Libby's Sentence Commuted

[Update: more at Why Bush Commuted Libby's Sentence, But Did Not Pardon Him. Update: Fitzgerald's statement.]

Libby's sentence has been commuted. From the NY Times:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term on Monday, issuing an order that commutes his sentence.  This is a breaking news update. Check back soon for further information.

And, from the Washington Post:

Bush Commutes Libby Prison Sentence: WASHINGTON -- President Bush commuted the sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Monday, sparing him from a 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case. Bush left intact a $250,000 fine and two years probation for Libby, according to a senior White House official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

Bush's move came hours after a federal appeals panel ruled Libby could not delay his prison term in the CIA leak case. That decision put the pressure on the president, who had been sidestepping calls by Libby's allies to pardon the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney...

Here's the president's statement:

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a special counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to 30 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.

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 30 months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the president the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

I've been sitting here trying to figure out what to say without sounding overly shrill. I'll just put it this way. The president has misused his power pretty much since the day he took office. Why should today be any different?

Comments

[robertdfeinman]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the upcoming elections. Corruption and abuse of office was said to be a big factor in the swing to the Dems in the prior election.

I think the American people get more upset by unfair treatment than by the absolute policies followed. People like to say: "I disagree with your position, but I respect your devotion to your principles."

Repub pols are going to have a hard time avoiding having to take a position on this that doesn't make them look bad. If they support it they are part of the party of privilge. If they oppose it they open up the whole Iraq can of worms and their support of the president.

[Brett]

Thank God he wasn't driving on a suspended license!

[kthomas]

Good for Scooter! It's good to have friends in high places.

Bad for the body politic! One law for us rabble, and another for those more connected than us rabble.

[anne]

Brett

"Thank God he wasn't driving on a suspended license!"

Now, this is funny and perfect.

[evagrius]

I've been reading Rumpole stories by John Mortimer.

The "Golden Thread" of justice war cetainly yanked today.

[datacharmer]

This is disgusting. What is especially distasteful is the attempt to justify the decision:

'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.'

Pathetic.

[anne]

Mark Thoma,

We should notice Gary Orfield of Harvard and UCLA, who has long been collecting data on neighborhood and school integration patterns, and who along with a certain legal baby* was extensively interviewed today on public radio on the turning away in judicial philosophy from Brown v. Board of education. A profound decision, holding with a return to separate and unequal to which the dissent properly directs us.

*Baby sister.

[cm]

Let's hear whether the media will make as much of this as from Clinton's parting pardons.

[James Killus]

Actually the clever thing about this was that it only commutes Libby's sentence, leaving open all appeals, but most especially allowing Libby to continue to take the Fifth in any subsequent Congressional hearings.

Which is to say that Libby should be dragged before every Committee in Congress and made to take the Fifth eight hours a day for the next year and a half. Force Bush to give him that full pardon now, just to see if Scooter can be flipped.

Or have treason declared a matter of "Executive Privilege" which is what this is about anyway.

[kthomas]

"Or have treason declared a matter of "Executive Privilege" which is what this is about anyway."

It's whatever President Cheney says it is!

[save_the_rustbelt]

In his defense of his pardon of Marc Rich, Bill Clinton cites a review and positive opinion by several prominent Republican lawyers, including, yes, Lewis "Scooter" Libbey.

Rich of course bought off both Bill Clinton and a whole battalion of technical and character references.

Poliltics is dirty, bipartisan dirty.

[James Killus]

Wow, rustbelt, that one was amazing. Did you come up with it yourself? I want to say something snarky like where do you get your meds or some such, but mostly I'm just awestruck at the sheer grandiosity of it.

[Barry]

James, rusty is a conflicted person. He's really a Republican at heart, but he's also seen how the GOP trashed large chunks of the US (he's an accountant in NE Ohio, judging from various comments). So he can't admit what's happened, since the truth would hurt. He's got to mix it with a strong does of 'Clinton did it!', to make it go down easier.

says...

Barry, James - how many wrongs does it take to make a right? Why not eliminate the presidential pardon? The idea does not fit with an independent judicial system.

[Bruce Wilder]

"Why not eliminate the presidential pardon?"

This is the meme that pisses me off more than any other out there today. People complaining about how the pardon power lends itself to abuse, and so on.

Could any analysis be more brain-dead?

Any power in the hands of a corrupt, callow, incompetent moron is a bad, bad idea.

Bush has been abusing the pardon power all along, by simply refusing to use it, to correct any injustice, anywhere. Yesterday, for the first time, he used the pardon power to further a conspiracy to obstruct justice, in which he, himself, is a participant.

But, Bush's abuse of the pardon power pales in its consequences to the true underlying crime, which was a conspiracy to instigate aggressive war (an international war crime), a illegal war that has laid waste lives and treasure and American honor.

[James Killus]

Sorry, annonymous, but the pardon power of governors and the President is actually an important check and balance in a democratic society.

There is no way to construct a system that is immune to a sufficiently large number of players acting in bad faith, which is what we have here.

However, I see from my morning paper that the Libby=Marc Rich argument is the main Republican Talking Point covering the matter. Rich was pardoned, while Libby's sentence was commuted. This matters--see my comment above and the later reposting by Mark of Jeff Lomonaco's prescient analysis from two weeks ago. By deliberately conflating the two, the Republican Noise Machine is trying to make perjury and obstruction of justice pertaining to national security (and, as it happens, war crimes), equivalent to financial fraud. Moreover, because of the commutation-not-pardon, the obstruction of justice is ongoing.

A Google on the phrase "cooling the mark" shows the phenomenon at work here:

http://www.tau.ac.il/~algazi/mat/Goffman--Cooling.htm

Good con men know that, after the swindle, the mark may get very angry and come after them. "Cooling the mark" refers to the methods used to soften and/or redirect the anger. We see examples of this pretty frequently these days.

************************
“The Bush Administration: Less accountable for their crimes than Paris Hilton. She did her time; let them do theirs.”

says...

JK - you are right - the pardon of Marc Rich and the Iran Contra boys has nothing to do with Scooter. Three wrongs don't make a right.

However, you and Wilder are missing the point that an independant judiciary is required to provide a check and balance. So are responsible laws and a civilized approach to punishment. But the concept of a Presidential pardon is a bad throwback to a monarchy. Hey Wilder, how do you think Canadians or Australians feel knowing Prince Idiot (take your pick, Charles, Billy or Harry) could be your lawful head of state.

[James Killus]

I don't know who you are anonymous, but I'm beginning to dislike your style. The pardoning of the Iran-Contra conspirators is, in fact, substantially like Libby's commutation, the misuse of Presidential power to obstruct justice. But you said nothing about Iran-Contra (Bush Sr.'s little thumb in the eye of justice) in your original post, and now you're trying to slip it in to muddy the waters.

That's a cheap debate tactic that we'd have sliced to shreds when I was in high school.

As for the rest of your argument, I cross-posted with Bruce Wilder, but I'll second his assessment of "brain dead." That's a good word for any argument that uses an abuse of power to argue that said power must then be removed. Try applying the same logic to "Commander-in-Chief." It fits just as well, which is to say, not at all.

What actually affect judicial independence are ideological litmus tests, criminal behavior by the Executive branch, and, just possibly, blackmail. I'm postulating the latter as being one of the items on a short list of things that even John Ashcroft would not countenance, and warrantless wiretaps make possible.

[Lafayette]

MT: Why should today be any different?

Reread this bit: The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting.

For a first-time offender and given that outing Mrs. Palme did no obvious damage to national security (that could be proven), then the residual punishment (as explained above) is more than enough to crush a man.

His professional career as a lawyer is over. All that remains is that Halliburton hires him as CEO. Poor guy.

Just watch, regardless, Libby will bounce back on top ... his Republican friends will see to that.

All citizens are equal before the law. But some are more equal than others. (Animal Farm, George Orwell)