Pardon Me

With Scooter Libby convicted, the chatter now moves to whether or not he'll receive a Presidential pardon. This is firm ground for conservatives, since they don't have to argue the facts of the case and the obvious mountain of evidence that Libby lied to the grand jury. All they have to do is claim that Libby was the fall guy and he's such a good man and he never even leaked Plame's name to Novak and this is a travesty of justice. Look, they even got a juror to fall for it:

One of the 11 jurors who convicted Mr. Libby said in an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday that she would favor a pardon. The juror, Ann Redington, explained her thinking by saying “it kind of bothers me” that no one was charged with the alleged crime initially under investigation — exposing the identity of a covert C.I.A. officer — and that Mr. Libby “got caught up in the investigation as opposed to in the actual crime that was supposedly committed.”

But Christy at FDL has the right idea here. Scooter Libby committed a crime, and whether you're naughty or nice doesn't nullify that.

Here is what I know: sometimes, even seemingly decent people commit crimes. And when they do, they ought to be punished in the same way that everyone else is — because they have committed crimes. Perhaps it is the prosecutor in me saying this but, honestly, you commit a crime for which you are convicted, then you are sentenced, and you carry out your sentence and pay the penalty for your criminal conduct. Period. End of story. There is a very simple way to not have to deal with prison: do not commit a crime.

Libby made a series of bad choices: he lied, repeatedly, to the FBI, to the Grand Jury under oath, all to cover up for the Vice President of the United States and for his own poor choices. For those poor choices of his own making, he was convicted by a unanimous vote of a jury of his peers, and he should pay the penalty for this. No one, no matter their station in life, no matter their connections or political affiliation — no one — should be allowed to repeatedly and manipulatively lie to a grand jury under oath or to criminal investigators without consequences. It is wrong, whomever may be doing it, and Libby is no exception to the rule of law.

The spin on this from the right is very powerful. It's full of deceit and excuse-making and lots of other nonsense. But Christy's two paragraphs are as clear as a bell. You do the crime, you do the time.

And the thing is, Bush would have to waive specific Justice Department guidelines to pardon Libby before the end of his term. There's typically a waiting period of at least 5 years from the conviction. Bush could easily do that (it's not like he pays a lot of attention to guidelines), but if you read Sidney Blumenthal's column today, you get the sense that Bush may use this guideline thing as an excuse to throw Libby overboard. There's an internecine battle in the White House between the Rove crew and the Cheney crew, and Rove was ready to stick the knife in Cheney and Libby if asked.

Did something change in the defense after its opening statement about Rove (Libby "will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected") that led to its refusal to follow up during the trial? Did the prosecutor have new information that has not yet been made public about Libby and Cheney? If so, that evidence would have been irrelevant to the precise charges against Libby but might have come into play if Libby and Cheney testified. Their appearances might have made them vulnerable to additional perjury and obstruction charges if they were found to have lied on the stand. But who might have proved that?

The missing piece in the extensive evidence and testimony that detailed the administration's concerted attack on Wilson, orchestrated by Cheney, is the conversations among Libby, Cheney — and Rove. Rove had made a deal with Fitzgerald. Rove changed his testimony, escaped prosecution and went back for a fifth time before the grand jury. Fitzgerald owned Rove.

Only if Libby and Cheney appeared could Fitzgerald cross-examine them about their discussions with Rove, which presumably Rove had already testified about before the grand jury. Rove was the hostile witness against Cheney whom the prosecution had waiting in the wings, the witness who was never called. If Libby had come to the stand in his own defense, and summoned Cheney as well, Fitzgerald might have been prompted to call Rove from the deep to impeach Libby's and Cheney's credibility and reveal new incriminating information about them. Instead, Libby remained silent, Cheney flew off to Afghanistan and Rove never appeared. Rove was the missing witness for the prosecution.

That's fascinating, and with Cheney off on his own while Rove has been continuing to sit at the President's side, I think the pardon brigade is kind of desperate. How else to explain this:



UPDATE: Uh-oh, Waxman's on the case.

Chairman Henry A. Waxman has announced that the House Commitee on Oversight and Government Reform will be holding hearings looking into the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, beginning on March the 16th.

Plame herself is going to testify. Wow. This is what needs to be done. The obstruction by Scooter Libby derailed the investigation. Congress must pick up where Patrick Fitzgerald left off.