Should He Be Pardoned?
I'm Undecided
By Erick Posted in Law | Scooter Libby — Comments (68) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
With apologies to the Washington Post radio network, which thought I was going to come on and be rabidly for a pardon this morning, I'm actually undecided in whether Scooter Libby should be pardoned.
Let's be clear here. Libby was not convicted of outing Valerie Plame. In fact, I do feel strongly that he got a raw deal. Libby was not charged with or convicted of anything related to the actual purpose of the investigation. It's pretty clear now that not only was it Richard Armitage who outed Plame, but Patrick Fitzgerald knew it within a couple of weeks of the investigation and knew it was not a crime.
Fitzgerald has gotten hell from conservatives over his handling of the investigation. I think some of that is fair because he pretty much knew everything he was charged with finding out, yet kept the investigation alive long enough to get a scalp. But I do not think he had partisan motivations and can't bring myself to go all "Clinton Machine" on him.
Despite people's trouble with Fitzgerald, a jury of twelve eleven decided Libby lied to a grand jury. We treated perjury seriously with Bill Clinton, so why not now? I know the difference was that Clinton was obstructing an individual's civil recourse against him and Libby did not -- again, Fitzgerald already knew the facts about who outed Plame and that it was not a crime.
So, while I lean toward a pardon, I'm undecided. Feel free to convince me.
« Rethinking War Powers — Comments (1) | A (Pretty) Good Week For The Courts In The Culture Wars — Comments (6) »
Should He Be Pardoned? 68 Comments (0 topical, 68 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I meant to say that the defense of future perjurors will ask that their client be pardoned, citing Libby as an example. And perjury will become a non-crime.
Hey, isn't there already a precedent ... ?
There's the Clinton Perjury precedent: if you lie to the judge aboue sensitive matters, it's okay. Imagine the feelings a murderer had about his victim! It's an excuse to lie !!!
It would be merciful if Libby did receive a pardon; I don't think he did anything all that wrong.
And hey! I thought the point of the investigation was to prove some nefarious plot by the Bush administration to somehow "get Joe Wilson" by outting his wife.
Of course, nobody's ever figured out whether or not she was a covert agent.
As to Joe Wilson: anything for 15 minutes of media fame.
To convict one of perjury, the lie has to be material to the investigation. That has NOT been shown here...
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
and maybe gamecock or somebody can correct me if I am wrong. The one thing that a pardon does is acknowledge the guilty verdict. The pardon keeps a person from being punished, but it does not exonerate him of the crime. Maybe this is how it will turn out. I don't know. I think Libby would prefer to win an aquittal on appeal than be pardoned.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Wasn't one of Clinton's pardons to fellow Whitewater investor Susan McDougal who was found guilty of fraud and conspiracy? Did she ever admit to any guilt? I thought she always maintained she was innocent.
How does that square with President Ford’s pardon of former President Nixon?
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
Cap Weinberger, for instance, or Dewey Clarridge?
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
bad memories, that your comparison to Bill Clinton fails because Bill left behind physical evidence, because it's impossible to prove the interior of a man's mind, that Fitzgerald acted in bad faith, that as we know there was no underlying crime, that at the least Libby meets the Marc Rich standard,[and he's not yet even a fugitive], that the real scandal was a rogue CIA, that Fitzgerald never bothered to look into the leak of the original CIA memo to DOJ, that at least on the face of it Libby attempted to cooperate[ no 80 "I don't remembers"], that the judge helped prejudice the case [no cross examination of Russert, no presentation of Plame's non-covert status], that Mr & Mrs Plame posed for the front cover of Vanity Fair, I think before the trial began, that the testimony of reporter/witnesses was contradictory & confusing, that given the misreporting and outright fabrications of the MSM it was impossible for Libby to get a fair trial,[ and where do you go for a change of venue?], etc.
The entire debacle was political. Fitzgerald could not help or avoid the impetus of the politics but he benefited from it and there is this thing known as personal ambition.
Pardon Libby, liberals will scream because their blood lust has been thwarted but they will instinctively move on to other prey. The downside to this is that a pardon will be used against every Republican running for so much as alderman, a replay of Ford/Nixon.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
as far as other Repubs/canidates...who cares?
I would be shocked if any came out and said he should be pardoned...at most, they will be vague and acknowledge that it's the POTUS right/power to grant pardon...and really, if I was GWB, why give any of them cover? So many broke away from him long ago....let them sink or swim on their own.
Complete the deal Mr. Prez. ...grant the pardon....and yes..I think stuff(deals)like this have already been put into place.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
of our justice system. Instead of being outraged by a political trial, people take sides according to their political leanings - law and order be .... thrown out the window...
All things not considered will come back to haunt you.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Despite all the Press and Democrats who would like to see Libby pardoned, the President has said let the legal process play out.
The opposition would love to have another issue to batter our Republicans.
Clinton's pardons were reviled ... and they were for far worse criminals than someone who may or may not have fudged the facts to a grand jury. See what happens on appeal, and let the game play out.
My guess is that he becomes the Oracle during Libby's appeal(complete with Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, whatever). There is a faint possibility that he will be politely shunned by the Dems and their media, who are embarrassed by his showy, excessive partisanship. Hey, it could happen;)
The former seems to rule the day now, but maybe he gets a little advice from his colleagues to, y'know, tone it down a bit.
much a matter of dueling memories than anything else.
I think in the end it was about scalp collecting, I think for Fitz it wasn't neccessarily a "I want to get the administration" so much as it was a matter of wanting to justify his existence with something.
Also, I do see a difference in the perjury-Clinton lied through his teeth, knew he was lying (I mean I can understand not remembering details of who said what in a conversation, but Clinton wasn't recalling conversations), and chose to do it. It was deliberate, and the only reason Clinton got caught in the end was the blue dress.
The Libby case is a matter of who remember what and how, and what the jury thought of it. Some of the prosecution witnesses had faulty memories, some even got to come back and "fix" it. Dueling memories of conversations leaves a lot of room for forgetfulness.
I had some converstations last week with the teacher and a SPED person about one of the kids I work with, I could tell you what we discussed, but if you asked me to tell you exactly who said what and when or who brought up specific concerns first I probably couldn't tell you. Now if you called us all in to give a deposition, I am willing to bet we would agree that we had the conversation, and what the general topic was, but I bet we would differ on who said exactly what or who introduced specific concerns. Does that mean any of the three of us committed perjury?
As for the pardon, I think it depends. If Libby gets a long prison sentence I would absolutely argue for pardon. If Sandy Berger gets probation and Clinton gets a fine, then Libby doesn't deserve to go to jail for years. If Libby gets probation, then it isn't worth the political fall out to pardon him, if it is somewhere in the middle who knows.
I figure nothing will happen until the first appeal is either lost or won anyway.
And if the democrats want to get all hyped up over pardons, need we remind them of Mark Rich?
The one thing that has settled in my craw over time has been the fact that it comes down to one person's word against another. And both are upstanding people. Who do you believe?
Does this situation truly qualify a perjury?
It not like there are 5 witnesses and a video tape that contradict Libby. In each case it's one guys word against another. And over a very specific item of information that happened months to years before the Grand Jury.
I'm glad I live in flyover country. I can't imagine living and working in an environment that's so sick.
with you and Black Oak. I have to admit being totally shocked that a person could be convicted of perjury with nothing but someone's else's word. Especially when that someone else can be proven to be mistaken about other parts of their testimony.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Based on what I've read and seen, this was a more thoughtful and thorough jury than most. They took a surprising amount of time to go over the evidence carefully and then consider their verdict.
In the end, they found him guilty on four counts and acquitted him on the fifth. The idea that they had an agenda seems unsupported by any evidence I've seen.
As for "scalp-collecting," that might be a criticism one could level at Fitzgerald (though personally I doubt it), but how does it apply to the jury? It seems that at least some of the jurors felt they should have been judging Rove (or the vice president), rather than Libby, but there doesn't seem to be any doubt about their belief that Libby was guilty. Juror Collins displayed no animus toward Libby and it seems unlikely that such feelings had any role in convincing all eleven jurors of Libby's guilt.
(As for Clinton, I believe he lied and I think he knew he was lying, but the law on perjury is interesting and a case can be made that he did not commit perjury -- but not one I personally believe. See http://www.slate.com/id/1002007
In Gottlieb's analysis there is one point that I think proves Clinton lied and knew he was lying. Without arguing about what "sexual relations" means or who said what when, it seems clear to me that Clinton would have known with certainty whether or not he was ever alone with Lewinsky.)
In Libby's case, Collins said the pattern of Libby's memory failings was simply unbelievable.
As for Marc Rich, one of the more ironic facts that has come out in the Libby case is that Libby was Rich's attorney (from 1985 to 2000) and according to Libby's testimony before Congress he believed "prosecutors of Rich 'misconstrued the facts and the law' when they went after Rich on tax evasion charges." See -- http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/clinton.library/
If one believes Libby, then Clinton was probably correct in pardoning Rich. But Libby is now a convicted perjurer, so perhaps everything he says is suspect. Life could be simpler.
If Libby's appeal is unsuccessful, I don't think President Bush should pardon him. (Obviously, a successful appeal would eliminate the need for a pardon.)However, if Libby receives more than a fine and a relatively short prison sentence (suspended would be acceptable), I think the next president should issue a pardon.
that as more information comes out about the jury and their deliberations, well, your statement is simply not sustainable.
It did take them a long time to convince 2 jurors that they should change their votes - ie. convince those voting for guilty that they should change their minds. In fact, it should have been the other way around - innocent until proven guilty, convince me that they are guilty.
Oh well... what do you expect in a political trial.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Not that it in any way limits the Constitutional power to pardon, but Libby wouldn't qualify under DoJ guidelines for pardon considerations, and Bush has been pretty scrupulous and stingy with pardons so far. That would really amp up the criticism against Bush if he pardoned Libby, which suggests if he does pardon he might wait until the very end of his term. Here's an article on that:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17507199/site/newsweek/
Also, to be fair to Fitz, it isn't true to suggest that he kept prosecuting in hope of tripping someone up even though he knew Armitage was to blame from day one, and eventually Libby screwed up.
Some of the counts Libby was just found guilty of arose from FBI interviews in October and November 2003. (See indictment.) Fitz wasn't appointed until December 2003, when many of the initial interviews had already taken place which would show Libby's story was out of whack of the general thrust of everyone else's. (Specifically, interviewees would have already related conversations with Libby mentioning Plame that fall on the timeline prior to Libby's conversation with Russert, which Libby said was his first about Plame.)
So whatever Fitz knew on his first day about the leak case, he also knew on the first day there were potentially serious questions with Libby's story that any prosecutor would be bound to follow up on.
Libby's lawyers can use that to get the verdict thrown out. Pardons won't be an issue.
The juror comments could give Judge Walton a way of overturning the verdict without admitting that he made mistakes (which he did: not allowing impeachment of Russert with tape, not allowing defense to call Mitchell, etc).
The judge can say he tried to admonish them to stick to the evidence, but they considered too many issues outside those pretend in the trial evidence.
This way he could avoid the embaressment of being overturned on appeal.
This is just one of many reasons for overturning this verdict.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
If the lack of proportion and prosecutorial discretion didn't sway you, I cannot. If you consider how the Administration has used kid gloves on actual traitors and people who have breached national security, like Sandy Berger and the New York Times leakers, and don't see Libby as a victim, I cannot convince you. However, if the Left uses a similar criminal justice tactic on a bigger fish like Cheney, Bush or a cabinet official I will check back with you for consistency.
If you do not have an opinion at this point...nothing said here will change your mind. Of course that only means that you have not followed this trial like the majority of others.
Too bad though... I had hoped that RedState would be more in the front of this battle.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Any time of the day, well up to 12:00 on January 20th, 2009. So what if doing so puts a dent in the legacy of President Bush, not like we've never seen it.
Until then, let it play out.
_______________________________
Dennis Miller for President...no more wimps!
Caspar Weinberger was pardoned. No conviction, no confession, just a pardon.
What if GW resigns mere hours before the inauguration of Rudy, Cheney gets sworn in as president by Roberts, pardons Libby and tells Tim Russert to go "F" himself?
President Bush should pardon Scooter.....and Tim Russert.
He could also pardon Armitage, Wilson, and Plame for “any and all crimes” they committed relating to the incident (not that any of them are likely to be prosecuted for it). Having a presidential pardon on their record pretty much (a) destroys any “moral authority” they had for “speaking truth to power” because it makes them look as guilty as Libby (even though what they did is probably worse) and (b) mitigates any fall-out from pardoning Libby because he can say truthfully that he did it in order to put this mess behind us by pardoning everyone involved.
I'm not a South Park Republican, I'm a King of the Hill libertarian.
with Scooter Libby, specifically, not doing any jail time. I do have a problem with the message that it sends, which is that those with access to powerful people do not have to face the consequences of the justice system.
I think we have Bill Clinton's fire sale of pardons to thank for this. I would like to think that the GOP would not follow his example. It would be helpful to have this over and done with, as an appeal could take up to two years, and the drip, drip, drip will be exploited by the Dems.
However, if the GOP had had some principles about pardons, it might have looked into Clinton's fire sale. But it decided not to go there. (Not that a pardon could be undone, but the payment for one could be a crime). Thanks to Lewis Libby, who advocated leaving the issue alone. Libby, who once represented Marc Rich.
That said, I do think Libby deserves a pardon if the appeals court doesn't exonerate him. It would be more satisying to be exonerated than pardoned. But as Tom Maguire at Justoneminute pointed out, once Fitz knew who the leaker was, he kept on going (and was allowed to).
As Maguire points out, Fitz went after two people he wanted revenge on: Judy Miller and Lewis Libby. Miller for supposedly leaking to a Muslim group about a planned raid on its headquarters (hey, if I was a prosecutor tracking funds for terroists, I'd be pissed, too). And Lewis Libby, who was Marc Rich's lawyer. I believe Fitz prosecuted Rich.
The DOJ should have shut Fitz down. That it didn't, because of Dem backlash shows it to be as infested with career Clintonistas as the State Department and the CIA.
And it shows the Bush adminstration too timid to stand up and fight back against the MSM.
This is the crux of the matter. a line needs to be drawn that criminalizing policy it will not fly. The case was never about Libby or Plame. It was about making the administration pay a price for invading Iraq. If we are going to sacrifice public servants this, we should just put up a couple of altars in the congress so it can be done properly.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
yes, he should. But the appeals should come first because they provide the opportunity to exhonerate himself, which a pardon does not.
Since it is the jurors who find a defendant guilty, please explain how they behaved in an unethical manner.
And if they weren't unethical, please explain who was (no conspiracy theories allowed).
Martha served jail time for doing the same thing as Libby. Why does he deserve special consideration? Because he is politically connected?
Note I couldn't care less about the fate of Scooter Libby. I haven't cared since day 1. But if he is convicted and it stands he should suffer the consequences, which are likely to be pretty tame.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
My understanding (and it shouldn't surprise anyone that I didn't follow it that close) is that Stewart actually said verifiably false things in an attempt to muddy the waters on the sale of the stock. Things that could be proven false with phone records and trade paperwork etc.
Libby's memory and testomony differed from Russert's - and that's what triggered the charge.
Correct me if I'm wrong - but they aren't the same.
She was convicted of lying to federal prosecutors.
Apparently enough evidence was brought to bear to support the perjury and obstruction of justice charges that a jury found him guilty.
There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy
And Unlikeable. Leona Helmsley had the same problem. Her husband is perfect example of how this works. He was old and likable so wasn't prosecuted.
It's getting to the point where your best legal defense will be to dress as some likable character. I recommend either Goofy, or one of the Huey, Dewey, or Louie brothers.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
But she said some things that were verifiably untrue. Whether it was to the investigators or while on the stand - the issue is the same - just the charge differs.
And Libby was brought up on perjury charges because his memory differed from some reporters' recollections. It was He said/she said. He was convicted - but it seems like weak coffee to me.
Pardon the man. He'll never work at that high level again - but at least he won't get any more bankrupt haveing to appeal and defend himself.
There was evidence other than somebody else's faulty memory that led to Martha's charges, basically the jury wasn't asked to do an evaluation of the "he said, he said" testimony and figure out which he they liked best. They had other evidence to impeach her.
I don't think she ever lied under oath, I don't even recall a perjury charge.
But I agree with those who say Martha's problem was that she was famous and unlikeable-it has been awhile since I have seen that case, but her charges always seemed a bit like a prosecutor trying to justify the investigation with some kind of conviction.
Which is my real problem with the whole Libby trial-I have issues when the only evidence of lying is somebody else, especially if that somebody else had an equally faulty memory or lied themselves but wasn't charged.
there was evidence of wrongdoing with her broker (I believe emails or some such). In the long run, I think it was a bit of a stretch to prosecute her. It was NOT different memories of the same event! By the way, all 9 journalists memories changed during this trial while Libby's remained the same...hmmm. Sort of makes you wonder doesn't it? I really believe that Libby simply confused journalists when he stated that it was egghead that made the statements to him. I have little doubt that many of the journalists knew of Wilson's wife and the CIA.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I'd rather see an appeal or a retrial, using all the evidence that wasn't allowed in. Also, we could do that without a juror with a big diary on The Huffington Post. Given those two basic improvements, you MIGHT see a different verdict.
Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)
only to those that followed the trial and don't hold political views that forbid them to see through the haze.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
The verdict should be thrown out on appeal and the case dismissed! Following that, the DOJ should open an investigation of unethical conduct of Fitzgerald and the FBI.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
The DOJ, (Gonzolas) was aware of Armitage as the leaker long before Fitzgerald was involved - so he knew the leaker before the investigation started and already knew that there was nothing to investigate (no crime).
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Can't find the exact quote, but remember the first statement made by Fitzgerald at the start of this mess. He claimed that Libby was the first known person to leak Plame's name AND he already knew that it was NOT true.
Nice antics if you can get away with it...and he did since it was not disclosed until three years later that he already knew it was Armitage he gets away with outright lies.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
He said that Libby was the first and that it had caused enormous damage to our secret sister's society, etc. When it came out to the public that it was Richard Armitage and that Fitz had known from the beginning, it was apparent that Fitz is a bald faced liar.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
When Fitz said (at the indictment) that Libby was the first, he was referring to Libby's conversation with Judith Miller on 23 June, 2003. He knew about Armitage leaking to Novak, but that was on about July 7th, so no contradiction there.
After the indictment, Woodward revealed that he had received a leak prior to 23 June, which he hadn't told anyone about. Apparently Fitz hadn't known about that, and Woodward was hastily summoned to testify. That leak came from Armitage.
Another quality finding of fact from Fitz.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
As I was trying to communicate in my prior post without spelling it out letter by letter, Fitz did a horrible job verifying the facts. As a side note, I am a long time opponent of shield laws for reporters and this travesty is one more example of why they should go.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
In fact, Mr. Libby was the first official known to have told a reporter when he talked to Judith Miller in June of 2003 about Valerie Wilson.
Sounds like a correct statement at the time.
The epicycle was known to be accurate.
That quote is an example of fitz weaseling.
Admittedly I am biased, but I make no secret of it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Fitzgerald knew of Armitage when he first took the case and told Novak that he already knew the leaker when he was interviewed. That is because Armitage went to the DOJ before Fitzgerald was assigned, during the initial FBI investigation.
Libby was charged with lying to the FBI and perjury NOT being the first leaker of Plame. Fitzgerald knew this at the news conference and he still made that statement for media effect. This was his assumption.
Libby was NEVER considered for any charges relating to outing Plame!
At no point in the trial was this even brought up much less proven how or who initially leaked Plame.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Excellent article regarding the Libby trial (a lawyer by trade, an excellent writer by any standard).
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/i_call_for_justice.html
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
I'm disappointed that you were not able to bring some facts to light during your Washington Post radio gig. I do understand that most (probably 98%) of the public has not cared enough to follow this trial.
The live-blogging of the trial by FDL (FireDogLake - liberal site) and JOM (JustOneMinute - conservative site), a first I believe, provided an interesting insight into the workings of our justice system - and it was not pretty.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Another good blog effort to add insight to those who have not been following this trial.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2007/03/patrick_fitzger.html
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
and you trust their judgement, may I assume you are either playing golf this afternoon with OJ or helping him look for the real killers?
Troll.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
guilty was the court verdict. It's the trial that I object to!
I guess you are a true believer in justice and the American way...no doubt. There can be no unjust trials, heh.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
that came out harsh... Wasn't meant toward you. Just my preoccupation with this farce trial.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
Is there any way to raise the blogs via comments? It seems that with all the continuous writings here, those that need to be explored end up at the bottom of a very large pile (in way too short of a time)...long gone before everyone even sees them.
Formally known as Deagle... "Golf is a way of life..."
if Libby is pardoned, future criminals who lie under oath will be asked to be pardoned, arguing that "if Libby was pardoned, why not pardon Mr. John Doe?"?
I am against the pardon.