|
|
June 7, 2007Rethinking Scooter Libby’s pardonYou know, the other day I wrote, that President Bush should just pardon Scooter Libby, already. Then Ed Morrissey wrote that while he had no problem with a pardon, we should be respectful of the fact that a jury weighed the evidence and found him guilty…and I thought, “Ed’s right in that. If we’re going to respect the rule of law, we have to take a jury’s verdict with some seriousness, even if we don’t like that verdict.” He’s written more here. Then I read this piece in the Washington Post, specifically this part, here:
It suddenly hit me…the right way to go about a pardon is to “let the process play out.” Not to circumvent the process, as Bill Clinton did with some of his pardons, but to actually allow the trial and appeals to play themselves out, to respect the system in place - the same system that convicts both Ken Lay and a garden-variety thief - for the good of the nation. If we start working around the system or pre-empting it altogether, we contribute to a breakdown of respect for it. So, now…I’m thinking that Libby should exhaust his appeals first. Tom Maguire writes that Jeralyn Merritt thinks Libby has a shot on appeal. Let him take the shot. Verdicts may not always be pleasing, but more often than not they’re correct, and running roughshod over the process in order to be expedient could come back to bite us, in the end. And shh, shhh…save yer breath for yer porridge if you’re going to come back with, “But Anchoress, you and the other Bushbot supporters of the immigration bill are trying to circumvent a system!” No, we’re not. (And I am saying FIX the bill, don’t scrap it; I don’t like it wholly in its current form) There is a vast difference between the respecting the due process and trial of a single man for the sake of a sane and well-working system (”it if ain’t broke, don’t fix it), and in respecting the processing of 12 million through a system that is utterly broken, broken down and in dire need of repair. Those of us calling for the reworking - not the death - of the immigration bill are not trying to circumvent a viable system…we’re hoping to update and refurbish that system to deal with a reality that is utterly brand new, the thirty-year buildup of neglect - involving 12 million human beings - that some want resolved yesterday. There is a distinction, and it’s not an especially fine one. Small personal aside: For those of you following the three-parter on illegal immigration (and the exceedingly thoughtful, civil and intelligent comments threads which have followed both Part I and Part II) over the past few days - I’m hoping to post Part III today, but do have some commitments which will impose on my time. Also, the last few days I’ve spent a purely ridiculous time at my computer either writing, monitoring or dealing with the email (running heavily on the positive side in all this, but man, the hate mail is some of the uuuuuuugliest stuff I’ve received in a long time!) I’ve simply not been getting enough sleep. This is not how baby stays healthy…so, I’ll be “walking and airing” myself and resting a bit before finishing Part III, and while moderation of the comments will continue, my participation will necessarily be lessened a bit for the day. http://theanchoressonline.com/2007/06/07/rethinking-scooter-libbys-pardon/trackback/ 12 Responses to “Rethinking Scooter Libby’s pardon” |
June 7th, 2007 at 9:14 am
First off, I have to say, “OOOH!” I haven’t been to your actual site in a bit, so I didn’t know you’d re-done the template. It’s beautiful!
Secondly, I was thinking about Libby, too, and it occurred to me that if we were upset that Clinton got away with lying under oath, we should be equally upset with Libby doing the same thing. That Libby lied about something that isn’t a crime doesn’t matter. After all, adultery is only a crime spiritually. One does not go to prison for stepping out on one’s spouse.
So, pardon or not, I think what happened to Libby is probably fair. If he lied under oath, then so be it. He broke the very same law that Clinton did. If I wanted Clinton to be punished for that in some way, how can I say I don’t want Libby to - just because he worked for the Bush administration?
Consistency is tough, but it’s what we’re supposed to do, right?
June 7th, 2007 at 10:13 am
What Libby needs is not a presidential pardon; what he needs is appellate vindication. If the president pardons him, he will be forever branded as a liar, and it would not vindicate him, but instead would give credibility and vindication to Fitzpatrick.
What is needed is for an appellate court to do what the trial court should have done, which is to slam Fitzpatrick for bringing such a case in the first place and for dishonestly claiming that Libby’s testimony impeded his investigation when he knew prior to such testimony that no crime had been committed. Fitzpatrick’s “investigation” was not a search for truth to determine if laws were broken, it was an attempt to manufacture crimes, to trap some sap into making contradictory statements so that he could yell “perjury” and “obstruction of justice,” when his investigation should have properly been shut down on the second day it started.
June 7th, 2007 at 10:28 am
It is important to note that “lying under oath” does not necessarily amount to perjury. To be perjury, the statement must be, among other things, “material.” False testimony is not “material” unless it has a natural tendency to influence or is capable of influencing the official proceeding.
In Libby’s case, whatever he said — be it true or unintentionally false or an outright lie — could not and did not have any tendency or capability of influencing the proceeding because Fitzpatrick knew before he asked any questions that there was no crime. Therefore, the questions themselves, much less the answers, were not material to any investigation into anything.
June 7th, 2007 at 11:23 am
I don’t have much to add other than to say that the past couple of days you’ve created and hosted some of the most thoughtful commentary on immigration and politics, doing a superb job at it.
Please do take good care of yourself. We can wait.
June 7th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
What happen to Libby happens all the time really. Just ask Louisiana former Sec of State JIm Brown. He was a dem but most Dems and Republicans know that he got libbyed. Bush if he does this should pardon LIbby and a Democrat like BRown at the same time. That would give him some political cover perhaps.
JH
Louisiana
June 7th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Anchoress: I’m curious. What weight do you give to those emails that are the uuuuugliest in a long while? do you even dignify them with a response?
Of course everyone has the right to speak their mind, but then, everyone else has a right not to listen. Do people realize how their argument is diminished - not enhanced - by such ugliness? It makes one seem, brutish and unintelligent - and the argument is lost before it’s begun.
I love the web and that I can read and consider the thoughts of people I will never have the pleasure of meeting in person. But there comes a time when hiding behind the cloak of anonymity is a delusion. Because when the day is done, you still have to live with your thoughts, and such ugliness and hatred cannot be healthy.
Sorry, this has nothing to do with the immigration debate or the Libby pardon…but it goes back to your part 1 and 2 - it’s not only a matter of what are we doing to the soul of our country, it’s a matter of what are you doing to yourself.
June 7th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Fausta, you wrote: the past couple of days you’ve created and hosted some of the most thoughtful commentary on immigration and politics, doing a superb job at it.
I’m sitting here like an an out-of-shape boxing referee looking at the Round 12 card and silently whispering up thanks that there are only 15 Rounds…I smile at you dopily, (revealing a few missing teeth and a swollen -but not glass - jaw)and spray out a sibilant, “thanksssss!”
I’m pretty sure one of my emailers tore out a chunk of my hair a few hours ago. Thankfully many emailers are also spraying water into my face and rubbing my shoulders.
Who knew trying to referee a fight would get one so bloody?
June 7th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
lsusportsfan:
That’s an interesting approach, and Bush would be wise to consider it. However, in the current environment, I think most would see it as the political elite giving their own a pass when the rest of the country has to play by the rules.
I think I’m still with Captain Ed on this one.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I have to agree with Bender’s comments on Fitzpatrick’s witch hunt in this case. The case against Libby should have been dismissed from the beginning, since the prosecutor KNEW he hadn’t leaked Plame’s name, which was the reason for this travesty in the first place. As to a jury finding him guilty, remember that this is DC, where juries have seen evidence of absolute guilt in a murder case and have acquitted the person on trial. I can understand the President wanting to let the legal system work, but only if the judge allows Mr. Libby to remain free while the appeal process works. If the judge orders him to jail immediately, then the pardon should be forthcoming. I can’t remember what I had to eat a few days ago (OK, yes I can ~ I was in Italy!), and to remember a conversation with someone that took place 18 months ago would be hard to recall. I’m not a lawyer, but something smells to high heaven with what Mr. Libby has been dealing with - likely the prosecutor was hoping to get dirt on the VP, Karl Rove, or even “W”, and he couldn’t do that, so he took what he could get. He should have gone after Richard Armitage if he wanted to make someone “pay” for a non-crime.
June 7th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Yes, Bender is right.
June 7th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Maybe Scooter Libby should hire Paris Hilton’s lawyer. And make buddies with the sherrif who cut the heirhead loose.
June 10th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
[...] as NRO’s Andrew McCarthy (I like Mark Levin’s response), Captain’s Quarters, The Anchoress, et al., I think this piece sums it all up: we are at war in this country, and our political [...]