Bush Plays King Solomon

Now that I've had some time to digest the news of the day, that President Bush has commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence, I confess that I'm even more shocked by the sheer brazenness of it all. The president's official statement is truly something for the history books, a document that is so bizarre and indefensible that future historians may question its authenticity. Let's go line by line:

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

What a bizarre way to begin the statement. Bush concedes that he has said all along that "it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted." But Libby's appeals haven't been exhausted. In fact, he hasn't even filed an appeal to his conviction yet. Nevertheless, without explanation, Bush reverses himself and concludes that it's now time to intervene.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

Yeah, except for the person on whose behalf you are now intervening. He did the opposite of cooperating; he lied and obstructed the investigation, repeatedly, crimes for which he was later convicted by a jury of his peers.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

Indeed, and he took the unprecedented step today of publicly rebuking the President, his boss, for misleading the public as to the nature of Libby's sentence.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

"Critics" say all this stuff, none of which the President personally endorses, of course. He's just throwing it out there, for what it's worth.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

These "others" are, of course, Bush's own Justice Department, who he didn't even consult in making this decision, contrary to well-established precedent. But in a debate between "critics" and "others," who is a president to trust?

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Translation: I, King Solomon, have carefully considered the matter and believe that both the "critics" and the "others" make interesting points. I decree that the "critics" shall cut the cake, but the "others" shall be allowed to choose the first piece.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

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.

As I pointed out in my previous post, this is misleading in several ways. First, judges routinely give higher sentences than those calculated by the probation office. That's a totally unremarkable occurrence. Second, though the sentence recommended by the probation office was less that what Judge Walton ultimately imposed, it was still substantial. Had Walton followed the probation office's recommendation, Libby would still have spent the remainder of Bush's term in prison. Third, Libby's sentence was not at all excessive under the prevailing guidelines, particularly for someone who showed no contrition for his crimes. And finally, Bush commuted his sentence completely. If something is "excessive," you shorten it, you don't eliminate it.

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.

And conveniently, this solution also "leaves in place" Libby's Fifth Amendment rights, meaning that Congress won't be able to call on him to testify about anything that might embarrass the administration. Had Bush pardoned Libby, he'd have no choice but to testify if summoned. Meanwhile Libby's wealthy friends will pay the fine and Libby himself will likely resurface in some future Republican administration, much like convicted Iran-Contra criminal Elliot Abrams.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

Of course it is. Bush has never commuted anyone's sentence [apparently he has commuted a few], even death sentences. But in this case, despite the fact that the sentence in question is actually called for by the relevant sentencing laws, the President felt compelled to exercise his power of clemency. This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Libby is the Vice President's close friend and that he--almost surely--committed these crimes in order to protect the Vice President. That's pure coincidence. President Bush is actually in the habit of commuting sentences that he feels are "excessive" and Libby's case just happened to come up. Sure.

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say this is the most brazenly unprincipled decision that I have ever seen a president make. It's also clearly improper. Yes, the president has the power to commute sentences. But all powers can be abused. Scooter Libby was convicted of lying and obstructing justice in connection with a criminal investigation that was clearly zeroing in on the Vice President. The only plausible motive for Libby's conduct is that he was trying to protect the Vice President, either from political or criminal exposure (or both). With Libby's incarceration imminent, the President (undoubtedly with the input of the Vice President) commuted his sentence, thereby removing any leverage the government would have over Libby, but keeping his Fifth Amendment privilege intact. That absolutely reeks of corruption.

Let's put it this way: if this had happened in the Clinton administration, this would have been the lead count in the House's bill of impeachment. Does anyone doubt that? Republicans would have demanded Clinton's immediate resignation.

But beyond the manifest sleaziness of it all, this is, at best, a case of gross favoritism. Libby will serve less time than Paris Hilton, despite being convicted of crimes that would have landed anyone else in prison for a considerable period of time. Bush expresses concern that a "first time offender" could end up serving time, yet he quite obviously doesn't give a damn about the thousands of first time offenders who are sent to prison every day, often for non-violent crimes. He no doubt continues to support mandatory minimum laws and stiff sentencing guidelines for all sorts of non-violent offenses.

The President's words aren't even carefully chosen. His statement is little more than a pro forma exercise meant to provide some public justification for what is transparently an act of political and person favoritism. Future historians will no doubt see this document as embodying everything that was wrong with the Bush administration. It's all in there: an utter disregard for truth, for process, for the rule of law, a man who sees himself as King Solomon instead of the president of a democratic republic. I'm more convinced than ever that Bush will come to be seen, if he's not already, as the worst president in modern American history.