Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Can Bush limit Libby fallout?

By
July 3, 2007

President Bush’s decision to spare former vice presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby from going to prison — but not pardoning him — may have been an attempt to have it both ways. If so, it appears to have proved only partially successful.

Democrats still slammed Bush’s commuting of Libby’s 2 1/2-year sentence for obstructing a CIA leak investigation. And while some Republican conservatives applauded the decision, others grumbled that Libby should have been granted a full pardon.

Calling Libby’s sentence “excessive,” Bush on Monday spared the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney from having to go to prison. But he left in place Libby’s conviction, two years probation and a $250,000 fine.

Bush acted just hours after a federal appeals court rejected Libby’s request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals. That meant Libby soon would have been called to begin his sentence, putting added pressure on the president.

“It is another piece of bad news for the president in the sense that the appeals court forced his hand,” said Paul C. Light, a professor of public service at New York University.

Commuting Libby’s sentence but without pardoning him was Bush’s “way of having his cake and eating it too,” Light said. “He’ll get some boost from his conservative base — and it removes a topic of conversation for the 2008 Republican presidential campaign.”

In a GOP debate last month, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a former prosecutor, said the sentence was excessive and “argues in favor of a pardon.” Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he would keep “that option open.” Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas and Rep. Duncan Hunter of California both said flat out that they would pardon Libby.

Conservatives had recently ramped up pressure on Bush to pardon Libby.

With Bush’s approval ratings in the 30 percent range, he could little afford to further alienate this core of his support, already angry about his immigration proposals.

Conservatives characterized the prosecution of Libby by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald as a witch hunt. They also groused that Sandy Berger, who was national security adviser in the Clinton administration, got no jail time for illegally sneaking classified documents out of the National Archives — while Libby received a 30-month sentence.

Greg Mueller, a conservative GOP strategist, said Bush will “get a lot of points from people in the conservative movement for doing something so bold when his approval ratings are so low.”

Still, Mueller said, “there are a lot of conservatives who say that they’d just pardon him outright. There are a lot of people who feel that Libby shouldn’t even had any kind of punishment whatsoever.”

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said Bush’s decision to commute Libby’s sentence “stands in contrast to his prior history in his first 6 1/2 years” in office.

During that period, Tobias said, Bush was very circumspect in issuing pardons and commuting sentences, using strict standards and doing it relatively rarely.

Bush has pardoned more than 100 people, but none of them were prominent.

Other presidents have issued pardons for which they were heavily criticized. President Ford’s pardon of former President Nixon may have cost Ford the election in 1976.

President Clinton pardoned 140 people on his last day in office, including fugitive financier Marc Rich. On Christmas Eve in 1992, just before he left office, the first President Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and a CIA official as they awaited trial on Iran-Contra charges, as well as four other administration officials who had pleaded or been found guilty in the scandal.

But the elder Bush and Clinton were on the verge of leaving office. Bush still has 18 months to go.

Furthermore, the commutation of Libby’s sentence comes at a time when the administration is embroiled in accusations of political cronyism in last year’s dismissals of U.S. attorneys.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called Bush’s decision on Libby “betrayal of trust of the American people,” representative of the sharp criticism leveled in general by Democrats.

While some Republicans may cheer Libby’s commutation, “the general public will believe that Bush is taking care of one of his and Cheney’s own,” University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato said.

Polls have shown roughly two out of three Americans opposed pardoning Libby. There is no polling data on commuting his sentence.

At the heart of the case was the outing in 2003 of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame, whose husband, retired diplomat Joseph Wilson, was an outspoken Iraq war critic.

Bush initially vowed to fire anyone in his administration shown to have leaked classified information. It can be a federal crime to deliberately disclose the name of a covert CIA agent.

Testimony at Libby’s trial showed that a number of administration officials had passed along information on Plame to reporters, including Libby; and that both Bush and Cheney took steps to discredit Wilson. Cheney even told Libby to speak with selected reporters, testimony showed.

Fitzgerald has said that the obstruction of justice that prosecutors claim Libby engaged in made it impossible for them to determine whether the leak itself violated the law.

After Libby’s sentencing in early June, both Bush and Cheney had kind words for Libby. Cheney called him a friend and “a fine man.” Bush said, “My heart goes out to his family.”

On Monday, Bush had the final say on Libby’s sentence: “With the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.”

___

Tom Raum has covered Washington for The Associated Press since 1973, including five presidencies.

6 Responses to Can Bush limit Libby fallout?

  1. Carl Nemo

    July 3, 2007 at 12:01 pm

    I advise the American electorate to remember the names of every one of these candidates running for the presidency that thinks the commutation or pardoning of Libby is the right thing to do! Their public commentary represents a valid “dipstick” check of their character and values; i.e, “none”…!

    Carl Nemo **==

  2. Richard Kanegis

    July 3, 2007 at 1:10 pm

    Richard Kanegis 215-563-2866RichardKanegi@aol.com22s22ndSt‘Apt305PhilaPA’19103

    Has a President efer lessoned a sentence before, if so which President and which criminal?

    If Bush is forsed to give Libby a full pardon, then Libby could no longer plead the 5th.

    If I’m wrong someone please tell me, if I’m right I’m sure Bush will change it to a full pardon on his last day of office.

    Anyway this kind of dicussion will put more focus on the partial pardon, and keep Americans remembering about it.

  3. Carl Nemo

    July 3, 2007 at 10:53 pm

    Hi Richard…

    Bush has commuted Libby’s sentence which is a first because Libby hasn’t served any time at all concerning his sentence?! It’s already causing the court system a problem. I guess Justice will suck-up to these duty criminals and accommodate their nightmarish schemes. They are so ignorant and stupid that they should have at least let Libby “cook-off” for a while in the slammer before pulling this scheme off. This scenario just might blow-up in their faces because they are now pissing-off the judiciary. Remember the Judiciary branch is an “equal” branch of government and they will take only so much crap from the Executive branch before they decide to reign them back into submission! As usual Bushco and his close “ill-advisors” have demonstrated 13th octave stupidity when it comes to their “board moves”! I hate to say it again, but they are truly “village idiots”…! If Bush changes it to a full pardon, then it will simply demonstrate my assertions that they truly are idiots; i.e,”change step”…march! :))

    Carl Nemo **==

  4. gene

    July 3, 2007 at 2:07 pm

    Really, does anyone here at CHB actually believe Bush gives a dam about what (anyone) thinks or ever did.

  5. LurkingFromTheLeft

    July 3, 2007 at 4:01 pm

    …of course not, but since we feel each other’s pain, we vent so our heads don’t pop –

    …misery loves company –

    …safety in numbers –

    LFTL

  6. SEAL

    July 4, 2007 at 4:11 am

    During my lifetime I have watched as each president has exonerated or prevented the prosecution of those in their employ who were caught commiting crimes. And, in most cases the action was taken to protect themselves. In all cases it protected their party.

    I question whether the president actually has that right under the law. If the president himself would be considered a suspect, how can he be accorded the power to prevent the common investigative principle of pressuring defendants from testify against others in return for immunity or a sentence reduction? I haven’t studied the law on this but if it specifically gives a president this power, it should be changed. Otherwise, any president and his cohorts could commit any crimes and not have to worry about consequence. In other words they are, in fact, above the law.