From the start, the case was only marginally about Libby. What was really on trial was the whole culture of an Administration that treated the truth as a relative virtue, as something it could take or leave as it needed. Everyone knows now that Bush and Cheney took the country into a deadly, costly and open-ended war on flimsy evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Yes, Congress went along. And yes, the public on balance supported it. But no one was more responsible than the Vice President for pushing the limits of the prewar intelligence that did all the convincing. And when former ambassador Joseph Wilson questioned the credibility of that intelligence — and the motives that helped polish it — it was Cheney who led the fight to bring him down.
Republican lawmakers must be furious each time the Vice President goes out on the stump and makes outrageous comments, like the kind this week. Incidents like that make it more difficult for the GOP to get its message across. All Cheney gets them is negative publicity.
On Fox News Sunday, Juan Williams did what he does each week -- act as the only liberal on the round-table panel and hold his ground against three conservatives. This week, he rebutted a call by neoconservative William Kristol for Bush to pardon Scooter Libby:
KRISTOL: He needs to pardon Libby now. I think that would actually reinvigorate his supporters, and show that he's willing to fight to defend his people and defend the war that he led us into.
WILLIAMS: Well, it would certainly be a demonstration of loyalty. But to you think that it would also be a demonstration of lack of fealty to the idea of law under a constitution when you obstruct justice and lie under oath? I mean, it reminds me of giving medals of freedom to George Tenet and Paul Bremer after that fiasco in Iraq. You just say to your friends, "It's okay, you get a 'get out of jail free card.'" I don't think that's a way you should run a country.
Even though conservatives like Kristol want Bush to pardon Scooter Libby immediately, it would be illegal under . According to the Justice Department, rules "require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years afterconviction or release from confinement beforefiling a pardon application..."
In other words, the decision over whether to pardon Scooter Libby would need to be done by the next president, not the current one.
It would be against the law for President Bush to pardon Scooter Libby -- maybe all the more reason to suspect that he will. All jokes aside though, the latest issue of explains why, legally speaking, Bush can have no say in Libby's destiny:
Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief ofstaff does not qualify to even be considered for a presidential pardonunder Justice Department guidelines.
...Those regulations, which are discussed on the Justice Department Web site at ,would seem to make a Libby pardon a nonstarter in George W. Bush’sWhite House. They “require a petitioner to wait a period of at leastfive years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever islater) before filing a pardon application,†according to the JusticeWeb site.
Still, Bush could issue an Executive Order that would overturn this Justice Department policy.
Sorry for the pessimism. It's only reality though -- at least until we get a new president.
Scooter Libby was convicted on four of the five counts, meaning he could get up to 20 years in prison. But don't count on it. Instead, Cheney's former Chief of Staff will likely get a reduced sentence -- which could work out to between one and a half and three years of jail time. But again, don't count on it.
Even though Libby is a guilty man, a few things are about to happen. Libby's lawyer, Theodore Wells, is . Although he may not ultimately get his wish, according to the , Libby's legal team is expected to delay the sentencing process as long as possible -- even past November of 2008. And remember, before this President leaves office, one final round of executive pardons will be handed out. Even if Libby is sentenced in the waining hours of the Bush presidency, expect this commander-in-chief to get one last laugh at the expense of Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame and our rule of law.
What the title says is true: Scooter Libby will not see a day of federal prison. This President is above the law. He has been above the law ever since his daddy's friends won him a White House vacation in court. It is only fitting that this President would ride off into the sunset in 2009 in that same fashion.
Patrick Fitzgerald stared a giant in the face and, with the public by his side, refused to back down. But if the Administration can get away with with the snap of the hand, then they can sure ignore one as well.
Credit Scooter Libby's defense team with one thing: they are uncovering a lot of dirt today about how the Administration became obsessed with Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame -- and were determined to out everything they could about them.
Here was how former White House Press Secretary to Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus in July of 2003:
Pincus, a veteran national security reporter, said he was talking toFleischer for a story about weapons of mass destruction. He saidFleischer "suddenly swerved off" topic and asked why Pincus continuedto write about Wilson.
"Don't you know his wife works for the CIA as an analyst?" Pincus recalled Fleischer saying.
Then, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage did the same thing -- this time during a taped interview with Bob Woodward. This happened in June of 2003:
Armitage mentioned several times, in sometimes explicit terms thathad to be redacted, that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife was aweapons of mass destruction analyst for the CIA.
"His wife is at the agency and is a WMD analyst," Armitage said on the tape.
Both of these leaks occurred before the well-known article by Robert Novak.
If Scooter Libby has any chance of not being found guilty, it would be because of 's testimony this week. Mitchell is a Foreign Affairs Correspondent at NBC. Libby's lawyers claim Mitchell said in an interview a few years earlier that she knew about Plame's identity before Robert Novak wrote his infamous . But recently, Mitchell retracted her statement. She is fighting the effort by Libby's lawyers to get her to testify.
Why is that important? Scooter Libby said he learned about the identity of Valerie Plame from the media. Fitzgerald, on the other hand, is trying to prove that Libby learned about Plame from official government sources. The summarizes the pivotal week ahead in the Libby case:
Plame was outed in a July 2003 syndicated column. Three monthslater, Mitchell said in a television interview that she had known Plameworked for the CIA before the column.
"It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community," Mitchell said.
Mitchell has since recanted those comments and has said she can't explain them.
Though the comments seem to bolster Libby's case, it's unclearwhether his attorneys will be allowed to play them for jurors.Attorneys are not normally allowed to present hearsay evidence or callwitnesses simply to do so.
Mitchell is challenging a subpoena to testify in the case. A federal judge said he will hear arguments on the issue Monday.
In addition to Mitchell, attorneys have said several otherjournalists are expected to testify this week: New York Times managingeditor Jill Abramson, Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas,and Bob Woodward, Walter Pincus and Glenn Kessler from the WashingtonPost.
over at AmericaBlog uncovers what the Libby trial has told us about Cheney's role in the run-up to the Iraq war.
David Shuster of MSNBC described Patrick Fitzgerald's testimony today, which revealed the extent of Cheney's involvement in the intentional outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame:
Scooter Libby even destroyed a note that proved Cheney's role in the leak. Libby was definitely out to protect his boss.
Interestingly, Libby's lawyers in their opening statement -- an effort to make Libby look like a victim:
Attorney Theodore Wells said Libby went toCheney in 2003 and complained that the White House was subtly blaminghim for leaking Plame’s identity to columnist Robert Novak.
“They’retrying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb,†Wellssaid, recalling the alleged conversation between Libby and Cheney. “Iwill not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected.â€
Sorry, but that is not a good defense. Fitzgerald obviously had the upper hand today.
The judge is giving Patrick Fitzgerald a way out of the case (even though the case should be a slam dunk).
Think of it this way: no matter what, Scooter Libby will not be going to jail. If wins the perjury case against Scooter Libby, then President Bush is expected to pardon Libby. Or, Mr. Fitzgerald could just wimp out. This week, the judge gave the prosecutor that option, allowing him to dismiss the case if it :
The judge in the CIA leak case ruled Thursdaythat if Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald feels that admitting certainclassified documents at the upcoming trial of I Lewis "Scooter" Libbycan jeopardize national security, Fitzgerald can then move to dismissthe perjury charges against Libby.
JudgeReggie Walton cannot automatically allow classified materials to beadmitted at trial. He first must go through a series of closed hearingsunder CIPA regulations. CIPA, the Classified Information ProceduresAct, protects and restricts the discovery of classified information ina way that does not impair the defendant's right to a fair trial. Italso allows the government to propose a redacted version of aclassified document as a substitution for the original, having deletedonly non-relevant classified information.
Fine then. Give the grand jury a "redacted version" of the classified information. Either way, this trial shouldn't end, otherwise it sets a lawless precedent. Any charged public official whose case deals with classified information would be deemed too "nationally sensitive" and could "jeopardize national security." Is that a good precedent to set?
In other words, the judge is saying that protecting all classified information -- even though some is less important than others -- is more important than fully prosecuting those who misuse an institution of trust.
On Fox News Sunday, Editor of the Weekly Standard that Scooter Libby should be pardoned because it would cause a discussion that would divert attention away from the issues that voters are concerned about in this election season:
Bush should pardon Libby. He should do it now. It would be fantastic.The democrats would go crazy. We could have a debate for two monthsabout whether one should criminalize what was a totally innocentattempt to respond to, as Juan said, a mendacious critic of theadministration.
William Kristol is apparently the leading voice of the neoconservative movement. It's interesting how someone in a political movement that has proclaimed itself to be strong on national security would advocate pardoning someone who lied to a grand jury about his role in the leak of a CIA operative whose job it is to protect this country. Neoconservatives also believe the Wilsonian idea that liberalizing and democratizing the world automatically leads to peace. If that is so, then why would a neoconservative like Kristol want U.S. voters to be diverted and preoccupied during an election season? That is intriguing, especially from a man who has said to love democracy. ------------------------------------------------ Other sites blogging about this story: , , , , , , .
Long-time Republican operative Mary Matalin hosted a mega fundraiser for indicted Bush official Scooter Libby in an effort to help raise money for his defense fund. The Countdown's very own Keith Olbermann narrated the video of the red carpet walk, which included many of the GOP's top Washington corruption A-listers who showed up at the event:
---------- Partial Transcript ----------
OLBERMANN: "There's Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesman, looking dashing in a blue shirt and big tie. Libby Defense fund organizer Barbara Comstock, ravishing in white. Here's former Congressman Bob Livingston, who was forced to abandon his Clinton-era bid for Speaker of the House after his mistress was outed. And look, the President's former media advisor Mark McKinnon, sporting the casual look. Even the former Secretary of Energy..Spencer Abraham in a natty brown suit. We also have Republican strategist Charlie Black, joking with our camera man, that hostess Mary Matalin was there to park the cars -- she kissed him hello regardless. And the guest of honor, Scooter Libby himself, showing up early..as a bear in a Japanese period piece novel."
I thought the funniest part was reporter David Shuster explained why one of the attendees in particular decided to donate money to Scooter Libby's defense fund:
SHUSTER: "One of them, who is a very wealthy, longtime friend of Scooter Libby's said he was simply helping out a friend, who as he said, is now in the ditch. This particular donor said that he hadn't read any of the pleadings in the case, and was simply helping out a friend, and pointed out that he would not have given money to Scooter Libby if Libby had been charged with theft or greed."
That donor can be added to the long list of Republicans that think obstruction of justice is not an extremely serious crime. But back in October, special prosecutor that obstruction of justice is like throwing sand in the face of an umpire that is trying to make a hypothetical call about the truth:
FITZGERALD: "And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice,the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He's trying to figure whathappened and somebody blocked their view...Sowhat you were saying is the harm in an obstruction investigation is itprevents us from making the fine judgments we want to make...I also want to take away from the notion that somehow we should take an obstruction charge less seriously than a leak charge...Thisis a very serious matter and compromising national security informationis a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of whathappened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence,by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need toknow the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie,obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime."
Most legal experts agree that not even money can alter the dismal situation that Libby is in as far as his defense is concerned. At the same time, there is growing speculation that even if Scooter Libby is found guilty, .
Recent Comments