Pardon for Scooter Libby?

Libby: The Perception. The Reality.

2009-01-13T10:42:00.001-06:00

Clarice Feldman has written a piece at The American Thinker which argues Scooter Libby is "an innocent man." Feldman notes that "most of what people believe" about Libby was "proven wrong at trial." He did not leak the CIA employment of Valerie Plame and he did not lie to cover his leaking. Indeed, Feldman notes, Libby "was acquitted of the only charge before the jury that he leaked her identity to reporters and lied about it."

Libby was, instead, convicted "for his recollection of what a reporter told him -- a part of a phone call with reporter, Tim Russert, in which the prosecution maintained Plame was never mentioned."

The Prosecution first claimed that Libby lied about his Russert conversation to conceal his real source -- the Vice President -- for the information about Plame. This was what the Prosecutor, in his famous phrase, called "the cloud over the Vice President." But the uncontested evidence at trial -- evidence that even the Prosecution admitted to be true -- demolished this claim. Libby had told the investigators about his conversation with the Vice President from the very first time that he testified. In addition, uncontested evidence at trial showed that just after he spoke to Russert, Libby had a separate conversation in which he learned that the media was talking about Plame's CIA employment. So Libby had no need to make up anything about Russert.

Feldman recognizes that Libby and Russert did have differing versions of their conversation when asked about it several months later. But the FBI recorded Russert telling them that he could have told Libby. At trial, Russert testified that he had not said that to the FBI! As a result, Feldman says, "there was plenty of evidence [that] either Russert or Libby could be innocently wrong in their recollections months later of this brief call." She also notes:

But Libby also argued persuasively that he could be innocently wrong. Uncontested evidence at trial showed that Libby had several conversations with other reporters who knew about Plame and were asking White House officials about her at the time. Evidence at trial showed that Libby, months after the fact, could have innocently confused one of these conversations with his conversation with Russert.

Thus, it was notable that Libby "tried to introduce expert evidence about the frequency and causes of memory errors, a topic on which the scientific community has made great progress in recent years." Instead, he "was not allowed to call a single memory expert to testify in his defense." See the entire editorial here.

Thomas Sowell on Libby

2009-01-11T10:00:00.001-06:00

Thomas Sowell has written a piece for National Review that calls for the pardon of Scooter Libby. it is entitled, "Manufacturing a Crime." In about the clearest explanation you will ever see of the case, Sowell writes:

[Libby] testified under oath that he had not leaked to reporters the information that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, but had in fact learned about it himself from reporters, including Tim Russert. Unfortunately for Scooter Libby, there was testimony from Tim Russert that he himself did not know that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA at the time of his conversation with Libby. Perhaps even more damaging, the White House’s own press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said that Libby mentioned to him that Ms. Plame worked for the CIA. This was a few days before Libby talked with Russert. It seems clear that Libby had his facts wrong.

But, as Sowell notes, the conversations at issue took place 8 months earlier and, while it is a crime to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent, Plame was no longer an "undercover agent, her identity having already been revealed long before this whole episode." She was just "someone with a desk job."

The only reason Plame's name became important, was because her husband attacked the administration for going to war in Iraq. Sowell notes Joe Wilson became an "instant hero to critics of the Iraq war in the mainstream media." In addition, "the impression was widespread that the Bush administration — specifically Vice-President Dick Cheney — had sent him to Niger and then rejected his report." What Libby and others discovered was that Wilson had been sent by the CIA, on the recommendation of his own wife, Valerie Plame.

Columnist Robert Novak revealed all of this in a July 2003 editorial and the immediate response was that "a CIA agent had been 'outed' in retaliation for her husband’s criticism of the administration." Sowell observes that the problem with that spin was 1) no crime had been committed and 2) both Novak and the person that he got the information from - Richard Armitage - were critics of the war. Novak and Armitage walked. Libby took the fall.

Says Sowell:

As someone who has any number of times had his memory corrected by consulting old records or old letters, I don’t think a man’s life should be ruined for that, when there was no crime to investigate in the first place. Surely President Bush can pardon this man before leaving office.

See Sowell's full editorial here.

WSJ Says "Pardon Scooter Libby"

2008-12-22T22:31:00.001-06:00

The Wall Street Journal is calling on President Bush to grant a full and unconditional pardon to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Doing so, says the Journal, will "improve" Bush's "legacy" and undo "a measure of the injustice inflicted on" Libby. Going further, the Journal says President's 2007 commutation of Libby's prison sentence "reflected poorly on the President," who "treated Mr. Libby at a chilly arm's length."

Of course, it is now well known that Libby did not "leak" Valerie Plame's name to journalist Robert Novak - Richard Armitage, who was never prosecuted, did. The Journal adds that based on "the trial record" and "long experience" with Mr. Libby, it is safe to say that he did not lie. His memory simply "faltered in recalling the details of long ago conversations." It is also noted that Libby's lawyers "attempted to call an expert on memory as a witness at the trial, but the judge refused on the remarkable grounds that everyone knows about memory." As a result, "an honest man became the fall guy in a larger political war over the war." See full editorial here.

CNN Reports Something "May" Have Happened!

2008-11-17T09:34:00.005-06:00

CNN is reporting that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby "may - that's right MAY - have filed a request for a pardon from President Bush." The reports originates with CNN's Sonny Hostin - a "legal analyst" -who cites no evidence that this "may" have happened and provides no information on when it may have happened. Hostin also fails to cite a single source for the information. That is what counts as "reporting," or "legal expertise" at CNN. But the report by Hostin is actually even worse than that. It is said that George W. Bush has granted fewer pardons than any other president (False). Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon bonanza is described as "typical" (False). Marc Rich's wife was Denise Richards (False). LOL. See "story" and video here.

Stevens No Libby

2008-10-28T22:55:00.000-05:00

Because the President's critics are eager to suggest that he just might pardon anyone (in order to enjoy the fumes of their own speculation), there are those who are lumping recently convicted Ted Stevens with Scooter Libby. Perhaps the president will grant another commutation of sentence, as he did for Libby, even before Stevens is sentenced! But this can't even pass the feint smell test, at least not with anyone familiar with Stevens and Libby and/or the manner in which they are perceived.

Consider what National Review wrote about Mr. Libby in March of 2007:

President Bush should pardon I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. The trial that concluded in a guilty verdict on four of five counts conclusively proved only one thing: A White House aide became the target of a politicized prosecution set in motion by bureaucratic infighting and political cowardice ... Early in the investigation, deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage informed investigators that he had told Novak about Mrs. Wilson (although he left out the fact that he had also leaked to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward). But like the savvy bureaucratic infighter that he is, Armitage kept quiet publicly, allowing the vice president’s office to take the heat for something he had done ... There should have been no referral, no special counsel, no indictments, and no trial. The "CIA-leak case” has been a travesty. A good man has paid a very heavy price for the Left’s fevers, the media’s scandal-mongering, and President Bush’s failure to unify his own administration. Justice demands that Bush issue a pardon and lower the curtain on an embarrassing drama that shouldn’t have lasted beyond its opening act.

Now consider what what National Review said about Senator Stevens back in July:

From a legal standpoint, Stevens deserves the benefit of the doubt — but not from an ethical standpoint ... [He] should have known better. His situation is complicated by his well-deserved reputation as one of the worst pork-barrel spenders in Congress. Stevens is notorious for his ability to secure earmarks for his home state ... It might be easier to count the public buildings in Alaska that aren’t named after him or his fellow porker, Alaska’s sole representative in the House, Don Young. That the two men are Republicans has been a source of consternation to fiscal conservatives in the party ... The question is not whether Stevens should resign, but whether he should resign now or after Alaska’s August 26 primary ... Stevens should allow the voters to pick his replacement. He should resign, and the sooner the better.

Walton on Libby and Media Reviews

2008-09-26T20:34:00.002-05:00

The Blog of the Legal Times has a piece on U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, who is now "reflecting" on his career. Walton recently told a group of judges that he was "warned" from the outset of the Scooter Libby trial that Mr. Libby "would never be made accountable for what he did if he were convicted.” Walton did not explain how such (solicited?) commentary, in any sense, represented a "warning" of any type. Nor did he indicate whether or not he shared that opinion from the outset. He only noted that a colleague who had "handled a similar case" encouraged him to simply do his "job." Walton added:

“If we want the American citizenry to respect our system of justice, people have to feel that regardless of who you are, that when you come into a courtroom you’re going to be treated equally.”

Interestingly, Judge Walton also discussed media attention and public opinion. He suggested many were expecting him to show favor to Libby and that the media were "taking some shots" at him. But PardonPower recalls no commentator of even moderate stature expecting Walton to show favor. Indeed, he was well known as a strict-sentencing type. There were no expectations so much as there were questions. Given that, where in the world was Walton looking to see such expectations? After sentencing, he felt as though he was "the darling" of liberal media and the recipient of "negative" editorials from the Wall Street Journal.

Seeing how sensitive Walton was to the opinions of his colleagues and the expectations and reactions of the media, one wonders how much his decision making may have been affected by such non-legal considerations. See story here.

Cheney and Libby

2008-08-31T09:13:00.001-05:00

It is that time again, when the media begin to contemplate how the administration's key players are contemplating their own "legacy." See, Clinton wasn't really all that long ago, was he? A piece on Dick Cheney that is out and about today and it contains this passage:

... Cheney declined to be interviewed. But those close to him say he approaches retirement with neither reticence nor eagerness, but rather with a Zen-like confidence that even his most controversial moves, like his stance in favor of domestic wiretapping, have been necessary to keep the country safe

... [He]remains furious over the conviction of his former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., after a trial that depicted the vice president as the orchestrator of a scheme to discredit a critic of the Iraq war. Alan K. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, said Cheney regarded the trial as "a grievous distortion," and would most likely press Bush to pardon Libby.

See story here.

Obama Blasts His Own Tactics

2008-07-31T17:02:00.003-05:00

Today, Democratic presidential candidate Obama is addressing Republican John McCain's use of Paris Hilton in an ad. Says Obama (to a crowd):

You would think we would be having a serious discussion about issues, but, so far, all we have been hearing about is, Paris Hilton ...

I have to ask my opponent, "Is that really the best you can come up with?"...

Is that what the American people deserve? ...

For a revew of Obama's long-standing, constant use of Paris Hilton as a means to discuss serious matters throughout the campaign, see:

Obama Goes "Serious" on Libby - 10/1/2007
Obama Back in the Scooter Groove - 10/8/2007
Obama, Paris Hilton and Scooter (Libby) - 10/11/2007
Obama Gets Serious: Part II - 11/3/2007

McCain Returns Obama's Hilton Fun

2008-07-31T11:21:00.003-05:00

From the Washington Times:

The RNC this morning sends around Dana Bash's CNN blog about Paris Hilton and Barack Obama, where she notes that it's not the first time the superstar has been used in a political way. She writes:

John McCain is facing criticism from many Democrats for likening Barack Obama to Paris Hilton, but the Illinois senator made the same comparison himself at a dinner in 2004. "Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame," then Senator-elect Obama said at a Gridiron dinner in December, 2004. "I've already had an hour and a half. I mean, I'm so overexposed, I'm making Paris Hilton look like a recluse."

Of course, poor Paris has come up a bunch of times on the campaign trail, I realized as I went digging through my notes.

Perhaps the most famed reference was when Obama campaigned in Iowa and brought up the blond diva when railing against President Bush's pardon of Scooter Libby.

He'd say: "Even Paris Hilton got some jail time!"

See complete post here.

The Times: No Libby Application

2008-07-19T01:06:00.001-05:00

Charlie Savage of the New York Times has written a very general piece on the pardon power and the Bush administration. He begins by noting applications for pardons and commutations are "at historic levels" and, among those seeking clemency are Michael Milken, Randy Cunningham, Edwin W. Edwards, John Walker Lindh and Marion Jones. But Savage also reportst that the Justice Department has not received clemency applications from Scooter Libby, Jack Abranoff, Bob Ney, George Ryan, Conrad Black, Martha Stewart or border patrol agents Compean and Ramos. See full Times article here.

Book Tour Goes to Congress

2008-06-20T09:59:00.002-05:00

The Dallas Morning News reports that Scott McClellan has told Congress that he is "not sure" if any administration officials committed a crime by revealing Valerie Plame's identity to journalists. And the former White House press secretary is "not sure" if there was a cover-up. Perhaps he has just not had enough time to think it over, or he is trying to develop some inside contacts to the highest reaches of power. The cynic might have expected both the thinking and the conclusion before the printing of McClellan's new book.

But, after hundreds of pages of writing, McClellan is certain that he was very "disappointed" at the president's decision to commute the prison sentence portion of Libby's sentence for obstruction of justice. It is also reported that McClellan will be even more disappointed if Libby ends up with an outright pardon, "because the Bush he knew as governor and president always insisted on two things for a pardon: repayment to society and expression of remorse." Says McClellan, "We have seen neither of that from Scooter Libby."

God help the President if a federal prisoner is proven innocent by DNA. McClellan will be out there demanding "repayment to society and expression of remorse!" Notably, the self-righteous tizzy features not the slightest amount of disappointment that so much time, energy, effort and money went into an investigation where there may or may not have been a cover up, or even a crime. Nor is there any expression of remorse that Richard Armitage, the original leaker, was in no way punished for his behavior. Scotty, Scott, Scotty.

PardonPower is shocked and dismayed with Mr. McClellan, and deeply disturbed that the glass casing on his disappointment radar screen is so fogged-up. See story here.

Congress Supports Book Tour

2008-06-09T22:23:00.002-05:00

Jason Leopold at the Public Record reports Scott McClellan "has agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee next week about the White House’s role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame." John Conyers, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has "extended an invitation" to Mr. McClellan to "testify." Conyers also says, "Mr. McClellan suggests that senior White House officials may have obstructed justice and engaged in a cover-up regarding the Valerie Plame leak. This alleged activity could well extend beyond the scope of the offenses for which Scooter Libby has been convicted and deserves further attention.”

Leopold suggests, however, that the White House "may assert executive privilege and attempt to block McClellan from testifying." Very juicy. But boring.

Leopold also refers to a passage in What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and the Culture of Washington Deception that McClellan jas discussed on the talk show / interview circuit. It described how Karl Rove had a "private" meeting “Scooter” Libby in 2005. Rove has publicly responded that he and Libby had dozens and dozens of such meetings. What of it?

Mclellan also alleges in that President Bush authorized the leak of the highly classified National Intelligence Estimate to reporters to discredit Ambassador Wilson who challenged the truthfulness of Bush’s pre-invasion claims. It appears Mclellan does not distinguish between a leak and declassification of information.

If you are looking to learn more information about the individual who actually leaked Plame's name, this is not the article for you. Richard Armitage is not mentioned all. See Public Record post here.

Novak All Over McClellan

2008-06-02T12:40:00.001-05:00

Robert Novak has written an editorial covering some of the more obvious flaws in Scott McClellan's new presentation of history, but also provides the kind of great detail that only a person like Novak can provide. Here are some portions of the piece:

In Scott McClellan's purported tell-all memoir of his trials as President George W. Bush's press secretary, he virtually ignores Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's role leaking to me Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA employee.
... In claiming he was misled about the Plame affair, McClellan mentions Armitage only twice.
... On page 173, McClellan first mentions my Plame leak, but he does not identify Armitage as the leaker until page 306 of the 323-page book -- then only in passing. Armitage, anti-war and anti-Cheney, cannot fit the conspiracy theory that McClellan now buys into. When Armitage after two years publicly admitted he was my source, the life went out of Wilson's campaign. In "What Happened," McClellan dwells on Rove's alleged deceptions as if the real leaker were still unknown.
... He omits Armitage's slipping Mrs. Wilson's identity to The Washington Post's Bob Woodward weeks before he talked to me. He does not mention that Armitage turned himself in to the Justice Department even before Patrick Fitzgerald was named as special prosecutor.
... McClellan writes, "I don't know" whether the leaker -- he does not specify Armitage -- committed a felony. He ignores that Fitzgerald's long, expensive investigation found no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, if only because Plame was not covered. Nevertheless, McClellan calls the leak "wrong and harmful to national security" -- ignoring questions of whether Plame really was engaged in undercover operations and whether her cover long ago had been blown.
... The bland book proposal McClellan's agent unsuccessfully hawked to publishers early in 2007 is not the volume now in bookstores. How and why McClellan changed is a story so far untold.

See the full Novak editorial here.

Libby a Campaign Issue?

2008-05-31T19:11:00.003-05:00

It is fairly common to see comments on blogs suggesting that there is no way that Scooter Libby will (or should be) an issue in the presidential election. I suppose much depends upon how one defines what an "issue" is. I do know this: Americans are notorious for forgetting notorious "controversial" pardons of the very worst sort with great speed. As a result, if pardons were ever an issue in previous presidential campaigns, then it would be forgotten as well. How many people remember the first presidential debate of October 6, 1996? A portion of it went like this:

DOLE: Well, I'm really encouraged to know of your renewed friendship with Al D'Amato and I know he appreciates it. You didn't even have tax cuts in your budget, Mr. President, first two years you were president. It wasn't until we had a Republican Congress that you'd even thought about -- you talked about tax cuts. And getting back to personal differences. I don't -- you know, if, Jim, if you're a little more specific. But I think the president could clarify one thing tonight and that's the question of pardons. I know you talked about it on the Jim, the Jim Lehrer, on the PBS show and I've never discussed Whitewater, as I've told you personally. I'm not discussing Whitewater now. But I am discussing a power the president has to grant pardons and, hopefully, in the next segment you could lay that to rest.

CLINTON: Well, first of all, you know, he made that remark about Senator D'Amato. He's arranged for me to spend a lot more time with Senator D'Amato in the last couple of years, and so I'm more familiar with his comments than I used to be. I -- let me say what I said already about this pardon issue. This is an issue they brought up. It's under -- there has been no consideration of it, no discussion of it. I'll tell you this: I will not give anyone special treatment, and I will strictly adhere to the law. And that is what every president has done, as far as I know, in the past. But whatever other presidents have done, this is something I take seriously, and that's my position.

MR. DOLE: But it seems to me the president shouldn't have any comment at all, particularly where it's someone where you've had business dealings. I mean, you may be sending a signal. I don't know. I'm not questioning anybody. But as the president of the United States, when somebody asks you about pardons, you say, 'No comment.' Period. And I think he made a mistake. And I think when you make a mistake, you say, 'I made a mistake.' But apparently his position hasn't changed. If there are other specific areas -- but beyond that, I haven't gotten into any of these things, as the president knows. We've had that discussion. And, again, I know Senator D'Amato, I think, may have had a hearing or two on Whitewater; I can't remember. But he's not my general chairman. He's a friend of mine. And so is Senator Kennedy a friend of yours. And --

CLINTON: You bet.

DOLE: -- I remember one day on the floor I said, 'Now, gentlemen, let me tax your memories,' and Kennedy jumped up and said, 'Why haven't we thought of that before.' You know? So one of your liberal friends.

CLINTON: No comment.

In the second debate (October 16), Dole persisted, "The president ought to say tonight that he's not going to pardon anybody that he was involved in business with who might implicate him later on." Clinton (far more disciplined in debate than Mrs. Clinton) simply did not respond. So, were Whitewater pardons an "issue" in the 1996 campaign? And think about it, when President Clinton dropped all of those last-minute controversial pardons, did anyone in the national news media recall what Clinton said in that second paragraph?

Class, Courage and Principle v. McClellan

2008-05-30T17:53:00.001-05:00

In an editorial, George Weeks asks this question regarding Scott McClellan:

why, when he was resident propagandist, did he not take the honorable course taken by ex-White House Press Secretary Jerry terHorst?

terHorst resigned after Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon, but made his views on the matter know personally, privately, directly before he left the White House. Notes Weeks:

An hour before Ford's telecast announcing the pardon, terHorst handed Ford a manila envelope with a single sheet of typed White House stationary that said:
--Â¦ It is with great regret, after long soul-searching, that I must inform you that I cannot in good conscience support your decision to pardon former President Richard Nixon even before he has been charged with the commission of any crime. As your spokesman I do not know how I could credibly defend that action in the absence of a like decision to grant absolute pardons to the young men who evaded Vietnam military service as a matter of conscience and the absence of pardons for former aides and associates of Mr. Nixon who have been charged with crimes -- and imprisoned -- stemming from the same Watergate situation."

Weeks says it best, "What a contrast in class." See the Weeks editorial here.

McClellan Disappointed Re Libby

2008-05-29T22:13:00.001-05:00

Sentencing Law and Policy is featuring a passage from Scott McClellan's new book re President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby 's prison sentence. I am still trying to find a live link for the passage myself. But, here it is:

It’s … clear to me that Scooter Libby was guilty of the perjury and obstruction crimes for which he was convicted. When the president commuted Libby’s prison sentence and thereby protected him from serving even one day behind bars, I was disappointed. This kind of special treatment undermines our system of justice …. President Bush certainly has the right and the power to commute Libby’s sentence. But in choosing to do so, he sent an unfortunate message to America and the world — that in the United States criminal behavior on behalf of a political cause may go unpunished if those who support that cause have the power to make it happen.

See full Sentencing Law and Policy post here.

Book-Selling Time: McClellan on Libby

2008-05-28T01:16:00.004-05:00

Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan's memoir What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception will be published next week. that President Bush "veered terribly off course," was not "open and forthright on Iraq," and took a "permanent campaign approach" to governing at the expense of candor and competence. Here is an excerpt of coverage by Mike Allen of Politico.com:

McClellan lost some of his former friends in the administration last November when his publisher released an excerpt from the book that appeared to accuse Bush of participating in the cover-up of the Plame leak. The book, however, makes clear that McClellan believes Bush was also a victim of misinformation.
The book begins with McClellan's statement to the press that he had talked with Rove and Libby and that they had assured him they "were not involved in … the leaking of classified information."
At Libby's trial, testimony showed the two had talked with reporters about the officer, however elliptically.
"I had allowed myself to be deceived into unknowingly passing along a falsehood," McClellan writes. "It would ultimately prove fatal to my ability to serve the president effectively. I didn't learn that what I'd said was untrue until the media began to figure it out almost two years later.
"Neither, I believe, did President Bush. He, too, had been deceived and therefore became unwittingly involved in deceiving me. But the top White House officials who knew the truth — including Rove, Libby and possibly Vice President Cheney — allowed me, even encouraged me, to repeat a lie."

See full article here.

Judge Walton on Libby

2008-04-30T08:46:00.003-05:00

When U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton disagreed with the probation office's sentencing recommendations and denied Scooter Libby's request to remain free during appeals, he brought on President Bush's commutation of Libby's 2 1/2 year prison sentence (the $250,000 fine, felony conviction and probation remained). Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald complained about Bush's use of the pardon power immediately.

Judge Walton has waited until now to express his opinion. He believes the president "has that authority" (the power to grant commutations), that the President "exercised it, and that that has to be respected." But Walton appears to have little respect for the President's decision making otherwise.

For example, Walton expresses the time-worn, boiler-plate concern that "there are a lot of people in America who think that justice is determined to a large degree by who you are and that what you have plays a large role in what kind of justice you receive." Of course, these perceptions are also present with respect to thinking about the recruitment process for federal judges, like Walton. What is more, political scientist John R. Schmidhauser, in his book Judges and Justices, has well-documented the validity of these perceptions. Now, what are we to do? Impeach 90 percent of the federal judiciary?

Judge Walton is also concerned about an oncoming rash of criminal activity since, people "won't follow" the law if they do not "respect it." I have not seen the data on the validity of this concern/predicted increase as of yet, and the commutation was granted last July. But I suspect the expressed concern/prediction is about as valid as the expressed concerns/predictions that the President's critics had with respect to so-called "Libby Motions" (see commentary here, here, here, here, and here).

Finally, Judge Walton is also proud of the fact that he does not give white-collar criminals "a pass." The irony here, of course, is that it is perfectly reasonable to guess that Libby's social status is what got him into federal court to begin with. That us to say, his background, "privileged" status and "contacts" were not the source of an advantage. They were a distinct liability!

Regardless, one hopes Judge Walton is not simply ignoring the considered recommendations of other sentencing authorities and over-sentencing white collar criminals so as to appear to be a "tough" guy. Most of the President's critics agree that we really don't need any more of that in the federal judiciary. See story here.

The Market on Libby

2008-04-02T13:58:00.000-05:00

According to a story here, NewsFutures.com is an Internet-based news prediction market that operates much like the stock market. Using a fake currency called X$, participants buy and sell shares at prices ranging from X$1 to X$100. Contracts are sold alongside shares for the opposite outcomes. If the event occurs, the shareholder receives X$100 for each share. The trading price of each share represents the probability traders collectively assign to the event occurring. If "President Bush will pardon Scooter Libby" is trading at X$73, for instance, it means participants believe there is a 73 percent chance the president will grant the pardon. Well, I guess that solves that.

15 Pardons and 1 Commutation - No Libby

2008-03-25T20:41:00.004-05:00

Today, President Bush granted 15 pardons and one commutation of sentence. See more details here. Scooter Libby was not among those graced with executive clemency, but the number and timing of the pardons suggests that the fourth year surge may very well be upon us. Developing ...

Libby All Webbed Out?

2008-03-21T02:05:00.004-05:00

I visited ScooterLibby.com today and, well, the site is gone and the domain name is up for sale. PardonLibby.com (owned by John in Utah) is the location of something in the "future." LibbyPardon.com (owned by Ernest in Oregon) has expired and is being considered for renewal or deletion. What does it all mean?

Libby Disbarred

2008-03-20T10:29:00.007-05:00

"Scooter" Libby (who had already been suspended from the practice of law) has been disbarred from practicing law in the nation's capital after being convicted of lying to a grand jury and investigators last year (Case No. 07-BG-170). The three-judge District of Columbia Court of Appeals wrote in its one-and-a-half page opinion, "When a member of the Bar is convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude, disbarment is mandatory." The judges (John R. Fisher, Anna Blackburne-Rigsby and Annice Wagner) were appointees of Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Of course, a portion of Libby's sentence was commuted by President Bush last July. According to the Washington Post:

Libby's disbarment is effective as of June 12, 2007, when he first filed a declaration saying he would voluntarily comply with the court's rules on professional ethics for lawyers. Libby, 57, could seek reinstatement to the bar five years from that date, in June 2012.

See story here. See the Court's full opinion here. See Washington Post report here.

Buckley on Libby (and others)

2008-03-01T10:32:00.001-06:00

Many of William F. Buckley's Firing Line debates and regular television programs were dedicated to the topic of the death penalty. And there was certainly little doubt as to where he stood on the issue. In an August 1989 editorial Buckley wrote, "My own opinion is that too few, not too many, people are being executed in America."

But, if you look through the body of Buckley's work, especially his editorials, you cannot help but see that Buckley's view of the death penalty included an emphasis on the need for the intelligent use of the pardon power. For example, in the above mentioned editorial he also wrote:

But it makes very good sense to be as certain as circumstance allows that the right people go to the death chamber. Hang one man, prove the next day or year that he was in fact innocent, and you set back the case of the death penalty by a generation, with the result that hundreds who should be hanged eventually go back on the streets, and thousands who should live are killed by those who have every reason to scoff at the threat of the death penalty.

These attitudes were frequently displayed when Buckley discussed particular cases that had attracted his interest. He found it "strange," for example, that there was "very little commotion in the press" with regard to the impending execution of Ronald Monroe (in Louisiana) and wondered, "Where are the men of conscience?" He added:

Injustice is written into the human order and cannot be expunged from it. But such injustices as are the result of sheer inattention are injustices compounded.

In the case of Gary McGivern (New York), Buckley was annoyed that Vice President George Bush had made an "indefensible" criticism of Mario Cuomo for merely allowing any consideration of the possibility of clemency. McGivern had been convicted under the felony murder doctrine and had served as an "exemplary" prisoner for 18 years. Buckley wrote:

It has been said before, but it is worth repeating, namely that the Republican Party, in order to stress its devotion to law and order, oughtn't to deem itself insensible to the appeal for clemency.

Buckley also defended the decision making of Judge John Noonan who postponed the execution of the very notable Robert A. Harris. Buckley observed that, while "popular resentment" at "endless judicial review of cases" was a "legitimate complaint," the thing that guided Judge Noonan's decision making was the same thing that guided Mother Teresa to ask the Governor of California to extend clemency to Harris. Noonan believed Harris' "rights under the Constitution [had] have been violated " since the was a "substantial showing" that the jury was not able to hear from competent psychiatrists.

While he stopped short of making an explicit recommendation in the matter, Buckley was clearly intrigued by Karla Faye Tucker's plea for mercy from the Governor of Texas George W. Bush. Buckley's editorials of December 8, 1997, entitled "Dark Night for George W." suggested Tucker's appeal presented "a helluva problem." He noted Tucker was supported by the detective who arrested her, the prosecutors who sentenced her, a sister of one of the murder victims, Amnesty International, the Pope and Pat Robertson. Buckley also offered that her very troubled life (featuring drug use at a very young age and prostitution) was "contingently relevant." The strident manner in which Buckley eventually defended (or presented arguments to justify) Bush's ultimate decision (to do nothing) was more the result of attempts by inconsistent critics to make additional political hay out of the episode.

Note: With respect to notorious convicts, it is probably not well known that, in 1981, Buckley supported clemency for Abbie Hoffman, who sold $36,000 worth of cocaine to undercover police officers in 1973 and was a fugitive for six years before turning himself in and receiving a three-year sentence. He also supported clemency for Patricia Hearst saying that, if Jimmy Carter dd not see the "transcendant injustice" of her sentence, then it was only because he "affected not to see it." As far as Buckley was concerned, "the institution of clemency was established for such difficult cases." And, of course, he supported a pardon for Scooter Libby saying, "Mr. Bush will have to exhibit the courage for which he is loved and hated, by doing the right thing, and letting Mr. Libby get on with life."

William F. Buckley, Jr. (1925-2008)

2008-02-27T21:13:00.000-06:00

I want to extend my sympathy to family and friends of William F. Buckley, Jr., who passed away this morning. I also want to extend the same to the fine folks over at National Review, who were very generous with me in the past year, by providing a platform for my research and insights on the pardon power.

I first started reading Mr. Buckley's editorials in middle school and was a full-fledged addict by the time high school came around. Granted, I did not understand a fair amount of what I was reading. What really caught my attention, and sparked the interest in politics which led me all the way to a Ph.D., was Buckley's debate show Firing Line. To this day, I insist that those programs were the very height of television broadcasting. And I continue to buy recordings of them here and there as I can afford them - order here. I had the pleasure of seeing Mr. Buckley speak in Pensacola, Florida, on "The Hyperbolic Imperative in American Politics." He wittily asked, "If these people are not making a 'living wage,' then why aren't they all dead?" After the speech, I approached him for an autograph. With 500-600 people in the room, he would have been well justified to say "no." But he gave it to me anyway. To this day I look forward to seeing National Review in my mailbox. Buckley was a priceless treasure to both the conservative movement and the Nation.

This past year, I communicated with David Frum and Jean Lopez at National Review Online concerning what I saw as a lack of proper focus in the national media on the President's options regarding Scooter Libby. As I saw it, there were numerous ways that Bush could utilize the pardon power to keep Libby out of prison short of granting a full, unconditional pardon. NR Online allowed me to write a piece on one of them (the respite), then placed individuals on various television programs (Hardball, the Situation Room and Meet the Press) who spread the news - albeit in the face of resistant hosts who were much more attracted to the fabricated drama of pardon / no pardon scenario.

Of course, the President utilized the pardon power to keep Libby out of prison, but it was not the particular option which I had focused on. Incidentally, to this day, I insist that the President should have done things my way. But that is another story. As if the first appearance were not enough glory for one career, NR Online let me to write a second piece, which allowed me to place the Libby commutation in historical context. It was such a pleasure to show off years and years of research in such a fun, respected, widely-read forum. I will be forever grateful.

So, rest in peace William F. Buckley, Jr. and thank you for all that you shared with us. Thank you National Review for carrying on his work. It is a sad day for us all, but also a day to be thankful that we saw him, listened to him, read his words and enjoyed his intelligence and wit. We are all so very fortunate to have had these opportunities.

P.S. Ruckman, Jr.

Wexler on Pardons and Libby

2008-02-26T09:24:00.003-06:00

The Philadelphia Jewish Voice has interviewed Florida Congressman Robert Wexler's, who is described by the Voice as "a nationally recognized advocate for the integrity of our election system." I am not certain who Wexler's opponents are on this front. But, along the way, this q and a took place:

PJV: Still on the matter of Constitutional checks and balances, should there be any limits on the President's ability to use his pardon power to insulate his administration from investigation?
Well, certainly he commuted Scooter Libby’s sentence, which I vehemently disagreed with because I thought the President was intellectually dishonest. He said that he thought Scooter Libby’s sentence was excessive, and then he cut it to zero. The President had the authority, and still does, to commute any sentence under whatever terms the President wishes. And he thought Scooter Libby’s sentence was excessive – I think he got 30 months – then he could have made it 22 months, or 19 months or whatever number of months the President thought appropriate, but he made it zero months, which I think, for any objective party indicates that he wasn’t serious about the excessiveness of the sentence. What he wished to do was protect Scooter Libby from any kind of prosecutorial penalty.

And the real question is, “Why did the President do it?” I think the answer is to insulate both himself, Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove and other important members of the administration. And that in and of itself, according to the founders of this country, in their original Constitutional document, is a grounds for impeachment. A President is using the pardon, or commutation powers, for the purpose of covering up a crime committed by him or by a chief member of his administration – that is an abuse of his Constitutional authority.

So, while yes, the President does have the power to pardon and commute, I think it appears this President it appears likely abused that power and that’s why I think we ought to have hearings regarding the Vice President and the administration.

See full interview here.