Bush Commutes Libby’s Prison Sentence
Well, this is just peachy:
President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case Monday, stepping into a criminal case with heavy political overtones on grounds that the sentence was just too harsh.
You do the crime, you do the time. The jury said Scooter Libby did the crime. He should do the time.
The Republican Party is going to pay a huge, huge price for this.
UPDATE: This is not surprising:
Clemency petitions are normally reviewed by the Justice Department, which investigates the case and seeks input from the federal prosecutor who brought the case before issuing a recommendation to the president. A government official told CNN that Bush did not consult with the Justice Department before rendering his decision.
Of course, he doesn’t have to consult with anyone — but a failure to work within the usual process fuels the perception, which I share, that this was an extraordinary and unjustifiable act. Just because you have the raw power to do something doesn’t make it right. This wasn’t right.
UPDATE x2: I agree with Orin Kerr, who provides a little perspective on just how special Libby’s commutation is:
I find Bush’s action very troubling because of the obvious special treatment Libby received. President Bush has set a remarkable record in the last 6+ years for essentially never exercising his powers to commute sentences or pardon those in jail. His handful of pardons have been almost all symbolic gestures involving cases decades old, sometimes for people who are long dead. Come to think of it, I don’t know if Bush has ever actually used his powers to get one single person out of jail even one day early. If there are such cases, they are certainly few and far between. So Libby’s treatment was very special indeed.
Yes it was. And now Republicans are going to get some special treatment at the hands of voters.
Don’t kid yourself: this sort of thing is very significant to swing voters. It’s like the Foley business in the last election. Yes, we were already going to get beaten in 2008 because of Iraq. But now, we’re going to get slaughtered.
This particular convicted felon wasn’t worth it.
Not sure what price we’ll pay that we aren’t already paying.
Comment by Dana — 7/2/2007 @ 6:41 pm
Will they pay as much as the Democrats paid when Clinton sold pardons?
Comment by wwp — 7/2/2007 @ 6:42 pm
[...] Frey, the Los Angeles County prosecutor who blogs as Patterico, disagrees with President Bush on commuting Mr Libby’s sentence. Posted in Politics, Crime and Punishment | Trackback | [...]
Pingback by Common Sense Political Thought » Archives » Obligatory Scooter Libby vent comment thread — 7/2/2007 @ 6:44 pm
with all due respect, the sentence was way out of proportion, double what the Probation report recommended and the sentencing guidelines…and just what kind of flight risk was Libby he was refused to have the sentence stayed while his case is on appeal.
I’ve been totally annoyed with the President on the amnesty bill but I think this is reasonable.
of course YMMV
Comment by Darleen — 7/2/2007 @ 6:45 pm
I don’t know whether it matters to you, but you
just edged up my respect meter. You are gonna take
a lot of crap for it.
Comment by Semanticleo — 7/2/2007 @ 6:46 pm
Agreed. The Instapundit even speculated that this might win back estranged conservatives. Either he’s completely out-of-touch with mainstream conservatives or I am, because I think this is just another tone-deaf decision by President Bush. Conservatives don’t like it when criminals have their sentences commuted because of friends in high places.
Comment by DRJ — 7/2/2007 @ 6:48 pm
Could Libby serve, say, the same amount of time as Paris Hilton, Darleen?
Comment by alphie — 7/2/2007 @ 6:48 pm
Could Libby serve, say, the same amount of time as Paris Hilton, Darleen?
If he breaks the terms of his probation, yes.
Like her, he has the chance to stay out of jail if he doesn’t violate the terms keeping him out.
Comment by MayBee — 7/2/2007 @ 6:51 pm
“Conservatives don’t like it when criminals have their sentences commuted because of friends in high places.”
Maybe Goldwater conservatives DRJ. This is a new breed.
Comment by Semanticleo — 7/2/2007 @ 6:52 pm
Aah, maybee,
But the Sheriff commuted her sentence, too.
What happened?
Comment by alphie — 7/2/2007 @ 6:57 pm
I would do away with all special prosecutors, so this ending pleases me.
Sure, it’s a politically motivated commutation. Libby would never have been investigated if it weren’t for politics. Joe Wilson never would have told his tale if not for politics. It’s all a fitting ending to a sad political saga.
If this is how the special prosecutors always end, maybe we’ll wise up and stop begging for them when the party we don’t like holds the Presidency.
Comment by MayBee — 7/2/2007 @ 6:57 pm
I’m asking you this honestly, alphie. Can a sheriff commute a sentence?
Comment by MayBee — 7/2/2007 @ 6:58 pm
The Republican Party is going to pay a huge, huge price for this
ummmmmmmmmmmm ….. yeah. The Scooter Libby Communtation might be the straw that breaks the Elephant’s back.
Iraq, Immigration, all that other stuff … nope, the Scooter Libby Commutation - that’s the deal.
Jeez, Patrick, what have you been watching? Baretta ?
~/ Keep your eye…….. on the sparrow /~
Comment by BumperStickerist — 7/2/2007 @ 7:01 pm
Unless you are pardoned, or your sentence is commuted. Are you arguing that Presidents shouldn’t have these powers?
The jury was full of crap, as was the federal government’s answer to Ronnie Earle for bringing this bogus case in the first place. These things happen every now and then.
As to the Republicans paying a political price for this, I seriously doubt it. For one thing, they’re already in a crappy position where they only direction to go is up. For another,Insty is right: this sort of thing is more likely to win back disaffected conservatives (though a full pardon would have been better in that regard) than it is to inspire anyone who isn’t a bomb-throwing leftist to lose any sleep over the fact the stocking full of coal they got last Fitzmas has been mostly taken away from them. Even if there is a political price to be paid, so what? It was still the right thing to do.
Comment by Xrlq — 7/2/2007 @ 7:04 pm
Whether or not one thinks Bush should have commuted Libby’s jail sentence, I think it was cruel for Bush to have left Libby hanging. If a President thinks there is a miscarriage of justice, whether someone wrongfully accused, convicted or sentenced to too long a term, it is his responsibility to correct it immediately… and not to wait and hope and see if the jury or the judge or an appeals panel sometime in the future relieves him of the need to do what needs to be done. To do otherwise would be like the North Carolina authorities knowing the Duke 3 were innocent but waiting until after they were convicted at trial to clear them of the charges.
If it was right to keep Libby out of jail, then the time to say so was the day the sentence was handed down. Bush tried to have it both ways, and in the process, subjected Libby and his family and friends to unneeded pain. That’s wrong.
Comment by stevesturm — 7/2/2007 @ 7:06 pm
Found on a democratic site:
“The next time you hear a Republican bellow about the Rule of Law when it comes to illegal immigrants, think of their double standard when it comes to rich white Republicans.”
Comment by AF — 7/2/2007 @ 7:08 pm
Yeah, I’m sure that those concerned with the rule of law will flock in droves to vote for Hillary Rodham.
This was a bad idea, but not for the reasons you suggest.
Comment by Professor Chaos — 7/2/2007 @ 7:08 pm
I agree with xrlq. Patterico, are you arguing that Presidents shouldn’t have these powers?
Comment by Andrew — 7/2/2007 @ 7:08 pm
And a rader writes in to Josh Marshall
“I havent seen this noted but i think the reason for the commutation is that a pardon would mean that Libby was no longer exposed to criminal sanctions and thus had no Fifth Amendment privilege. As it stands he has a fine and probation at stake during the pendency of the appeal which inulates him ( and Bush and Cheney) from havaing to answer questions before Congress.:
Comment by AF — 7/2/2007 @ 7:09 pm
. “Patterico, are you arguing that Presidents shouldn’t have these powers?”
Not presuming to answer for Pat, but I believe
he is questioning the use in this case, by this President.
Comment by Semanticleo — 7/2/2007 @ 7:11 pm
Well, there’s nothing about that in the post.
Comment by Andrew — 7/2/2007 @ 7:13 pm
Looks to me like they were rushing Libby to prison, and to hell with his appeal. The system is flawed when it can convict a person for lying about a non-crime or whatever it was that he was being questioned about. That’s getting close to having laws against being black or Jewish or laws against speeding with the punishment being a death sentence, etc.
If laws (beyond Nature’s Law) are a necessity, then breaking any of them should require the same punishment, in my humble opinion.
When the Judicial system becomes a media feeding frenzy and/or a political arena for two political parties of a Legislative system to ‘duke’ it out, then perhaps its best to let the whole System rot, because there is no fixing such a ‘carcass’.
Comment by KarmiCommunist — 7/2/2007 @ 7:24 pm
[...] Update (AP): “The jury said Scooter Libby did the crime. He should do the time.” [...]
Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Breaking: President Bush to “commute” Libby’s sentence; Update: Fred celebrates! Update: “Disgraceful,” says Reid; Update: Wilsons’ lawyer slams commutation; Update: “Holy sh*t — 7/2/2007 @ 7:25 pm
How so? We Republicans were already set to have our butts handed to us in 2008 (i.e., larger Democratic majorities in Congress and a Democrat in the White House). So I don’t know what price we could pay that we weren’t already going to pay anyway.
I suppose you can tell a man in Hell that you’re going to put another log on the fire. But he may not find your threat persuasive.
Comment by Paul — 7/2/2007 @ 7:27 pm
Paul,
21 Republican Senators are up for re-election in 2008, 12 Democrats.
Be a shame if convicted felon Scooter Libby’s get out of jail free card was just enough to cost them the 40 votes they need in the Senate to play obstructionists…
Comment by alphie — 7/2/2007 @ 7:30 pm
It’s odd, is what it is. He didn’t pardon him, and he didn’t leave it alone. Maybe it’s please the pundits day? But it does point up the fact that the affluent can have a better chance at beating the rap/proving their innocence than the not so wealthy.
Ask OJ if you don’t believe me.
What the WH should have done is to follow Clinton’s example–dig up some cases of “regular folks” who received harsh sentences, and commute those as a batch with Libby. It would have made the pill go down with much more ease.
Comment by kishnevi — 7/2/2007 @ 7:36 pm
Considering how easily republicans can outmaneuver democrats on national security issues, it will be interesting if someone, a real maverick rather than a fake one [Fred Thompson's not doing to well these days] were to make a clean break with Bush and refocus the party around reform (and himself)
It’s doable.
Pat, what does the base think of Chuck Hagel?
Comment by AF — 7/2/2007 @ 7:39 pm
Herein lies Patterico’s attempt to join the editorial board of the NY Times. The above missive contains all the intelligence of a Maureen Dowd or a Frank Rich.
The Libby prosecution was a travesty, an abuse of power by the CIA and Patrick “Nifong” Fitzgerald, and the pardon power exists precisely to stop injustices such as this one.
President Bush’s action in finally putting an end to it will increase his standing among his base, and thereby increase his approval rating, but will have zero effect on Republicans more generally. Libby is a beltway issue; the majority of voters never heard of him.
Comment by Brian — 7/2/2007 @ 7:47 pm
This won’t win back conservatives but I think after last week’s defeat of the immigration bill and alienating so many, this might be Bush’s desperate attempt to try to reach out…and some will indeed buy it.
Others conservatives will just continue on keeping out a wise and wary eye.
Comment by Dana — 7/2/2007 @ 7:48 pm
All this talk seems to ignore the real factors behind this case. Was Valerie Plame covert? At best questionable! Did Joe Wilson lie through his teeth? Absolutely! Did Henry Waxman commit a horrendous re-enactment of the Stalinist trials of the late 1930’s? Absolutely!
When will this country get wise and kick the brain-dead Democrats out of office???
Comment by Mescalero — 7/2/2007 @ 7:56 pm
Pat’s added an update to the post, indicating that Bush didn’t consult DOJ. This practice of consulting with DOJ really began in earnest during the 1990s, and coincided with a sharp drop in granting clemency petitions. What do you expect when you turn the matter over to prosecutors? (No offense, Patterico.)
Margaret Love was the department’s pardon attorney from 1990 to 1997: “There was an almost perfect storm of changes in the department that allowed the prosecutors to take charge, basically, and kind of strangle the pardon power in the department….My department didn’t care….They trivialized the pardon power. It was not a high priority. It was no priority.”
Presidents Truman through Ford granted more than 25% of clemency petitions. That fell to 12% under Reagan, and then single digits under Presidents G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush.
“Prosecutors at DOJ are paid to be relentless. Courts are bound to go by the book. The Supreme Court cannot reach down and undo a single sentence without potentially overturning a whole branch of law. Thus the Founders ultimately wanted justice to be acceptable and accountable not to a system but to an actual human being, a solitary conscience. That conscience belongs, at the moment, to Bush, who doesn’t seem to overtax it.” It’s not clear to me that Bush wasn’t using his conscience in this case.
Comment by Andrew — 7/2/2007 @ 8:00 pm
I agree with Brian (#28), except for the ad hominem against our esteemed host. Patterico’s response to this action is completely predictable, he is a prosecutor after all.
I do agree with the Nifong comparison. Libby clearly obfuscated, but he also clearly did NOT interfere with the finding of the truth in the matter. Fitzgerald felt he had to prosecute someone, even though there was no crime in the event that led to his appointment, and Libby was the best he could do. Libby did not deserve the punishment, particularly compared to Berger, President Clinton, Mrs. Clinton, etc.
As MayBee noted in #11, the whole sordid affair was about politics, so to complain about the politics of this is somewhat obtuse. As usual however, the Bush machine handled it stupidly, maximizing the mileage the Dems will get from it.
Comment by tomjedrz — 7/2/2007 @ 8:06 pm
Five times the penalty for Sandy Burger in just the direct monetary damages.
Comment by Al — 7/2/2007 @ 8:07 pm
Sandy Berger should have gone to prison.
Bill Clinton should have gone to prison.
Scooter Libby should have gone to prison.
Comment by Patterico — 7/2/2007 @ 8:12 pm
I thought the Senate found Bill Clinton…not guilty.
Comment by alphie — 7/2/2007 @ 8:16 pm
Brian (in 28)–the odd thing is that this isn’t the end of it, for Libby. He still has to pay the fine, still faces disbarment, is still a convicted felon. The appeal process is still in the works.
If Bush felt this was a travesty of justice, why didn’t he pardon him outright?
Comment by kishnevi — 7/2/2007 @ 8:18 pm
You’ll never guess who who disagrees with you, Pat!
Comment by Jim Treacher — 7/2/2007 @ 8:20 pm
I have always thought that the thirty months was half trial penalty and half the machine eating one of its own cogs.
But I have no sympathy for Libby. He was eaten by the same monster he was serving.
Comment by nk — 7/2/2007 @ 8:21 pm
I thought the Senate found Bill Clinton…not guilty.
Sure, for disgusting political reasons, kind of like the disgusting political reasons behind this
pardoncommutation. [UPDATE: Yes, I know, it's a commutation.]Don’t hold up Bill Clinton as some kind of example of a lawabiding fellow. He should have been prosecuted and imprisoned.
Comment by Patterico — 7/2/2007 @ 8:23 pm
But I thought Richard Scaife paid Paula Jones to accuse ol’ Bill of happy hands.
Shouldn’t that be considered disgusting political reasons?
Imagine if the randy band of Repub hopefuls had to answer question about their many affairs…under oath.
Comment by alphie — 7/2/2007 @ 8:32 pm
Scooter Libby is the least of the Republicans concerns for 08. They are lining up to get spanked hard and the idea of “vote for us so we can obstruct” is laughable.
The tent has gotten noticeably smaller and voters are going where they are welcome.
Comment by voiceofreason63 — 7/2/2007 @ 8:32 pm
“On January 19, the day before leaving office, Clinton admitted giving false, evasive statements about his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.” This was part of a deal to avoid prosecution, and he instead accepted a 5-year disbarment in Arkansas. I think he’s still forbidden to practice law before the U.S. Supreme Court. I think that was an acceptable resolution in his (slimy) case. And Libby’s resolution sounds okay too.
Comment by Andrew — 7/2/2007 @ 8:35 pm
Patterico (#34) ..
I agree, provided they are consistent. Consistency is necessary. Given that high profile perjury has been ignored (repeatedly), to all of a sudden go after Libby for a meaningless perjury is contradictory and ultimately useless.
This case was meaningless, pursued for political purposes, with no meaning outside of the Beltway. Libby did not interfere with anything, all he did was prevaricate and equivocate. Fitzgerald on the other hand INTERFERED with the discovery of the truth Plame leak matter, for no other reason than justifying his position.
Fitzgerald is as good a candidate for dismissal from the bar as Nifong. What he should have done was close down the investigation once he determined that no crime was committed in the Plame leak. Instead he trumped up the Libby prosecution, for personal reasons and well beyond reason.
Disgraceful.
Comment by tomjedrz — 7/2/2007 @ 8:38 pm
i went as far to the left as i’m going, when voting for “Republicans” in 2002, 2004, and 2006, after having never voted before. If the “Republicans” want to move even further left, which they appear to want to, then they should simply merge with the Democrats.
If the majority of Americans want socialism and no more war then let them have it…
Comment by KarmiCommunist — 7/2/2007 @ 8:49 pm
Patterico:
I think your conclusion (the Republicans are going to get slaughtered) is wrong, because the first sentence out of their nominee’s mouth at every campaign stop will be: I was the guy who prosecuted Richard Nixon, and I know what the meaning of the word “is” is.
Comment by gahrie — 7/2/2007 @ 8:51 pm
But war is socialism, karmi.
It’s not like Americans would spend their own money on the Iraq War if they had the choice…not even the 23% of Americans who still support it.
Comment by alphie — 7/2/2007 @ 8:52 pm
I don’t think this outcome will make anyone particularly happy. The liberals won’t settle for anything less than Cheney and Rove frog-marched out in handcuffs, and I doubt any of us who thought this was a malicious politically motivated prosecution are happy without a full pardon.
What Bush should have done was either granted the full pardon, or granted a respite to keep him out of jail until his appeals were over. He did neither.
It’s unquestionable that juries occasionally get things wrong, and that’s part of why the executive has clemency powers.
The real legacy of this is that, if you find yourself testifying before a grand jury on anything, the only answer you should have for any question is ‘I do not remember the events in question well enough to risk a malicious perjury prosecution from an out-of-control prosecutor who might drum up a witness to contradict whatever I say’. Doesn’t matter if you’re guilty or not - it’s not worth the risk.
Comment by Skip — 7/2/2007 @ 9:02 pm
alphie,
Life on Earth is a *LOT* like Life in a Prison…
Karmi
Comment by KarmiCommunist — 7/2/2007 @ 9:03 pm
Err… except for the fact that the disgusting political reasons were for the original prosecution, not for the “pardon” that followed. That, plus the fact that the “pardon” in question was not a pardon. Other than that, your analysis is 100% correct.
Comment by Xrlq — 7/2/2007 @ 9:09 pm
- Well, not guilty in a 55 for conviction, 45 for acquittal sense (most of those damning him verbally).
The 45 who voted for acquittal, coincidentally, all Democrats.
Comment by Christoph — 7/2/2007 @ 9:10 pm
Err… except for the fact that the disgusting political reasons were for the original prosecution, not for the “pardon” that followed. That, plus the fact that the “pardon” in question was not a pardon. Other than that, your analysis is 100% correct.
Yes, yes, I know, it was a commutation. I understand. Sorry I misspoke. Obviously that invalidates my whole position.
So what were the “disgusting political reasons” for Fitz to prosecute crimes some of which occurred before his appointment?
I guess I didn’t realize what a wild-eyed partisan Democrat Pat Fitzgerald, an AUSA appointed by Bush, really is.
Comment by Patterico — 7/2/2007 @ 9:17 pm
34/Pat:
Maybe Bill should just have gone to jail. But I agree that Berger and Libby should be sharing a cell.
Side note: The comparison of Fitzgerald to Nifong is severely misguided and shows a total misunderstanding of at least one of the cases. There are legitimate criticisms of the Libby prosecution - which prosecution I view as justified, but there are legitimate criticisms - but the idea that Fitzgerald was a crazed lying rogue isn’t one of them.
–JRM
Comment by JRM — 7/2/2007 @ 9:20 pm
I’m glad he did it.
Comment by sam — 7/2/2007 @ 9:29 pm
It may not be “obvious,” but yes, there is a huge difference between pardoning Libby outright (as I think Bush should have done) and merely commuting his sentence (which requires little more than the observation that his sentence was disproportionally high).
Fitz was appointed to prosecute the non-crime of leaking the identity of non-covert (in the legal sense of the word, that is - not to be confused with the opportunistic sense that Fitz himself employed when trying to smuggle the concept back in at the sentencing phase after previously challenging it successfully as irrelevant) agent. Once he figured out the five-year time-line, the only responsible thing to have done was to drop the case then and there.
Comment by Xrlq — 7/2/2007 @ 9:32 pm
those saying libby is still being punished by the fine, etc., so the commutation isn’t so bad have overlooked (best interpretation) the power of a president to extend clemency more than once: nothing’s stopping him from pardoning libby on january 19, 2009.
patterico and the rest of you republicans, are you sure you want to remain in this party? you’ve supported bush and the republican members of congress steadfastly, unflinchingly, and look what you’re getting for your trouble. at every turn, your team has performed like a gang of clueless morons. sooner or later it will reflect adversely on your wisdom and judgment that you backed these fools all the way down. how much more abuse do you have to take before you see the light? yeah, the democrats do a lot of funny things, but you don’t have to be liberal to be a democrat. come on over and join the smart people!
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 7/2/2007 @ 9:34 pm
X,
It’s not that I don’t know the difference. See the post title. I just misspoke in one comment.
Still not seeing Fitz’s partisan motivation here . . .
Comment by Patterico — 7/2/2007 @ 9:42 pm
Bad strategery, yes. But go on! Keep talkin’ dirty to me. Don’t let me interrupt.
Yes, that! Just like that. Ooh.
Comment by You know — 7/2/2007 @ 9:50 pm
“Clueless morons” are the best kind. It’s those smart morons you’ve got to watch out for.
Comment by Andrew — 7/2/2007 @ 9:52 pm
The Libby case is interesting but honestly a jury found him guilty and a judge sentenced him within the guidelines. Perjury and Obstruction are serious crimes and I don’t care how many people you throw up and say well they lied and didn’t get thrown in jail, it doesn’t matter since we’re not supposed to be the moral relativists but we are supposed to be “law and order” party. So, if someone wants to show me where Libby didn’t commit perjury or obstruct justice I’m all ears but if we’re going to go with the concept that he’s no worse than Clinton it is a losing argument.
Comment by Buzzy — 7/2/2007 @ 9:54 pm
Beldar on the blogosphere’s reactions to the Libby commutation…
My own extended remarks now posted, I’ll comment on just a few other posts with reactions to the Libby commutation that catch my eye….
Trackback by BeldarBlog — 7/2/2007 @ 10:02 pm
Will this have any effect on other perjury prosecutions?
Comment by mt — 7/2/2007 @ 10:35 pm
Sorry, disagree. Small crime, big time. The judge tossed the book at Libby for no good reason.
Bush was right to commute. As for paying, what does Hillary think she’s doing complaining about cronyism and pardons. Does she forget her brother pocketing $400K to free a couple drug dealers? Or *cough* her husband committing perjury on national television *cough* ?
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 7/2/2007 @ 10:47 pm
Patrick–
Could you please explain just how you think Hillary will score points on this one, against, say, Giuliani? After all her husband pardoned the guy (Marc Rich) who Rudy convicted. Then again Rich had Scooter Libby for a lawyer, so God only knows.
Hillary attacking on the subject of pardons seems quite the “own goal.”
Comment by Kevin Murphy — 7/2/2007 @ 11:00 pm
Did Bush have the ability to commute Libby’s jail sentence to what the hard core right-wingers would consider a reasonable length?
Or is it an all or nothing thing?
Comment by alphie — 7/2/2007 @ 11:01 pm
Bush Libby Commute Solidfies Bush’s Status As Polarizer In Chief…
Hasn’t it come time to say it?
In the history of the American republic, it’s difficult to find a President who has proven to be as consistently polarizing and seemingly dismissive of the feelings of Americans who do not belong to his party…
Trackback by The Moderate Voice — 7/2/2007 @ 11:07 pm
Alphi (#64): Yes, a President can commute part of a sentence. But could, had he so chosen, have commuted 29 months of the 30-month sentence and stayed that last month until after all appeals had been exhausted. He could have commuted $132,325.98 off the fine, had he so chosen. He could have commuted the “supervised release” (a/k/a parole) and/or the felony disabilities (like inability to vote in many states).
The only thing I’m not sure about is what effect a presidential pardon has on disbarment. I should probably look that up. Were I to guess, I’d guess that a pardon could prevent automatic disbarment of the sort most states impose for convictions on felonies (or, in some states, felonies involving moral turpitude, which this is). But it might not be able to prevent discretionary disbarments based on more subjective and general “fitness to practice” bases.
Comment by Beldar — 7/2/2007 @ 11:14 pm
“Alphi” –> “Alphie”
“But could” –> “Bush could”
Comment by Beldar — 7/2/2007 @ 11:15 pm
Mmm-kay, that didn’t take long. My guess was right. From the DoJ website, so I’ll presume it’s reasonably authoritative (without having checked the cites myself):
In contrast to bail pending appeal, the norm is to leave law licenses in place while appeals are pending — not that Scooter’s likely to be in high demand at any of his former law firms right now. If his appeal isn’t successful, he’s going to end up losing his D.C. bar membership, and probably any other home-state (Pennsylvania?) bar memberships too.
Comment by Beldar — 7/2/2007 @ 11:21 pm
If W had pardoned him, the appeals process would not continue. Hence the commutation.
If the appeals process fails Libby, the I’d expect W will pardon him.
If the judge had allowed Libby to stay out of jail PENDING his appeals process, there wouldn’t have been a commutation handed down today either.
Comment by Lord Nazh© — 7/2/2007 @ 11:28 pm
[...] –Patterico’s Pontifications: You do the crime, you do the time. The jury said Scooter Libby did the crime. He should do the time. The Republican Party is going to pay a huge, huge price for this….Don’t kid yourself: this sort of thing is very significant to swing voters. It’s like the Foley business in the last election. Yes, we were already going to get beaten in 2008 because of Iraq. But now, we’re going to get slaughtered. This particular convicted felon wasn’t worth it. [...]
Pingback by Articles — 7/2/2007 @ 11:39 pm
Agree with #68. If the judge had allowed Libby to remain free pending appeal, Bush likely would never have gotten involved.
I doubt seriously voters are still going to care about this seventeen months from now. Iraq is far more important to them, and Dem corruption cases like William Jefferson’s will certainly rob the donkeys of their supposed moral high ground.
Comment by DubiousD — 7/3/2007 @ 12:27 am
I have to come down on the side of Dubious D and Lord Nazh. I’m just surprised to see it take so long for the point to be made. The judge had no reason other than rancor to force Libby to prison while his appeal was pending. Martha Stewart chose to serve her term before waiting for her appeal to be heard. Her case was another example of prosecutorial over reach Fitzgerald was frustrated by his inability to nail anyone in the administration. Judge Lawrence Walsh was also nominally a Republican and he was also out of control. Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was before he began his investigation of Libby. His only disappointment was that it was not someone in the White House. This was a travesty and another blow at the ability of Republicans to recruit good people in government. That, of course, was the intent. Bush fell into the trap as he has fallen into so many.
Comment by MIke K — 7/3/2007 @ 1:58 am
I gotta disagree with you, Pat. Maybe we’ll get slaughtered, maybe we won’t. But I’m happy with the decision.
Comment by sharon — 7/3/2007 @ 2:53 am
# 55.
What the hell are you doing repeating lies invented by some right-wing wackos.
I’d rather be a liberal then democrat.
learn you philosophy and definitions.
Liberalism is the best thing humanity ever come with- freedom and rights.
Comment by sashal — 7/3/2007 @ 2:58 am
When Valerie Plame is put in jail for lying before congress about sending her husband to Africa (oh my gosh, I forgot — it was a guy passing by my desk!!) then she can share a jail cell with Scooter. The Wilson’s are the most despicable human beings alive — remember secret Valerie held a DNC fundraiser at the CIA and announced herself as Joe’s wife months before Novak’s article. I have no problem with Scooter going to jail, but I want to see the Wilson’s exposed as the lying scum they are.
Comment by Karen — 7/3/2007 @ 3:57 am
“The system is flawed when it can convict a person for lying about a non-crime or whatever it was that he was being questioned about.”
Like lying about getting a hummer?
Comment by Gus — 7/3/2007 @ 4:16 am
[...] blogging: Blue Crab Boulevard, Captain’s Quarters, Patterico’s Pontifications and just to see heads explode visit [...]
Pingback by justbarkingmad.com » Blog Archive » Scooter Libby — 7/3/2007 @ 4:18 am
Not that I disagree with your analysis of Libby’s case and sentence, but I think that you’re overstating the impact that this commutation will have on the 2008 elections. The GOP has been consistently out of touch with its voters these last couple of years. However, I believe that the illegal immigration bill debacle will be the final straw. Truthfully, I believe that the Libby impact on the upcoming elections will be negligible. The GOP was already going to get creamed, so the commutation will be like throwing a cup of water into flood. Sure, it’s more water, but no one’s really going to notice.
Comment by physics geek — 7/3/2007 @ 4:25 am
Patterico, just wanted to add to semanticleo that this increases my respect for you. (If that’s something you want from a drive-by leftie.) Stevesturm, ditto.
BTW, #50, not that it matters but you’re wrong about the vote for conviction; one count was 50-50, one was 55-45 against.
Comment by Matt Weiner — 7/3/2007 @ 4:27 am
Libby Commutation Reactions…
As one would expect, last evening’s news that President Bush has commuted Scooter Libby’s jail sentence has spawned a huge amount of controversy in the blogosphere, with some decrying it as the greatest outrage since Waterga
From the Left:
…
Trackback by Outside The Beltway | OTB — 7/3/2007 @ 4:42 am
I am with others who do not think the Libby commutation will have any real political effect. Recent behavior of Dems (Sandy Berger, Clinton’s “is” and pardons, etc.) makes this commutation (not pardon) essentially a mote versus beam in eye situation. I’d guess the Dems will be shrill with gleeful moral outrage for a news cycle or so but quickly subside after that. To do any more would invite “throwing stones -glass house” comparisons, and they would not want that.
The Libby outcome was so outrageous as to give Bush plenty of cover. Also, Libby remains a convicted felon, still has the fine, is likely bankrupt, and was a first-time offender.
Comment by jim — 7/3/2007 @ 4:47 am
The Libby affair is a classic example of “Inside baseball”. America cares about immigration, rogue congressmen, and gasoline prices. However, it’s hard to care about a man who was pursued for a manufactured crime by lawyer whose reputation is less than stellar and a judge whose politics trumped reason and sentenced Libby for a crime he wasn’t charged.
If there was justice, Fitz would be behind bars for excessive prosecutor zeal.
Comment by jkstewart2 — 7/3/2007 @ 5:08 am
The only people who have/had their knickers in a twist about this (in either direction) are exactly the type to make mountains out of every political molehill. The chance this will have any appreciable effect on the 2008 election is basically nil. So much is going to happen between now and election day in 16 months(!) there is no way this will carry the currency it does today.
Besides, whenever I see the lists of issues voters care about most, the fate of Scooter isn’t one of them.
Comment by Rich Horton — 7/3/2007 @ 5:14 am
Ah the latest turn in the saga that is the political equivalent to the ongoing frenzy over the manicure status of one Paris Hilton.
For Patterico - I’d chalk up your failure to discern Fitzgerald’s bias or motivations for continuing to the fact that, in a sense, you walk in his shoes - which is symptomatically demonstrated with the “throw ‘em all in jail” approach to the subject at large.
Fitz was given extraordinary latitude and power, with the “mission” to nail someone’s ass for, despite, as it turns out, the lack of an underlying crime that common knowledge/groupthink wisdom/the story the facts could not dissuade MUST have occurred…so, I submit, and yes this impugns and/or questions Mr. Fitzgeralds integrity, he grabbed on to Scooter since Scooter presented him with the only opportunity to “nail someone’s ass” in this instance.
This is solely my opinion, of course, but it appears, if the events are reviewed in context, that Scooter’s only crime was failing to presciently appreciate the actual import of what could easily be missed by someone dealing with several hundred more important moving parts, pieces and issues - that being the probably easily dismissable concept that the bltantly lying, self aggrandizing pair known to us as Plame/Wilson were persons of actual substance. Although, of course, that substance was completely phony, and enabled by a combination of agenda driven sensationalistic journalism, and a mid level beauracracy that could not admit to how truly petty and unimportant Valerie actually was in the grand scheme of things, without tacitly acknowledging their own basic irrelevance…
Parse this down to the specifics of Scooter Libby, and it’s easy to get up and huff and puff about justice - but is justice truly being rendered? Not really. Scooter getting raked over the coals and being made an example of by Walton and Fitzgerald (whose apparent conduct does appear closer to that of a Mike Nifong than a totally unbiased officer of the court), while the person who actually did reveal Plame’s position/occupation (was that or was it not a crime) is not pursued, the various journalists who started tap dancing faster and with less rythm than an 8 year old tap student at her first recital to obfuscate their involvement in the sordid muck manage to invoke the public memory hole “who, us?” approach, and at the very least not to mention the husband and wife tag team of provarication and dissemblation who stirred this mess up in the first place, as they move off to sun belt retirement with finances padded by book deals, speaking fees, and little to no accountability for the havoc they created for the privilege of having people be willing to pay to kiss their derriers - well, that’s a discussion, all right. Just not one about a concept called “justice”.
However - I’m actually glad that Bush commuted, versus pardoned - not that I think Scooter (and the rest of us) doesn’t deserve to be granted relief from this nightmare - but that in this way, it leaves the door open for the very slim chance that some sort of sanity may actually break out in the midst of the official procedings in this case.
Not that I’m holding my breath.
Comment by Wind Rider — 7/3/2007 @ 5:25 am
[...] Needlenose, All Spin Zone, TalkLeft, The Moderate Voice, New York Times, Sentencing Law and Policy, Patterico’s Pontifications, The Daily Whim, Captain’s Quarters, Political Radar, Taylor Marsh, The American Mind, [...]
Pingback by The Heretik : Law and Order — 7/3/2007 @ 5:37 am
Patterico, I respectfully disagree with you, but I can definitely see where you’re coming from.
Semanticleo, some crap he’s taking, eh?
Comment by Mr. Boo — 7/3/2007 @ 5:41 am
Christoph:
You got the facts exactly backwards.
For obstruction of justice, 55 voted “not guilty” including all Democrats and 5 Republicans. On perjury, 60 voted “not guilty” including all Democrats and 10 Republicans (e.g. one Fred Thompson you may have heard of, though he voted “guilty” on perjury).
Comment by Crust — 7/3/2007 @ 5:46 am
CNN International (in Paris) disgraced itself once again by interviewing Wilson (bearded for some reason. Maybe his Saudi employers insisted ?) and then going on a rant about how this proves Bush is blah, blah, blah.
The Clintonista above who complained about Clinton being impeached for a hummer forgot to mention Clinton mobilizing the government to cover up his sexual harrassment (his definition, not mine) of an intern while the world moved into the era of jihad. If the “hummer” was so insignificant (and I agree that it was), why not ‘fess up and move on (as Soros suggests) ? The coverup is always worse than the crime.
Libby was caught in a clear perjury trap that had nothing to do with any actual crime. I expect that government officials will go to school on this case and refuse to cooperate with any subsequent investigation. The inexplicable decision of the Bush DOJ to let Berger off with a wrist tap is an example of just how clueless this bunch is in the world of take-no-prisoners politics at which Democrats excel.
Comment by MIke K — 7/3/2007 @ 5:47 am
Uh, no. According to polling data, 55% of Americans are familiar with the case. Of these, 21% agree with the commutation, 17% think Libby should have been pardoned and 60% stand with Patterico (including 40% of Republicans). By way of comparison, those numbers are worse than for Bush’s handling of the Iraq War (23% of Americans approve, including 59% of Republicans).
Comment by Crust — 7/3/2007 @ 5:59 am
[...] agree more with Patterico’s assessment, You do the crime, you do the time. The jury said Scooter Libby did the crime. He should do the [...]
Pingback by Pundit Review » Blog Archive » On Scooter Libby — 7/3/2007 @ 6:05 am
Correction to my #85:
Thompson voted “not guilty” on perjury and “guilty” on obstruction of justice. (If there is anyone who may be said to have voted “guilty” and “not guilty” on the same count that would — characteristically — be Specter, but his Scottish utterance was ruled to be a “not guilty” vote.)
Comment by Crust — 7/3/2007 @ 6:09 am
As to the Libby issue being “inside baseball” or a beltway issue” -
Maybe it was, at one point. Now it’s main stream. Commutation of a sentence is something people can understand. Doing it for one’s own political family stinks by default, and in this case will ressurect the entire Plame debacle for a wider audience, with the entire GOP on trial subject only to the low standard of proof of the public sniff test.
Comment by biwah — 7/3/2007 @ 6:10 am
It occurs to me that Mr Libby needs to start serving his two year probation immediately, even if that means dropping all appeals.
Why? President Bush leaves office in 18½ months, which leaves Mr Libby 5½ months of probation to serve after January 20, 2009. If he just jaywalks after that, Judge Walton could order him to serve the remainder of his probation in prison — and not only is Judge Walton probably POed, but our friends on the left would be cheering him on.
Comment by Dana — 7/3/2007 @ 6:29 am
Now if he would do the same for those two border patrol agents who were only doing their jobs defending this country from forgein crinimals
Comment by krazy kagu — 7/3/2007 @ 6:32 am
Patrick - I disagree with you as well. The commutation appears to be a good interim step.
Fitzgerald was out of control. He did not pursue exculpatory evidence from reporters when he had them under oath, an opportunity not necessarily available to the defense. His inflammatory statements about the Vice President’s office being under a cloud were very Nifong like given the limited charges brought. His reintroduction of topics excluded during the trial during his summation was shameful.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/3/2007 @ 6:33 am
Crust @ 85, you’re right that all Democrats and 5 Republicans voted “not guilty” on one count and all Democrats and 10 Republicans voted “not guilty” on the other, but there were only 45 Democrats in the Senate at the time, so that makes one count 50-50 and the other 55-45.
Comment by Matt Weiner — 7/3/2007 @ 6:39 am
I don’t understand the confusion here. When the whole issue arose, Bush said
Did you really not understand the emphasized part? Bush values loyalty (fealty, really). Libby is taking a bullet to protect the Vice President, who was in all likelihood foaming at the mouth ordering that Plame/Wilson be destroyed. (When the Wisdom of the Twice-Born Leader is substituted for the Rule of Law, no signs of imperfection can be tolerated.)
[aside to Karen: You can see here and in the surrounding comment thread how the "Wilsons lied" story revolves around dishonest misquotation.]
Also worth considering
Like Patterico, the posters at Volokh are still wrapping their brains around the fact that the enemy is the Rule of Law in America and the Democratic Party. Anything done to Al Qaeda is only collateral damage. (Don’t believe me? For which battle did they deploy Karl Rove?)
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 7/3/2007 @ 6:43 am
How can the Clintons argue against a commutation, or a pardon for that matter, relative to Scooter Libby?
Scooter Libby is the the Bush White House figure that argued the new President Bush should drop the investigation into the Marc Rich pardon. Libby was Rich’s defense counsel in the 80’s securities fraud cases.
Libby also lobbied the Clinton White House to pardon Rich.
Libby is the Clinton’s best friend when it comes to Pardongate.
I disagree with President Bush’s decision, but I understand the motivation. Tim Russert’s memory is what created the gotcha moment for Libby. How depressing it must be to be sent to prision by a Bills fan. Disgraceful!
Comment by Gabriel Sutherland — 7/3/2007 @ 6:44 am
Matt Weiner:
You’re absolutely right. I need another coffee. (As an aside, conviction in the Senate requires a two thirds majority, so a 50-50 vote was actually not close.)
Comment by Crust — 7/3/2007 @ 6:53 am
Hi! Please consider posting the best Mohammad’s cartoon ever. See it here http://samsonblinded.org/blog/a-cartoon-for-a-cartoon.htm
Comment by Alex — 7/3/2007 @ 7:01 am
Perhaps Bush should have pardoned Bill Clinton when commuting Scooter.
Comment by Tom — 7/3/2007 @ 7:14 am
Andrew - You nailed it. Scooter was not charged with vith violating the IIPA or leaking.
“If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.”
Bush is respecting the jury’s verdict and the judicial system on the obstruction and perjury charges and letting the process play out by not issuing a pardon. He did not vacate any sentence, he merely reduced it. Simple.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/3/2007 @ 7:15 am
Spoken like a true prosecutor.
If he hadn’t had friends in high places he never would have been prosecuted in the first place. He has not been pardoned for crying out loud, although I hope he will be eventually if he loses his appeal.
Unless, of course, your sentence is commuted!
As for any ‘irregularities’ they are surely matched by the ‘irregularities’ commited by the prosecutor and the judge. The guy is not a flight risk.
As a conservative, I feel that Bush had a moral obligation to do this.
Comment by Peter Wilson — 7/3/2007 @ 7:27 am
daleyrocks;
Why didn’t he reduce it to 15,10,6 mos or even 30 days?
Comment by Semanticleo — 7/3/2007 @ 7:34 am
Didn’t Bush claim the pardon process had to run its course before he could do anything? That was his excuse for not pardoning Ramos and Campeon.
But Scooter Libby is apparently pardoned with a stroke of a pen…
Comment by DJM — 7/3/2007 @ 7:36 am
Patrick - You almost sound like a bureaucrat who has his nose out of joint about this because his advice was ignored by a politically appoionted boss. Of course that phenomenon is the source of a great number of attacks on the Bush Administration. He ignores the establishment and they don’t like to be ignored.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/3/2007 @ 7:37 am
DJM -
The jail time part HAD “run its course” - hence commutation.
Comment by jim — 7/3/2007 @ 7:58 am
Seman - Stupid to ask me, I didn’t issue the order. Probation, however was within the sentencing guidelines, or didn’t you read that and Bush’s statement.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/3/2007 @ 7:59 am
With all this going on, I guess we’re never going to get that Yagman story. Sigh.
Comment by Ms. Judged — 7/3/2007 @ 8:00 am
Patterico, the fact that Semanticloe is firmly in your corner here should perhaps suggest you might have gotten this one wrong…
Comment by Scott Jacobs — 7/3/2007 @ 8:04 am
[...] hates, hates President Bush commuting Scooter Libby’s prison sentence: You do the crime, you do the time. [...]
Pingback by Libby Damage to Republicans » The American Mind — 7/3/2007 @ 8:08 am
Daleyrocks:
Probation [alone], however was within the sentencing guidelines, or didn’t you read that and Bush’s statement.
Huh? I thought the sentencing guidelines were 30 to 36 months. And Bush’s statement doesn’t even mention sentencing guidelines.
Maybe you are thinking of the recommendations of the probation office. But they too recommended jail time, just somewhat less.
Comment by Crust — 7/3/2007 @ 8:10 am
Hmmm, no. Only Berger should have. The case against Libby was a fraud, the entire investigation was a fraud, the entire issue was a fraud.
Armitage was the one who leaked. After they found that out, they should have shut down the investigation immediately. They didn’t. They went hunting for perjury instead. Fitzgerald couldn’t just close down his investigation without something to show for it. He had been given super duper powers from Comey, he had to use them for something.
I’m sorry, but when the key witness against Libby, Russert, lied on the stand, to the grand jury judge, and changed his story only to complement the prosecutor’s case - that’s BS.
Not to mention that one of the jurors was a neighbor of Russert! Hello?? What kind of kangaroo court was this? It’s ridiculous.
Comment by Seixon — 7/3/2007 @ 8:17 am
Crust - From Bush:
Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/3/2007 @ 8:21 am
Crust - Don’t believe everything you read on those lefty sites.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/3/2007 @ 8:22 am
this morning’s yahoo headline “white house doesn’t rule out libby pardon”. ever get the sense that you’re being toyed with, that your intelligence is being disrespected, that you’re being treated like a rube? all you neocons on here supporting this clemency, does your benevolent attitude extend to any plain old joe in this country who lies to a federal agent, or just to members of an administration which you have somehow internalized as part of your identities, to the point where your allegiance to it is conflating with your allegiance to our country?
Comment by assistant devil's advocate — 7/3/2007 @ 8:23 am
Are you ramping up that victim meme again ADA? You guys love to sing that song.
Comment by daleyrocks — 7/3/2007 @ 8:38 am
#110 You are correct!
Fitzgerald KNEW THE ANSWERS to questions that he was asking. He knew who the “leaker” was. He knew no crime was committed. He created a crime where none existed. For that matter, Libby did not “lie” about and ILLEGAL act.
Any way you slice this, it is not justice.
Libby should continue his appeal and be exonerated.
Comment by Ken — 7/3/2007 @ 8:42 am
Obviously Patterico has forgotten that Bush isn’t running in ‘08. When the question gets asked of Fred Thompson when he debates Hillary Clinton next summer it gives Thompson the opportunity to commment on the very light sentences John Hueng, Charlie Trie and others got for making illegal contributions to Clinton, Inc. To remind everyone that Bubba lied under oath all he got was disbarred. That Sandy Burglar stole secret documents and will most likely be Hillary’s nest Intelligence Czar….
Fair is fair. It isn’t unreasonable to expect equal treatment under the law.
Comment by Quilly Mammoth — 7/3/2007 @ 8:44 am
Patterico assumes Republicans will suffer for this. They won’t-at all. What every American should take away from this sorry spectacle is when investigators come to talk to say nothing, or better still use the Ickes defense: “I don’t recall”.
Comment by Kent schmidt — 7/3/2007 @ 9:01 am
Let me get this straight, convicted Border Agents Ramos & Compean have to go through the “DOJ process” according to Bush, but his buddies get preferential treatment for clemency. This really smells bad. Time for Jorge to head lower in his already abysmal approval rating.
Comment by Allan Bartlett — 7/3/2007 @ 9:06 am
“Law and Order conservatives demand pardon for convicted administration felon.” Too bad Bush won’t give the same consideration to the 2 Border Patrol agents who were sent to prison for shooting a drug dealer who was resisting arrest.
Comment by Ed — 7/3/2007 @ 9:16 am
Karmic Analysis:
Is this another ‘unseen move’ by Karl Rove? Perhaps a ‘September Surprise’ is in store for the Democrats and their MSM, humble me now suspects.
Perfect timing…Clemency for Libby, immediately after a Judge rejects his plea of staying out of prison until his appeals have been heard. Focus shifts from Iraq’s September timetable, from the Surge, to a new ‘Bush Bashing’ media ‘feeding frenzy’ focused intently on the Clemency.
Karl Rove…what a guy, huh!
Comment by KarmiCommunist — 7/3/2007 @ 9:21 am
Responding all the way back to #33/#34.
I basically agree with you. But the first two things didn’t happen.
Perjury (IMNSHO) should be applied a _LOT_ more often. Starting immediately after virtually every trial in fact. “He couldn’t have committed ___XXYY___, he spent the night with me!”
But there’s no particular reason for _this_ case to be judged more harshly than the other two. Even after the commutation, Libby clearly comes out the worst of the three.
This is a he said/she said case. Not an overwhelming physical evidence case. Or a confession.
Comment by Al — 7/3/2007 @ 9:40 am
Patrick - We understand, you are a prosecutor. Sympathy for the other Patrick is perfectly natural. (Do you believe that there is ever a good reason for clemency?) However, the idea of this somehow hurting the GOP blows my mind. People are going to vote Republican mostly because the Democrats are utterly useless on national security. The Republicans haven’t been truly inspiring in any area except actually wanting to win the Long War.
Oh yeah, and this is part of the rule of law. Bush violating the rule of law would be him helping Libby break out of prison or jump his bail.
Comment by OmegaPaladin — 7/3/2007 @ 9:42 am
Orin Kerr:
Comment by AF — 7/3/2007 @ 9:43 am
the u.s. public supports this pardon. you got this one wrong.
Comment by tim — 7/3/2007 @ 9:47 am
Omega,
You are assuming you know why people leave a political party?
Nobody knows how many Republicans will decide to jump ship over this issue.
But it’s a fair bet that it’s more than the number that decide to start voting Republican next year because of it.
Comment by alphie — 7/3/2007 @ 9:50 am
“the u.s. public supports this pardon. you got this one wrong.”
?????
Comment by AF — 7/3/2007 @ 9:54 am
Tim, this snap poll suggests that the public does not support this pardon.
Comment by aphrael — 7/3/2007 @ 9:56 am
Power Line
Comment by Stu707 — 7/3/2007 @ 10:12 am
Beldar:
I’m pretty sure that’s right. Nixon’s pardon did nothing to save his law licenses.
Comment by Xrlq — 7/3/2007 @ 10:14 am
If Libby is ultimately pardoned, then I agree with Beldar and XRLQ regarding the impact on Libby’s law license. Apparently the DOJ (in dicta) agrees, too:
Comment by DRJ — 7/3/2007 @ 10:24 am
The powers to commute exist for a reason. Its because Justice is not a perfect machine and needs a check.
You can argue this was an inappropriate use, I would like to know what standard does a conviction and sentence have to meet in order for the President to use the powers he was given (and given for a reason).
Imho, Bush should have delayed his sentence until after his appeal. But I doubt he had that option available to him. I say this because Libby should have been given the same shot at not wearing the orange jumpsuit others are given. From what I can glean, the judge went out of his way to ensure Bush would be the only thing to prevent Libby from wearing the orange jumpsuit. I believe the Judge railroaded Libby to get the Picture of the Week or force a Bush intervention. A win-win.
Imho, the Judge played politics. Where’s the outrage for that.
Comment by jpm100 — 7/3/2007 @ 10:31 am
16 months until the national elections. Plenty of time for people to screw up in. In a couple of months there’ll be a scandal that takes up journalists’ attention.
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 7/3/2007 @ 11:10 am
alphie,
I have spent my own money on the war. You can, too! You can buy rifles, scopes and other equipment for snipers, for example.
Yours,
Wince
Comment by Wince and Nod — 7/3/2007 @ 11:23 am
There’s one huge difference between the Clinton impeachment and the Libby trial. The jurors for Mr Libby were (supposedly) carefully selected for a non-biased attitude, and rendered a unanimous verdict. The jurors in the Clinton impeachment trial were senators, none of whom were unbiased, and many of whom owed something to President Clinton for campaigning for them; a very much split verdict was reached.
The two aren’t even as close as an apples and oranges comparison; at least apples and oranges are both fruits!
Comment by Dana — 7/3/2007 @ 11:58 am
There were also, ahem, a number of senator/jurors who owed Clinton something for campaigning against them.
Comment by Andrew J. Lazarus — 7/3/2007 @ 12:10 pm
George Bush, who, as Governor of Texas, said: “I don’t believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own, unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow..”
Comment by Liberty — 7/3/2007 @ 12:45 pm
George Bush, who, as Governor of Texas, said: “I don’t believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own, unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair.”
Oops
Comment by Liberty — 7/3/2007 @ 12:46 pm
Cycles, man. So the Repubs loose on ‘08, and the Donks take over the store.
They then crap on the floor and steal the light fixtures. Four years later, guess what? Repubs again.
C’est la vie.
Comment by mojo — 7/3/2007 @ 12:56 pm
“…wild-eyed partisan Democrat Pat Fitzgerald, an AUSA appointed by Bush…”
Patterico - Bush might have appointed Fitz as the USAtty in Chi-town, but during the 90’s, he was an Asst USAtty in Manhattan (IIRC) handling the Marc Rich case. One of Mr. Rich’s atty’s on his appeal (while he was a fugitive hiding in Paris BTW) was one Scooter Libby. Do you think there might be some friction between the two?
As everyone should know by now, Mr. Rich received a pardon on 20 Jan 01, after his wife donated a VERY LARGE sum to the Clinton Prisidential Library Fund.
In the Paula Jones case, President William Jefferson Clinton admitted to a Federal District Court Judge, on 19 Jan 2001, that he had committed perjury in front of a Grand Jury, had obstructed justice in that matter by having his attorney submit a false affadavit, and had suborned perjury by other Grand Jury witnesses in the matter. TOTAL JAIL TIME: Nada!
I really don’t think the two cases are comparable.
There is a thing about carrying institutional loyalty too far.
But, we are still too close to the events, and probably will not have the complete picture for some time. At that point, we can really go after each other with the “long knives”.
As to the ‘08 election: It is 16-months away. The conventional wisdom is that a month is a lifetime - this is an eon. Events have a nasty habit of overtaking politics.
Comment by Another Drew — 7/3/2007 @ 1:39 pm
Oh, and BTW, since I left the GOP earlier this year, I feel particularly liberated. I don’t feel I have to defend anyone; and, I get to attack Right, Left, and Center, as I please. And, as a Decline To State, I get to vote in any Primary that I choose to involve myself in - either positively, or negatively.
Free at last, Free at last! (Thank you, MLK)
Comment by Another Drew — 7/3/2007 @ 1:50 pm
Yeah Drew, leaving was a liberating experience for me. It allowed me to refocus my personal energies on rooting out government corruption by both parties.
What good is loyalty to a party that ignores you? While I don’t have a problem defending Bush if he does the right thing, doing the right thing has become a very rare occurance as of late. Personally I don’t mind the Libby thing, since I still fail to understand how someone can get more time in jail than most rapists and child molestors do for lying about a non-crime.
Comment by Gabriel — 7/3/2007 @ 1:55 pm
The jury said Scooter Libby did the crime. He should do the time.
Jury said the same thing about the Scottsboro Boys…three times, I believe.
–furious
Comment by patrick — 7/3/2007 @ 2:04 pm
Patrick (whom I admire) said this:
Sandy Berger should have gone to prison.
Bill Clinton should have gone to prison.
Scooter Libby should have gone to prison.
Should ALL those who Clinton and prior Presidents pardoned and commuted have gone to prison as well.?
Comment by rab — 7/3/2007 @ 2:16 pm
Mojo,
You notice how the corruption cycles are tightening? It only took the Republicans about six years to get as corrupt as the Democrats were after twenty. And this current crop of Democrats started right in with the corruption before they even took power, working K Street as soon as it was clear they would pick up seats.
But it’ll take a while for it to percolate in the public mind. It will be 2010 or 2012 for the Republicans to sweep back into power.
Comment by Eric — 7/3/2007 @ 2:37 pm
The blowback may depend on who tries to exploit it, and how hard the GOP pushes back. Unlike with the Foley debacle, I tend to doubt so called mainstream Republicans will walk away from the party in ‘08. Another thing that may affect the GOP “disaffection” is what an appeals court does (if anything) prior to the election. If Libby’s appeal is successful in any meaningful way, the commutation may look prescient and appropriate.
Let’s not forget that if the Democratic nominee is HRC, it’ll be hard for her to use the commutation to much advantage. I can only hope if she tries, the GOP runs an ad listing all of Pres. Clinton’s pardons–see this link for a list of who and what they did or were accused of: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6a.htm It’s rather eye-opening. I understand Patterico’s disdain for the commutation, though–I want a prosecutor who gets pissed when a felon gets a break, and I applaud his sentiments in that respect.
Comment by kyle — 7/3/2007 @ 2:58 pm
Liberty (136/137)–perhaps that’s why GWB commuted the sentence (leaving the conviction, the probation and the 250K fine in place). He didn’t toss out the jury’s findings on the crime by a pardon(at least at this point). He took issue with the sentencing, which as you know, is imposed by the Court, not the jury.
Comment by kyle — 7/3/2007 @ 3:01 pm
You still have to laugh at the irony of Judith Miller serving more time in jail for a related issue (ie, not wanting to talk about it) than Scooter did for lying about it.
Comment by Lictor — 7/3/2007 @ 3:08 pm
Patterico, and many others here, have shown me what people of real conviction and concern for this country are as opposed to the corrupt and crooked Rudis G’s and Freddie T’s of the world and blind loyal Bush supporters who have no trouble defending a man who was convicted of obstructing an investigating into who leaked the identity of a woman who had served her country undercover in the CIA for over 20 years. God Almighty dont you realize she was working on a project aimed at blocking rogue elements from gaining WMDs.. the very reason that we supposedly want to war! And the obstruction still goes on since Scooter will not talk and has no reason and you find no problem with that!!!!! And some of you tell us as Conservatives you approve of this!! Fascists is more what you are.. You want a rule of men.. the ones you like.and not of laws. If Hillery did exactly this you would be outraged and you damn well know it..
I have never questioned the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with me before but in this case when the facts and the verdict so clear, I will openly tell you that if you think Bush did the right thing then you must really have a deep contempt for the rule of law and for this country. Bush is not the State and he does not have a right to my allegiance as opposed to my country. My country comes first and anyone who thinks Bush did anything other than continue the obstruction and block the investigation had better put down their crack pipe!
I think that we should take a hint from the Muslims who always add PBUH Peace Be Unto Him after the name of Mohammad. I suggest whenever we refer to Bush from now on we add JLTS.. Just Like Soprano!
Comment by Charlie — 7/3/2007 @ 3:10 pm
Bush (JTLS) Just Like Tony Soprano
Comment by Charlie — 7/3/2007 @ 3:21 pm
Charlie blurted …
“… if you think Bush did the right thing then you must really have a deep contempt for the rule of law and for this country.”
This is a remarkably arrogant statement. How dare you question my patriotism. Do you have some special power to divine what I think or believe? No. Rather you refuse to consider that the conclusion which your clearly superior mind has generated might in fact be incorrect.
My respect for the rule of law is one reason that I support the decision. In fact, I would suggest that this kind of situation was exactly what the pardon/clemency/commutation power was intended to remedy.
The persecution (oops, prosecution) of Libby was much more of an insult to the rule of law than the sentence commutation. Fitzgerald pursued the investigation long beyond the time he had legal reason to, for reasons known only to him. I raised the Nifong analogy in an earlier thread, and I still think it is appropriate.
Comment by tomjedrz — 7/3/2007 @ 3:54 pm
Charlie, you’re disgusting.
The fact that the Court of Appeals wasn’t going to allow Libby to be free on bail until his appeals were up was political. It’s not like Libby was going to flee the country or something to escape prosecution.
No, the courts wanted to ensure that Libby went to jail–regardless of whether his conviction held up on appeal. That’s why President Bush commuted the jailtime portion of the sentence.
Look, I think perjury is serious and should be punished severely. But after watching 8 years of Bill Clinton’s legal maneuverings, I’m hard pressed to get upset because Libby is free.
Comment by sharon — 7/3/2007 @ 3:58 pm
Charlie, your comments are incoherent. Fitzgerald knew who had leaked Plame’s identity to Novak within days of starting his investigation. Since it wasn’t Libby, Libby couldn’t and didn’t actually impede Fitzgerald’s attempt to learn the identity of the leaker. And Libby can’t be continuing to block any investigation for the same reason.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 7/3/2007 @ 4:06 pm
Hey, Crust — I wouldn’t trust those poll numbers. The results are likely largely based on the news from the antiwar MSM, which has been very, very careful to avoid putting the Libby trial and the crimes he committed in the proper context.
A fair review of the media coverage of the trial and conviction of Libby can only lead to the conclusion that the majority of news outlets wanted the general public to have the false impression that Libby himself was the leaker, since a bare minimum of reports name war opponent Richard Armitage — not Libby — as the true leaker.
(Patterico — why do you think Fitzgerald has rarely — if ever — allowed Armitage’s name to emerge from his lips or documents in the case?)
The MSM also neglect to clarify the untruths that regularly flow from Joe Wilson’s trap, the latest being the sly false labeling of Libby as a “traitor.” Think Wilson isn’t aware that most reporters wouldn’t bother contradicting him?
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 7/3/2007 @ 4:11 pm
LN Smithee, granted that snap poll numbers are often dubious, but in the absence of other data, they are all we have to go on.
Pardon me for being somewhat brusque, but the rest of your comment on poll numbers appears to suggest that what you are saying boils down to “if only everyone knew what I know, the poll numbers would be different”. That’s hardly useful; and noting that if the media had reported events differently, poll numbers would be different, doesn’t change the fact that the numbers are what they are.
Comment by aphrael — 7/3/2007 @ 4:17 pm
Mr Smithee, we’ll let Orin Kerr handle this one too:
Comment by AF — 7/3/2007 @ 4:23 pm
Wow. Quite a rant there, Charlie.
So, let me ask you this:
How am I displaying “…deep contempt for the rule of law…” by agreeing with GWB’s decision? He is operating entirely within the realm of law to commute Mr. Libby’s sentence. You simply disagree with his decision. And, as a result, you’ve decided to harshly judge anyone who believed the Libby trial itself to be a sham.
Libby was found guilty of two counts of perjury in testimony before a federal grand jury, one count of obstruction of justice in a federal grand jury investigation, and one of two counts of making false statements to federal investigators during an investigation into a non-crime.
We know who revealed the [non-secret] connection between Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame: Richard Armitage. We also know that Valerie Plame lied to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee by declaring that she played no role in sending her husband to Niger. This lie is exposed in a 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report on pre-war intelligence about Iraq. To be specific, a Counter-proliferation Division reports-officer told the Senate committee “that the former ambassador’s wife ‘offered up his name’” in this report. And, finally, we are also aware of the dubious approach Fitzgerald took with regards to involving Plame’s covert status in the Libby trial.
To clarify, on October 28, 2005 Fitzgerald said, “Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003.”
So what’s the conclusion you come to? That those who agree with George W. Bush’s decision to use his entirely legal authority to commute a sentence are holding the law in “deep contempt!”
Awesome. You’re my hero.
I refuse to refrain from calling Valerie Plame out for her idiotic behavior. For someone so concerned about her status with the CIA — I’m still not convinced that revealing her status falls under the 1982 IIPA — she was certainly cavalier with her identity. She displayed nepotism and deceit throughout this entire affair and for that she deserves no sympathy whatsoever.
The entire Plame Affair is a farce of epic proportion, and I challenge anyone to argue otherwise. If her identity was illegally exposed, why was Richard Armitage not brought up on charges for violating the IIPA? If politics were used as the motivation behind Libby’s actions, why wasn’t the same standard applied to Wilson and Plame? If it’s a crime to deceive the authorities during an investigation, why has Plame not been crucified for her lying to the House of Representatives?
Such absurdity!
So I must thank you, Charlie, for posting such a fact-free rant to this blog. Without you I would have never bothered chiming in. You truly are a hero. And, as an aside, if anyone requires links/sources for my claims I’d be glad to provide them. Unlike Charlie, I like to have facts to back up my assertions.
Comment by H2U — 7/3/2007 @ 4:25 pm
Not to mention that Libby still has to pay a $250,000 fine. Clinton lackey Henry Cisneros pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and was only forced to pay a $10,000 fine. No probation. No jail time.
Comment by DubiousD — 7/3/2007 @ 4:32 pm
It is reasonable to believe that Bush reasonably sees the prosecution of Libby as “political.” Not political in the partisan sense that the prosecutor was motivated by animus toward Bush or Republicans, but political in the sense that the prosecution of Libby would not have happened under ordinary nonpolitical circumstances where a prosecutor has discretion as to what merits prosecution and no need to justify his assignment by taking on an unmerited or marginal prosecution in a given matter.
Like the rest of us, Bush, most likely, does not know whether Libby was lying, or had a bad memory and the bad judgment not to say “I don’t recall” more often.
But he does know that it is only because Libby worked for the Bush Administration (i.e., OVP) that he was pursued by a specially and specifically assigned prosecutor. And that it is only because of Bush’s public demand for cooperation that Libby had to answer any questions put to him by the FBI and that prosecutor (and probably believed that 100 “I don’t recall” answers would not be acceptable, even when accurate, and despite such answers’ utility in other cases). And it is only under the microscope of such a focused investigation that such inconsistencies in memory and testimony would be prosecuted, with the inconsistencies of journalists and other Administration outsiders overlooked.
Thus it should not surprise us that Bush would see that commuting Libby’s sentence is proper, and indeed morally obligatory for Bush. And assuming Bush does not believe himself an omniscient observer of an innocent being railroaded, it is also not surprising that Bush might have properly preferred to let the judiciary handle this, until Libby faced prison before his appeals were heard.
Of course, Bush’s opponents do not know, and cannot be expected to believe, that Bush’s motives are pure. For those who believe that Cheney, Libby and Bush were engaging in a sinister outing conspiracy, this commutation is the latest chapter in their nefarious project.
Without knowing what is in Bush’s conscience, we cannot know if his act today was morally upright — required even — or condemnable, and it is absurd for us to pretend otherwise, on either side, when we are all grasping at shadows.
Comment by DWPittelli — 7/3/2007 @ 4:33 pm
And then Clinton pardoned him.
Comment by DubiousD — 7/3/2007 @ 4:33 pm
I mostly agree, Patterico, though I don’t know about the election part. The Republicans were probably screwed anyway, and this doesn’t resonate like the Foley thing did–time will tell, though.
As for you other folks: partisan political witch-hunt!? WTF are you talking about? Republican-appointed and selected prosecutor, Republican-appointed judge. I guess the jury must have been seeded with the MoveOn mafia.
As for the Armitage canard, I quote Orin Kerr:
I also don’t see how you law and order types can call up Clinton’s admittedly disgraceful use of the pardon as some sort of excuse. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
It reminds me of when someone discovered an al-Qaeda torture manual and conservatives were all up in arms that the media wasn’t reporting it as much as Abu Ghraib, as if the fact that the terrorists do it too makes it okay.
Comment by Russell — 7/3/2007 @ 4:45 pm
Damn AF, you beat me to it.
Comment by Russell — 7/3/2007 @ 4:46 pm
Charlie: Pop quiz, hot shot.
1. Was leaking Plame’s identity a crime?
2. Who leaked Plame’s identity?
3. If you had read competing accounts of identical events, one which came from testimony under oath, and another which came from media interviews to promote a book, which account would you be inclined to believe more?
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 7/3/2007 @ 5:05 pm
Oddly, Team Lefty (including the media) has nothing to say about Sandy Burglar stuffing documents into his socks and destroying them. When they start talking about that, I’ll start paying attention to Scooter Libby.
Comment by Gabriel — 7/3/2007 @ 5:12 pm
I don’t think Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence equates to Clinton’s disgraceful use of the pardon in the Marc Rich case. I don’t know enough about Clinton’s other pardons to comment on them.
Bush stated his reason for the commutation–the sentence of imprisonment was excessive. You and others, including our host, may not believe that reason justifies the commutation.
However, a Federal prosecutor who posts here suggested some time ago that a commutation was appropriate as did liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen among others.
Comment by Stu707 — 7/3/2007 @ 5:13 pm
Pardon me for being somewhat brusque, but the rest of your comment on poll numbers appears to suggest that what you are saying boils down to “if only everyone knew what I know, the poll numbers would be different”. That’s hardly useful; and noting that if the media had reported events differently, poll numbers would be different, doesn’t change the fact that the numbers are what they are.
That’s true, but the idea that Bush and the GOP will pay a heavy political price for this is predicated on the idea that the general public is fully informed about this case. The potential is there for damage control in the form of an aggressive recitation of the true facts of the case with the same vigor with which the half-truths and whole lies have been spread by enemies of the Bush Administration.
Oops… I forgot. Karl “The Brain” Rove is still in charge of political policy in the White House, and Mel Martinez is heading up the RNC.
OK, you’re right. The GOP is cooked.
Comment by L.N. Smithee — 7/3/2007 @ 5:14 pm
“The fact that the Court of Appeals wasn’t going to allow Libby to be free on bail until his appeals were up was political”
Do you know who judge sentelle is? you telling me this was political, for him?
Comment by whitd — 7/3/2007 @ 5:23 pm
whitd, one theory is that Sentelle et al decided to force Bush to act now rather than later.
Comment by Robin Roberts — 7/3/2007 @ 5:27 pm
For the thousandth time:
Marc Rich’s lawyer was…
SCOOTER LIBBY!
And Please direct me to Sandy Berger’s multi-million dallar defense fund. In fact, direct me to anyone who has defended him: anyone AT ALL.
Comment by AF — 7/3/2007 @ 5:45 pm