Wash. Post editorial equated Libby with Clinton
A July 3 Washington Post editorial, headlined "Too Much Mercy," about President Bush's decision to commute the sentence for former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby claimed: "Advocates for clemency point to President Bill Clinton, who lied under oath but was not removed from office or put in jail, and to Mr. Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. 'Sandy' Berger, who lied to investigators about sneaking documents from the National Archives but who also received no jail time." But unlike Libby, who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice and later sentenced to 30 months in a federal prison, Clinton was acquitted by the Senate and was not indicted on criminal charges by independent counsel Robert Ray or his predecessor Kenneth Starr.
As Media Matters for America has noted, the Post editorial page has a history of attacking the prosecution in the Libby case -- both in editorials and on the op-ed pages.
From the July 3 Post editorial:
IN COMMUTING I. Lewis Libby's prison sentence yesterday, President Bush took the advice of, among others, William Otis, a former federal prosecutor who wrote on the opposite page last month that Mr. Libby should neither be pardoned nor sent to prison. We agree that a pardon would have been inappropriate and that the prison sentence of 30 months was excessive. But reducing the sentence to no prison time at all, as Mr. Bush did -- to probation and a large fine -- is not defensible.
Mr. Libby was convicted in March on charges of perjury, making false statements and obstruction of justice. Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff had told the FBI and a grand jury that he had not leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame to journalists, but after hearing abundant testimony and carefully deliberating, a jury concluded that he lied. As we wrote at the time of the conviction, lying under oath is unacceptable for anyone, and particularly for a government official. As Mr. Bush said in his statement yesterday, "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."
Yet there were mitigating factors in this case. After two years of investigation, special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame's name; he never demonstrated that a crime occurred. Early on, the prosecutor had learned that the primary source of the disclosure to columnist Robert D. Novak was then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, who was not charged. Mr. Libby's trial provided convincing evidence that the revelation of Ms. Plame's identity was not the result of a conspiracy to punish her husband, administration critic Joseph C. Wilson IV -- the allegation that caused all the partisan furor surrounding the case and that led to Mr. Fitzgerald's appointment. Advocates for clemency point to President Bill Clinton, who lied under oath but was not removed from office or put in jail, and to Mr. Clinton's former national security adviser, Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who lied to investigators about sneaking documents from the National Archives but who also received no jail time.
Add to that Mr. Libby's long and distinguished record of public service, and we sympathize with Mr. Bush's conclusion "that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive." The probation office, as the president noted, recommended less time -- 15 to 21 months. But Mr. Bush, while claiming to "respect the jury's verdict," failed to explain why he moved from "excessive" to zero. It's true that the felony conviction that remains in place, the $250,000 fine and the reputational damage are far from trivial. But so is lying to a grand jury. To commute the entire prison sentence sends the wrong message about the seriousness of that offense.
The first thing I did when I got home from work last night was to check the official GOP channel to get the spin on Libby.
Alan Colmes had Dick Morris on, asked him for his opinion of the commutation, and it took Dick about 3/4 of second to get the word "Clinton" out of his mouth, after which there was almost no mention of the topic.
It may have been a new record, even for Little Dick.
the difference is the damage done to the country. the wapo apparently lacks that perspective.
Exactly...and that's the difference that the troglodytes cannot, or will not, acknowledge. Libby's perjury is directly related to the administration's attempt to punish a critic of Bush/Cheney's lies going into the Iraq war. Clinton lied about getting a blow job.
Only an idiot would fail to see the difference.
this is from the huffington post, a 1-24-07 article written by christy hardin smith, about the trial testimony of craig schmall, the daily cia briefer for cheney and libby. the same libby who was phoning reporter after reporter before novak's column and revealing her identity. [and not relevant? the judge thought it was.]:
"schmall also had a very effective moment of testimony regarding potential damage that could have been done if a covert agent was exposed to public scrutiny, both to that agent, and to all of the other agents and assets with whom the exposed agent worked, including possible harassment, torture, and death. it was a poignant moment , very effectively said with a firm tone by schmall, and all the more powerful because he was repeating what he had said to v.p. cheney and libby on the morning that the novak column appeared in newspapers outing valerie plame wilson."
Guess I don't see the damage. I'm sure most of you wailed and moaned while Clinton was scrutinized by Starr and others...and rightfully so.
Both of these cases are partisan witch hunts. A waste of our money and government resources. And a distraction from the the important business our public servants should be focused on
This business of gotcha politics is destroying our country and both sides need to stop it now.
obviously you are the partisan when you can't see the difference between the damage done by outing a covert operative and the senseless eight year pursuit of clinton. and the leak destroyed the cover status of plame's front company brewster jennings. spy operations take years to set up. apparentlly, you think it's as easy as putting an ad in a middle east paper. cia contacts wanted, good benefits.
Apparently LoLo doesn't THINK much at all. He/She IS good at regurgitating debunked right-wing talking points however.
Yeah, you're right. We *shouldn't* be concerned that a senior official lied and obstructed a Federal Investigation into an act of treason, for the purpose of protecting the larger lies that got us into this disaster known as Iraq.
Yeah, it's "gotcha politics", that's what it is. Sure. Luckily, we've got YOU here to educate all of us all with your wisdom. Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, fixing the game by the pResident of the US, ahhh, who cares anyway. It's *fine* that the pResident has seen fit to subvert our rule of Law for his buddies that are covering his criminal actions, that's no problem at all. We should just get over it.
Why don't you educate yourself before posting and making an utter and absolute fool of yourself, *if* you truly care about the country like you claim to.
Only an ignorant fool wouldn't see the difference between this, and Clinton lying about a bj.
Are you that big a fool? So far, it seems so.
I'm sorry... can you run by me one more time how a republican investigating a republican is partisan?
Treason's okay for the goose
So W cut Libby loose
He won't serve in jail
Justice did not prevail
But the gander would still get the noose
The gander being ANYONE except for Bush and company.
There once was a slippery rightwinger
Who told the Grand Jury a zinger
His boss said, "Don't talk,
Don't mind how they squawk;
We'll give the whole country the finger.
The WaPo, a purveyor of slander
To the Clinton-haters did pander
Libby is loose
He's a respectable goose
Good enough for their Proper Gander
Yeah, I know newspapers technically are libel, but it didn't rhyme.
But did you know it before Spiderman?
I did,Conchobhar, from Mr.Gordon, a high school English teacher who won 5 bucks off of me by proving he hadn't slandered me by writing something on the blackboard about me.
Almost 30 years ago, but it stuck.He died with that fiver.
I think that in that respect
Your limerick - few here will reject
Most honor your candor
In your misuse of slander
We all take liberties to make them perfect.
We all take liberties to make them perfect. Nerzog
You've got that right! It's hard to rhyme AND be exacting.
Sorry, Neondesert. Got my Ns mixed up.
Don't worry about it, okay?
But there's one thing I just gotta say:
This will really suck
If it turns out I'm stuck
speaking "Limerick" for the rest of the day...
Don't worry about it, Neon
Your atmosphere's made out of Freon
Kilmer was bluffin'
A tree is nuthin
But a poetic license to pee on
By "freon" I have to assume
you're implying a cold basement room.
But around neon's nest,as Pearlene can attest,
It's 110 here by noon.
Hmm..Doesn't make sense to me either. I don't think freon has anything to do with neon. I'm going to ask for a midnight -the -night -before- a -holiday boozy Mulligan on that one.
The following is the Bush Libby commute scandal in a nutshell:
Amnesty is an act by which rulers must often pardon the injustices they have committed.
Republicans don't govern, they rule
They've made U.S. justice their fool
Their elite dodge the hoosegow
That's for the plain scofflaw
A banana republic's not cool
It doesn't really matter what the probation office recommends. The maximum sentence under the LAW is 5 years for EACH count of perjury, and 10 years for the obstruction of justice. The judge sentenced him to the low end of the prosecutor's sentencing recommendation. bush (lowercase intentional) is just buying scooter's (again, intentional) continued silence. I've heard it said, though, that Congress can immunize him from further prosecution and compel his testimony in congressional hearings. It's time to impeach both bush and cheney (as always, lowercase is intentional).
President Clinton was not acquited by the Senate as you claim...he simply was not convicted -- it was a 50-to-50 vote. There is a difference between acquital and your spin.
If one want to make comparisons, how about Dan Rostenkowski...convicted of misuse of the office, misappropriation of funds and mail fraud...this one actually cost the taxpayers money. Pardoned by Bill Clinton.
How about Marc Rich...in danger of being arrested and tried in this country on tax evasion, he escaped to Switzerland to avoid prosecution. Pardoned by Bill Clinton.
It would be interesting to see this site take as many of the mistatements of fact and expression of inuendo in the name of "journalism" as are expressed by the likes of Dan Abhams water-carrier, Keith Olbermann, who regularly mistates -- or simply makes up facts -- then will claim it was "...just a joke." That gets to be a very old, tired line of people trying to justify stupidity.
A couple of recent examples you say...well how about in his "Special Comment " tonight he claimed that President Bush had only issued four pardons in six years -- the record shows 113. But then the facts have never gotten in his way. There's more, but then I digress -- but then so they.
Tim,
If you're going to post on this site you should at least try to get your "facts" straight.
Clinton was acquitted - there is no other way to put it. Absence of a conviction is an acquittal. Simply put, you are dead wrong on this point.
Dan Rostenkowski served 15 months of a 17 month sentence. He was pardoned by Clinton a year or two after he was released. Why did you forget to mention that, Tim?
Clinton did pardon Rich "after clemency pleas from Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak, among many other international luminaries"- as long as he pays a $100 million fine. As far as I know, he's still in Switzreland. Why didn't you bother to mention that, Tim?
I did not see the Olberman show you cited, but the facts are that Bush pardoned 113 who had served their sentences and commuted the sentences of 4 who did not - 3 of whom were convicted drug dealers! Did you fail to do the research properly, Tim, or are you just too damn lazy?
Clinton did issue a couple questionable pardons that I personally feel were incorrect. Does that make it okay for Bush to pardon a guy who was prosecuted by a Republican appointee and convicted by a Republican judge of obstructing the investigation of the leak of a covert CIA operative?
Amazing no response to your well-informed discussion of his talking points. It just shows that when facts are presented without spin, they have no logical response. Pathetic really.
Another observation of he Marc Rich analogy... if the Libby commutation were being responded to in the same manner as the Rich pardon, then a federal prosecutor would be investigating Bush right now. (Notice how Bush apologists never mention that?)
This pardon sums up the corruption and illegalities of the Cheney -Bush cabal as Keith Olberman so well showed last night! Ignoring FISA, torturing through renditions and having attorneys being partisan shows contempt of the American people! Impeach and dismiss the two !
People naturally compare Libby's raw deal and Bush's 1/3rd pardon with Clinton's skate on perjury due to politics and Larry Flynt intimidation and Sandy (Burglar) Berger's slap on the wrist for stealing/destroying classified documents. We all know that Libby gossipped about What's-her-name AFTER what's-his-name wrote about her for no apparent reason and OUTED HER in his unread New York Times newspaper column. I suppose because the New York Times is only used to line bird cages...Libby's gossip and denying gossip, makes HIM a CROOK?
Libby did NOTHING, yet was CRUCIFIED for crimes! Then Bush thinks he is PARDONING Libby by taking away the jail time. No way! Libby is still nailed with a felony, a HUGE fine, and probabtion...and for what?
Bush haters wanted Libby (who defended Clinton's pardons) hung out to dry because the woman's husband blatantly lied about Yellowcake since none of his barfly contacts knew about the yellowcake that went to Iraq as reported by the British intelligence.
Ernesto,
I think you should have investigated the Libby conviction a little more before making ridiculous statements like that. The case was rock solid and he was clearly guilty of some very serious crimes. His fine and probation are relatively insignificant and could still be pardoned by Bush. At this moment he should be putting his affairs in order and getting ready to report to prison.
Ernesto,
Sorry to carry on, but after re-reading you posts I have come to the conclusion that you are one of the most factually challenged right wingers I have seen on this site in a long time. May I please suggest that you do some serious research using some credible web sites? Thank you.
Libby not remembering conversations with Chaney is "criminal" while Clintons poor recall many, many times is just natural.
I submit that as Libby is NOT a weasel...and saying,"I don't recall"...197 times...he allowed himself to be interrogated for 8 hours which could have been much shorter.
Had Libby reacted to making testimony in a true Clintonian fashion with dozens of,"I don't remember and I don't recall"...the prosecutors would have quickly wearied as in many Clinton witness cases and given up.
Libby's attempt at co-operation and not being a weasel...just got him in trouble.
Sadly, this occurrs a lot in the judicial system. Co-operate..and you are crucified for any errors...but if you declare the 5th amendment or "Don't recall"...you are safe!
You can only lie to yourself buddy, what Schrub did was wrong and no ones buying your spin...sell that over at Newsmax kid
Libby could have avoided all of this by, you know, telling the truth. It's really that simple. Bush could have avoided all of this if Libby had, well, told the truth.
Did Bill Clinton lie during his deposition about Whitewater on a question that really had nothing to do with the case? Yes, he did lie. Should he have? Absolutely not. Do I think he screwed up because he lied? Absolutely. And the fact remains, regardless of what you think, he was not convicted in a court of law for perjury and or obstruction of justice, and as a matter of, you know, fact, Starr never pursued charges of perjury and obstruction on his testimony, because it was not pursuant to the case, at all. The Senate acquited Clinton of those charges as well:
The trial proceedings were largely party-line, with no Democratic Senators voting for conviction and only three Democratic Representatives voting to impeach. In all, 55 senators voted "not guilty," and 45 voted "guilty" on the charge of perjury. The Senate also acquitted on the obstruction charge with 50 votes cast each way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton