Typically, sentences do not commute. But sometimes they do. Consider:
Scooter is a liar.
Liar is a scooter.
Both equally true, as convicted perjurer Scooter Libby manages to zip past his required jail time, with a little help from his friends in high places.
(I find it hard to believe that I’m the first to think of this joke. Or perhaps I’m just the first to admit it in public.)
The deep, inscrutable irony here, of course, is that George W. Bush hates to pardon people or commute their sentences. Not his job to overrule a jury, he proudly proclaims. Even if we’re talking about a mentally retarded inmate sentenced to death by a jury that never had a chance to hear mitigating evidence. Those inmates could count themselves lucky if W didn’t openly mock them. But Scooter was special; the usual formalities were readily dispensed with in this case.
Or perhaps Bush has simply experienced a change of heart, and will now start freeing all sorts of unjustly convicted prisoners. He has plenty of opportunity; the U.S. has by far the world’s largest prison population, over two million, and it’s growing faster than ever. Over a third are estimated to be nonviolent drug offenders, typically punished by preposterous mandatory sentencing laws. I might point out that the impact of such laws does not seem to fall equally on members of all racial and economic groups, but that could seem shrill.
Folks who would, on ideological grounds, tend to be sympathetic towards the Republican party are struggling with the challenge presented to them by the Bush administration. It’s perfectly possible to be in favor of tax cuts, Social Security privatization, and the war in Iraq, and yet recognize that this administration represents a vortex of corruption, venality, and incompetence that the country hasn’t had to suffer through in at least the last hundred years. Bush’s fondness for signing statements that declare his intention to follow the laws passed by Congress only when he wants to would typically be grounds all by itself for honest conservatives to wash their hands of the guy. But so many people still find it hard to do. Over at the Volokh Conspiracy (where one of their co-bloggers, Randy Barnett, was actually a co-author on a brief submitted on behalf of Libby), both Orin Kerr and Eugene Volokh can only look at the President’s decision to commute Libby’s sentence and shake their heads in disgust. But their commenters, not so much. These are people who used to think that perjury was bad, but now seem to have softened their stance, characterizing (Republican) investigator Patrick Fitzgerald’s prosecution of Libby as politcal and partisan (except that it’s not).
Republicans should be thanking their lucky stars for the 22nd Amendment, and by extension FDR. Can you imagine if Bush were allowed to run for a third term? The acrimonious split between his die-hard supporters and conservatives with any sort of remaining integrity would tear the party apart, possibly for good.
A silly question: was it ever found out who was it that talked to Novak in the first place?
ragtag… yes, the leaker was found, early on, by Mr. Fitzgerald. Richard Armitage admitted he was the leaker. That didn’t stop Mr. Fitzgerald from using his prosecutorial zeal to continue digging around hoping he could find something, anything that might be turned into a crime.
John, things are not “turned into” crimes. They either are crimes or they are not. Libby is a criminal, convicted by a jury of his peers, and any attempt to minimize or excuse his crime is an unpatriotic act of pure partisan venality.
Lying to cover up a crime is a crime. If the crime is successfully covered up, and the lie is successful, the lie is no less of a crime, in fact it is moreso.
The only relevant question there is, “should armitage also be indicted?”
Bob Novak, OTOH, is at least ethically if not technically guilty of treason. Any “conservative” or Republican who defends his actions in revealing a covert op is guilty of the worst kind of hypocrisy. If a liberal journalist had done that, the National Review would be screaming for their head, and rightly so. But no, he’s “on the team” so his despicable, treasonous behavior is excused.
#20 J
I can echo this sentiment pretty much EXACTLY!
Every single time I see GWB on TV I get some sort of an allergic reaction…I have to change the channel or switch the whole thing off.
[RantON]
I keep asking myself the same question over and over again …Is this half-wit really the President? Really? really really? This is the commander-in-chief with the finger on the nuclear button? (He pronounces it “nu-cular” BTW.) Anytime I have to listen to even a few seconds of GWB, I feel my IQ dropping a couple of points.
[RantOFF]
#25 C
I have to believe that the “loyal Bushie” damage can be repaired. This country has too many good people to believe that stinking mess cannot be eventually cleaned up by intelligent, deliberative action. If the damage is irreparable, we are all well and truly boned.
Your are indeed right, Sean, two wrongs don’t make a right. Then neither does one.
It’s just that it’s hard to take one side, when both are fairly dreadful. Here in the UK we have just seen Mr Blair, who was just about as soggy-left, soi-dissant all knowing, pro-self-improvement, feminised and lawyer-fluent as it is possible to be, escorted from the building. And why? Iraq? As he cuddled up to W, he was only doing what he was told to by slick Willy. Then he lied, like Bill caught with a ceegar up an intern’s ass, and lied and lied. I tend to loathe HMG, whichever of the 2 parties is in power, as a matter of principle and pratice; sadly it is becoming ever more personal these days.
tyler,
Sure, Fitzgerald didn’t force anyone to lie. I agree with you that “turned into” is not a good choice of words. But, had any crime been committed when Fitzgerald began his investigation? No, at least in the judgement of Fitzgerald. Mr. F did manage to discover that Libby lied during the course of the investigation, and I agree L ought to be punished for that serious crime. F also imprisoned reporters, which I find to be outrageous considering that F had already found the leaker.
I am concerned that L isn’t doing some time in jail (although the Dark Lord Rove requires that I point out at least one other member of the Executive lied to a SP/Grand Jury and avoided jail time). On the other hand, L wasn’t covering up the outing of Ms. Plame. F knew who revealed her identity — Armitage — yet he continued to question witnesses and place reporters in jail for protecting sources. And for what? We now know F had already found the leaker, and he wasn’t in the White House. I find all that just as troubling as the expanded inquisition against Clinton a few years earlier.
As far as Ms. Plame’s covert status, it seems that there is a serious question if she was covert according to the IIPA. In any case, F decided that no crime had been committed by Armitage revealing her identity, IIPA or not. Novak was unaware of her covert status and the CIA didn’t intervene when he checked it out, or I would agree that he would be at least morally culpable of treason. So it seems the overheated rhetoric is from the side claiming treason! treason!
#21 Reginald Selkirk
From the link:
Are you saying that Libby telling lies was not a cosmic accident? 🙂
. But, had any crime been committed when Fitzgerald began his investigation? No, at least in the judgement of Fitzgerald.
????? – He couldn’t have begun his investigation without there being prima facie, a crime. The determination of whether an actual crime was committed and who committed it, because of the wording of the law allegedly broken, (see here
requires determination of intent.
Scooter Libby impeded that investigation by his perjury and was convicted for it no different from any number of other perjurers.
It is also worth pointing out that Libby lied to the FBI long before Fitzgerald even entered the scene. For whatever reason, lying to the FBI is a crime in our law; one cannot make special pleading for Libby.
—
This may amuse you:
http://miaculpa.blogspot.com/2007/07/hardball-david-schuster-pounds-fouad.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/26/175420/448
Re: #34 — It might also be pointed out that Martha Stewart went to the slammer for lying to the FBI, just like Libby lied. Except she lied about some exotic twist in securities law and Libby lied about the national security of the United States. I thought Stewart got screwed by a bad law, but the only thing worst than a bad law is a bad law that gets ignored if the criminal lied to cover up for his boss. I guess Equal Justice Under Law has never made it into “conservative morality”.
Dave said he had some sympathy for Scooter. Me to. I have enormous sympathy for Scooter.
I have the kind of sympathy for him that can be found in the dictionary — somewhere between shit and syphilis.
Hello! I’m the founder/editor of a new online magazine of arts and ideas for the 21st century called The Boy Bedlam Review — found at http://www.boybedlamreview.com .
This is an excellent piece — gathering together all the hypocrisies in hyperlinks — and I would very much like to feature it in our Politics/World section. Our (absurdly miniscule) budget can’t, as yet, support us throwing money your way, but I’m hoping that you might be inspired by our approach to contribute this piece to our widening Poetics of Information.
Sincerely,
David Schneider
Editor