On I. Lewis Libby… (UPDATED)
I have been having some fun back-and-forth on this topic over at Gay Patriot. My blog-pals and friends at GP, for the most part, support President Bush’s commutation of his sentence. I disapprove. Many also think his conviction was political to begin with. I also disagree. These comments explain the reasons why I have staked out my positions on this topic:
I, for one, am horrified by some of the rationals of those defending
Libby. Libby was convicted, by a jury of his peers, of lying to the FBI
and grand jury on several occasions in order to obfuscate an ongoing
investigation. Unlike those of us on the outside, including myself, who
were getting bits of information from various sources that was often
framed (pun intended) to either convey Libby’s guilt (Keith Olberman) or
his innocence (Just One Minute), the jury heard ALL of the evidence, and
decided that Libby had committed 4 of the 5 offenses he was charged
with. Maybe you could defend his innocence if this were one measly
trumped-up charge, but we are looking at four counts of conviction here.
On the argument that the conviction was political, Orin Kerr, at the conservative / libertarian law blog “The Volokh Conspiracy”, simply and elegantly blows that ship out of the water. His view on the case being “purely political”:
I find this argument seriously bizarre. As I understand it, Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed anindictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as “overwhelming” and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. And yet the claim, as I understand it, is that the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration.
He also had something to say about the Amitage cop-out and Alan Dershowitz’s apparent ability to read the jugde’s mind. And lets not forget that Dersh was a member of the OJ dream team. Yes, that’s a bit of a cheap shot on my part, but it also reflects a bit on Dersh’s character.
There is no “Left-Wing Conspiracy” here. Do we conservatives really want to start sounding like a bad echo of Hillary Clinton?
And while I’m ranting and mentioning Hillary, the whole “Well, Clinton did this”, or “he / she did that” meme is getting very tiresome. I have always stood firm on the point that I didn’t care that Clinton lied to me, his wife or family, or the American people. It was his lying to the Grand Jury that justified the impeachment. Had Clinton been allowed to stand in front of a real jury, as Libby had, I think the outcome would have been the same. Besides, at least Clinton had the good sense of notpardoning Susan McDougal while she was still enmeshed in the legal process.
On the “charges were never brought or proven for leaking the CIA operative’s identity” – I must remind you all that Al Capone was never convicted of murder, and Clinton was never charged with any of the shady deals involving Whitewater. It does not matter that charges for the original suspected crime were never brought, the act of deceiving the FBI or Grand Jury, as in the Martha Stewart case (erased a tape if you remember), leaves you open to these type of convictions.
Bruce, V, NDT, TGC, et. al. I love you guys and you are often a rock of sensibility offering a handhold in wishy-washy liberal choppy waters. But when, in defending Libby and the commutation, you offer up the same arguments / defenses used by the Clintonistas during the impeachment process, I have to wonder if my rock has turned out to be a huge sea turtle ready to dive or swim away. Republicans are supposed to be the party that, above all, honored and respected the law. What happened?
UPDATE: I had written another comment at GP explaining further why I believe the guilty verdict was appropriate and te commutation was not… but it got lost somewhere between the pressing the send button and getting to the GP server. Since then I have had a couple of people comment on my blog concering the very issues I had written about. I will, in the comment section, summarise much of what was expresed in what was probably “The Best Damned Comment” I’d ever written.
Politics / Law Stuff | Sonicfrog July 6, 2007
No Comments to “On I. Lewis Libby… (UPDATED)”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By MarkR, July 7, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Libby was convicted because a politically driven, unaccountable Special Prosecutor was appointed for political reasons, (including having the Bush admin traduced in the run up to the elections), and had his case heard by a very left wing Judge, in front of a hand picked left wing Washington DC Jury. Who thought they were hearing a case about exposure of a covert CIA agent, and were not allowed to hear anything to the effect that whatsherface (Plame) was not covert, and was the wife of Richardson (who has lied non stop (see Senate hearing report), about the yellowcake, and encouraged his wife to persue this for political reasons), and the person who leaked (Armitage, a left wing State Dept bureaucrat), was never persued by the Special Prosecutor.
Given jail time for what was never proved to be worse than “misremembering”. No mens rea was ever established.
Sorry about all the brackets.
This case is a squalid example of how the judicial process has been politicised in the US, see the Duke Lacrosse team case for another example.
By Bob Meyer, July 7, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
It is not illegal to lie to an ordinary cop only if the statements that you make do not materially affect a prosecution. It is illegal to lie to a federal agent under any circumstances. There is no requirement that the statement materially affect the outcome of a case. Willfully telling a federal agent the wrong time is a punishable offense.
That law exists for one reason and one reason only: to allow prosecutors to use inconsistencies in someone’s statements and the threat of prosecution for lying as a lever to force people to confess to crimes that they never committed or to testify against others.
Martha Stewart was offered a plea bargain if she would admit to a crime she had not committed and face a lighter sentence than the one she got for lying to a federal agent. In what is today an unusual display of integrity, she refused the deal. Drug cases have been prosecuted with the testimony of witnesses who were given immunity from a charge of lying to a federal agent.
On the other hand, no prosecutor can be prosecuted for lying to a witness. Fitzgerald lied repeatedly, mostly by omission, in continuing an investigation long after he knew who leaked Plame’s name and even longer after he knew that the leak was not a crime. He immediately went into “look for the inconsistency” mode, i.e. the standard procedure of federal prosecutors, in order to bring down someone “big”. He didn’t care who because he knew that his career would be made if he could nail a congressman or a high ranking member of the Bush White House staff.
The fact that Libby was found guilty by a jury of his peers is meaningless since most juries convict or acquit on emotion not fact (the OJ case settled that matter). The fact that nothing he said would have changed the outcome of the investigation is what’s important. 30 months in jail for something that had no effect is ridiculous.
For me, Libby was a typical piece of political insider scum. I don’t really care if he serves 30 months or 30 years. The only issue that I care about is in insuring the integrity and honesty of the court systems in the US. With the federal lying statutes in place the court system has become an arbitrary and unjust power used against political enemies and unpopular individuals.
By sonicfrog, July 8, 2007 @ 6:34 am
First, I want to thank both of you for leaving a comment at my little corner of the “blogiverse”.
Mark, You echo Rush and Hannity very well. I have listened to both for a very long time (Rush since 94, Hannity since 2002ish) and know this angle of the argument. I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t hold water.
Did you read Orin Kerr’s rebuttal of the charges that Libby’s conviction was the result of a “politically motivated” judge and prosecutor? Fitz is a Bush appointee. He participated in the prosecution of United States v. Usama Bin Laden, et al., where the four that were charged and went to trial were convicted. He served on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee from 2001-2005. That would be under Bush appointee AG John Ashcroft. Sounds like a lib attorney to me. Yes, Fitzgerald did prosecute Republican Ill. Gov. in a bribery scandal, but that conviction looks legit and not the product of a political vendetta. Judge Walton’s record is more impressive, and even less liberal. He was appointed to various judicial positions by Reagan, G. H. W. Bush, and G. W. Bush. Without leaning on the Libby case, I don’t belive you can prove a strong liberal bias has influenced previous cases.
You say Libby was “Given jail time for what was never proved to be worse than “misrememberingâ€. No mens rea was ever established.”
If it were proven by the Libby defense team that this was just a simple case of “misremembering”, as the defense calls it, Libby would not be in jail. The defense simply and spectacularly failed to present a cogent defense.
The defense tried to pursue the “misremembering” defense by presenting two “memory experts”. The first was a complete disaster on the stand, and the other was barred from testifying due, in part, to the disastrous testimony of the first. There was only one other witness presented that tried to solidify the “misremembering” claim. The witness was a former deputy to Libby who said that Libby had a spotty memory. If this was truly the case, that Libby had a spotty memory, then there certainly should be more than ONE personal acquaintance who is aware of Libby’s memory problems.
Everyone has gotten caught up in the testimony of the reporters, but the more damning testimony came from the fellow White House staffers Mark Grossman, Ari Fleisher, and especially Cheney spokeswoman Cathie Martin. They all had several meetings with Libby between May and June of ’03, where Plames identity was discussed before he says he knew of it. If only one person had talked to Libby about Plame, then yeah, I think the “misremembering” defense could have been plausible. But this was a hot topic at the time, gaining a lot of attention. It is very hard to imagine a guy who has such an accomplished and distinguished career would forget these meetings. Libby is a lawyer, and not some schmoe on the street. He had plenty of advanced notice that he would be testifying in front of a grand jury, and he discuss what he would say with his lawyers. The would have grilled him over and over again to make sure he remembered every little detail he could. Again, I doubt the fact that these discussions would escape the mind of someone as capable as Libby.
It is always bad to promise a jury a robust defense, then give them nothing. If you recall, at the beginning of the trial, the defense said it would present to the jury two aspects of the case that would cast doubt on the government witnesses that testified against Libby. They were going to show that the White House was setting up Libby as a scapegoat to protect Karl Rove. They were also going to present both Libby AND Dick Cheney to cooberate Libby’s recollections of the events. The defense presented neither defense… because they couldn’t. Rove, who had already testified to the grand jury five time, solidified that he was being forthcoming, and putting either Libby or Cheney on the stand would more than likely, under cross examination, have done far more damage than good to Libby’s defense.
In the closing arguments the prosecution made damning reference to the “empty promises by the defense in their opening arguments”. The prosecution asks the jury:
They list all the witnesses who’s memory and notepad scribbles that contradict Libby’s testimony and ask: “Is it conceivable that all these witnesses would make the same mistake, the same error in their memory?”
I don’t think so, and neither did the jury.
Bob – you wrote:
…It is illegal to lie to a federal agent under any circumstances… That law exists for one reason and one reason only: to allow prosecutors to use inconsistencies in someone’s statements and the threat of prosecution for lying as a lever to force people to confess to crimes that they never committed or to testify against others.
This is demonstrably false. If the feds accuse you of a crime that you did commit, you claim innocence but get convicted regardless of your claim to innocence, then later admit to the crime, you can not be charged for lying to the feds. Also, there are stipulations that demand that the thing lied about is a material fact in an ongoing investigation. This is where Libby got himself into trouble.
By MarkR, July 8, 2007 @ 6:01 pm
Hi Sonic. Just saw this…..
Senators want Libby prosecutor to testify
Yahoo ^
Posted on 07/08/2007 11:35:16 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Senators want Libby prosecutor to testify
14 minutes ago
The Senate Judiciary Committee may seek testimony from controversial prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about the obstruction of justice case against vice presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby, two senators said on Sunday.
Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican member of the committee, said he wanted to hear from Fitzgerald because, “I still haven’t figured out what that case is all about.”
Libby, the one-time top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, was found guilty in March of obstructing an investigation into who blew the cover of a CIA analyst whose husband had criticized the Iraq war.
Libby was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison, but President George W. Bush commuted the sentence, angering many Democrats and some Republicans.
Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, has called for the Judiciary Committee to seek Fitzgerald’s testimony on the matter.
“Reluctant as I am to agree with Senator Schumer, I think he’s right,” Specter said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”
“Why were they pursuing the matter long after there was no underlying crime on the outing of the CIA agent? Why were they pursuing it after we knew who the leaker was?” Specter said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said that with Specter’s blessing, Fitzgerald would likely be called.
“If he has no objection to Mr. Fitzgerald coming forward, I think you may very well see Mr. Fitzgerald before the Senate Judiciary Committee,” Leahy said on the same CNN program.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com …
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862661/posts
By MarkR, July 8, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
Alternative title:
On “I, Scooter”
By sonicfrog, July 8, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
Mark, Thanks for coming back.
I have no problem with this latest development. Since this question has been raised by a lot of people, I think it does deserve some airtime. I suspect Fitz’s answer will be somewhat similar to the explaination given by Mr. Kerr.
PS. I hope you didn’t take the Rush / Hannity comment as a jab of some sort. I have been a pool and spa technician for 17 years, and have logged many driving miles listening to both R and H for a long, long time (we had Airhead America for a while – God, it was for the most part dreadful). They often make very good points when taking positions on this or that. But, they have also been fabulously wrong. Besides, because I’m a skeptic at heart, I take most of what I hear or read with a huge grain of salt until I can find out more by researching the cercumstances behind the subject.
PS. Off topic. I don’t think my spell checking is working.
By aaron, July 20, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
I would agree Libby’s sentance shouldn’t have been commuted, if it were more in line with Martha Stewart’s.