It took all of a couple of minutes after Scooter Libby was found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice for attention to shift to the possibility of a presidential pardon. The assumption is that White House critics don’t want to see one, while White House allies are practically demanding one. That’s largely accurate, but is the logic backwards?
Shortly after the verdict was announced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “‘Lewis Libby has been convicted of perjury, but his trial revealed deeper truths about Vice President Cheney’s role in this sordid affair. Now President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct.” It was a sentiment echoed by Dems everywhere.
On the other side of the aisle, conservative media outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page, insisted that a pardon was absolutely necessary. Now.
Mr. Bush will no doubt be advised to wait for the outcome of an appeal and the end of his Administration to pardon Mr. Libby. We believe he bears some personal responsibility for this conviction, especially for not policing the disputes and insubordination in his Administration that made this travesty possible. The time for a pardon is now.
Likewise, the New York Post editorialized, “Libby’s lawyers yesterday confidently predicted he’ll be vindicated on appeal. He shouldn’t have to wait. President Bush should make things right – by pardoning Libby. Sure, he’d take a lot of political heat for it. But Libby was in the dock because of politics – and turnabout is fair play. Free Scooter Libby.” The National Review and Fred Barnes said largely the same thing.
But I’m beginning to wonder if, perhaps, the two sides haven’t thought this all the way through.
Ezra, as he is wont to do, raised a very good point.
Even though sentencing won’t occur for awhile yet, attention is turning to Libby’s prospects for a presidential pardon once Bush leaves office. I doubt it. Bush has never been one to keep loyalty a two-way street. It’s long been his M.O to cut loose even the most faithful of servants after they outlive their usefulness. And Scooter Libby has definitely outlived his usefulness. To pardon him would refocus the blame onto the presidency, make it clear the administration felt indebted to an underling doing their bidding. That’s all true, of course, save for the indebted part. Libby was doing their bidding and now it is done. End of transaction.
I’d actually prefer a pardon — it would focus the historical attention on the Bush administration, leave his legacy stained from the outset, and come closer to harming the prime movers behind the Plame Affair — but I doubt Bush is willing to tarnish his own record to protect a pawn.
I hadn’t thought about it this way, but I found the point immediately compelling. White House critics have argued against a pardon because it would let Libby off the hook for his crimes. That remains true.
But there’d be an immediate upside — it would bring the scandal into the Oval Office. It would make it forever clear that Libby lied and obstructed justice in order to shield Bush and Cheney from their role in an even bigger crime. A pardon would just seal the deal in exposing the larger criminal enterprise.
Is there a way to bait the White House into granting a pardon?