On the day that Scooter Libby was sentenced to two and a half years for perjury and obstruction of justice convictions, republican candidates for president held a debate. Among the questions asked was whether the candidates thought it would be appropriate for Bush to pardon Libby.
The question was straightforward:
Do you think it would be appropriate for President Bush to pardon Lewis Scooter Libby, who was sentenced today to 30 months in prison for his role in the CIA leak case? ... I just want to do a quick yes or no, and I’m going to go down the rest of the group and let everybody just tell me yes or no, would you pardon Scooter Libby?
The responses? Anything but straightforward. Read the transcript to do it justice.
In fairness, Ron Paul and James Gilmore were quick to say 'no', while Tom Tancredo said 'yes.' The others? Duncan Hunter and Mike Huckabee said "not without reading the transcript". What? Talk about an evasive non-response! So if Bush reads the transcript he should pardon Libby? And why read the transcript? Do Hunter and Huckabee think that the president should read the transcript of every person requesting a pardon, or just Libby's? What is it about the transcript that would allow Bush to determine whether he should overrule the finding, from a court of law, that Libby committed perjury and obstructed justice?
McCain was no better saying he would have to see what happens with the appeal process. Mitt Romney touted his credentials of having never pardoned anyone as governor, stating that he did not want to overturn a jury. He then went on to state that Fitzgerald abused his discretion and was on a political vendetta, so he would consider a pardon.
Did I just miss something? Wasn't this a question about whether George Bush should pardon Libby? I am not sure I would vote for a person who was so easily confused by such a simple question, but knowing that this is not really a debate and more like a public opportunity for candidates to spout some political slogan or stress their conservative roots, McCain and Romney's efforts to make this about them is understandable. Even so, Romney's response does not wash. Romney does not want to overturn jury verdicts, but he would consider overturing this verdict because Dick Armitage, and not Libby, leaked Plame's name? Uh, Mitt? Libby was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, not with leaking the name. That's twice you have been confused by such a simple question. Do we really want a president who is so easily confused by facts? And if you take his statements at face value, Romney apparently believes that it is acceptable to commit perjury if you can say that a prosecutor is out for some sort of political vendetta.
Wow. I wonder if anyone who has ever been convicted before has ever claimed that the prosecution was biased as part of a plea for a pardon?
And what vendetta? A republican trying to take down a republican staffer in a republican administration because ... they are all members of the same political party? Oh, okay.
Senator Brownback also demonstrated an ability to get confused over the simplest issues when he said he would pardon Libby, offering that 'the basic crime did not happen.' Brownback then tried to explain himself by claiming that disclosing Plame's identity was not a crime because Plame was not 'in the field' at the time of the disclosure. Uh, Sam? Libby was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice, not with leaking the name. And where in the world did you come up with that ridiculous notion that an undercover CIA agent, working long term on non-proliferation issues, had to be working undercover in the field at the time of the disclosure? She WAS undercover, employed full time by the CIA! She did not have to be working abroad to be 'in the field.'
I think the response is telling, in that it demonstrates both confusion over a simple question, and a willingness to read into law that which is plainly not there. Hmmm. Not sure this response will help Brownback with the conservative crowd, unless they demonstrate the same confusion over this simple question and accept his response without thinking it over.
Tommy Thompson was not much better, arguing that 'Clinton lied and lost his license to practice law, so this is unfair to Libby.' Whoops. Are you sure you want to use Clinton as an example to compare with? To make the analogy work, you would have to say that Libby committed perjury but you would pardon him anyway because, Bill Clinton, who was never charged with perjury or convicted of a crime, lied under oath too. Hmm. And, when Clinton lied, didn't the republican party argue that he should be impeached and removed from office? Didn't they also argue that the forfeiture of his law license was an inadequate penalty? So now Libby should get a break because Clinton, who was not convicted of perjury or obstruction of justice, lied an 'got off too easy'?
By far, the worst response was that of Rudy Giuliani. Over-dramatizing just a tad, Giuliani offered that 'a man's life is at stake' and that 'this is an incomprehensible situation'. He devoted time to mentioning that he advised Ronald Reagan on pardons and prosecuted thousands of cases, then implied that he would wait for the appeal to run its course before he turned his comment to Patrick Fitzgerald, stating that because Fitzgerald was unable to charge any underlying crime, Libby should be pardoned for lying to Fitzgerald and preventing Fitzgerald from bringing any underlying charges. (O.K. He did not spell it out for you, I did, but that is what he said if you insert the facts.)
The 'get tough on crime guy' is in favor of pardoning Libby for obstruction of justice because Libby obstructed Fitzgerald from brining charges against anyone in connection with the leak itself, got that? Crime pays. Apparently Giuliani thinks that those who cover up crimes should be pardoned when they are convicted of obstructing justice. Again, not sure if that message will play to a conservative audience, unless the conservative audience demonstrates some confusion over the charges against Libby and why he was convicted, but the reference to Ronald Reagan might help confuse them a bit.
I shake my head in disbelief. These men want to be president? These men want to be the candidate from the republican party, the party that prides itself on claiming that it favors law and order and 'get tough' sentences for crimes? Libby is a convicted felon. He did not have to lie to the grand jury investigating the leak, but he did. To pardon him would be inexcusable and would underscore the connection between White House attempts to disparage Joseph Wilson for petty political purposes, and the actions of Libby.
The best these candidates can hope for is to have the decision to pardon Libby postponed until after the 2008 election, when they can wring their hands and say 'I had nothing to do with it.'
Comments
Maybe
you have posted on this before, do you think the president should have pardoning power, or no?
Irrelevant.
Whether the president should have pardoning power is irrelevant- the constitution specifically provides for it. The question is whether it should be used to pardon Scooter Libby, convicted for perjury and obstructing a criminal investigation into the unauthorized leak of an undercover CIA agent.
r.johnson
Ah...
Well, you led with "All in Favor of Pardoning Convicted Felons, Raise Your Hand." Is it appropriate to pardon felons, and if so under what circumstances?
Hijack
...with a reference to the republican candidates and their responses. This is not a generic post about what circumstances it is appropriate to pardon, but about whether you think, or these candidates think, George Bush should pardon Scooter Libby.
r.johnson
No box cutters here...
I lean against a pardon, but would contemplate commuting the sentence.
I guess a pardon should at least be delayed until a case has worked its way through the appeals process (and I mean that generally--and I apologize, again for generalizing...).
Too harsh?
Fair enough. I take it by saying that you would contemplate commuting the sentence that you do not see the punishment as fitting the crime, correct? Many do not. But how does that square with the 'get tough on crime' approach that has been adopted by many conservatives, or the mandatory minimum sentences that they have specifically enacted? Conservatives call judges 'activists' (derogatorily) when they attempt to take into consideration the very factors Libby's supporters raise, and in fact the sentence specifically considered testimonials from Libby's friends as to why Libby should receive a light sentence. Isn't there a double standard here, or is simply 'its ok if the executive branch does it, but no one else can'?
r.johnson
So you can generalize with
So you can generalize with impunity, but I can not, real cool.
I will not speak for the "get tough" crowd, although I would like to see, for instance, all child rapists serving as least as much time as Libby. I think the inconsistency in sentencing is problematic.
I find it odd that the "underlying crime" was established during sentencing (that is right, is it not?). This contributed to the severity, and seems unfair from what I have read so far. I imagine that if you were Libby's defense attorney, you would be screaming bloody murder over the tactic. Whether the underlying crime was real has not been fully resolved (don't tell me you now take the word of the CIA at face value, I might catch the vapors), and so the reason for this circus remains ambiguous. I hope we can learn more about her covert status during the civil suit.
Method to the Madness
My reason for asking the question specifically as it relates to Libby, and not in general terms about when it is or is not appropriate to pardon, is that an answer is directly relevant to a whole host of campaign related issues. This issue has significant implications for each of the candidates, and a campaign strategist would be trying to address the implications that would flow from a 'yes' or 'no' response as it relates to this issue, and their stances on others. I am not a democratic strategist, but I see each of these candidates being vulnerable on this issue, albeit for different reasons and with different voting blocks. If I were one of these candidates, I would hope and pray that this issue would quietly subside, at least until the election was over. Discussing when it is appropriate to pardon never raises these issues, but worth discussing another time.
Not sure what you are saying about the "underlying crime". The crimes Libby was charged with had to do with perjury- lying to investigators- and obstructing justice- preventing charges from being filed in the underlying matter. So the argument goes that because he was successful in impeding a criminal investigation we should...pardon him? What came out at trial and in sentencing is that Libby's obstruction of Fitzgerald's investigation of the leak, and specifically Dick Cheney, prevented Fitzgerald from bringing charges related to disclosure of her identity. And while Fitzgerald noted her covert status as part of sentencing, it was relevant to show the significance of the issue in a claimed faulty memory defense and the significance of the issue in an obstruction case. Wouldn't the highest levels of government be interested in finding out who was involved in leaking the undercover identity of a person working on Iran's nuclear ambitions?
The Brownback/Giuliani argument (no crime because she was not undercover) is making its way across conservative blogs and focuses on Plame's covert status. Newsweek did a pretty good job of showing she was undercover. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18924679/
r.johnson
Not unfamiliar with the method.
If I were a Democratic strategist I would recommend against spending much time on it. You are reaching, but good luck with it anyway.
This is what I meant by underlying crime, but I think you know this:
"Mr. Libby, a high-ranking public official and experienced lawyer, lied repeatedly and blatantly about matters at the heart of a criminal investigation concerning the disclosure of a covert intelligence officer's identity." (source, search for document 346 and see bottom of page 16)
Yes, I hope they are interested in finding out. Fitzgerald does not appear to be interested. He emphasized during sentencing the claim that V. Wilson's employment by the CIA was in some sense secret. This is relevant to the criminal investigation only if it is illegal to reveal the secret. Lets take that as given. Now, Fitzgerald knows (knew) that Armitage leaked to Novak. He knows (knew) that Novak's column was the first press report naming V. Wilson. Fitzgerald knew this early in the investigation. This is public knowledge and has been for some time. Where is the indictment against Armitage? Where is the outrage by the defenders of national security over the absence of any action by the Special Prosecutor, charged with investigating the national security leak, against the man we know to be actually responsible for the national security leak!?
I would not give Brownback/Giuliani credit for the argument...I am pretty sure others have used it in the past, and probably more effectively.
Both legally and morally, I disagree
It's not given and it's probably wrong. Legally: sentencing takes into account all sorts of different matters. Prior illegal acts can be considered, but so can unethical matters. And ethically, Libby shouldn't have lied - an agent's cover was blown, which is pretty serious stuff, and he should have cooperated fully. Bringing up Plame goes to the seriousness of the investigation that Libby obstructed.
Well, i've been wrong before...
I may well be wrong legally; I’m not a lawyer and will leave it to your profession. I do disagree with you. I do not think that an underlying alleged crime should have an impact on sentencing—crime, yes, but not an alleged crime.
That's THE Crime
But what you just described was THE crime for which Libby was convicted: he lied repeatedly and blatantly about matters at the heart of a criminal investigation. Why is this so confusing to conservatives? If Libby is a witness in the death of an individual, but for whatever reason he decides that he needs to lie (under oath) to investigators, why does it matter if the investigation ultimately leads to criminal charges or whether the death was accidental? The crime is that Libby lied under oath to investigators. Fitzgerald did not raise any improper argument as you suggest.
And it was 'public knowledge' for some time that Armitage disclosed Plame's name? Public knowledge is knowledge of facts in the public domain, and while some may have speculated that Rove, Libby, or Armitage were the sources for Novak, it was far from 'public knowledge.' Armitage never claimed 'credit' until late 2006 and Novak did not disclose his source until after Armitage offered his explanation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301572.html That is a good three years after the leak.
And while I would never accuse Bob Novak of having journalistic integrity, I do note that it was only after Libby confirmed for him what Armitage either let slip or intentionally disclosed, that Novak published. Libby, who either let slip or intentionally disclosed, is in exactly the same boat as Armitage when it comes to the leak, so saying that we should throw the book at Armitage and not Libby for the leak makes no sense whatsoever. You have to conclude that Armitage did it intentionally and Libby did not to justify the different treatment, and an equal argument can be made for Libby acting intentionally and Armitage inadvertently. Armitage, on the other hand, did not lie under oath about his involvement in the disclosure.
You may be right about the strategy analysis- a lot has to fall into place for it to resonate- but that is where I think conservatives are out of step with the rest of the country (on this issue). Conservatives see Libby, and the narrow issue. A great many others see this issue as evidence of political corruption, of underhanded tactics, not to mention the charges of a double standard that would flow when the inevitable comparison is made with Bill Clinton. Saying that Clinton got off easy so Libby should too ignores the treasure trove of republican quotes that can be used to skewer a given candidate for adopting the exact opposite approach to Bill Clinton. Its not like this is the only example of political corruption or underhandedness, with the US attorney purge, the voter fraud claims, and the recent news that Dick Cheney blocked the promotion of a stalwart republican (Patrick Philbin), but when it runs together, it all stinks.
r.johnson
Paris and Libby
More than one commentator is also noting difference between the treatment of Paris Hilton and Scooter Libby. The public is outraged that Paris Hilton's celebrity status would allow her to escape jail and spend the rest of her thirty day sentence in her own home. I get the sense that the 'support' for Libby (currently) is skewed by the few prominent or vocal supporters who have a platform to spread their views, but that the real support is not that widespread or deeply held by the broader public.
r.johnson
You did miss something,
You did miss something, because the second part of the question was, according to your quote, "would you pardon Scooter Libby?"
UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL
Post new comment