Hell of a commute

In all the blathering about the Libby case on cable "news" over the last three years, never once did I hear anyone mention the possibility that Bush would commute Libby's sentence as an alternative to a full pardon. I've always said the cable news shows were a terrible source of information because the guests are almost always journalists or political operators rather than experts on the topics being covered. But my assumption was that they would at least have some decent insights on the political aspects of the stories. Once again, my illusions are shattered.

A search on Lexis-Nexis reveals two (!) newspaper columns written before yesterday that raise the issue of a commutation. William Otis calls for the sentence to be commuted in this column in the Washington Post in June. The column centers on two arguments:

Neither vindication of the rule of law nor any other aspect of the public interest requires that Libby go to prison. He is by no stretch a danger to the community, as "danger" is commonly understood. He did not commit his crime out of greed or personal malice. Nor is his life one that bespeaks a criminal turn of mind. To the contrary, as letters to the court on his behalf overwhelmingly established, he has been a contributor to his community and his country...

This was an unusually harsh sentence for a first offender convicted of a nonviolent and non-drug-related crime. Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, was not sentenced to prison for sneaking documents out of the National Archives, destroying them and then lying to investigators. For his actions, Berger received no jail time, a fine one-fifth of that imposed on Libby and 100 hours of community service.

On the first point: he lied to cover up the fact that the Vice President subverted the law, thereby violating his oath of office, in order to intimidate opponents of an unjust and illegal war that has turned into a foreign policy disaster for this country. Scooter Libby is a menace to society. He is a criminal.

On the second point: Berger came clean rather than dragging his case through the courts. His act was not part of a broader criminal conspiracy. Hence the leniency is justifiable.

Brad DeLong unearths an op-ed piece by Jeff Lomonaco of The American Prospect that was submitted last month but not published by the Los Angeles Times (how does he do that? Next he'll be reporting on our unfinished thoughts!). The piece argues that Bush would not like to see Libby do time, for obvious reasons, but that pardoning him would undercut Bush-Cheney's main rationale for refusing to answer questions about the affair:

It is precisely out of the desire to avoid such uncomfortable questions for himself and his vice president that President Bush is likely not to pardon Libby but to commute his sentence, or otherwise keep him out of prison without fully clearing him. That would enable Libby to remain free while he seeks legal vindication through the appeals process. But more importantly, it would enable Bush and Cheney to continue the strategy they have successfully pursued in deterring journalists seeking their explanations with claims that they shouldn't comment on an ongoing legal proceeding. If Bush were to pardon Libby, he and Cheney would no longer have such a rationale for evading the press' questions - nor would Libby be able to claim the right against self-incrimination to resist testifying before Congress about the role that Cheney and Bush played in directing his conduct.

The flaw in this argument is that it fails to recognize the shamelessness of Bush-Cheney regarding their relationship with Congress, the media, and the public. They're not wed to a particular rationale for stonewalling legitimate inquiry. If they don't have that one, they'll make up another (how about, "You are asking about events that occurred in the distant past. We have answered this question on numerous occasions. The facts of the case were laid out for all to see in the Libby case. Mr. Libby was tried, convicted, and received justice. It is time to move on. Next question.")

If yet another example is needed at the contempt Bush-Cheney have for the truth, logic, and the American people, look at Bush's statement announcing his decision:

I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

Libby's sentence is obviously not "excessive" - it is solidly within federal sentencing guidelines. Peter Lattman of the Wall Street Journal has a good take on that. And does Bush really mean to say that rich and powerful people who commit crimes do not need to go to prison because the stain on their reputation and financial loss are punishment enough? I'm sure that's his heartfelt opinion, but he and his political advisors surely can't expect the American people to swallow that one, can they?

But that's just the point, I guess. They don't expect us to swallow it, any more than they expect us to swallow a gajillion other preposterous statements they've made over the years. They say these things to sound like they're responding to questions and concerns while muddying the waters and changing the subject. They are shameless; they hold us in contempt.