George W. Bush was once asked, after presiding over the executions of over 152 Texans, about his reluctance to issue pardons and/or commute sentences. “I don’t believe my role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own,” Bush said, “unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware.”
He neglected to add, “Or unless he’s a politically important friend of mine.”
The president’s decision to commute Scooter Libby’s sentence is truly contemptuous. A former senior Bush administration official recently said, “It would show a deep disregard for the rule of law if [the president] was to do it right now, when there has been no remorse shown by a convicted felon and no time has been served.” That was in regard to a pardon, which may still be forthcoming, but the same principle applies.
Perhaps we should call this what it is: “amnesty.” In conservative circles, there’s a standard approach to law and order: we need tougher sentences, inflexible mandatory-minimums, and harsh punishment for those found to have broken U.S. law. But if you help expose the identity of a covert CIA agent during a war, lie about it, and are convicted by a jury on multiple felony counts, those standards no longer apply.
I suspect a standard conservative defense will be, “But Libby is being punished; he has to pay a fine.” First, when it came to immigration policy, asking lawbreakers to pay a fine was still called “amnesty” and it was considered unacceptable. Second, Libby’s fine will be paid for by his well-connected, wealthy Republican friends who generously contributed to his legal defense fund. His “punishment” is non-existent.
Bush doesn’t care about the jury process; he doesn’t care about Justice Department guidelines on commutations; he doesn’t care applying a different standard of justice to the politically well-connected; he doesn’t care about the rule of law. He cares about his politically ally, justice be damned.
If there’s an upside to this, it’s that Bush’s craven decision brings the Plame leak scandal into the Oval Office (even more so). It necessarily gives the impression that Libby lied and obstructed justice in order to shield Bush and Cheney from their role in an even bigger crime. It’s frustratingly unclear why, exactly, Libby decided to lie so brazenly, which suggests that he’s covering up a more serious matter that might involve his only two WH bosses (the president and vice president). Today’s decision only exacerbates these suspicions.
To what end? Well, the House Judiciary Committee is planning a hearing on the commutation, “as early as next week.” But that may turn out to be a frustrating experience — Marcy Wheeler explains that today’s commutation protects Libby’s right to invoke Fifth Amendment protections.
On a more fundamental level, today’s decision doesn’t even make any logical sense. If the White House wanted to argue that Libby’s prosecution never should have happened in the first place, the Bush gang could at least try to make the case. But that’s not what’s happened here — as Josh Marshall explained, the president has instead decided to “micromanage the sentence.”
[The president decided] that the conviction is appropriate, that probation is appropriate, that a substantial fine is appropriate — just no prison sentence.
This is being treated in the press as splitting the difference, an elegant compromise. But it is the least justifiable approach. The president has decided that the sentencing guidelines and the opinion of judge don’t cut it.
The only basis for this decision is that Libby is the vice president’s friend, the vice president rules the president and this was the minimum necessary to keep the man silent.
Way back in September 2003, as the investigation was getting under way, Bush announced, “If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is…. If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.”
As Swopa noted, “We now know exactly what he meant.”