Who will pardon Scooter Libby? (GWB won't. FDT would.)
(Will anyone indict Fitz?)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in 2008 — Comments (44) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
According to White House spokesman Dana Perino, President Bush will not pardon Scooter Libby, at least not for a while:
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, traveling with Bush in Europe for the Group of Eight summit, said Bush felt sorry for the family of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was sentenced to 30 months in prison for lying and obstructing an investigation related to the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war.
Libby remained free pending an expected appeal.
"Given that (the appeal) and in keeping with what we have said in the past, the president has not intervened so far in any other criminal matter and he is going to decline to do so now," Perino said.
It looks like, should the appeal process not go well for him, Libby might have to wait a few years before this joke of a prosecution and wholly partisan miscarriage of justice is rectified. But it will happen, unless perhaps Hillary figures out some secret incantation enabling her to interfere.
On March 11 of this year, Fred Thompson appeared on FOX News Sunday [transcript], where host Chris Wallace asked him if a "President Fred Thompson" would pardon Libby now or wait until the appeals had run their course.
Fred Thompson is on the steering committee of the Scooter Libby Defense Fund, and his answer is beneath the fold.
Pardon now or after the appeals?
Said Fred:
I'd do it now. This is a trial that never would have been brought in any other part of the world. This is a miscarriage of justice.
One man and his wife and 14-year-old and 10-year-old children are bearing the brunt of a political maelstrom here that produced something that never should have come about.
These people knew in the very beginning — the Justice Department, this Justice Department and the special counsel knew in the very beginning that the thing that was creating the controversy, who leaked Valerie Plame's name, did not constitute a violation of the law.
And then they knew that it — someone did leak the name. And it was Mr. Armitage. It wasn't Scooter Libby.
But he evidently wasn't a designated bad guy, so they passed over that and spent the next year drilling in a dry well and finally got some inconsistencies or some failure to remember out of Mr. Libby and made a prosecution out of it and went to trial on a he-said, she-said perjury case and faulty memory, when practically every witness in the trial either had inconsistent statements, told the FBI one thing, told the grand jury something else, inconsistent between the witnesses that were presented at the case, and sometimes both.
And yet at the end of the day, the only person that the jury got an opportunity to pass judgment on was Scooter Libby. It's not fair. And I would do anything that I could to alleviate that.
Yet the sentence was influenced by the severity of the charge which the buffoon Patrick Fitzgerald unsuccessfully investigated. The judge had plenty of leeway in issuing the sentence.
I do not know his motives, but Patrick Fitzgerald departed reality with this prosecution. With his brain floating in a jar on Neptune, he seemed to become obsessed with protecting his image, with getting at least one conviction after wasting our time and our money. The "getting Al Capone on tax evasion" analogy doesn't work here, as Libby is not Capone and possibly forgetting names and dates is not deliberately withholding funds from Uncle Sam.
Why this President won't pardon Scooter Libby is perhaps unanswerable. He has no political capital to lose by doing so; in fact, he would gain some respect, probably, from those in his political base he is alienating by pushing a bizarre immigration bill.
Fred Thompson has said that he would pardon Scooter Libby now. The other candidates might now line up with their positions on this matter or possibly change their minds. It's an issue regarding both the candidates' sense of justice and their character.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Joe Scarborough's Don Imus Moment. Where Is GOP Outrage? — Comments (34) »
Who will pardon Scooter Libby? (GWB won't. FDT would.) 44 Comments (0 topical, 44 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
We need his clarity and courage, now more than ever.
At the end of the day, Scooter was found guilty of lying to a grand jury and to the FBI. Regardless of the circumstances of the investigation, the law of the land is the you provide honest answers. A jury of Scooter's peers said he didn't. He was represented by the finest legal team that money can buy and still has appeal opportunities. If there's an argument on whether he lied or honestly couldn't remember, that may have merit. As it stands, he's guilty of lying. Accordingly, he should suck it up and pay the piper.
Libby should be off for similar reasons of illegal search and seizure. There was no legitimate reason to keep Libby on the hot seat in the first place. Just as an illegal search may invalidate any contraband found in a car.
Just because you have the right, doesn't mean you should.
Clinton lied to a grand jury. And I'd say he lied about matters approximately as weighty as those Libby was convicted of lying about.
Where's that little creep's 30 month federal sentence?
rj, nobody here is arguing that Libby was not convicted (which seems to be the straw man you are attacking). We are arguing that the whole matter is a great big trumped-up thing done for reasons that are less than honest or proportional.
And it's pretty damned convenient for you to sit wherever you are sitting -- I'm guessing it's not in federal prison 'paying the piper' for malicious prosecution -- and say that Libby should just 'suck it up and pay the piper'.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
that the judge, jury, prosecutor, and majority of American people are sitting in.
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/03/poll-69-percen...
Or maybe the problem is half-baked steak.
Ideological blindness, whether left or right, is not a pretty
thing.
Perhaps you should get your eyes checked (metaphorically speaking).
Clinton should have served time as well for lying under oath. Berger should have gotten more than he did. I have no answer for you as to why they didn't. I also agree that the issue was trumped up. That isn't my point.
Yes, it really is pretty darn convenient from where I'm sitting. Had I lied to a grand jury(regardless of why I was summoned), I wouldn't have that luxury. Surely, Libby understood the law going in. If he intentionally lied, why should he be above the law? If he didn't, then I can agree with an argument from that perspective. I regret my opinion seems to strike a nerve. It isn't an ideology issue.
Many of us don't think he intentionally lied. And that furthermore, the prosecutor was trolling for indictments. He found out on day 1 (literally, DAY 1) of his investigation who the leaker was, and never raised a finger to do anything to Bush-hater Armitage, but engaged in a 2-year dog-and-pony show.
I think it is partisan grandstanding, and vindictive prosecution. And my thoughts about this judge go even deeper.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
Libby wanted to offer as an expert witness a qualified psychologist who could testify on the workings of the human memory. Libby's defense was that he tesified to the best of his recollection.
This is one of the issues he's already identified for appeal, and probably one that has the best chance.
When someone's testimony differs from another, it can be either because the person is lying or because he's honestly mistaken.
If you've ever ready about "eyewitness" testimony experiments in which a group of people (students in a classroom, for example) is suddenly confronted with a perpetrator, and later asked to describe the perpetrator, the descriptions can vary noticably. Is anyone lying? No, that's how memory "plays tricks" under stress.
Libby tried to answer honestly from his memory, unlike Hillary, who when she testified in one of the investigations of the Clintons, used "I don't recall" over a hundred times.
After time, two people can remember conversations differently and both can insist theirs is the right version. These people are sometimes referred to as "husbands" and "wives."
Yes he was found guilty of lying to a grand jury, but the sentence seems to me to be more of a stab at Bush/Cheany/Rove. I am a democrat, social lib, but this seems way heavy handed. There is total disregard for the fact that Libby is a lifelong public servant, a family man. He committed no violent act, stole nothing. Even the facts surrounding the indictment and conviction seem fuzzy. Reasonable doubt anyone? Heck, I can not remember what I had for lunch half the time. Trust me I am no fan of the above trio, but Patrick and the sentencing judge really are grabbing the lowest hanging fruit. Pardon the man for goodness sakes, what a waste of 2 1/2 years of from all accounts a decent mans life.
"Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of weak minds"
Funny set of priorities Bush has: Those who are loyal, he fails to defend; those that attack, he lets write his agenda.
The only ones who get any defense are the incompetent, boot-licking lackies--AGAG, Brownie, et al.
Libby is in the clink because some dared fight back against the non-stop yellowcake smear.
Bush ain't got the time to pardon.
He gave Kennedy No Child Left Behind to write, months later he is leading the charge that Bush lied about WMDs and has trapped us in a quagmire in Iraq, a few bare months later Bush snuggles up to Kennedy--again--and lets him write an immigration bill.
We have fought for years to defend the decision to go to Iraq and Kennedy is the one who gets rewarded?
Carville pretty much summed it up with his line, "You spend the election ****ing your enemies and the transition ****ing your friends." I could count on my fingers the politicians I've known who didn't just take their supporters for granted and start doing things to try to get his/her opponents to like him/her.
In Vino Veritas
deserving of prison time than Sandy Berger's.
I am in the "this is mostly trumped up" camp, and I have real issues with this case in general-it is one that should have been shut down at the initial investigation stage.
...what Sandy Berger has to do with anything.
If you'd like to have Sandy Berger prosecuted, find someone to prosecute him.
Scooter Libby was prosecuted by a man who has proved not to be a partisan, was found guilty, and then sentenced.
Don't like the law... change it.
Beyond that... I don't even know why there's an issue to debate.
was rewarded with a nice light slap on the wrist, and he even got his security clearance back already.
My point is that we have declared what Libby did worth three years in prison, Berger destroyed classified documents and got his security clearance taken away for a few years. I think destroying documents rates higher in the "bad boy deserving of prison" rankings than lying to a grand jury over what you told reporters and what they told you.
You really don't see any disparity between the legal treatment of Libby vs Sandy Burglar? Then you are alot more liberal than rational.
It's not a matter of 'don't like the law...change it'. Straw man. The law is just fine, nobody said otherwise.
What we find odd is that the Democrat who stole documents (in his socks!!!) from the National Archives gets a small fine, while the Republican who had nothing to do with 'outing' Plame but gets convicted for essentially having 2-year old memories that did not coincide with those of Tim Russert gets a 30-month sentence in federal prison.
You don't see any disparity, any relevance? Then don't comment when adults are talking.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
And, besides, it wasn't Patrick Fitzgerald who found Libby guilty, it was a jury....perhaps one unfriendly to the administration, but a jury nonetheless.
Scooter Libby was duly convicted of perjury. I'm not saying that the conviction was just -- that's why we have an appeals process, and I didn't follow the case closely enough to have a firm grasp on all of the facts. But I do know that he received a trial, that it seemed to be a fair trial, and he was convicted.
I have to wonder, for all those who think Libby should be pardoned, how many people thought similarly of the Clinton saga back in 1998? Clinton pretty obviously lied to a grand jury (though it couldn't be called perjury since the false statements were later determined immaterial to the Jones lawsuit).
Clinton's actions warranted, in many estimations, removal from office. I certainly thought he deserved removal.
If he did, why does Libby deserve to go free? That would be a howling double-standard, and could only be plausibly attributed to blind partisanship.
I realize that the overwhelming feeling is that Libby was railroaded for political reasons. Well, so did many of Clinton's defenders. But that didn't condone Clinton's actions and neither should it condone Libby's.
piled it on in the asking, so he is hardly to be absolved.
As for Clinton-I am one of those people who never thought the whole Paula Jones suit should have gone forward, and I am also not 100% convinced the judge allowing for the line of questioning during deposition was right either, but the judge decided that way, and Bill Clinton's lie wasn't one you could chalk up to faulty memory, unless there were a lot more ladies providing their services-and in that case it looks even worse.
But he was obligated to tell the truth-and he deliberately chose to not tell the truth, and should have been held to account for that.
I can also say, if we are going to go with this comparison, once again Libby's sentence appears to be disproportionanate, given that Clinton only lost his law liscense and had to pay a fine.
If the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it's not the president's job to fix it. That's one reason we have an appeals process.
I've never had the problem with Patrick Fitzgerald that many of my fellow conservatives have. To my ears, they sound waaaay too much like the people who blamed Kenneth Starr for Bill Clinton's problems -- which never made sense to me either. One of Patrick Fitzgerald's closest friends is NRO's Andrew McCarthy -- whose judgment I trust quite a bit.
It's the president's prerogative whether or not he wants to pardon Mr. Libby, of course. But, if he doesn't, it should be very, very low on our list of things that we should be criticizing this president for.
There's never anything wrong with relying on the rule of law.
If the punishment doesn't fit the crime, it's not the president's job to fix it
That's exactly what pardons are used for, or at least what they are supposed to be used for when they aren't being auctioned off to raise money for your library.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
That's why Libby should go free. Or at least get a new trial. As I noted above, he was not allowed to present an important expert witness for his defense. It's not a fair trial when you're not allowed to present your case, especially a defendant in a criminal case.
If one accepts the "a jury found him guilty" argument, there would be no reason to have an appeal process. If one concedes that we need an appeal process, then one concedes that the jury might not have heard all the relevant evidence. And the judge controls what evidence is admitted.
The would not necessarily have to believe the expert. It can disregard all, part of none of any witness' testimony. But the jduge should at least have given Libby the chance to present his expert.
Wethal,
(Attorney at law for nigh unto 30 years)
I agree that Libby should be able to appeal and should appeal. I'm not saying that the trial-by-jury system is flawless. But the system is what it is -- and presidential pardons really aren't an integral part of it, appeals are.
If he deserves a new trial, fine. If the conviction should be overturned on appeal, also fine. I'm not saying that they should throw away the key.
I'm saying that there's nothing I see which would warrant a presidential pardon. Like it or not, it's not the president's job to second-guess the judicial system.
And that judicial system did find Libby guilty of perjury.
Pardons and commutations are an integral part of the justice system, as they are aspects of the punishment in that system.
Your faith in the juries and trial judges is touching. Reggie Walton was appointed by Clinton. You had a Democratic judge in DC trying a case of a GOP White House administrator. The judge went with Fitzgerald on nearly every important ruling. If you think he was unbiased, I'd to sell you some real estate in Florida. Unlimited water supply.
That said, it is likely an appeal is the only way to clear this up. If you want to see Walton's bias, wait for whether he lets Libby out on bail pending appeal.
Walton was appointed to various judicial postings by Reagan in 1981, Bush 41 in 1991, and Bush 43 in 2001. Clinton never appointed Walton to anything.
Sandy Berger has a lot to do with it, it demonstrates how justice is applied unequally.
Sandy Berger actually committed serious crimes and nobody does anything.
Scooter Libby does nothing and get 30 months in jail.
There is something seriously wrong with this.
...is how the Berger deal was handled. I don't think any reasonable observer would say that justice was well-served in l'affair Berger. It's unconscionable that a former high-ranking government official could steal and destroy classified documents and get nothing more than a slap on the wrist.
But I don't see what that has to do with Libby. If Libby did what he was accused and convicted of doing -- and it wasn't "nothing" -- then doesn't he deserve some kind of punishment?
I agree that the treatment of these two guys is unequal. But that's more an indictment of how Berger was handled....not how Libby was handled.
Certainly the Berger thing was mishandled by a cowardly, intentionally disinterested Justice Dept. I think what alot of us are saying is that Libby's 'crime' was getting snared in Fitz-fong's 2-year perjury trap.
30 months in federal prison for what was ABSOLUTELY a he-said, she-said perjury case, especially when there was no underlying crime -- that's crap. That's a gross miscarriage of justice.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
...and I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV."
Why didn't Thompson write a letter to Judge Walton in support of "Scooter" Libby? Even that twerp James Carville signed the letter his wife, Mary Matalin, wrote.
Bush is waiting until he's on the way out of office before he pardons Libby but he won't do it now... it is just ridiculous that the court wastes its time in this trial and the appeals and Libby's money when Bush is going to pardon him eventually.
Any coward can fight a battle when he's winning, but give me a man who has pluck to fight when he is losing.
That's the part I don't get. He can pardon anyone he wants and anyone who doesn't like it can stuff it.
Letting Libby rot in prison until the end of his term might help establish a new tone or something.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
At least that's the standard guideline from the DOJ. The president is under no obligation to follow the guideline, though.
There are plenty of legitimate grounds for discussion about the Libby prosecution and verdict.
But nobody serious will take you seriously when you write things like, "Who will indict Fitzgerald?"
1) Witnesses will not testify, unless they have immunity. This was obvious with Monica Goodling. She was going to testify under oath and contradict her boss.
2) Witnesses will have very bad memories. Hillary was shrewd enough to do this. How can you prosecute someone for perjury or obstruction of justice who just says, "I don't recall" over and over?
Mr. President, you are saying that you are sad for Mr. Libby's family... Are you sad for Mr. Libby, that he has been found guilty and has been sentenced to 30 months?
No comment?! No comment as to any compassion for this man's predicament? As the chief Executive of this government, no bowels' of compassion for a loyal servant of your administration... a man virtually everyone in your party believes was unjustly indicted and convicted over a policy dispute?
You say it would be interjecting yourself into the process?!
Ah... such respect for justice you seem to have. I am beginning to see now that it may be, in fact, too much to think you would act with your pardon power to correct the wrong that has been done.
Oh, you are waiting for the legal process to play itself out?
How convenient... waiting to decide on a pardon until the end of the appeals process, a period of time which Mr. Libby may very well spend in jail... Does the phrase "passing the buck" seem relevant here?
You have answered my question, Mr. President. No compassion and no pardon for Mr. Libby.
Sadly, your true intentions are clear. And I have to conclude... you are no stand up kind of guy. And justice is weakened as a result.
Jack
The World's Ruined
why the President might want to wait for the appeals process to run its course before pardoning Libby. I think he will pardon him eventually. I would certainly support a pardon, but to be fair to Bush, most of the Republican candidates tonight expressed reluctance to pardon Libby immediately, although Brownback and Tancredo, I believe, voiced straightforward support for a pardon.
Bush is willing to pardon 12 million illegal aliens, why not pardon Scooter Libby?