Tuesday, May 29, 2007

What the Libby Prosecution Reveals about the State of Modern Conservatism

Patrick Fitzgerald's sentencing brief in the Libby case was released today. He concludes:
Mr. Libby, a high-ranking public official and experienced lawyer, lied repeatedly and blatantly about matters at the heart of a criminal investigation concerning the disclosure of a covert intelligence officer's identity. He has shown no regret for his actions, which significantly impeded an investigation.
Yet conservatives continue to openly defend this convicted felon. As Newsweek reports:
Since his conviction last March, a number of conservative partisans—who shared with Libby his ardent support of the Iraq war—have mounted a vigorous public campaign in his defense and sought to lay the groundwork for a presidential pardon. In mid-May, Libby was a featured guest at a New York dinner honoring Norman Podhoretz, one of the neo-Conservative movement's intellectual godfathers. According to reports from the scene, the dinner, organized by Commentary Magazine, opened with cheers and a "standing ovation" for Libby.
Think about that for a second. This is a man who was convicted of four felonies by a jury that was clearly conscientious and deliberative (they even acquitted him on one of the counts). He was prosecuted by a Republican political appointee, a man who is widely-regarded as one of the best and least political prosecutors in the country. He was represented at trial by the best legal team money can buy. Yet somehow this man has become the cause celebre among the conservative intelligentsia, the very symbol of injustice. How completely and totally absurd.

As Patrick Fitzgerald writes in his brief:
[T]he assertions offered in mitigation are consistent with an effort by Mr. Libby's supporters to shift blame away from Mr. Libby for his illegal conduct and onto those who investigated and prosecuted Mr. Libby for unexplained "political" reasons. The assertions provide no basis for Mr. Libby to receive a reduced sentence. The record should be clear that the grand jury investigation was conducted fairly and in appropriate secrecy; Mr. Libby had ample legal resources and talent available to him to raise all appropriate legal challenges and mount a legal defense; the Court provided Mr. Libby substantial opportunity to follow through on the defense he proffered; and the jury carefully and dispassionately weighed the evidence over the course of many days and convicted on four counts and acquitted on another. While the disappointment of Mr. Libby's friends and supporters is understandable, it is inappropriate to deride the judicial process as "politics at its worst" on behalf of a defendant who, the evidence has established beyond a reasonable doubt, showed contempt for the judicial process when he obstructed justice by repeatedly lying under oath about material matters in a serious criminal investigation.
That's a very diplomatic way of pointing out how truly ridiculous the Libby pardon chorus has become. The notion that this was some sort of partisan witch hunt doesn't even pass the laugh test. But for reasons that I can't even come close to understanding, that seems to have become the consensus view in Washington. Never in the history of criminal prosecutions has there been a case that has fewer indicia of partisan chicanery than this one. Libby was prosecuted and convicted because there is overwhelming evidence that he deliberately lied under oath about material facts in a criminal investigation.

That fact that this man has become some sort of cult hero among conservatives speaks volumes about the intellectual and moral poverty of modern conservatism.

. . . Oh, and Dan Froomkin is worth reading on this.
Digg!

13 Comments:

Blogger CCB said...

"Pardon" is tossed around as thought a preznitdential pardon overturns the jury's verdict, turning Libby from "guilty" to "not guilty".

A pardon does nothing of the sort:
"While a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of your conviction."

And then there is the 5 year waiting period:
"Under the Department's rules governing petitions for executive clemency, 28 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq., a minimum waiting period of five years after completion of sentence is required before anyone convicted of a federal offense becomes eligible to apply for a presidential pardon."

Quotes, above, from www.usdoj.gov.

8:14 AM  
Blogger mainsailset said...

Let's not forget that Fred Thompson, the poster boy Pres candidate for many of the staunchest NeoCons is a fundraiser for Libby.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/11/AR2007031101849.html

8:58 AM  
Blogger mainsailset said...

TPM reporting that Tim Griffin in talks with Fred Thompson's campaign.
Hard to even come up with the words for a comment on that

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003315.php

9:39 AM  
Anonymous brux said...

I keep waiting for someone to point out (more fully and with a great eloquence than I have time for here), the stunning similarities between the fortunes of Islam and the fortunes of the Republican Party: both once proud traditions of thought and conduct have succumbed to their most extreme elements, cut deals with and collaborated with purveyors of the very worst, most close-minded, fear-based and openly hostile instincts, to the point that they now find themselves utterly discredited in the eyes of the rational world. They notably lack any real moderate leadership willing to stand up to their home-grown crackpots. Little wonder that they should look across the cultural divide at one another with such adolescent rage. They are essentially looking in the mirror.

10:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

OK, good point.

When I have timne, I will whip up a brilliant riposte the gist of which will be, what does the Libby prosecution reveal about the state of modern liberalism?

1 - Apparently, every utterance of a prosecutor is now gospel;;

2 - Every utterance of the CIA is now gospel;

3 - Laws should be construed as broadly as possible in order to investigate as many as possible;

4 - Prosecutors should probe perjury/obstruction selectively - to pick an example seemingly at random, Ms. Plame seems to have told different stories about her role in her husband's trip to three different investigations (CIA IG, Senate IC, Waxman), but these discrepancies don't even get covered by lefties, let alone examined or criticized.

Or Ari Fleischer's story, which was contradicted by Pincus (under oath) and Dickerson (in print) but not even examined by Fitzgerald, who never mustered the nerve to actually get testimony from Dickerson or Gregory - was that perjury, honest confusion, or what?

5 - Get the press under oath ASAP!

I bet I will think of more if I ever get around to it. Heck, I bet the post will be brilliant, compelling, and earn me a spot in Bartlett's.

But I don't bet much.

Tom Maguire

2:22 PM  
Anonymous joel hanes said...

> this man has become some sort of cult hero among conservatives speaks
> volumes about the intellectual and moral poverty of modern conservatism.

Those volumes were already dictated long ago, when part of the Right adopted Oliver North as a culture hero.

4:32 PM  
Anonymous creepy dude said...

Maguire-I bet your post will be ill-informed, unfunny, and whining.

Past performance is the best indicator for wagers of this sort.

9:32 PM  
Blogger A.L. said...

This post has been removed by the author.

11:20 PM  
Blogger A.L. said...

Apparently, every utterance of a prosecutor is now gospel;

Tom, first of all, this isn't just any prosecutor. Fitzgerald has a stellar reputation and no political axe to grind. Second, he's just citing facts provided to him by the CIA. After reading Fitzgerald's brief, it's pretty clear that Fitzgerald thinks he would have had an easy time proving that Plame qualified under the IIPA (what was holding him back was most likely the scienter requirement).

Every utterance of the CIA is now gospel;

I suppose it's possible the CIA could be lying about Plame's employment history, but that seems like a paranoid suggestion backed by zero evidence.

Laws should be construed as broadly as possible in order to investigate as many as possible;

Yeah, that's why Fitzgerald decided NOT to prosecute anyone under the IIPA and Espionage Act. It was because he was trying to construe laws as broadly as possible. That doesn't even make sense. Fitzgerald did just the opposite. He chose the conservative route of prosecuting only the blatant perjury/obstruction charges.

Prosecutors should probe perjury/obstruction selectively - to pick an example seemingly at random.

This is a weak argument. Libby was selected for prosecution because he was the one who lied the most blatantly, and he did so about facts material to a criminal investigation of himself and the Vice President. The case that Plame lied is WEAK, and she also wasn't the subject of any criminal investigation. Lying in a criminal probe is a far more serious offense than lying in a Congressional hearing about non-material matters (and I don't think Plame lied anyway).

9:02 AM  
Blogger SP Biloxi said...

This post has been removed by the author.

11:22 AM  
Blogger SP Biloxi said...

This is desperate attempt by Libby and his lawyers to sway the public into thinking that MS. Wilson wasn't a covert and defining their definition of a covert operative. Desperate people do desperate things. And this is desperate. This case is no shape or form was policially movitated by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. If Libby and his defense team had a brain, Mr. Fitzgerald had said often in his press conferences in Chicago that if you break the law, you go to jail. He never said if you belong to this particular political party, I'll give you a break. No. Fitzgerald has a code of ethics in the judicial system that he must follow as an U.S. Attorney and as a Special Counsel.

Finally, the defense team is now claiming that Valerie Wilson was not a covert and that she had a desk job. Ms. Plame was under oath for the Oversight Committee hearings months ago. When Waxman asked her was she still a covert officer on July 13, 2003. She answered yes. Case closed for the Libby's defense team. Ms. Wilson beyond a reasonable doubt was covert status. And that was within the timeline of when Scooter leaked classified information to the reporters. Ms. Wilson was covert status regardless if she was overseas or whether she had a desk job. Libby and his defense team are simply misleading the public on Ms. Wilson's employment. I look forward to June 5th.

11:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't know that they had covert hookers, ooops, escorts in the CIA.
The absolute best headlines I could see are :"Libby goes to sentencing, and Kerry gets 5 years for lying to congress, admitting it on television "in publick".

9:34 AM  
Anonymous AnonymousConservative said...

Liberals declared that no one was ever prosecuted for obstruction of justice or perjury when it was their icon BILL CLINTON who was clearly guilty of it. Everyone knows Libby was not guilty of the underlying crime, since he did not reveal her name to the media first and you can't prosecute him unless you can prove he knew she was covert (even if I accept for the sake of argument that she was).

To be consistent, you should have advocated Bill Clinton's removal from office for perjury and obstruction of justice if you think Libby's supposed crime was so serious.

2:15 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home