The Libby Commutation: The Best Possible Outcome
It’s official: Scooter Libby will not go to prison.
President Bush today commuted the prison sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Cheney’s former chief of staff, sparing him the 30-month term to which he was sentenced last month for lying to federal investigators about his role in the White House leak of a CIA officer’s identity.
Bush took the action just hours after a federal appeals court ruled that Libby was not entitled to remain free while he was appealing his conviction on four felonies.
“With the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision,” Bush said in a statement issued by the White House early this evening. Although the president said he “respected” the jury’s verdict, he added that he had “concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.”
Bush said he was letting stand a $250,000 fine that also was part of the sentence handed down last month by U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who presided over the month-long trial last winter.
Thus, Libby is spared what was indeed an excessively lengthy prison sentence, given the entire set of circumstances, and yet he is forced to pay the fine and serve his probation time. The decision will undoubtably outrage the left (this piece by bottom-dweller Jane Hamsher is typical) and disappoint those on the right who wanted the whole pardon enchilada, but it will mostly placate conservatives. While it is true that many wanted a full pardon, I think equally many if not more thought he deserved the verdict but balked at the 30-month prison sentence.
It was the right call, and the right time to make it…
Oh. My. God. The discussions going on at the usual suspects of the lefty sites are absolutely hilarious. They are going absolutely, foaming at the mouth, chewing on the furniture, rolling on the floor, screaming INsane.
Anything that causes a lefty meltdown like this has GOT to be a pretty good thing.
DU is always a pretty good barometer I think. If they hate it, it’s probably a good idea.
Tis’ a fair court.
I especially enjoy the calls for impeachment.
I didn’t want to see Scooter go to jail: I think he has suffered enough, and the fact that he will go down in history as a scoundrel is punishment enough.
However, it is more than a little unseemly that Paris Hilton would get more time in jail than Scooter Libby. It is also plain for all to see that his silence was bought with the commutation: the administration is more concerned that its secrets be protected than the rule of law is upheld. (No surprise to anyone following the Alberto Gonzales saga). Just as this crowd is sanctimonious about states’ rights and federalism until it proves incovenient (as with Bush v. Gore), so too they are sanctimonious about law and order unless it’s one of their own at the receiving end.
Ah, you can’t prove any of that Peter – rank speculation. I can understand why you would think it – but prove it? Nah.
Peter,
I’ll address you because I have come to respect your capacity think critically about issues. Why shouldn’t he go to jail? How do you condone commuting the sentence of a man who continues to obstruct Pat Fitzgerald’s investigation? Remember “sand in the eyes of the umpire.” Our friends on the right who like to confuse the issue by arguing that “no underlying crime was committed,” are able to do so (or at least try really hard), not because there was no crime, but because Libby refuses to tell the truth about his communications with others. Ultimately, as you point out, he was protecting the interests of the administration. That does not serve the public. He should continue to suffer (within the boundaries of the law) in order to encourage him to cooperate.
And by the way, 3 republican judges and 1 prosecutor did not think that the sentence was excessive.
Steve: I can’t prove it — just as neither of us can prove that O.J. Simpson is a murderer — but some things speak for themselves.
Scott: I think that the law should be applied impartially, and Libby’s punishment should be no more or no less than you or I would receive if we were convicted of the same offense. My (limited) understanding is that a first time offender who was convicted of these offenses would be punished — fined, disbarred, and given a suspended sentence — but not sent to jail. I also did not think that Martha Stewart should have been jailed.
I don’t buy the argument that because someone is famous, he ought to be punished more severely to “set an example.” The law should be blind (in the good sense of the word).
I also think that in any case, the punishment should be commensurate with the crime. Libby has suffered grievously and I think that is enough. I don’t mean to minimize perjury and obstruction of justice, but the sun will still rise in the morning and set in the evening. I think that with everything which has befallen Libby, justice has been served.
Peter,
There is no parallel for you or I commiting this crime because we are not senior white house officials. If we were, we would be famous. Can you really argue against the fact that people who abuse a great deal of power deserve harsher punishment than those who abuse a small amount of power? All justice is not the same and all obstruction is not the same. Your comparison is based on a situation where one lies in small claims court or traffic court. Fitzgerald used the higher-end of the sentencing guidelines, but he was within the guidelines. Every judge that looked at the case thought it was reasonable. You are right that Libby is a first time offender, but he is also a continuing offender. No doubt that Libby could have received a reduced sentence if had changed his testimony and told the truth. How much of the $250,000 do you think that Libby will pay out of his pocket? I understand that he may lose his right to practice law and won’t be able to vote, but do you really think that he will have a problem very lucrative employment?
And I’m very pleased that the sun will still rise in the morning. By that do you mean to say that there won’t be a big impact by this presidential action?
Things like this just point out, to me, the inequities of our system. A system which allows a personal acquaintance to decide that his buddy shouldn’t have to serve the jail time to which he was sentenced. I don’t see Bush’s fine legal mind having pored over the details and deciding, via his vast experience with the precedents relevant to this case, that the right choice was to pardon Libby. I see, as peter does, somebody who did his job exactly as told (no matter that what he was told was to commit the crimes for which he was justly sentenced), and who is being repaid for his good service. It’s nonsense.
A political act aimed at bringing a few Libby supporters back into the fold after the immigration fiasco. I support it but I can’t “justify” it on any “harshness” or other legal or ethical basis. Scooter was stupid to lie but the Bush family does not let its figuarative dead remain on the battlefield (see Casper Weinberger) even the misguided ones.
Politics, pure and simple, as are all pardons for those in actual need of such things. (As compared to those minor criminals pardoned 30 years afterwards per Justice guidelines when they don’t really need it.) I don’t think future officials will be tempted to lie if they only face disbarment, 6 figure fines and 7 figure legal bills but will be truth tellers when faced with jail.
Of course I fully expect a December, 2008 pardon.
Bob, I don’t believe the timing has anything to do with the ‘immigration fiasco’. The timing was in fact driven by the appeals court rejecting Libby’s bid to remain free on appeal. Once that bid was rejected, the timing took care of itself.
Regardless of whether you believe it was the right or the wrong move, there was never any doubt that Bush was going to let Libby go to prison; immigration and politics had nothing to do with it, but personal loyalty (again, whether misguided or well-placed is irrelevant) had everything to do with it…
Scott: One difference between Scooter Libby and Joe Schmoe (if Schmoe were convicted on four counts) is that Libby’s face has been on the front page of the newspaper for the past two years. I think this public ignomy is a dimension of punishment which separates Libby from the unknowns who are convicted of the same crimes. Just as – regardless of everything else he did in his career — Billy Buckner will always be remembered for Game Six against the Mets, so Scooter Libby will always be remembered as the guy who committed perjury and obstructed justice. And what fate could be crueler than being known forever as the Bush administration’s Billy Buckner?
Libby wasn’t convicted of abusing power: he was convicted of perjury and obstruction. If it is true that our putative Mr. Schmoe would not have been sent to jail for these crimes, then I don’t think Libby should be imprisoned either. I don’t think that the fact that Libby was playing for higher stakes ought to be considered in his punishment — lying to a grand jury about outing Valerie Plame and lying to a grand jury about more mundane matters is the same offense and ought to be treated the same.
If “every judge that looked at the case thought it was reasonable,” then you should listen to them and not to me. I just call them as I see them, but I’m (thankfully) not a lawyer and I don’t claim any expertise about sentencing. (However, considering that five Supreme Court justices have seemingly gone off their collective rockers, maybe you shouldn’t listen to the judges).
Fargus raises an interesting point which leads to the thought that Bush should have recused himself because in all likelihood he was part and parcel of the same effort as Libby, albeit from a distance to avoid getting his fingerprints on anything. That raises questions I’m not sure I have answers to.
Well, I don’t think there was any good outcome to this scenario. I admit that I didn’t pay nearly as much attention to this story as some, but I never fully understood a) what specifically he was charged with, b) why he was convicted, and c) why the sentence was so high.
I look at those, and it looks like I’m trying to excuse him, and I’m not. You hear/read alot about “Libby is going to jail for having a faulty memory”, and “How can you be charged with obstructing justice when no crime occurred?” etc. My feeling is that if he did perjure himself, and he did obstruct justice, then he should face strong penalties. But if he was a victim of a witch hunt, then he should be pardoned. I don’t have a clue which of these is the case.
The truth, like his new sentence, probably lies somewhere in between.
And I don’t really care to know. I’m not normally incurious, but there’s no doubt that this case has gotten far more attention than it deserved. I’m not sure if that’s because of BDS, or just how our society works with the 24-hour news cycle (certainly OJ and Paris got more attention than they deserved as well, and neither of those cases appear to be politically motivated).
Mark says that this is the best possible outcome. It’s certainly not the worst. The best outcome would probably have been if America could believe that justice was served throughout this process. I don’t know anyone, liberal or conservative that truly believes that.
All I’ll say about the left’s reaction is that given her husband’s pardons, it’s hypocritical in the extreme for Hillary to even speak on this subject. And frankly, stupid. I’d have a lot more respect for her if she’d just declined to comment. Of course, she’s not trying to court my vote, so maybe it’s not stupid after all.
Why should Hillary carry the baggage of her husband’s pardons?
She doesn’t get credit for creating a budget surplus or enacting free trade policies — why blame her for his dubious actions?
Good point, Peter.
And that aside, I personally think that the presidential pardon power is a relic and shouldn’t even be there in the first place, for a liberal or a conservative president. I don’t have any baggage for which I have to answer.
I wanted to weigh in on this, but I agree with everything Peter has said. Except the part about the Supreme Court. With the exception of the school desegregation cases (right policy result, hideously wrong constitutional reasoning), I think the Roberts Court did very well this term. It’s the only thing that makes me happy Bush got elected instead of Kerry.
Ok, I guess I was making Hillary carry the baggage of her husband’s pardons. However, she has not said the following about his presidency:
‘In this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice’…, and I think that’s hypocritical. Your opinion may differ.
On a totally different topic, you brought up one of my pet peeves. It drives me batty when either Clinton or the Republican Congress try to take credit for the budget surplus in the 90s.
I will say this again. The budget surplus in the 90s was imaginary. Please go to the Bureau of Public Debt. Look at the 90s. Notice anything interesting about the public debt? It increased every year. Kinda makes it hard to believe there was a surplus, doesn’t it?
But what about all those reports saying there was a surplus, and all the pats on the back and handshakes? Were we lied to?
Yes, and no. Our government wasn’t actually lying, but they weren’t telling the whole truth either.
Let’s say you make $100,000 a year, and you spend $110,000 each year. Each year you have a deficit of $10,000 and your debt increases by $10,000. Now, let’s say your getting sick of that, but you can’t stop your overspending. You take out a second mortgage on your house for $50,000. Your income that year was $150,000, and you still only spent $110,000. You had a $40,000 surplus! But your debt increased by $50,000. Some surplus.
We didn’t really have a surplus in the 90s. The government just played games with the books to make it look like we did. Both the Republicans and Democrats were complicit in this deception.
Chris: cronyism cuts both ways. James Lee Witt was a crony of Bill Clinton, but he was highly experienced in emergency management and was a first rate FEMA administrator. Micheal Browne was a crony of George Bush, but he was inexperienced in emergency management and was a poor FEMA administrator. As they say on sports television: you make the call.
As for cronyism and ideology trumping justice: say what you will about Janet Reno, but she ran an apolitical Justice Department. She appointed Ken Starr as special prosecutor to investigate the administration and then expanded his mission. It would be inconceivable for Alberto Gonzales to do the same.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/014980.php
33 months for perjury, and the Supreme Court has ruled that he has limited standing to challenge his sentence. Is Bush stepping in there because it’s “excessive”?
Fargus: No. He didn’t work at the White House. Seriously, clemency is and always has been highly arbitrary. Look at the Reynolds and Rich pardons, or Weinberger, or any controversial pardon by any president.
Mark, I agree that the looming prison drove the decision’s timing. I think that the speed was in part a result of the desire to bring some conservatives back in the fold. Also, a big FU to those who talk about the VP’s declining clout.
Nobody is willing to address the central issue. Facing prison, Libby was being pressed to come clean and tell the truth about the meetings he had with the vice president. This may have ultimately revealed embarrassment or illegality. Over the next three weeks, Libby was going to have to make a decision about whether he wanted to cooperate or start his prison sentence. By commuting the sentence, The President of the United States interfered in an investigation (which he took credit for starting) and subverted justice. No way to avoid this fact folks!
Sure, the timing had a lot to do with it. But Scott gets it a hell of a lot closer to the mark than Bob does.
30 months in prison is a long time and $250,000 in fines is a lot of money. If he commuted his sentence solely to keep him quiet, shouldn’t he have paid him too (by eliminating the fine)?
Also, if the example is that Clinton hires a competent crony and Bush hires an incompetent crony, isn’t the conclusion that cronyism isn’t the problem?
Do you have any doubt that those fines’ll be covered by backers of Libby’s, and that he’ll get a cherry position at a think tank somewhere?
As for your second paragraph, it makes no sense. There was no problem with Clinton’s hiring of a competent crony, because the fact that he’s a crony is secondary to his competence. With Bush, ’twas the other way around, quite obviously.
TMS: No, the conclusion is that what Clinton did was not actually cronyism, it was hiring a person who was qualified for the job who he happened to know.
The point is that the cronyism is irrelevant: Clinton, being the more competent manager, hired a competent person, Bush isn’t and didn’t. Thus, cronyism, in and of itself, is not bad. Hiring incompetent people for important jobs is bad, and an indicator of ignorance or stupidity – take your choice.
I think we’re saying the same thing with the exception that I don’t care whether they hire their friends or not and hiring their friends isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In fact, the loyalty implied in hiring a friend can be useful.
Plenty of ways. The investigation is over, to start with. Second, there was no crime by the VP or anyone in the Administration so exactly what was Libby going to roll over on? Finally, it is a conclusion, not a fact.
You got to do better than the President is evil, corrupt, criminal etc.
Sorry Bob, you are way off base here. The investigation is open again as soon at Libby stops obstructing (lying) and tells about the meetings. Your conclusion that there was no crime is fase. The absense of charges does not mean there was no crime. It is a FACT that the Republican appointed prosecutor suspended his investigation without being able to determine whether there was a crime because Libby “threw sand in the face of the umpire.” The facts of the case made it clear to a jury that Libby did this intentionally in order to obstruct the investigation. The President’s actions yesterday have the same effect.
The suggestion that I am being irrational and basing my opinion on the President being evil, fails the logic test. I said no such thing, and base my conclusions on facts that are just as easily available to you if you care to attend to them.
Scott, you have no evidence whatsoever that the President interfered with an ongoing investigation. Since you base your opinion on zero facts, the only logical conclusion is that it is hostility that motivates your conclusion.
Time to face reality, there will be no further indictments/trials/convictions coming out of Plamegate. It over, not there was much to begin with.
Bob-
I’ll give you the benefit of doubt that you are not simply playing games by talking past me and ignoring my words and explanations. I would simply encourage you to re-read my words, assess the facts of the case (rather than the republican talking points), and stop speculating on my motivations.