The commutation--which is not a pardon and does not erase Libby's conviction--is a reminder that Bush and his crew do not believe in accountability. Bush has been rather stingy in the use of his pardon power. And regulations issued by his Justice Department note that recipients of pardons should serve their sentences and demonstrate contrition before obtaining presidential absolution. (Libby had expressed no remorse and was not scheduled to report to jail for several weeks.) Yet with this commutation, Bush ducked those requirements, and he is allowing Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, who was found guilty of lying to federal investigators in the CIA leak case, to go unpunished. The fine will be no problem for Libby. His neoconservative friends and admirers will kick in to cover that tab. (Perhaps even Cheney will send a check.)I have now seen Nixon pardoned, the Iran-Contra gang pardoned, and Mr. Libby's sentence commuted. I remain convinced that the Republicans believe that the law applies to others and order is what feathers their nest best. This from today's Washington Post editorial:
IN COMMUTING I. Lewis Libby's prison sentence yesterday, President Bush took the advice of, among others, William Otis, a former federal prosecutor who wrote on the opposite page last month that Mr. Libby should neither be pardoned nor sent to prison. We agree that a pardon would have been inappropriate and that the prison sentence of 30 months was excessive. But reducing the sentence to no prison time at all, as Mr. Bush did -- to probation and a large fine -- is not defensible.Both the Post's editorial and The Nation's report highlight the neoconservative attacks on Libby's trial and conviction. I do not get the comparisons to Clinton or to Sandy Berger. Clinton was impeached by the House but not convicted by the Senate. I do fully understand that the Republicans ought not be criticized for their outlandish support of this fellow as many of us Democrats were outlandish in our support of Clinton. On the other hand, Clinton lied in a deposition during a civil trial and Libby lied during an investigation into who outed a CIA agent. I do see a bit of difference between the contexts of the lies just as there is a difference between the actors. In the end, that comparison fizzles for me.
The Sandy Berger argument falls even flatter and faster. Berger enters into a plea agreement offered by the relevant United States Attorney. United States Attorneys, if one has forgotten or been asleep for the past three months, are appointed by the President. I presume the one making the plea offer to Berger was a Republican. The U.S. Attorney has the discretion to make his offers which the District Court judge lacks under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. Blame the Congress for the Sentencing Guidelines, blame the U.S. Attorney for his poor judgment in making plea offers, but the Berger case offers no good grounds for dealing with Libby. Unless, of course, those same voices raging on about Libby's mistreatment now want to reform the federal Sentencing Guidelines. Considering Mr. Libby's friends, I doubt they care about anything other than protecting one of their own from the snares they set themselves. After all, how often have these people attacked or opposed any such leniency for another lawbreaker?
Comments for this post
