Editorials Hit Libby's Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card; The folks over at Editor and Publisher provided an incredible round-up of newspaper editorials slamming President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence;
NEW YORK The bloggers, politicians, and TV pundits weighed in quickly Monday after President Bush took the surprisingly sudden step of commuting Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 30-month prison sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case. Now newspaper editorials are appearing, and nearly all of them have condemned the Bush act.
First up, The New York Times and The Washington Post, which had viewed the case quite differently, each ripped the Bush move.
From the Times' Tuesday editorial: "Mr. Bush’s assertion that he respected the verdict but considered the sentence excessive only underscored the way this president is tough on crime when it’s committed by common folk ...
"Within minutes of the Libby announcement, the same Republican commentators who fulminated when Paris Hilton got a few days knocked off her time in a county lockup were parroting Mr. Bush’s contention that a fine, probation and reputation damage were 'harsh punishment' enough for Mr. Libby.
"Presidents have the power to grant clemency and pardons. But in this case, Mr. Bush did not sound like a leader making tough decisions about justice. He sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say when actually staring into a prison cell."
The Post, which had often mocked the court case, declares today: "We agree that a pardon would have been inappropriate and that the prison sentence of 30 months was excessive. But reducing the sentence to no prison time at all, as Mr. Bush did -- to probation and a large fine -- is not defensible. ... Mr. Bush, while claiming to 'respect the jury's verdict,' failed to explain why he moved from 'excessive' to zero.
"It's true that the felony conviction that remains in place, the $250,000 fine and the reputational damage are far from trivial. But so is lying to a grand jury. To commute the entire prison sentence sends the wrong message about the seriousness of that offense."
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "President Bush's commutation of a pal's prison sentence counts as a most shocking act of disrespect for the U.S. justice system. It's the latest sign of the huge repairs to American concepts of the rule of law that await the next president."
The Denver Post found that "such big-footing of other branches of government is not unprecedented with this administration. The president's abuse of signing statements show his disrespect for Congress' power to make law. His insistence that terror detainees at Guantanamo Bay be denied Habeas Corpus rights mocks legal tradition. It's a shame that his actions in the Libby affair will add to that list. Libby should be held accountable for his crimes."
San Francisco Chronicle: "In commuting the sentence of former White House aide Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, President Bush sent the message that perjury and obstruction of justice in the service of the president of the United States are not serious crimes."
The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's editorial declares that "mostly this commutation fails on the most basic premise. There was no miscarriage of justice in Libby's conviction or his sentence. The trial amply demonstrated that he stonewalled. Like President Clinton's 11th-hour pardons of an ill-deserving few, this commutation is a travesty."
New York's Daily News: "However misbegotten was the probe by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, the fact is that Libby did commit a federal crime and the fact is also that he was convicted in a court of law. Thankfully, Bush did not pardon Libby outright, but time in the slammer was in order. Sixty days, say, wouldn't have hurt the justice system a bit."
San Jose Mercury News: "Other presidents have doled out pardons and the like, usually on the way out of office. It's never pretty. But few have placed themselves above the law as Bush, Cheney and friends repeatedly have done by trampling civil liberties and denying due process. Chalk up another point for freedom. Scooter's, at least."
The Sacramento Bee: President Bush, a recent story in the Washington Post tells us, is obsessed with the question of how history will view him. He has done himself no favors on that count by commuting the prison term of I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby."
The Dallas Morning News: "Perhaps the president felt he had nothing left to lose, given his unpopularity. But considering how much trouble the White House faces in regard to congressional subpoenas, the last thing this president needed was to further antagonize Capitol Hill regarding abuse of executive power."
One final little note here. Apparently President Bush believes that Paris Hilton's "45-day sentence for violating probation in an alcohol-related reckless driving case," is obviously an appropriate jail term, whereas Scooter Libby's 30-month sentence for lying and obstructing justice in the Valerie Plame scandal is considered "excessive." I mean--President Bush never commuted Paris Hilton's jail term.
Obstruction of Justice, Continued: Washington Post columnist Dan Froomkin has an excellent column providing interesting details and questions regarding President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence. Froomkin writes:
We know, for instance, that Cheney was the first person to tell Libby about Plame's identity. We know that Cheney told Libby to leak Plame's identity to the New York Times in an attempt to discredit her husband, who had accused the administration of manipulating prewar intelligence. We know that Cheney wrote talking points that may have encouraged Libby and others to mention Plame to reporters. We know that Cheney once talked to Bush about Libby's assignment, and got permission from the president for Libby to leak hitherto classified information to the Times.
We don't know why Libby decided to lie to federal investigators about his role in the leak. But it's reasonable to conclude -- or at least strongly suspect -- that he was doing it to protect Cheney, and maybe even Bush.
Why, after all, was special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald so determined to get the truth from Libby and, barring that, to punish him for obstructing justice? Prosecutorial ethics preclude Fitzgerald, a Bush appointee, from answering such questions. But the most likely scenario is that he suspected that it was Cheney who committed the underlying crime -- that Cheney instructed Libby to out a CIA agent in his no-holds-barred crusade against a critic. (See my Feb. 21 column, The Cloud Over Cheney and my May 29 column, Fitzgerald Again Points to Cheney.)
All of this means that Bush's decision yesterday to commute Libby's prison sentence isn't just a matter of unequal justice. It is also a potentially self-serving and corrupt act.
Was there a quid pro quo at work? Was Libby being repaid for falling on his sword and protecting his bosses from further scrutiny? Alternately, was he being repaid for his defense team's abrupt decision in mid-trial not to drag Cheney into court, where he would have faced cross-examination by Fitzgerald? (See my March 8 column, Did Libby Make a Deal?)
Bush and Press Secretary Tony Snow this morning continued to stonewall when it comes to any of the important questions about this case, Cheney and Bush's involvement, and the commutation itself. Bush said he wouldn't rule out a future pardon for Libby -- but didn't have much else new to say. Snow was simply ducking questions while asserting repeatedly that the president is entitled to exercise his clemency power when he sees fit.
It's true that the Constitution grants the president unlimited clemency and pardon power. But presidents have generally used that power to show mercy or, in rare cases, make political amends -- not to protect themselves from exposure.
Froomkin speculates as to whether the press will ask President Bush and Vice President Cheney some very strong questions, including:
* Does the president approve of Libby's conduct?
* On whose behalf did Libby act?
* Did the White House make any sort of a deal with Libby or his defense team?
* What did Bush know and when did he know it?
* When did he find out that Karl Rove and Libby had both leaked Plame's identity? Before or after he vowed that any leakers would be fired? Did anyone lie to him about their role? Why didn't he fire them?
* How does the conduct of his aides comport with Bush's vow to restore ethics to the White House? How does the commutation?
* What factors did the president take into account in deciding to commute the sentence?
* What does the president consider an appropriate punishment for perjury and obstruction of justice?
* What was Cheney's role in the commutation?
Something tells me that the corporate-owned press will ask these questions to the Bush administration.
Bush Faces `No-Win' Pressures to Pardon Convicted Cheney Aide: This June 29, 2007 Bloomberg story has some interesting side details regarding the history of President Bush's presidential pardons (Hat tip to DKos member Miss Laura). According to Bloomberg;
Bush has granted fewer pardons -- 113 -- than any president in the past 100 years, while denying more than 1,000 requests, said Margaret Colgate Love, the Justice Department's pardon attorney from 1990 to 1997.
In addition, Bush has denied more than 4,000 commutation requests, and hundreds of requests for pardons and commutations are still pending, Love said.
In addition, there is this little detail regarding American public opinion on a Scooter Libby pardon from Bloomberg;
A Cable News Network/Opinion Research survey conducted after Libby's conviction found that 69 percent of respondents opposed a pardon while 18 percent favored it. At the same time, a pro-Libby firestorm is being fanned by self-described conservative bloggers and talk-radio hosts, and many conservative leaders are asking the president to step in.
These are interesting little details which really go against this Bush commutation of Libby's sentence. First President Bush has shown no interest to grant presidential pardons since his administration has granted the least number of presidential pardons over the last 100 years. President Bush has also shown no interest in granting commutation requests by denying 4,000 such requests. And yet less than five hours after Libby's request to postpone incarceration was denied by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Bush grants a commutation on Libby's prison sentence. This goes against the written record of Bush's pardons and commutations.
Bush Rationale on Libby Stirs Legal Debate: The New York Times has an incredible detail showing President Bush commutation of Libby's sentence contradicting the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to affirm a 33-month sentence of another defendant in a case very similar to the Libby case. According to The New York Times:
Similarly, in a case decided two weeks ago by the United States Supreme Court and widely discussed by legal specialists in light of the Libby case, the Justice Department persuaded the court to affirm the 33-month sentence of a defendant whose case closely resembled that against Mr. Libby. The defendant, Victor A. Rita, was, like Mr. Libby, convicted of perjury, making false statements to federal agents and obstruction of justice.Mr. Rita has performed extensive government service, just as Mr. Libby has. Mr. Rita served in the armed forces for more than 25 years, receiving 35 commendations, awards and medals. Like Mr. Libby, Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.
The judges who sentenced the two men increased their sentences by taking account of the crimes about which they lied. Mr. Rita’s perjury concerned what the court called “a possible violation of a machine-gun registration law”; Mr. Libby’s of a possible violation of a federal law making it a crime to disclose the identities of undercover intelligence agents in some circumstances.
When Mr. Rita argued that his 33-month sentence had failed to consider his history and circumstances adequately, the Justice Department strenuously disagreed.
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, posted a copy of the government’s brief in the Rita case on his blog yesterday and asked, “Why is the president flip-flopping on these criminal justice decisions?”
Why is it that Victor Rita--a man who performed extensive government service, a member of the armed forces, and a man with no criminal history--is forced to serve out his 33-month sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice, with the U.S. Supreme Court affirming the Justice Department's decision by a vote of 8 to 1, while at the same time Scooter Libby, who is also convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, does not have to serve a single day in jail? What is the difference in the crimes and convictions between Scooter Libby and Victor Rita where Libby doesn't serve a day in jail, and Rita must serve 33 months?
Tony Snow spins so many lies on the Libby commute: This YouTube video shows White House press secretary Tony Snow spinning the lies of the Libby Commute that you can almost see the smoke coming out of Snow's ears. From YouTube;
TPM Muckraker has a multi-post analysis of Tony Snow's spin; Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four.
Cheney may have been consulted in Scooter Libby deliberations, White House admits: There are so many small details in this scandal, that they almost seemed to get overlooked here. According to Raw Story;
In a White House press conference on Tuesday morning, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow appeared to suggest that Vice President Dick Cheney's views may have been considered by President George W. Bush as he deliberated on whether to commute or pardon the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
"Everybody had an opportunity to share their views," Snow said in the Tuesday morning press conference.
Snow later clouded up his statement that the Vice President had been involved in the deliberations.
"I'm sure that the Vice President may have expressed an opinion," Snow said, then adding. "He may have recused himself, I honestly don't know."
But Snow insisted that the commutation of Libby's sentence was not a 'personal favor' to Cheney.
"The president does not look upon this as granting a favor to anyone," he asserted. "To do that is to misconstrue the nature of the deliberations."
In June, Reps. John Conyers (D-MI) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) had urged Cheney to recuse himself from the proceedings.
"It would be deeply divisive, and invite deep cynicism and disrespect for the legal process, were the American people to conclude that Mr. Libby undertook actions that subjected him to criminal liability to protect you, knowing...that you would thereafter take steps to protect him from the consequences of his criminal conduct," they wrote in the June 7 letter.
Think about this for a moment. Scooter Libby was the former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby is involved in the growing Valerie Plame scandal, where Libby contradicts himself to the grand jury as to who he learned Plame's name from. Libby's involvement in the Valerie Plame scandal brings Vice President Cheney into the scandal, and the questions of what did Cheney know of Valerie Plame, when did he know it, and who did he talk to regarding Valerie Plame's covert identity? Libby is tried and convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice regarding the Plame scandal. Libby's involvement in the Plame scandal showed just how close the working relationship was between the vice president and his chief of staff. According to the New York Times:
One big question is what role, if any, Mr. Cheney played. Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney are extremely close — they often rode to work together before Mr. Libby’s indictment forced him to resign as Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff in October 2005 — and aides said the vice president viewed Mr. Libby’s conviction as a tragedy.
Vice President Cheney may have been directly involved in creating a White House "hit" against Ambassador Joe Wilson by leaking Plame's name to the press. Cheney may have ordered the hit against Wilson, but Scooter Libby would have been the man pulling the trigger on the hit. And since Libby got caught lying to federal prosecutors and the grand jury regarding his involvement in the scandal, Libby was forced to play the fall guy in order to protect Cheney's involvement in the scandal, and possibly President Bush's own involvement. Vice President Cheney would have certainly known that if Scooter Libby ended up sitting in a jail cell, Libby would certainly be open to tell everything he knew to the federal prosecutors in exchange for a reduced sentence. The only way to keep Libby out of jail was either a presidential pardon, or a commutation of Libby's sentence. Did Vice President Dick Cheney tell President Bush that he must keep Scooter Libby out of jail, or Libby will expose the administration's cover-up of their involvement in the Plame scandal?
Attorneys see irony in Libby case: This USA Today story brings up another contradiction in the Bush commutation of Libby's sentence. According to USA Today;
WASHINGTON — President Bush knew what he was getting in 2001 when he made Reggie B. Walton one of his first picks for a seat on the federal bench: a tough-on-crime judge with a reputation for handing down stiff sentences.
A former deputy drug adviser, federal prosecutor and Superior Court judge, Walton seemed a perfect fit for the new president. And Walton didn't disappoint, proving to be exactly the kind of no-nonsense judge Bush was looking for.
Until now.
When erasing former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case, Bush said Walton was being too harsh.
"The point here is to do what is consistent with the dictates of justice," said White House Press Secretary Tony Snow.
But attorneys noted some irony in Bush's decision to override Walton.
"The party who appointed him is now unhappy with what he appointed him to do," said Scott L. Fredericksen, a defense attorney who served as a prosecutor under every president since Ronald Reagan.
Also noteworthy, defense attorneys said, was seeing the White House urge leniency just weeks after the Bush administration announced a tough new crime bill that would bar judges from going easy on criminals. They would be free to impose longer sentences, but not shorter ones.
To hear Snow tell it, Walton ignored the recommendation of probation officials and sentenced Libby to prison. That isn't what happened. Probation officers recommended Libby serve 15-21 months. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald recommended more than 30 months. Libby's attorneys asked for probation.
Walton accepted Fitzgerald's interpretation of the law, which said Libby should be sentenced more harshly because of the seriousness of the investigation he obstructed.
The 2 1/2 years handed Libby was much like the sentences given others convicted in obstruction cases. Federal court records indicate that 382 people were convicted for obstruction of justice over the past two years. Three of four were sent to prison. The average prison term was 64 months, more than five years. The largest group of defendants drew prison terms ranging from 13 months to 31 months.
Probation officers recommended that Libby should serve 15-21 months. Fitzgerald asked for 30 months. President Bush states in his commutation statement that;
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.
I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.
Bush claims that the probation office recommended a lesser sentence for Libby. But if the probation office recommended a lesser sentence, then that sentence would have been a prison sentence of 15-21 months--NOT the recommendation of no jail time which Libby's defense team advocated.
Previous statements by Bush, Cheney, on the guilty verdict against Libby: I want to include these earlier stories which include President Bush's and Vice President Cheney's responses to jury's guilty verdict against Scooter Libby. According to this March 7, 2007 Reuters story, President Bush said that he was personally saddened by the guilty verdict, but said that he would respect that conviction;
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush said on Wednesday that the guilty verdict for a top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney must be respected, though he was saddened for Lewis "Scooter" Libby and his family.
"This was a lengthy trial on a serious matter and a jury of his peers convicted him and we've got to respect that conviction," Bush told CNN Espanol in an interview.
Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, was convicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges in a probe into the leak of a CIA officer's identity in a case involving the Iraq war. Libby's attorneys have said they plan to seek a new trial and, if denied, would appeal the conviction.
Bush said he was limiting his comments on the case because it was "an ongoing legal matter."
"On a personal note, I was sad. I was sad for a man who had worked in my administration, particularly sad for his family," Bush said.
White House officials have dismissed as "hypothetical" questions about a possible pardon for Libby, but they have not ruled it out.
Vice President Dick Cheney's remarks on Libby's guilty verdict can be found in this March 6, 2007 Raw Story article;
Hours after the conviction of former White House adviser I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney released a statement which expressed disappointment that his former aide was found guilty on four out of five charges. Libby was convicted of lying and obstruction of justice in regards to the investigation of the "outing" of a former CIA operative.
"I am very disappointed with the verdict," Cheney said in the statement received by RAW STORY. "I am saddened for Scooter and his family. As I have said before, Scooter has served our nation tirelessly and with great distinction through many years of public service."
Cheney added, "Since his legal team has announced that he is seeking a new trial and, if necessary, pursuing an appeal, I plan to have no further comment on the merits of this matter until these proceedings are concluded."
Raw Story also provided early reaction by President Bush on the verdict. According to Dana M. Perino, the deputy White House press secretary;
Earlier today, the White House issued a brief statement on Libby's conviction.
"The president was informed," Dana M. Perino, the deputy White House press secretary, said at a press briefing. "He was in the Oval Office. He saw the verdict read on television."
According to Perino, Bush "respected the jury's verdict" but "he was saddened for 'Scooter' Libby and his family." The spokesman added that she was sorry to "disappoint" the press but that the White House couldn't really comment on the verdict, since Libby may appeal it and the case is still ongoing.
"Any administration that has to go through a prolonged news story that is unpleasant and one that is difficult when they're under the constraints of a policy of [not commenting on ongoing legal proceedings], that can be very frustrating," Perino added.
In regards to Democratic concerns that Libby may be pardoned by President Bush, Perino said she had no knowledge of any plans for that.
"I’m not commenting on a hypothetical situation," Perino said. "I’m aware of no such request."
Keep those two stories in the back of your mind as this latest Scooter Libby commutation scandal unfolds. This commutation was personal. This commutation was a political CYA. There is no legal reason for President Bush to commute Scooter Libby's prison sentence to the point where Libby would not have to serve a single day in jail. President Bush circumvented the system of justice for political reasons.
Bush on the delaying of Libby's prison sentence: This is a YouTube video of the CNN feed on President Bush's comments regarding his commuting Scooter Libby's sentence. This is the first time President Bush said anything publicly on his decision to commute Libby's sentence. President Bush never gave a televised announcement or a press conference to announce this commutation of Libby's sentence. Instead, the White House issued a press release of Bush's statement yesterday. It is bad enough that President Bush commuted Libby's sentence, but Bush never had the gall to come out and announce his decision to the American people--not through either a White House televised event, or even a press conference. The Bush White House announces this huge story through a timid press release, hoping that the explosive contents of this release would be subdued. And when Bush finally forced to comment directly to reporters on his decision, he looks like a deer caught up in the headlights of a Mac truck. From YouTube;
I'm sure there will be more to come on this scandal.
No comments:
Post a Comment