecutor had all the evidence he needed, and yet he kept calling people in front of the grand jury in a fishing expedition. Yes, there might have been other leaks--but that is the sort of unreasonable search the Fourth Amendment speaks to.
Remember though, that if the Supreme Court does reach that conclusion, it is all the other witnesses that were inconvenienced that they will be protecting, not Scooter, or not Scooter only. So the final opinion in the case--again assuming the Supreme Court hears it--may not exonerate Scooter, but may kick this sort of fishing expedition by prosecutors in the teeth.
Posted by nandrews3 | July 3, 2007 1:11 PM
Ed seems to be trying to offer a measured view of the decision to commute. I think his view of the political consequences of the decision is probably a correct one.
But on the question of what should Bush have decided -- what was the right thing to do in this case, aside from the political calculations -- the whole debate misses the point, which is that there was no right thing to do. If your underling got caught doing illegal things that you (or your vice president) sent him off to do, then does there really exist some "right" action for you to take?
In writing about Libby, Ed has evidently sought to avoid some of the traps that most conservatives have willingly fallen into -- defending Libby to the bitter end, recycling old talking points from the trial, trying to make Fitzgerald into the villain of their dreams. Ed has sought to honor the legitimacy of the verdict.
Problem is, if that's the choice you make, then there are implications. If you concede that Libby was legitimately convicted, then you're conceding the legitimacy of the jury's view that he had criminal motives.
But what motives? Basically it comes down to this: either he was a rogue actor, lying to the grand jury and to Fitzgerald for mysterious reasons of his own -- or he was acting as a member of the team. Again: what were the lies that he told? He lied about whether -- and when -- he told reporters about Valerie Plame Wilson. When he leaked the info, he was trying to use it to discredit Joe Wilson. Later -- unlike Armitage -- he lied about what he had done, and tried to claim that he had never done it or that he had done it after the info was no longer secret.
Obviously it served the White House's interest -- or would have, if he had gotten away with all of this. Was he a rogue actor?
This is what Libby did. Why would he do it? Ed's whole approach depends on ignoring these two matters and keeping the discussion focused on questions which, while sincerely pursued, are essentially bogus. There's no way for Bush to affirm the "rule of law" by whatever he does regarding Libby, because he's already subverted it.
Posted by the fly-man | July 3, 2007 2:03 PM
I'm still confused. If the 16 words had credibility, why didn't the just let Joe Wilson say what he had to say and ignore him. They certainly could have just let the President's words stay in the SOU address. Really, it would have spared them a tremendous amount of hassle if they had just stuck with what the British Intel people said. It seems to me by attacking joe Wilson in the manner which they did it kinda amplified everyone's attention to look at the matter more carefully. Maybe if the VP had been a little bit less vindictive the President would just be worrying about the pitiful operation of the war, not pardoning people for it's inadequate planning and subsequent sale to the American people. The VP got into a little road rage with Joe Wilson and usually most people avoid both parties for their own safety, but he had to chase after the guy who flipped him off and the VP's driver got the ticket. It reminds me of another Texas Governor who upon having his motorcade being pulled over for excessive speeding told the DPS officer "Why don't you just let us get on down the road?" Joe Wilson didn't need his sentence commuted did he?
Posted by Olaf Andersen | July 3, 2007 2:13 PM
"the best thing we as Americans can hope for is that someday we stop blaming the other party and take ownership, but alas I don't think I will ever see that in my day. to many extremists on both sides who will always blame the other side."
Were you looking in the mirror as you wrote?
"I'm still confused."
So, what else is new?
Posted by the fly-man | July 3, 2007 2:19 PM
Mr. Anderson, why do you resort to immature comments instead of bringing something to the table in the form of a informed, reasoned articulated viewpoint? Does that help you with your anger management to pick on the confused?
Posted by Carol Herman | July 3, 2007 2:22 PM
One of the better business books I've read, suggested a monkey could run a successful company. But if you wanted to find a top notch CEO, you'd hire the one that took the sliding downward graph (or spiral), and STOP IT.
I actually think Bush "on patience" wins more often than he loses. Though I do remember he was driving me crazy during 2002. And, only Arik Sharon and Steve Den Beste would get me back up on Bush's bandwagon.
Now, it doesn't matter. He's not running, again.
And, this is a "slow summer." He's off doing a ballet dance with putin. Those headlines? Probably not worth spit. He won't have his "Gorby" moments; the way Reagan did one-on-one's with russians, to perfection.
On the other hand, Bush hit his low. ANd, is going up, again.
We happen to have a terribly political and divided judiciary. Lots of the "picks" to the Supreme's have been awful. But worse than that, had been the encroachment of PC and affirmative action. Sure. Still big in the bowels of government. But what do you get from bowels, anyway?
And, my mom used to say government must find ways to keep lots of people employed; and money running into the system. The poorest? Save nothing. So the money just churns. It's good for the economy, everywhere.
And, I don't expect miracles out of government officials. Just ones smart enough to know they can win even if the public thinks they're dogs; as long as they play their "WEAK HANDS" well.
Bush, ahead, will be giving the Bonkeys a continuous supply of rope from which they can hang themselves. I don't see our old media galvanizing people. Not the way they did back in the 1970's.
Of course, if all the technological changes didn't come along, we'd have crapped out into a terrible depression. Instead? Our economy's doing well.
And, the judiciary has a choice. It can go the route of the department of education. Spinning round the toilet; won't get flushed.
And, they can keep putting the handicapped up on benches. So far? I don't respect all that many of them. And, I doubt that I'm alone.
I also know that Anthony Kennedy is more pissed off than Arlen Specter. One does mischief from his seat in the conference room. Where the rattle sounds come out of his tail.
And, Specter?
Ya know what I think "can" happen, ahead? I think some young turks are gonna go after better seating on committees than the old-timers hand out. "to keep control of their classmates."
I think Arlen Specter feels the loss of comradship these days. As McCain's triumphal march to the presidency in 2008, definitely hit turbulance.
Ah. And, Webb. It's true George Allen didn't win the vote. It went to this demonic Bonkey, Webb. Instead. And, this is not good knews for Harry Reid. Webb's appitite is there. What's the odds that Reid loses his chair?
In other words? Not only do I think Bush will do better, ahead. I also think the real revolt will come from behind the velvet curtains. Those rats don't know which way to jump!
And, imagine this: Webb sees hildabeast up close. He knows her odds are slim. As are Obama's. What do you think he could do. Remember this: Crazies do the strangest things. And, make very splashy choices.
I guess Bush will pull the "let freedom ring" pardon out of his hat, as he exits. But by then I wouldn't give you two-cents for the robed wonders abilities at convincing most Americans they are high priests. Not even if they top their outfits off with red cardinals' hats. They are this close to losing, what Shakespeare would tell them, doesn't come back. Their good names.
Posted by richard mcenroe | July 3, 2007 2:25 PM
Here's a theory: screw the pundits.
Posted by Olaf Andersen | July 3, 2007 2:26 PM
"Does that help you with your anger management to pick on the confused?"
Yes. And I apologize for that.
Posted by GarandFan | July 3, 2007 2:45 PM
Personally, I think it was correct to commute Libby's sentence, and IIRC Captain, Berger pled guilty to a misdemeanor not a felony. Matter of fact, he gets his security clearance back in a couple of years.
For those who continue to say Plame was "outted", you better go back and check your facts. No evidence was ever presented to that effect.
Posted by CheckSum | July 3, 2007 3:00 PM
If the 16 words had credibility, why didn't the just let Joe Wilson say what he had to say and ignore him. They certainly could have just let the President's words stay in the SOU address.
Posted by: the fly-man at July 3, 2007 2:03 PM
The 16 words did stay in the SOUA. The Whitehouse later expressed concern that maybe the words weren't vetted properly, but the words were there and spoken. And are still true.
Posted by Carol Herman | July 3, 2007 3:07 PM
We're heading to 2008. And, the big kahuna is still racing for the slots that open up in the presidential race.
Seems to me, McCain capsized. A lot of good it did his run to pick up some White House help, huh?
As to the Bonkeys, they're still sure they're gonna run against this president. And, up next is Irak.
Well, I've seen the Bonkeys make mistakes before. Heck, when I was a kid, I saw the endeavors that went into getting Adeli Stevenson perched in the White House.
Did the Bonkeys' realize anything after 1952? Well, in 1956, they ran with Adeli Stevenson, again.
They said Stevenson was an intellectual; which, in those days was "code worded" egg-head. Didn't do them much good on their second try, either.
Seem, though, that the Bonkeys like their messages written in stone. No erasers for them now!
And, since ya gotta run against the competition, what's ahead will prove to be very interesting, indeed.
When things get interesting, you get better attendance.
While I can't believe the Soddie's went ahead and funded medical doctors for their next "biggest" terror strike attempt. They, too, chose the route to the "egg-heads," huh?
Posted by exDemo | July 3, 2007 3:11 PM
No matter what ever Mr. Bush did the political opposition would howl. Meanwhile Let them howl. The have plenty of experience in disengaging brain a, engaging mouth, and flapping jaw.
While they are complaining about that, they can't be interfering and mucking up anything truly important.
I for one, Like his measured action. the appeals can go on and eventually the Appeals process will set it aside or diminish the conviction. Especially, now that it has become public that the prosecutor had a personal reason to hate Mr. Libby and seek him out for particular prosecution.
The decision to prosecute a "process" crime, in a crimeless prosecution, was quizzical to start. Now it appears biased and personal. Hardly dispassionate Justice. .
Mr Libby sought and obtained a Clinton pardon for Mr. Rich who prosecutor Fitzgerald had worked hard to convict.
This should lead to at the very least a re-trial. probably a decision will be made not to re-try at all.
Posted by Bennett | July 3, 2007 3:21 PM
Perhaps it is good that this move gains the President very little. Pardons and commutations like this one are probably always going to be controversial, especially in the current political climate, and I like the fact that it doesn't seem to have much upside to it. There are already enough inane things our politicians do just to curry favor with one voting bloc or another.
Although if Bush were running again, I know one vote he could definitely be assured of getting.
Posted by Bennett | July 3, 2007 3:23 PM
But for the felony conviction that is. So maybe just a healthy donation would be in order.
Posted by Philip | July 3, 2007 3:37 PM
"Libby's trial and conviction, I hope, got that message across to at least some of them. "
Oh Pleeaase!!
Posted by Zendar | July 3, 2007 4:16 PM
I have found this whole affair to be a travesty, starting with Wilson's assignment to go to Africa. What statements did Libby make that were false? If the statements were false, how do they know they were lies (lying implies intent to decieve)? How is it determined that we have obstruction of justice, if we have no underlying crime?
Posted by Fight4TheRight | July 3, 2007 6:14 PM
Zendar,
I'm a duck hunter and what happened in the Libby case could best be described as "flock shooting." The Dems loaded their 12 gauge pump action with 2 shot and aimed a bunch of Republicans, hoping for a head shot on Cheney. Unfortunately, when one flock shoots, you often end up without any prey killed and here, the Dems ended up dinging Scooter Libby, not getting the prey they wanted.
Course, with Reid and Pelosi at the helm, I doubt that there was ever any discussion of actual strategy - Chuckles Schumer just loaded up and took a shot with his eyes closed.
Posted by TW | July 3, 2007 6:22 PM
Commutation keeps Scooter's Fifth Amendment rights in place as the appeals process moves forward. A pardon would effectively remove that because Congress could then compel even self-incriminating testimony because he would no longer be at risk. Which is why there's now a cry of obstruction of justice against Bush - he's impeding testimony that might incriminate himself.
Posted by jr565 | July 3, 2007 6:32 PM
Not only is the verdict a travesty in the first place, as the leaker was known from day one, AND as one commenter said he was initially tasked to find out who leaked info to Robert Novak who is the one who names Plame by name. And that person, Tom Shipley was Armitage.
But to go beyond the verdict i'm still annoyed that the left and anti war crowd are using Joe Wilson as a debunker of fact, as a whistle blower. First off he was less than truthful about who sent him, about what he found, and what documents he saw .
But more importantly, he didn't actually debunk anything.
This whole debunking rests on the 16 words of the state of the union: "“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Mountains have been made out of the molehill that are these words, and endless scandal and conspiracy theories, but even if you completely leave out all the discrepencies about Joe Wilsons testimony proved that Bush was a liar, hence all the faux outrage from the leftards.
One Bush used the words: British govt. Now, if the British govt didn't in fact say such things then you could call Bush a liar. However, even if the British govt were completely wrong in their assessment, it doens't make Bush a liar for citing the fact that they said it. And they stand by the evidence.
Two: the word "Sought" which seemed to morph in many peoples minds to the word "bought" which woudl imply that Iraq had bought uranium as opposed to attempted to procure uranium.When that is not what Bush had said at all. And of course the Butler report said that Bushs statement was well founded. As did the intelligence comittee report based on what Wilson told them which stated that Wilsons trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal.
Three: in his state of the union speech Bush said the word Africa, not the word Niger. Because there was also evidence that Iran sought to purchase uranium from the Congo. Now, all you lefttards, please point to the point in the trip where Wilson detoured, in between his green tea drinking to verify the claims in the Congo. This is irrespective of whether or not those claims are accurate. Whehter they are or not, they certianly weren't proved or disproved by Joe Wilsons trip since he didn't actually visit there. And unless the Congo isn't in Africa then Bush can't even be accused of lying when he cites Africa as a place that British Intelligence says Iraq SOUGHT uranium from.
So the whole 16 word brouhaha, much like the argument that Plame was outed out of revenge, is a strawman bogeyman which the left essentially created out of thin cloth and then raile against as if it were the Vietnam Papers all over again (which by the way did not in fact implicate Nixon for anything, but rather implicated prior administrations). Only there's no there there. There is not a single word in the state of the union that is untrue, the only untruth being how those words were subsequently mischaracterized.
Very similar in fact to the follow up investigation over the outing of Plame for revenge which was similarly created out of half truths innuendo but no actual evidence. It was in effecd a gotcha trial, a perjury trap to try to get someone to say somethign that conflicted with someone else and then pounce. Only it was irrelevant to the issue at hand. Who was Novaks source? Who was the non partisan gunslinger?
I notice often that Libby's perjury is proof to the libtards that Bush, Rove, Cheney et al were all involved in some grand conspiracy to out an agent out of revenge, when in fact nooone was found guilty of leaking anything. Libby is not guilty of leaking. Rove isn't guilty of leaking and even Armitage the leak, isn't foudn guilty of leaking. People like Tom Shipley go so far as to ignore the elephant in the room (armitage) to come up with some alternatve rationale and cabal that not even the prosecutor can justify. If he coudl have he would have. Fitzgerald trying to reach and suggest that there was more to the story but that he was prevented from learning more doesn't really cut it in a court room if he can't actually bring the case forward. And if he could have brought a case forward we would see Rove,Armitage anybody actually brought up on charges. The worst he can get is that Libby remembered something differently than Tim Russert. After exanding his net outwards so far that's the best he could come up with? DOesn't the converse also hold true, that Tim Russer remembers differently than Libby? Whether one is right or wrong doens't necessarily make either of them a liar, considering how faulty memory is about conversations. Which is why reporters need to use things like notebooks and tape recorders when having conversations with people. Which is why the jury had to sit down and plot out who said what to whom and when on diagrams which they set up on the wall tracking everyting that was said to whom, when according to who was speaking.
Likewise with the 16 words the libtards use the Wilson oped as if Wilson debunked all of the rationale for the war with one article. Of course, his oped only even addressed 16 words of a much longer speech and one claim (of many) positied by the administration. Wilsons op ed therefore can only refute the one claim about which he investigated. He can't say one way or another whether there was a connection with Al Qaeda or other organizations, or whether the tubes were used for nuclear centrifuges or whether weapons were moved into Syria, or who knew what when. All he can address are the 16 words of which he has the least bit of knowledge about. And as stated he did a piss poor job of refuting that. It would be nice.
if the libtards want to concentrate on taking the 16 words out of context, then when they try to refute the claim with so called evidence that they at least stick to the same 16 words which they highlighted and not make blanket statements about everything and everything.
THe most they could ever prove by highlighting the 16 words is that those 16 words were false, or some of those 16 words were false, herefore Bush was lying ONLY about those 16 words.
Of course, they would need better proof than provided by such a partisan hack as Joe Wilson
Posted by exDemo | July 3, 2007 7:10 PM
No matter what ever Mr. Bush did the political opposition would howl. Meanwhile Let them howl. The have plenty of experience in disengaging brain a, engaging mouth, and flapping jaw.
While they are complaining about that, they can't be interfering and mucking up anything truly important.
I for one, Like his measured action. the appeals can go on and eventually the Appeals process will set it aside or diminish the conviction. Especially, now that it has become public that the prosecutor had a personal reason to hate Mr. Libby and seek him out for particular prosecution.
The decision to prosecute a "process" crime, in a crimeless prosecution, was quizzical to start. Now it appears biased and personal. Hardly dispassionate Justice. .
Mr Libby sought and obtained a Clinton pardon for Mr. Rich who prosecutor Fitzgerald had worked hard to convict.
This should lead to at the very least a re-trial. probably a decision will be made not to re-try at all.
Posted by Voyager | July 3, 2007 8:47 PM
I also find myself agreeing with Bush on this one. By commuting only the prison sentace, rather than issuing a blanket pardon, the appeals process can run to its proper conclusion.
Considering the judge's whole [i]Hang 'em now![/i] speech I'd consider it a pretty good bet that this conviction isn't standing.
Harry Voyager
Posted by Andrew P | July 3, 2007 9:32 PM
Bush's commutation makes perfect sense to me. Libby was the VP's right hand man. He knows all kinds of highly classified info that the administration isn't going to want leaked. He probably knows some really really dark stuff, and technical stuff as well. They couldn't afford to have him in a prison cell for 2 1/2 years. He had to either be released or eliminated. Commuting his sentence was both easier and more humane than trying to arrange for Scooter's cell mate to be a bubba that breaks necks with his bare hands. Trying to eliminate him could easily go awry, and too many people would have to be in on the plan. It is so much easier to let him off with enough of a commutation that old Scooter keeps his mouth shut. When he completes his sentence, he will undoubtedly become a hiogh priced lobbyist.
Posted by davod | July 4, 2007 3:24 AM
I do not understand why the judge did not let Libbey stay out on bail pending his appeal.
Posted by Davod | July 4, 2007 3:28 AM
Andrew P: Were the black helicopters hovering overhead when you made your 9:32 PM statement.
Posted by Kevin | July 4, 2007 8:29 AM
In order to resolve the Libby case, one must clear the air by explaining who is not telling the truth, and their motives for doing so.
Libby had no motive to lie. If he did, he could simply have said, “I don’t recall.” This would have given him total cover if he had anything to lie about in the first place.
Both Tim Russert and Andrea Mitchell knew all about Valerie Plame PRIOR to the famous New York Times editorial by Joe Wilson. Joe Wilson needed credibility to be believed by Mitchell & Russert, so he told them and their producers that he was qualified to discuss the WMD matter because his wife worked at CIA in weapons counter-proliferation. Otherwise, Joe Wilson was just another pissed-off, washed-up, former diplomat with an axe to grind.
Andrea Mitchell heard about Plame from Joe Wilson, who was ‘shopping his story’ to any reporter who would listen to him at the State Department. Mitchell confirmed Wilson’s story about his wife with Richard Armitage, with whom she spoke frequently at the State Department. She told Russert, so they booked Wilson for ‘Meet the Press’ on the very same day as the NYT editorial appeared. (What a coincidence…)
Russert & Mitchell were eager to book Wilson once they knew about his wife. She made him 'credible'.
Russert was on vacation that weekend, so Mitchell interviewed Wilson live on ‘Meet the Press’ that Sunday, July 6, 2003.
Russert is lying to protect his source, Joe Wilson. NBC made every effort to keep Andrea Mitchell away from talking to the prosecutor in the case, to keep her from spilling the beans. They succeeded.
Russert had to lie. If he had told the truth to prosecutors, then his own angelic credibility would be in question. It would have been exposed that NBC was taking sides in a partisan attack against the Whitehouse. NBC needs to maintain at least some minor 'appearance' of impartiality and professionalism.
Patrick Fitzgerald is either a complete dumb-ass, or he is politically motivated. Or both.
The truth needs to come out here. Hopefully, the appeals process will shed some light on the Truth.
Posted by Al | July 4, 2007 8:29 AM
Where have I heard that a "high" official was convicted of perjury and to a grand jury no less? Seems like the Democrats should probably cool it. Besides Sandy Burglar got away practically scot free for stealing classified documents. Hillary, a word, people in glass houses........
Posted by Kevin | July 4, 2007 8:48 AM
P.S.
Another interesting 'coincidence' is that Vanity Fair magazine did a cover photo and multiple-page dramatic story on Plame and Wilson. Three months after Wilson's first (of three) appearances on 'Meet the Press'.
Guess who's wife writes for 'Vanity Fair' and got the inside scoop on the Wilson's?
Tim Russert's wife, Maureen Orth has written for 'Vanity Fair' since 1983...
What a coincidence...
Posted by Kevin | July 4, 2007 9:34 AM
Also, we know Russert is lying for two reasons:
First, he swore under oath that he didn’t realize he couldn’t appear before a Grand Jury without his lawyer. This is a blatant lie, as Russert himself was a practicing attorney, had worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee as a staff attorney, and had stated clearly on television ten years ago that witnesses cannot appear before a Grand Jury with their attorneys. He knew better, but was just playing dumb so Fitzgerald would let him have an attorney present when he was questioned. Fitzgerald did grant him this special request.
Second, Russert emphatically stated under oath that it was impossible for him to have brought up Wilson/Plame in a phone conversation with Libby four days after Wilson appeared on ‘Meet the Press’. So, we are expected to believe that NBC’s Washington bureau chief has the V.P.’s chief of staff on the phone during the week of a media firestorm over the Joe Wilson editorial, and Russert doesn’t ask Libby about Plame/Wilson?
If he didn’t, then he would be a horribly inept journalist…
Posted by Monkei | July 4, 2007 5:49 PM
I do not understand why the judge did not let Libbey stay out on bail pending his appeal.
Well that was quite simple Davod! They (The GOP appointed members of the Appelate Coute) stated as much in their decision, that there was no reasonable merits that they could see that the liar and convicted Libby would ever win an appeal on ... but when you have a bud and agreement in place that you will never go to jail, why worry!