The Volokh Conspiracy

This is today's Investor's Business Daily editorial on Libby. It's a good one:

Justice: Late Monday came the welcome news that President Bush has commuted the 30-month prison sentence of former vice presidential aide Scooter Libby. It was the least he could do.

We've suggested before that it would be a good idea to give Libby a full pardon. After all, he was found guilty only after what was clearly a politically motivated trial during which he was charged with covering up a non-crime.

Libby's life and career have been exemplary. Yet, for misremembering some comments he made to journalists, he got 30 months in prison — a grave miscarriage of justice if ever there was one.

Is a full pardon coming?

We've often wondered why this farce, pursued with Ahab-like zeal by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, was even allowed to continue.

Libby's own defense team put it best in describing the trial as "unwarranted, unjust and motivated by politics." Even liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen called the prosecution of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff a "runaway train."

Fair-minded Americans look at the case and see there wasn't one to be made. So why was he pursued?

In a sentencing memo filed in late May after Libby's conviction, Fitzgerald made it clear Libby wasn't his real quarry at all. He wanted to show that Libby's disclosures to the media about former CIA spook Valerie Plame "may have been personally sanctioned by the vice president."

That couldn't be proved in court, of course. It was a giant fishing expedition. Nor could Fitzgerald prove the underlying charges he promised in 2005 when he first went after Libby.

At the time, he said he would prove Libby had violated the law by revealing Plame's identity. He didn't. But he did the next best thing: He took some of Libby's poorly remembered testimony and crafted around it a sham case of obstruction and lying.

Even some of the jurors who found Libby guilty on technical points of the law said they hoped he'd be pardoned.

Once this travesty occurred, it seemed clear Libby would do some hard time. The White House had kept quiet, perhaps fearing a fight with the Democrats that control both Congress and much of the political agenda of what remains of President Bush's second term.

Bush's political advisers no doubt told him any kind of leniency would have heavy political costs. So we congratulate him for commuting Libby's sentence, and hope he'll step up to the plate again when he leaves office and issue a full pardon.

There are a lot of scoundrels in the world. Libby isn't one of them.

He wanted to show that Libby's disclosures to the media about former CIA spook Valerie Plame "may have been personally sanctioned by the vice president."

That couldn't be proved in court, of course. It was a giant fishing expedition. Nor could Fitzgerald prove the underlying charges he promised in 2005 when he first went after Libby.

Well of course it couldn't be proved in court, because that was one of the elements of Fitzgerald's investigation that Libby obstructed by lying about the source of his information on Plame. What a remarkable "insight" by such a studiously neutral publication as the Investor's Business Daily.

Smokey,

I assume you favor pardons/commutations for all persons in federal prison who are not "scoundrels"? Can you elaborate more on your "scoundrel" test so we can tell which federal prison inmates should be freed and which ones should remain in jail?

I am reminded of the famous statement that the law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread. For the Bush Administration, even this is too even handed. Now we need a coda pointing out that as long as the rich are friends of the President, what the law forbids doesn't really matter at all.

By the way, I gather one of the beneficial effects for Libby of a commutation rather than a full pardon is that he can still pursue his appeal. And, of course, if that appeal doesn't work he can still be pardoned.

Odds are they commute now, pardon in December of '08....

One thing the piece above does not seem to mention is the fact that we had a jury verdict in this case. Even if this was a case with a zealous prosecutor, the jury system, as well as adversarial advocacy, is designed to protect against abuse. Of course, Bush gets around this by criticizing the sentence, not the jury verdict. It should be noted that Libby was given a sentence within the Guidelines. It's a bit ironic that Bush called Libby's sentence "excessive" while DOJ is calling for district court judges to depend more on Guidelines calculations, rather than utilize their own discretion under Booker. Seems rather hypocritical.

Of course, Bush could still pardon Libby, say at the end of his term. He could pardon Libby specifically or as part of some broader class. I don't think there's any legal reason why Bush couldn't even issue a blanket pardon for, say, any crimes committed by any member of his administration in the course of their duties. That would be unprecedented. It would be terrible for the rule of law, for his historical legacy if he has any hope of salvaging it, for the reputation of the United States, etc., etc. But not illegal. A lot of things I would have though would never happen in the United States have already happened. So who knows.

As I understand it, Bush's guidelines for commutation as promulgated by the DOJ require that the petitioner have started serving his sentence and have exhausted or abandoned all appeals. So, yes, I gather Bush has made a singular exception for someone who committed his crimes on behalf of Bush's Administration.

As I understand it, Libby was already being required to serve his sentence before his appeals had been exhausted. In which case it doesn’t seem like much of a deviation from a guideline which seems drafted for a situation in which someone isn’t yet serving a prison sentence because they’re still appealing their case.

Duncan,

Tongue firmly planted in cheek, I assume?

ATRGeek, that's a great quote from WaPo. So apparently the "scoundrel test" OK was asking for is simply whether the person is or is not "what people would, or should, think of as a criminal." It's crystal clear now.

I'm curious. How many of you scolds tut-tutting this decision by the President were equally outraged when it came to President Clinton's perjury? How many of you mourned "the rule of law" when he got off with a slap on the wrist?

Please!. This whole mean-spirited affair was partisan warfare by another means.

Commuting seems like an odd choice to me, given the general bluster about this being some sort of politically-motivated prosecution where no "real" crime was committed. If that's the case, why not just a full pardon? This is just admitting that, sure, he obstructed a federal investigation, but he shouldn't have to go to prison as a result.

I haven’t followed this story that closely but my understanding is that Libby is still appealing his case. It may be that he still hopes to win on appeal and get the conviction overturned in which case a pardon wouldn’t be necessary.

Henri LeCompte,

I'm curious: How could a criminal prosecution of a Bush Administration official by a Bush-appointed prosecutor and a sentence imposed by a Bush-appointed judge be "partisan warfare"?

That's an interesting point about Libby's law license; if we know that Libby will lose it, and we know that he planned to practice law again, then that is certainly an important difference. Can you tell us more about the likely effect of the conviction on his license? I don't know how the bar of Libby's jurisdiction is likely to deal with that.

Orin, Libby was licensed to practice in Washington DC and Pennsylvania per Wikipedia:

Lewis Libby is no longer listed as a "member" of the DC Bar, which revised its "Professional Rules of Conduct" on 1 February 2007, according to its "Bar News" section, both accessed 5 June 2007. On 3 April 2007, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals filed an "Order" ("In the Matter of I. Lewis Libby, Jr. ... Bar Registration No. 950758"), suspending Libby "immediately from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pending resolution of this matter [in United States v. Libby]," which the Office of Bar Counsel (DC Bar) received on 4 April 2007, directing it to "inform the Court if the matter is resolved without the necessity of further court action." In that order, "the Board directed the Bar Counsel to file a brief addressing whether [Libby's] crimes inherently involve moral turpitude." In its brief, filed on 24 April 2007, entitled "Statement of Bar Counsel", the DC Bar stated that his crimes did so and recommended to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsiblity that Libby "be disbarred pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-2503(a)," which reads "in pertinent part": "When a member of the bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude, ... the court shall, pending final determination of an appeal from the conviction, suspend the member of the bar from practice.... If a final judgment of conviction is certified to the court, the name of the member of the bar so convicted shall be struck from the roll of the members of the bar and such person shall thereafter cease to be a member." Pursuant to the policy on "Moral Turpitude" contained therein, it is also noted (n. 4) that Libby's "disbarment should be deemed to commence, for reinstatement purposes, on April 11, 2007, the date that [he] filed an affidavit in compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g)." The brief lists Libby's admission to practice law in that jurisdiction as 19 May 1978.

The Pennsylvania disciplinary board lists him as “inactive” but I wasn’t able to find any record of disciplinary action against him on their site.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of a source online for a sampling of pardon requests that were denied by President Bush? Given that he's denied so many, they might be interesting reading relative to the facts of Mr. Libby's case.

Crust,

And it is not like this is the first time a judge has given a longer sentence than the probation office recommended.

Orin's point is exactly right: President Bush made a unique exception for Libby, and for about the worse possible reason (that last bit is my addition).

If I understand the precedents correctly, a commutation allows Libby to continue to appeal the conviction while at the same time taking advantage of staying out of jail. If Bush had pardoned Libby, instead of commuting the sentence, then Libby would have had to assert the pardon to stay out of jail, and doing so would be an admission of guilt, precluding further appeals.

Burdick v. U.S. (pardon) and Biddle v. Perovich (commutation) are the two cases.

Brian G,

Um, no one has actually suggested that this was illegal (as far as I can tell).

ATRGeek:

And it is not like this is the first time a judge has given a longer sentence than the probation office recommended.

For sure. It's a pathetic argument for reducing the jail term by the extraordinary means of commutation. But at leasts it's an argument. Bush gives literally no argument for eliminating the jail term (as opposed to reducing it).

Nonetheless, I find Bush's action very troubling because of the obvious special treatment Libby received.

Hmm. I've run red lights when transporting someone bleeding from a seriously cut wrist to the hospital. Once I recall a helicopter landing right in the middle of the road, snarling traffic hideously, to transport a child involved in a sledding accident down a mountain.

It would appear that this troubling business of people doing unusual things in response to unusual circumstances is shockingly widespread.

I wonder if this commutation is any worse than Bill Clinton's pardon-for-money of Marc Rich. Oops, Clinton gave the money back, so no harm done. "I did not take any money from that man Mr. Rich."

Reckless.
But it fits with the War in Iraq.

Among other eye-brow raisers in the IBD article was this line:

Fair-minded Americans look at the case and see there wasn't one to be made.

The polls I've seen have opposition to a pardon at around 67%-72% and about 19% favoring a pardon. So, according to IBD, only about 19% of Americans are "fair minded"? Why does IBD hate America?

Lying about what?

Lying about the circumstances under which he learned of Plame's CIA employment.

It's all right there, in the court filings, if you care to look it up.

Thorley,

You're not correct. The purpose of the guidelines for a commutation is not to keep people who are out of jail from having their sentence commuting, otherwise the dual requirements of the guidelines would have been redundant. There is an actual benefit in allowing the judicial branch to rectify wrongs, and a parrallel acceptance of some minimal allowance of "suffering" as part of that comity.

One more: Hilzoy quotes Emptywheel:

""He commuted Libby's sentence, guaranteeing not only that Libby wouldn't talk, but retaining Libby's right to invoke the Fifth."

What's the word -- "heh"?

Thorley, Ken Starr was not Clinton-appointed

Lonetown, other than the vague reference to "some", is there anything, either factual OR logical, that supports ANY of your contentions?

Lonetown,

Great point. And the three-judge appellate panel, including two Republican appointees, unanimously denied bail because clearly they too believed Libby was likely to win on appeal.

Actually, while Robert Fiske was appointed by AG Reno, Kenneth Starr was appointed by the Special Division, a three-judge panel led by Judge Sentelle.

Sentelle, of course, is a Republican. By the way, he was also one of the three appellate judges who voted that Libby should not stay free on appeal.

dwa,

You might want to read Bush's statement before leaping to conclusions:

Bush Statement

By the way, it is an interesting issue where the BEST talking point is actually "Clinton did it!"

Ditto Brain G.

Fitzgerald continued a politically motivated investigation long after he knew the law in question had not been violated and long after he knew the person who had done the deed that was potentially unlawful was not Mr. Libby. One must ask why?

Fitzgerald's behavior after he new the essential facts smacks of police state behavior. What was he looking for after he knew no one had violated the law for which he was chartered to investigate? How many questions asked by how many investigators were necessary to get Mr. Libby to contradic himself or someone else?

I don't care who appointed him or how deep his Republican credentials were/are. His investigation was almost perfectly analogous to that of Nifong's

Charles, can we please stop comparing this to Clinton's Marc Rich pardon. It's ridiculous, it's like listening to a kid that got caught hitting another in a school yard whining that he should be allowed to cause "Bill did it yesterday."

Yes, Clinton did gave a poorly concieved pardon during his presidency to Rich, but doesn't make right for Bush to give a pardon to Libby.

It is reasonable to believe that Bush reasonably sees the prosecution of Libby as "political." Not political in the partisan sense that the prosecutor was motivated by animus toward Bush or Republicans, but political in the sense that the prosecution of Libby would not have happened under ordinary nonpolitical circumstances where a prosecutor has discretion as to what merits prosecution and no need to justify his assignment by taking on an unmerited or marginal prosecution in a given matter.

It is only because Libby worked for the Bush Administration (i.e., OVP) that he was pursued by a specially and specifically assigned prosecutor. It is only because of Bush's publicly announced demand that Libby had to answer any questions put to him by that prosecutor. And it is only under the microscope of such an investigation that such inconsistencies in memory and testimony would be prosecuted, with the inconsistencies of journalists and other Administration outsiders overlooked.

Thus it should not surprise us that Bush would see that commuting Libby's sentence is proper, and indeed morally obligatory for Bush.

Of course, Bush's opponents do not know, and cannot be expected to believe, that Bush's motives are pure. For those who believe that Cheney, Libby and Bush were engaging in a sinister outing conspiracy, this commutation is the latest chapter in their nefarious project.

Without knowing what is in Bush's conscience, we cannot know if his act today was morally upright -- required even -- or condemnable, and it is absurd for us to pretend otherwise, on either side, when we are all grasping at shadows.

a politically motivated investigation

Okay, I'll bite.

"Politically motivated" how?

Whose politics motivated it?

Explain, with actual references to the initiation of the investigation, how it was motivated by politics.

I'm all ears.

Riley,

Stellar point. Fitzgerald, the trial judges, the appellate judges--a pack of Nifongs the lot of them.

Hrm,

Spectacular point. Clearly the most likely possibility is that every single judge in question ignored their legal duties and left it to the President to take the heat instead. The most likely possibility is also that every single Republican appointee in question had drifted into deep liberal territory.

DWPittelli,

You do realize you are saying that it is reasonable to believe that President Bush lied in his commutation statement? I'm just checking.

And after all this....

1. We know that Valerie Plame was working undercover as a CIA agent.
2. Her cover was blown by someone in the White House, possibly for political reasons, but certainly for no legitmate reasons.
3. Blowing her cover puts her and all her contacts at risk, and certainly undermines our nation's national security.
4. Bush said repeatedly that if anyone in his administration leaked her name, he or she wouldn't be working for him anymore.
5. No one in the Bush Administration has taken any responsibility for this, and no one was fired.

And yet, we see Republicans and conservatives repeatedly defending all this behavior. They talk about Libby being pursued for political reasons, without any foundation, and yet when a CIA agent's cover is blown for politcal reasons, they remain silent. It's okay for US to do it, but not YOU.

This is what conservativism has come to mean nowadays. I hope you are all proud of yourselves....

Randy R, you also missed the fact that Plame (and her contacts) were working on Iranian WMD plans.

ATRGeek,
Please specify what you think a lie, and why.

Randy R,
Your claims are contentious half-truths. But even if we accept them, surely you must recognize that to the extent that Plame was undercover at the time, she was also outed by her own husband's reckless signed newspaper editorial?

DWPitelli,

I don't say President Bush lied. I said if he believed what you say he believed, then he lied in his commutation statement.

To wrap up a bit:

I think it is slowly dawning on Libby's defenders that President Bush's commutation statement does not support their standard talking points. So, it will be interesting to see how they react as that fact sinks in.

Counterfactual,
1. "Now we need a coda pointing out that as long as the rich are friends of the President, what the law forbids doesn't really matter at all."

You're a little late - the Marc Rich thread closed a couple years ago.

2. Re: Guidelines; lesssee, last time I looked, guidelines are just that, guides, not laws. They are meant to be ignored when they don't fit the situation. And if the President who defines the guidelines chooses ignore them because they didn't fit the situation, then what's the problem?

A sitution such as
- A special prosecutor, who very well may have been illegitimately appointed,
- knows early on who released the info at question (a person is certainly not a friend of the administration), but spends another couple years trying to pin something on the Vice President,
- never establishes that the crime for which he is appointed to prosecute ever happened -- (note that Valerie Plame was never shown to be a covert agent under the law; indeed, this deterimination seemed to be actively avoided by Fitz and the CIA).
- And a judge, allegedly republican or not, who screwed up by, among other things, permitting a witness who could undercut the prosecution's case to be excluded,
- And numerous notable scholars of law file amicus briefs noting the problems with the case...

Yes, the President might conclude there is a "special" circumstance here, and find it "troubling," and exercise the least amount of power to correct the injustice to Libby, but allow the judicial process to proceed.

And Steve: Fitzgerald couldn't show the VP or Libby exposed anyone, not because so-called obstruction by Libby, but because Armitage is the one who blabbed to the media. VP and Libby had nothing to do with that. They were legitimately reponding to her husbands lies in the newpaper editorial. And note that Valerie's covert status could not be exposed, because it apparently did not exist.

3. In evaluating the justice of the situation, it would be worthwhile to note that the genesis of the whole situation was that Valerie's husband:

- who clearly did get his gig to Niger because his wife was involved
- whose actual verbal report to the CIA, as determined by the 911 commission, did support the administration's suspicions about Saddam's intentions
- who used an editorial to lie about his report to the CIA to try to discredit the administration.

Wilson should have been prosecuted for revealing his classified report but of course if you actually lie about your report, you didn't actually release it, did you? Besides, under "Sandy Bergler" rules, you can steal and destroy actual classified information to protect a Democrat Prez, but if you try to defend a Republican Prez, whoa! There's a crime!

Boy, I have seen this comment on 5 blogs tonight, and several times here. The talking points got out fast. (By the way, as a response to my comment, I talked about the jury, not the prosecutors, etc.)

Excellent point. Not only did a Republican-appointed prosecutor seek Libby's imprisonment for political reasons, but a Republican-appointed trial judge sentenced him to prison for political reasons, and the Republican-appointed judges on the appellate panel denied him bail for political reasons.

I didn't even get past 1 - uhhhh....wanna elaborate on that one?

DWPitelli,

I think Bush's commutation statement clearly indicates that he believes that Libby was properly indicted for lying to investigators and the grand jury because "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."

If he instead secretly believed that "the prosecution of Libby would not have happened under ordinary nonpolitical circumstances where a prosecutor has discretion as to what merits prosecution and no need to justify his assignment by taking on an unmerited or marginal prosecution in a given matter," that statement would be a lie.

But let's turn it around: what in his commutation statement supports your view?

President Bush was NEVER going to let Scooter go to jail. The Bush family does not leave its wounded on the political battlefield. See Weinberger, Casper and Gonzolez, Alberto.

It is of course special treatment. It is a political act aimed at Libby's strong supporters. A way to bring them back a little into the fold after the immigration fiasco. No political downside, the President's ratings are as low as they can go.

It is naive to think that presidents and governors exercise their extraordinary powers based on clear eyed analysis of the legal and ethical pros and cons. Pardons and commutations of people in actual need of such are always political acts.

Nonetheless, I find Bush's action very troubling because of the obvious special treatment Libby received. President Bush has set a remarkable record in the last 6+ years for essentially never exercising his powers to commute sentences or pardon those in jail. His handful of pardons have been almost all symbolic gestures involving cases decades old, sometimes for people who are long dead. Come to think of it, I don't know if Bush has ever actually used his powers to get one single person out of jail even one day early. If there are such cases, they are certainly few and far between. So Libby's treatment was very special indeed.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you believe that Bush has been wrong in his unwillingness to be more liberal in his usage of the pardon. I get the impression that Bush has been very skeptical, both as Governor and as President, of overruling the judges and juries that made the call in the first place. Now, in a case he's close to, he has apparently come to believe that an injustice has been done, and feels he's obligated to right it.

Shouldn't you be happy that he's coming closer to your views on the appropriateness of the judicious use of his pardon powers?

She could never again work undercover in WMDs while known to be the wife of an ambassador researching WMDs.

HUH???

Wilson was neither active in the ambassadorial corps nor was he 'researching WMDs.' He was a former ambassador, currently businessperson/consultant, sent by the CIA* to check out a specific story about Saddam acquiring yellowcake from Niger. He was covering ground already covered by the then-official Ambassador to Niger, and came up with the same result.

BTW, why don't you look up that official Ambassador's husband, and tell me what he does for a living. Tell me if you can infer, from whatever information you find about him, whether he, too, is a covert op.

In fact, why not go whole hog? Check out all the ambassadors currently serving, and their spouses - and their kids, while you're at it - and tell me which of them is a covert op. Since you're so sure anyone could figure it out just with the facts available to the public.


*Valerie Plame's notes indicate that she was following up on a comment made previous to that meeting - not by her, but by another person in the Agency - suggesting Joe Wilson for the job. All she said was that he did have expertise and contacts in Niger, and that he might be helpful. She didn't say how he might be helpful, and in fact wasn't keen on him going to Niger himself; for all we know, shat she meant was that he could recommend someone else.

ATRGeek,

Bush agrees that perjury is serious, but he studiously uses the terms "Others" and "They" for the points specifically concerning Libby's guilt, because Bush does not choose to say that he thinks Libby is guilty:

"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."

Bush is no more attached to the position that Cheney is truly guilty than he was to the positions of Fitzgerald critics which he listed in the previous paragraph.

Granted, Bush likewise does not say that he thinks the prosecution was an overreach. I would not expect him to say so: He is not an idiot, and this was not an off-the-cuff remark, but rather a carefully crafted written statement.

Bush does say the sentence was excessive. It is not a lie for him to not list all the reasons for his thinking so.

Naturally different people will notice different statements and come to different inferences. For example, "I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department" is not obviously relevant to the commutation. It could have been put in there exclusively for PR purposes, or it could also be part of the reason for the commutation, as I believe.

CaseyL,

Pardon me for thinking a man's writing in the NY Times that he was in Africa researching attempted uranium purchases means he has outed himself as a researcher of WMDs, such that his wife might have trouble secretly doing so in the future.

Well, I've had enough fun mocking talking points for tonight, so I'll leave you good folks to it.

My Dear Anderson:

Re: "Politically motivated" how?


Joe Wilson started the politics by joining the Kerry campaign in May 2003 and writing an op ed for the NYT claiming that VP Cheney had sent him on a mission to Africa in 2002 to verify the Iraq sought nuclear materials from Niger. Wilson claimed in his op ed that there was no evidence in Africa that Iraq had sought nuclear materials.

Cheney went public to refute Wilson’s claims that Cheney sent Wilson and that no evidence was found of Iraq’s inquiries. Cheney revealed that Wilson’s wife, who worked for the CIA, had recommended that Wilson make the trip.

The politics here is that the Wilson – Plame axis in the CIA was and is anti-Republican and anti-Bush and was out to defame the Bush war decisions and to protect its own hide for delivering erroneous intelligence to the NSC and to Congress. Having Wilson go public was very useful to the CIA, especially the division where his wife worked — because it served to shift blame for failed "slam dunk" intelligence claims away from the agency. To say that Bush "twisted" intelligence was to presume — falsely — that the CIA had gotten it right.

Then Novak revealed that Wilson’s wife was named Plame, and Novak inferred that she was an agent.

Politics took over again when the NYT egged on by such objective observers as Chuck Shumer demanded an investigation. Eager to cover its tail again the CIA demanded a criminal probe too — and then itself broke the law by leaking that news.

The CIA obviously knew the facts of the case. CIA's entire referral was dishonest. It was political. The agency knew Plame wasn't a covert agent under the terms of the law, because she hadn't had an overseas posting in the past five years.

So the politics was that of Democrat operatives in the CIA, the NYT, the Senate, and possibly the State Department on a vendetta to get Rove, Cheney, and/or Bush. Had the investigation been able to prove that Cheney or Bush lied about the intelligence and/or purposely revealed the identity of a covert agent (thereby risking his/her life) for political purposes, Articles of Impeachment would have been next. It’s that simple.


And Randy R … after all this we know that:

1 V Plame was not a covert agent or operations officer under the law.

2 Her cover was blown by Richard Armitage of the State Department.

3 Blowing her cover did not put her at risk or anyone else at risk because her husband by writing the op ed could have put her affiliation at risk. He knew there was no risk.

4 Bush kept his word. R Armatage is not working for Bush anymore.

5 Libby was fired. Unfortunately, he was the wrong person.

Riley Still,

The problem with your narrative is you don't explain how the "Democrat operatives" in question got a Republican-appointed prosecutor and a series of Republican-appointed judges to go along with them.

Also, the CIA and Fitzgerald continue to allege that Plame WAS a covert agent under the law. The talking point that she was not has always been unfounded speculation.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you believe that Bush has been wrong in his unwillingness to be more liberal in his usage of the pardon. I get the impression that Bush has been very skeptical, both as Governor and as President, of overruling the judges and juries that made the call in the first place. Now, in a case he's close to, he has apparently come to believe that an injustice has been done, and feels he's obligated to right it.

Shouldn't you be happy that he's coming closer to your views on the appropriateness of the judicious use of his pardon powers?

If Bush feels "close to" this case, then it seems to me he has an obligation to feel close to lots of other cases that involve genuine hard luck cases. The chances Bush will do this with his remaining term in office are virtually zero, though.

I obviously cannot speak for Orin but I do believe the President should be more liberal in his pardoning power. However, he also has the obligation to be even-handed in the exercise of powers which he clearly was not. Selectively pardoning friends and supporters is worse than the status quo because, first of all, it is an affront to the principles of fairness and equality under the law. Second of all, most fair-minded people can agree that the Federal justice system can be particularly unforgiving and harsh in its treatment of people. To the extent that politically connected people get any kind of break from the rigid inflexibility of the system, it doesn't give them an incentive to press for reform. The less of a chance you have of being subjected to the rules you advocate for everyone else, the more likely you are to advocate harsh rules.

Finally, if Martha Stewart can do her time for lying to federal investigators, so can Libby. The commutation is downright offensive.

ATR. The covert agent under the law issue is one thing. But until Fitz or somebody explains the IIPA violations, there's nothing there.
Still's narrative certainly explains why the CIA insists--if they do, which to date they have not detailed--that Plame was covert. If they admit she was not, they have no beef with the administration in which they can make themselves look like the victims. This is Still's point, as I see it.
Read an article by a recent intel exec--Seabury or Codevilla, too late to go back and get it again but I may try tomorrow--to the extent that as recently as 2003, all the CIA's foreign sources turned out to be controlled by foreigners, which is not exactly what foreign sources is supposed to mean. IF this is even remotely the case, active CYA would be indicated. Libby is a victim.

ATRGeek:

Republicans always want to do the right thing, so when Ashcroft was accused of being a Bush appointee, and therefore not unbiased, he did the right thing and appointed an independent, some would say rogue, prosecutor. Once appointed the prosecutor had to get somebody. As for the judges, when the under-informed jurors said "guilty" the judges had to deliver a lesson to the "high and mighty."

Of course they continue to make such claims. That's part of the politics. If Fitzgerald could prove that law was broken, why didn't he??

So, Putin comes to America and Bush is determined to show him how a real democracy works, starting with the "Rule of Law." He then promptly demonstrates that the purpose of power is to use it to better your cronies - like Putin didn't already know that.

1 V Plame was not a covert agent or operations officer under the law.
2 Her cover was blown by Richard Armitage of the State Department.
3 Blowing her cover did not put her at risk or anyone else at risk because her husband by writing the op ed could have put her affiliation at risk. He knew there was no risk.
4 Bush kept his word. R Armatage is not working for Bush anymore.
5 Libby was fired. Unfortunately, he was the wrong person.

The problem with your list, Riley, is that your #1-3 are dead wrong. The CIA has insisted that Plame was an undercover operative at the time she was outed. Her cover was blown by at least 3 different people: Armitage, Rove, and Libby--the issue was whether or not her cover was blown illegally, which requires both knowledge of her status and malicious motive. During the questioning, Libby lied repeatedly and blatantly to investigators, making it impossible to determine whether the initial act was criminal or not. Because her cover was blown, everyone she ever worked with while undercover is now also exposed. And Joe Wilson did not out his wife in his op ed.

The problem with your list, Riley, is that your #1-3 are dead wrong

It is widely known that facts have a liberal bias. Your insistence on bringing facts to the discussion indicates that you have a liberal bias as well.

I'm amused to see Democrats whining about this commutation of a sentence for perjury. Let's see: when President Clinton did it in a civil case, it was okay because it was "about sex." But Libby perjured himself to cover up something that wasn't even a crime!

I do agree that Bush should have pardoned Libby, not commuted the sentence, if the reason was that the prosecution was politically motivated (as it appears to have been). I suspect that the goal was enable Libby to continue his appeals.

But Libby perjured himself to cover up something that wasn't even a crime!

Investigators don't know for sure if it was a crime or not, because Libby's cover up worked. They nailed him for the cover up, which they could prove in court.

Same thing happened to Alger Hiss. He was not convicted of spying, but of lying to investigators about his activities.

Clayton, nobody here suggested that Clinton's perjury was okay- will people please stop using Clinton's bad acts as justification for Bush's (or Libby, or anyone elses) bad acts, it's an embarrassingly weak argument.

Nor can I honestly understand how you think the prosecution was political- as many have previously pointed out he was prosecuted by a republican appointed prosecutor before republican appointed judges. Not to mention he was found guilty by a jury, which I hope your aren't suggested found him guilty for political reasons.

Also, are you seriously suggesting that it's okay to lie under oath- so long as it's not to cover up a crime. The problem with this of course is that the prosecutor frequently cannot prove the crime, because the perjury has covered it up.

dwp: "It would … be destructive of our national security to let false claims of dishonesty and malfeasance go unanswered."

You're claiming that when Bush's people (Libby, Rove and Fleischer, in particular) discussed Plame's CIA employment with reporters, that this was simply a legitimate effort to provide a "logical rejoinder" to Wilson's "false claims," and that this effort was necessary to protect our "national security."

Trouble is, all those folks insisted on standing behind a curtain. For example, Libby specifically instructed Judith Miller with regard to how he wanted his identity to be hidden. Simple question: why? If they believed there was nothing wrong with discussing Plame with reporters, and if they believed they were simply providing a "logical rejoinder" to Wilson, then why the secrecy? Why not just go on the record and say Wilson was wrong, and his trip didn't mean anything, because he had been sent on a junket by his wife?

If all this was the true and proper "rejoinder" to Wilson, and if Plame's employment status wasn't classified information, then why the hiding?

This question is seldom asked and never answered (as far as I can tell), so hopefully you or someone else here can solve the puzzle.

"... the problem with raising Rich is that no one here is offering to defend the Rich pardon."

Nor were there criticisms forwarded against the Rich pardon from certain partisan quarters, which gets more to the point since people now are presenting themselves as standing upon moral/legal principle, principle decidedly lacking from those same quarters when Clinton's 140+ pardons - including pardons for those who had been convicted of perjury, fraud and making false statements - were making news. In sum, I wouldn't make very much of either the Clinton or the GWB pardons and commutations, but that is more or less the point, especially so given players such as Joseph Wilson and R. Armitage and what they represent within the wider political soap opera. The entire country could use a pardon, a reprieve, from such machinations and antics.

Simple fact is, what the Pres. did today conforms to the spirit and the tenets of justice and mercy both, fully within respect for the rule of law.