Libby Jailbreak an Inside Job

President Bush has never been shy about displaying his religion in public. The Bible says to forgive, and so the prez has commuted the sentence of Scooter (Lewis) Libby. Found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, after two years and millions of taxpayer dollars, Mr. Libby will not have to do a day in prison. Undoing a judge’s sentence might not be unusual in a small town in Texas, where everyone is cousins, but it is a shock in Washington. After all, we impeached a president for less.

“Sentencing experts said Bush’s action appeared to be without recent precedent. They could not recall another case in which someone sentenced to prison had received a presidential commutation without having served any part of that sentence. Presidents have customarily commuted sentences only when someone has served substantial time.

“We can’t find any cases, certainly in the last half century, where the president commuted a sentence before it had even started to be served,” said Margaret Colgate Love, a former pardon attorney at the Justice Department. “This is really, really unusual.”

Have the President’s Christian principles made him soft on crime? If so, it’s a recent development. In 1999, as Governor of Texas, he signed the death warrant for Karla Faye Tucker, who was convicted for her part in the brutal murders of two people in a failed robbery. Despite the fact that Tucker had expressed remorse and would stay locked away for life, Governor Bush was unmoved by the many and diverse appeals for mercy in her case — as in this interview with Tucker Carlson…

“In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, a number of protesters came to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. “Did you meet with any of them?” I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. “No, I didn’t meet with any of them,” he snaps, as though I’ve just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. “I didn’t meet with Larry King when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, ‘What would you say to Governor Bush?'” “What was her answer?” I wonder. “‘Please,'” Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, “‘don’t kill me.'” I must look shocked — ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel — because he immediately stops smirking.” Talk Magazine (September 1999, p. 106).

It’s easier to understand harsh justice for someone who, like Tucker, killed someone with an ax. The kind of damage a corrupt politician like Libby can do to our system of justice is a little more abstract. Libby never needed to wave a gun, he’s far more dangerous with a pen in his hand.

Karla Faye Tucker was locked up in prison. She didn’t have the means to hurt anyone. She said she found Jesus and only asked for her life, but George Bush had her executed. Lewis Libby is at large, in line for a full pardon, and well-connected in Washington. He’s fully-armed, dangerous, and, thanks to the President, on the loose.

18 thoughts on “Libby Jailbreak an Inside Job”

  2. This could be the most ridiculous post I’ve read in a long time (which says a lot because I regularly check in at RI Future). You connect a man who may have lied to an independent counselor with that of a woman who brutally murdered 2 innocent people? Does the term “degree” mean anything to you?

    Like

  3. There’s a lot to be said about the pardon of “Scooter� Libby. I’ll reserve most of what I’ve got to say for next week in my column in the Cranston Herald. But I’m moved to respond to another post that ridiculed the comparison of Bush’s reaction to the execution of Karla Fay Tucker with his effusive sympathy for Libby and his family.

    Any reasonable reading of Ms. Green’s post clearly shows that she was not trying to compare the crimes of Ms. Tucker with those of Libby. The crimes of Karla Fay Tucker were horrific. Even as one opposed to the death penalty, I can appreciate the arguments of those who think she got just what she deserved.

    Yet, the horror of those crimes does not excuse the governor of Texas from mocking Tucker’s pleas for clemency. His reaction was not just insensitive, it was cruel. For someone who is now so concerned about the suffering of Libby’s family, he wasn’t the least concerned for the suffering and humiliation of Tucker’s family.

    This president’s moral compass is broken, if it ever existed. The president who assiduously defends life, mocks a person in death. The president who stated unequivocally that anyone in his administration found to have committed wrong-doing in the Plame matter would be punished, excuses the only fall-guy convicted. The president, who criticizes the judge for an excessive punishment (after following the sentencing guidelines), is supporting legislation to require adherence to those guidelines.

    The inconsistencies, contradictions, and hypocrisies of this administration are seemingly endless. The incompetence is endemic. As it did over 30 years ago when another administration was abusing its authority and treating the Constitution like so much tissue paper, the Congress must step up and exert its own authority.

    Oh yeah, as a point of interest, recall that Bush referenced the “substantial� fine imposed on Libby by the court. That fine has already been paid. Oh, the suffering under this burdensome punishment!

    And so it goes ….

    Like

  4. “For someone who is now so concerned about the suffering of Libby’s family, he wasn’t the least concerned for the suffering and humiliation of Tucker’s family.”

    Again, Libby may have lied to a counselor and Tucker murdered two people. You claim any “reasonable” reading “clearly shows” a comparison isn’t being made. But I think it was, and you have further developed that very comparison. President Bush’s reaction to the Libby crime and to the Tucker crime should be remarkably different. One was convicted of perjury, the other double murder. Have you no sense of “degree”?

    Like

  5. Maybe we should not imprison anyone for white-collar crimes? We don’t know that the outing of Valerie Plame didn’t get anyone killed. She was working undercover, and the people in other countries who dealt with her are now exposed as working with a CIA agent whether they knew her real identity or not. We also have lost any intelligence information she might have given us– we don’t know the consequences of that.
    I don’t know the degree of guilt for a person who lies and plays politics with the question of whether the US should go to war, but I know that Woody Guthrie was right–“some will rob you with a six-gun, some with a fountain pen”.

    Like

  6. It occurs to me that certain commentors on the thread may not be interested in being reasonable. The intent may be to set up a straw man to knock down; then the commentor can claim ‘Victory!”

    Actually, “Mission Accomplished” might be a more apt choice.

    Because you need to remember that, whatever the crime, It’s OK If You’re A Republican. (IOKIYAR)

    But seriously, the fact that several thousand Americans are now dead because of the machinations of Mssrs Libby, Rove, Cheney, Bush, et al sort of tips the balance against Mr Libby, I should say. Recall that this was all done because, in the minds of Mr Cheney, Joe Wilson posed a threat to the plan to railroad the nation into a needless, senseless war. That should be taken into consideration when weighing the seriousness of Mr Libby’s crime. Thousands of people have died as a result.

    And, btw–have you heard about Larry Rita? A surprisingly similar case. Career military, distinguished career, first-time offender convicted of lying to investigators and perjury, sentenced to 33 months. Which is 3 months longer than Mr Libby’s “excessive” sentence.

    Like

  7. klaus, What’s truly unreasonable, in my mind, is to equate Libby’s actions with that of a brutal murderer. Your claim that thousands have died as a result of Libby’s actions is truly the straw man, but also a case of relativism of the worst kind. Saying we were railroaded into war is revisionist in nature, as a vast majority of our government and the government of the UK supported the decision to invade Iraq. Remember that Hussein refused to allow inspections for WMDs, despite his agreement that brought an end to the first war.

    And for klaus and ninjanurse, both sides in the case have accepted that Libby was NOT the one who identified Valerie Plame as a CIA agent, that is was Richard Armitage and he has admitted such. If Plame was indeed a covert agent of the CIA at the time, and Armitage revealed it knowing full well this was the case, I would agree that Armitage should go to jail. But Libby did no such thing, and it is disingenuous for the left to still imply he did.

    klaus, I don’t know anything about “Larry Rita” and a Google search has provided nothing. Can you provide a link or two so I can learn more? Thanks.

    And ninjanurse, I couldn’t agree more with the words of Guthrie. But I think even he would say the analogy is lost if the six-shooter is fired, and particularly if an innocent is killed. Agreed?

    Like

  8. Where to begin? I do have a “sense of degree.� It’s the phony comparison that I refuse to embrace. At first blush, there is no comparison between the severity of the crimes of perjury and murder. And, as I mentioned earlier, and ignored by some later, while I may not advance the position, I can understand how people could believe that Tucker got what she deserved. She was convicted of a particularly horrific double murder.

    However, that in no way diminishes the crimes committed by Libby. Understand, it was Libby who, through his lies and obstructions, contributed to the thwarting of the investigation into who conceived, coordinated, initiated or participated in leaking Valerie Plame’s name to the press. Due in part to Libby’s obstructions, nobody has yet been indicted with the violation of at least two federal statutes. Moreover, don’t minimize the effect of the “outing� of Plame. The disclosure of her identity as a covert CIA operative placed her life, her family’s lives, the lives of other operatives, as well past and on-going missions at risk. This is especially absurd given that this administration uses “national security� to bludgeon compliance with its policies.

    The real comparison is the personal reaction of the “compassionate conservative� to both cases. In Tucker’s case, as governor of Texas, he mocked her pleas for clemency. One can argue that Tucker got what she deserved. However, she didn’t deserve to be mocked on her way to the death chamber. The most important power that the state possesses is the power to punish. By his actions, Bush clearly showed that he had neither an understanding nor respect for that power.

    On the other hand, Bush was nothing but considerate towards Libby and his family. His concern for Libby’s family was touching. Clearly, Libby’s family was an innocent bystander to his crimes. The families of perpetrators always suffer. So do the families of the victims of crime. It might have been appropriate for the president to have considered, if not acknowledged, the suffering of Plame’s family, including her twin children.

    No matter how one looks at it, Bush protected one of his own. In his statement, Bush talked about how the judge failed to use any discretion in sentencing Libby. Yet, this administration is supporting legislation before the Congress that would deny such discretion to judges.

    If we’re going to talk about “degree� I want to add to what Klaus pointed out in his reference to the Rita case. Like Libby, Rita was convicted of perjury – not the underlying crime being investigated at the time the perjured statement was given. Like Libby, Rita received a sentence at the high end of the sentencing guidelines. Rita claimed his sentence was excessive and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The Bush administration opposed the appeal arguing that the sentence was not excessive. Rita lost.

    If we’re going to discuss “degrees� of various offenses, it seems that the Libby and Rita cases offer a better comparison. And to be frank, I don’t see the difference between them.

    Like

  10. The powers of the president are well crafted by the Constitution, Law and Custom, the CLC of American governance. Mr. Bush decided on a course of action he determined was appropriate. It was a “mid-range” course, not an extreme course and completely, totally within the powers of the President. The comparison of Mr. Bush’s actions might gain some perspective if one compared them to Mr. Clinton, who issued some 140 pardons as he left office.

    For example, Mr. Clinton pardoned Mr. Marc Rich, the corrupt oil broker, on the “lamm” and who renounced his American citizenship. Of the Rich pardon, it was written, “it is inconceivable that President Clinton chose to pardon the two biggest tax cheats in the history of the United States who had renounced their citizenship, been fugitives for seventeen years, and who traded with the Iranians during the hostage crises.” Do we not recall that Rich’s wife purchased furniture for the Clinton’s home and donated $450,000 to the Clinton library.

    Mr. Clinton pardoned 16 members of the Puerto Rican group, FALN, found to be responsible for 130 bombings that resulted in death and woundings.

    Have we forgotten that Mrs. Clinton’s brother Hugh Rodham was paid $400,000 to “encourage” a pardon for Carlos Anabel Vignali, a fine gentleman convicted of shipping 1000 pounds of cocaine from Los Angeles to Minnesota. Another brother, Tony Rodham, “supported” a pardon for Edgar and Vanna Jo Gregory. This fine pair owned a carnival and defrauded a federal bank. For his efforts. Mr. Rodham received $100,000 as a “consultation” fee and the Gregory pair donated $100,000 to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. Of course, to balance out the family interests, Mr. Clinton pardoned his brother Roger for his drug conviction.
    Another Clinton pardon went to Mrs. McDougal, that fine lady who refused to testify in the Whitewater mess.

    I leave it to the reader to decide if Mr. Bush’s pardon was more vile or self-serving than any of Mr. Clinton’s efforts.

    Like

  11. I want to remind everyone that Carla Tucker was going to be locked up for life anyway, and was no danger to anyone anymore. I was kind of disgusted by the way enthusiastic supporters of the death penalty, like Pat Robertson, were arguing that she should be spared because she found Jesus, but I took no pleasure in the decision to execute her.
    Libby is basically off the hook. He has friends to help him pay his fine, and he gets to keep all his political weapons. He’ll be rewarded for protecting others who deserved prosecution more than he did.
    It must be demoralizing to the CIA to know that their secrecy is only as secure as politicians need it to be.

    Like

  12. Unfortunately, despite my appraisal that the decline and fall of the Bush administration reflects both the limitations of the guy in charge and the failure of very talented advisors to educate the guy in charge, in the Libby matter the Mr. Bush acted well within his powers as President. One can even make the case that in his simplistic view of the world, he did feel he was doing the right thing. Mr. Clinton, on the other hand, likely never approaches situations from the basis of right and wrong, I suspect, just what is expedient or worth the moment. Mr. Libby never compromised CIA secrets. The occupation of the lady in question and her “uses” by her wanna be hubby, Mr. Wilson, seems to have been commonly know around the DC party circuit. If ever anyone can be termed less than ethical, I suspect it is Mr. Wilson, now with beard and playing the Santa Fe circuit, ready for those big movie opportunities and wondering if Tom Cruise or George Clooney should be cast to play him. I would suggest Groucho Marx would have been more appropriate if he were still alive.

    Like

  13. I appreciate the reference to Marc Rich. One of the great ironies in floating that comparison is that Rich’s lawyer during his prosecution by then USDA and current republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani was none other than I. Lewis “Scooter� Libby. As was noted, Rich was pardoned by Bill Clinton whose wife is now running for president. Small world, huh?

    A couple of points in response to some of what’s been written. First, nobody disputes that the president acted in the realm of constitutional authority. The issue centers on the appropriateness of the president’s act, not its legality.

    Second, nobody disputes that past presidents have granted pardons to some real stinkers. Clinton was no exception. However, let’s be fair. Had Clinton done what Bush did, and there was a republican Congress, there’d be at least one impeachment charge against the president the day after the commutation. It amazes me that some people are still loaded with venom toward Clinton well after his administration headed for the history books. Also, comments about Clinton’s alleged amorality seem both gratuitous and speculative – if not outright specious.

    In addition, I’d be shocked if 10% of partygoers on the DC cocktail circuit prior to Joe Wilson’s NYT editorial knew who he was. And for the most part, those who did probably didn’t care who he was, let alone the identity of his wife. I am frightened for the Republic if a focal topic of cocktail party chatter on the DC circuit was the Wilsons. I think the notoriety of the Wilsons was primarily the product of the Cheney spin room operated by Mary Maitlan more than anything else.

    Finally, the shots at the Wilsons, especially Joe Wilson, seem totally out of place. It seems to be an attempt to implicitly bootstrap the argument that because the “victims� of the “crime� are doing well and basking in some notoriety, there really isn’t a crime to begin with. So, what’s the big deal? The fact is that what happened to Valerie Plame was a big deal and no amount of gloss or misdirection can obscure that. The fact is that President Bush has issued only 113 pardons during his presidency – far below those issued by his predecessors. And, the fact is that Bush has issued only 3 commutations of sentences, and only then after the recipients served a significant portion of their prison sentences. So, this really raises the questions as to why this defendant and why now? Having the authority is one thing, but it’s an entirely different question as to how it’s used.

    However, I’m always up for some good movie talk. Thus, if a movie is going to be made of this incident w/ the Wilsons, I’m going w/ Clooney for the Joe Wilson part. A little make-up, he grows out the beard and packs on the 30 or so pounds like he did in Syriana, and we have a dead ringer. Of course, he’d have to lose some of that snarky charm that he had in Ocean’s 11, 12, and 13, but sacrifices have to be made for art!!

    Like

  14. mikeinri: NO. The inspectors were in Iraq. Saddam let them in. They were inspecting the sites as instructed by the CIA. It was Bush who made them leave when they were unable to find any evidence to support the WMD claim.

    Your statement that Saddam would not let the inspectors in is patently false, has been proven false, and is revisionist in the highest degree. It is a lie propagated by the Bush admin to deliberately deceive the American public.

    And did I mention that it was a lie?

    And people are dead because of the way Bush and his gang pushed us into the war. At the time of the invasion, something like 40% of Americans believed that Saddam was, at least in part, responsible for 9/11. Where did they get that impression? Because Cheney spread the lie, repeatedly and loudly. They lied to us to push us into that war. And now they’re lying to cover their tracks by saying Saddam refused to let the inspectors in.

    The point wasn’t who leaked Plame’s name. The point is that Libby deliberately and repeatedly lied to investigators. He was tried and found guilty.

    And Mr Schoos, thanks for the correction on Victor Rita’s. I was, I believe, thinking of Larry DeRita, who was one of Rumsfelfd’s lackeys.

    Mr Wolberg, saying “Clinton did it” doesn’t make it right. Libby has information that could, possibly, implicate Bush and Cheney in criminal wrongdoing. None of Clinton’s pardons fall into that category. This commutation falls into the category of “buying Libby’s silence.” That is reprehensible. For the record, I also beleive Clinton’s pardon of Rich was wrong, too.

    Nor is anyone saying that Bush acted outside his powers. He is doing no worse than his father did when he pardoned Weinberger 12 days before his trial began. The point is whether what Bush did is moral. I say emphatically not.

    And the prosecutor, Fitzgerald, has stated that he determined that Plame was covert. Why he chose not to pursue a case against the leakers is a good question, but it’s also completely irrelevant. Although, let’s recall that FitzG was a Republican, appointed by a Republican president, and that numerous US attorneys were getting heat from the White House for being overzealous in their prosectution of Republicans. Perhaps the non-charging of Armitage was motivated by partisan Republican political considerations.

    Chew on that one before trying to shift the blame. Because the crew at State were not “on board” with a lot of the activities of the inner circle. Perhaps they realized that, if Armitage were tried, he might roll over and give up the VP to save his own hide.

    Good call on the Wilson movie casting, Mr Schoos

    Like

  15. Mr. Schoos, from the beginning of this thread, my argument has been that the case of Karla Faye Tucker has no relevance to the Libby case. And quite frankly, I don’t believe the case of Victor Rita or the pardons ordered by President Clinton do either. In truth, you state it correctly when you say that at issue is not the illegality of Mr. Bush’s commutation but the appropriateness of the act.

    So let’s focus on the decision. Mr. Libby had been a public servant committed to his country and the goals of Mr. Bush and his administration. He misrepresented information to a special counselor, and a jury found him guilty of perjury. The President agreed that Mr. Libby made a mistake and should be punished for his crime. It was the president’s belief that a fine and the label of “convicted felon” was suitable, and a jail sentence was unnecessary. Remember, the president could have pardoned Libby and gave him a clean slate, but he did not.

    This doesn’t sound that unreasonable, especially considering the actions of past presidents. So what is really all the furor about? Those on the left clearly hate the president. They question every motive and show a general contempt for every word that comes from his mouth. The goal is to bring down the president. So the media join in, and the left treat every issue as though the very existence of our republic balances on it. The president fired some U.S. attorneys. So what? He has the right to. And if a Democrat was elected, he or she would fire every one of them. The president commuted Libby’s sentence. So what? He has the right to.

    You said, Mr. Schoos, that it was Mr. Bush’s attitude that bothered you, the way he mocked the possible execution of a double murderer, but had compassion for Libby and his family. I’m sorry if I don’t see this as significantly relevant. Only someone looking for a reason to be aghast would notice the facial expression of the president when discussing the case of a double murderer. (and as a side note to ninjanurse, Ms. Tucker would have served her sentence in a prison with other inmates, who may in fact have been in danger…I know those on the left are particularly concerned with the conditions and rights of those imprisoned)

    I do agree that no government official should EVER purposely reveal the identity of a covert agent, and should be punished if proven to have done so. Don’t you find it odd that Mr. Armitage, who has admitted to revealing Mrs. Plame’s identity to reporters, has not been indicted by this prosecutor? And if it is the moral obligations of our government officials that so moves the left, shouldn’t it be screeming for Armitage’s head?

    As for the movie, I think Wayne Knight, better known as Newman from Seinfeld, should play Wilson 🙂

    Like

  16. I suspect the jumble of issues clouds the issuse in the communtation and does little to explore the significance or intent. More can be gotten from the debate if we limit the discussion to the partculars.

    As an aside, I do believe Mr. and Mrs. Clinton and all the Rodham and Clinton family members sale of pardons is far more serious an issue than Scooter. Also for the record, it matters not a wit whether Mr. Fitzgerald only accomplishment of spending perhaps $50-$70 million (is that correct?) was that a jury agreed that Mr. Libby did remember and lied when he said he did not remember. Waht he did or did not remember had nothing to do with Ms Plame’s name disclosure, nothing! It was Mr. Armitage(he of the bull neck and the bull head, and given to tossing a lot of bull on behalf of Mr. Powell and himself) who made the disclosure. At the Plame hearings by the way, Ms Plame could nor say she was covert and as a matter of fact, her case manager apparently did not consider her to be covert. Whether this matters or not, I am not sure. What does matter is that the Plame/Wilson team is as disreputable as the usual run of Beltway operatives and it is too bad that they have felt the need to resettle in my part of the world. They seem intent to make sure their marketability is intact and, in a free economy, making a buck is fine. The Beltway’s gain is New Mexico’s loss.

    Like

  17. I agree w/ you Don. Let’s stick to the issues and keep the side show issues to at least a minimum. That’s why I’ll not respond to anything in the second paragraph of your last post.

    Mike, a couple of things. I don’t need to reference Ms. Tucker to be “aghast” about the Bush administration. They supply enough to be aghast about without me having to reach for it. In response to Mr. Bush’s attitude, it is relevant as it goes to motive. Not to mention that the mocking of a death row inmate reveals far more about the mocker than the mockee.

    But, we can disagree all day about this point. What really has me vexed is “Kramer”?

    Like

Comments are closed.