At Slate, Timothy Noah has written a defense of Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s jail sentence that is riddled with errors, fallacies, and non-sequiturs. To wit:
1. Noah says that Libby “probably didn’t understand that Plame’s identity was a government secret.” In fact, in Libby’s indictment, we read that:
Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.
This is pretty good evidence that Libby knew that Plame’s CIA identity was classified. Furthermore, Ari Fleischer testified that Libby told him that the Plame information was “hush hush” and “on the QT.”
2. Noah says that Libby’s sentence of 30 months “was about twice as long as the prison term recommended by the court’s probation office.”
However, federal sentencing guidelines in this case suggest a sentence of 15-21 months only if cross-referencing does not apply, but 30-37 months if cross-referencing does apply. ['Cross-referencing' is the application of the sentencing guideline for the underlying crime that was being investigated (i.e., disclosure of a CIA agent's identity) to the less serious crime (i.e., obstruction of justice) being prosecuted.] The judge ruled that cross-referencing did apply, and gave Libby a sentence at the low end of the guidelines.
3. Noah asserts with no evidence that “if Libby hadn’t been a high-ranking government official, there’s a decent chance he would have gotten off with probation, a stiff fine, and likely disbarment.”
In fact, Victor Rita, an elderly gentleman who was not a high-ranking government official, was prosecuted for crimes similar to but less important than Libby’s (perjury and obstruction of justice in a case involving the sale of machine gun kits) and received a sentence of 33 months, 3 months more than Libby.
4. Noah says, “No fair-minded person can deny that the previous president committed perjury about Monica Lewinsky while serving in the Oval Office.”
On the contrary, no fair-minded person can deny that Clinton was found not guilty of those charges after a trial in the U.S. Senate.
5. Noah asks whether it is “really fair to treat White House aides more harshly than ordinary citizens when presidents get off scot-free.” This statement combines three fallacies.
a)As noted above, Libby was not treated more harshly than an ordinary citizen.
b)As noted above, Clinton was acquitted of perjury.
c)And finally, Noah equates the alleged perjury in Clinton’s case with the four separate crimes that Libby was convicted of: two counts of perjury, one of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to the FBI.
To sum up, Noah’s case is almost entirely fraudulent. In the case of the Libby commutation, both Noah and Bush are wrong.
Where’s your condemnation of Sandy Berger for hiding Bill Clinton’s involvement in the 9-11 attacks?
Hypocrite.
Derrick, we keep that in Al Capone’s vault with our condemnation of Dwight Eisenhower for concealing the bodies of aliens from outer space from us.
In fact, in Libby’s indictment, we read that…
Pretty funny.but here are two points to ponder:
1. Edelman was never called as a witness at Libby’s trial;
2. In pre-trial jousting Fitzgerald admitted that the Edelman story was actually quite ambiguous – since the underlying Wilson trip was also classified, there was really a lot that Libby could not discuss on a non-secure line. Edelman had no idea (since Libby wasn’t saying anything) just what it was that Libby did not feel free to discuss.
However, Fitzgerald did fool a few folks with that passage, evidently.
Oh, here is Fitzgerald himself from a hearing:
FITZGERALD: …I agree with Mr. Wells the New Republic article does not discuss the wife. There is an ambiguity about what Mr. Libby and this person are discussing on the phone afterward as to what the complication is.
Of course, this silly argument completely overlooks the obvious: commuting Scooter’s sentence wasn’t for Scooter; it was for Cheney and not as a favor either.
Tom Maguire asserts without evidence: “Edelman had no idea (since Libby wasn’t saying anything) just what it was that Libby did not feel free to discuss.”
Assuming your interpretation is correct, why didn’t Team Libby call Edelman? Note that I’m not denying there’s ambiguity, only your contention that there’s no way Edelman could have known what it was that Libby didn’t feel free to discuss. Edelman’s testimony could have cleared this up.
Bill Cwinton wied about his peepee. It was the mostest worstest thing that ever happened in the whole history of the universe.
/noah
What a buffoon.
Hey Tom,
Hush hush…it’s on the QT.
If Noah wants to make comparisons he should at least look for appropriate comparisons to make. Some claim Clinton vs Libby or Marc Rich vs Libby are appropriate. Nonsense. Weinberger vs Libby is, however. Both represented cases of high ranking government officials breaking the law in his official capacity, getting convicted and then pardoned by a President Bush in large measure to keep the crime contained, i.e., an obstruction of justice in itself. Why didn’t Noah instead focus on this?
Clinton was a rotten husband and lied to keep his affairs a secret. There was no underlying crime. Clinton did enter into a plea agreement in the Paula Jones matter where he agreed to pay a fine and be disbarred from practicing law for a period of time in exchange for all charges being dropped. Libby was given an opportunity to cop a plea and he choose to wait for presidential action in lieu of a plea bargin. All he had to do was agree to tell the truth, not a tall order for a high ranking government official.
Who knows why Clinton pardoned Rich. I believe he has even said he now regrets that decision. Even there, however, Rich was no more of a scoundrel than some of those pardoned by Bush 41 and I have never heard Bush express regret over any of his pardons. Not the Pakistani cocaine dealer and not the Cuban terrorist believed responsible for bringing down a plane in which 78 people were killed.
So, once again, the “Clinton did it” claim fails the test of accuracy. The more accurate test is Weinberger vs Libby and that makes it Bush-41 vs Bush-43. Go with it!
I agree like father like son … the comparison, though not directly on point in all particulars, deserves more emphasis. The Iran/Contra affair is particularly useful given the number of R. presidential hopefuls out there who are honoring Reagan.
Ed Lazarus handles this issue, including the guidelines issue, well in a piece in Findlaw.
It is useful to note too that with power comes responsibility. Why shouldn’t such people have MORE to worry when they seriously threaten public safety given they are likely to be able to do so a lot more than us peons and willingly accepted the responsibility.
Anyway, Noah was a ‘reluctant hawk’ during the lead-up to the war. In a fashion, Wilson hurt his credibility too. His continual enabling is not TOO surprising, but does help underline how we got into to mess in the first place.