The WSJ has an interesting story this morning on the reaction among conservatives to the Libby verdict. It's predictable. But yet another indication of the extent of political polarization in this country.
-----
Wall Street Journal
March 7, 2007
Libby's Backers Push for Pardon
Conviction of Cheney Aide
Sparks Conservative Calls,
But Raises Stakes for 2008
By JOHN D. MCKINNON, EVAN PEREZ and GARY FIELDS
March 7, 2007; Page A3
The conviction of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, threatened to spark a new political battle, with some conservatives pushing for a presidential pardon based on what they claim is prosecutorial excess.
A Washington, D.C., federal jury spent nearly 10 days sifting a month of testimony before convicting Mr. Libby yesterday on four of the five counts he faced, in a case that started as an investigation into the leaking of the identity of a CIA official. (See related article.1)
Mr. Libby wasn't charged with leaking, but with perjury and obstruction of justice for comments he made to FBI investigators and a federal grand jury. His supporters have long argued he shouldn't have been tried since he wasn't the original leaker and say his inaccurate comments to investigators were misstatements based on a faulty memory. With the conviction, these backers are turning their efforts toward seeking a pardon.
Within hours of the verdict, the conservative National Review published an online editorial calling for a pardon and stating that the verdict "conclusively proved only one thing: A White House aide became the target of a politicized prosecution set in motion by bureaucratic infighting and political cowardice." The Wall Street Journal editorial page also called for a pardon2.
Other prominent Republicans also voiced support. "I would be more than happy to lend my name to the effort for a pardon if it came down to that -- I think it would be justified," said former Sen. Fred Thompson, a Tennessee Republican who has helped lead an effort to raise money for Mr. Libby's defense, including plans to host a new fund-raiser announced after yesterday's verdict.
Dana Perino, a White House spokeswoman, left the door open, saying "there's a process in place for all Americans if they want to receive a pardon from a president." She said she wasn't characterizing Mr. Libby's prospects for clemency if he does apply.
Anticipating the pardon push, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, urged President Bush to "pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct."
The vice president released only a short statement, saying, "I am very disappointed with the verdict."
Besides being a political risk for the president, a pardon could be a big headache for the Republican presidential nominee in 2008. But some Republicans predicted that the post-trial and appeals processes could drag on for some time, postponing any pardon of Mr. Libby by Mr. Bush until after the 2008 election. Mr. Libby's lawyers said yesterday they would seek a new trial, and pursue appeals if that fails.
Despite strongly believing Mr. Libby lied when he claimed faulty memory, some jurors felt bad about their decision, said Denis Collins, a former journalist who sat on the jury. Some were in tears afterward.
"There was a tremendous amount of sympathy on the jury for Mr. Libby," Mr. Collins said outside the courthouse afterward. "We said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy? Where's [presidential aide Karl] Rove? Where are the other guys?' He was the fall guy."
Asked about a pardon, the 57-year-old Washington resident, who identified himself as a registered Democrat, said, "Personally, I wouldn't be upset a bit."
The case began in the summer of 2003 amid mounting criticism over the Iraq invasion and the search for weapons of mass destruction that were never found. Government prosecutors argued that Mr. Libby was at the center of an administration campaign to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vocal war critic, leaking information to reporters, including the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked at the Central Intelligence Agency. Prosecutors said Mr. Libby tried to cover up his involvement by lying to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a grand jury about his actions.
"The results are actually sad," Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald told reporters after the verdict. "It's sad that we had a situation where a high-level official person who worked in the office of the vice president obstructed justice and lied under oath. We wish that it had not happened, but it did."
In making their case for a pardon, supporters of Mr. Libby note that several other administration officials were involved in the leak as well. Richard Armitage, the former deputy secretary of state, has admitted being the original leaker, while political strategist Rove and Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary, also gave information about Ms. Plame to reporters.
"It's a case that never should have been brought," said Victoria Toensing, a former Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. "Politics should not be criminalized."
The prosecution aroused sympathy from prominent conservatives including former Bush adviser Mary Matalin, former Secretary of Education William Bennett and former CIA director R. James Woolsey. All lent their names to a private fund-raising trust that has so far has brought in more than $3 million to help pay for his defense.
Mr. Libby's handling of himself also is sure to score points with conservatives, as well as the White House. He could have done much more during the trial to embarrass the White House. At one point in his opening argument, Ted Wells, one of Mr. Libby's attorneys, suggested the defense would focus on how the White House had tried to make Mr. Libby a scapegoat in the case in order to spare Mr. Rove.
In the end, however, the defense rested without calling Mr. Libby or his former boss Mr. Cheney, and no more was said about White House scapegoating. That led some trial watchers to suggest Mr. Libby was being careful to preserve the pardon option.
Some presidential pardons have been deeply controversial. President Clinton came under fierce criticism for pardoning fugitive financier Marc Rich, whose ex-wife was a major Democratic campaign contributor, just before leaving office in 2001. Ironically, Mr. Rich was represented at one point by Mr. Libby, then a high-powered Washington lawyer in private practice.
President Bush came into office amid congressional hearings and a federal investigation of Mr. Clinton's last-minute pardons and commutations. At an early news conference, Mr. Bush said he would be different. Of pardons, he said: "I'll have the highest of high standards."
President Bush has rarely exercised his pardoning authority, using it mostly on non-controversial cases. With less than two years left in office, he has pardoned 113 people. Among the seven presidents who have held the office at least seven years since 1897, Mr. Bush ranks last in his use of the pardon power in the first six years of his administration.
Of all 19 presidents who have held the office since 1897, only Mr. Bush's father, George H.W. Bush, pardoned fewer people overall, and he served just one term. Even Warren G. Harding, who died after 27 months in office, pardoned 300 people and Gerald Ford, who served 29 months, granted 382 pardons.
Some conservatives compare the Libby case to the Iran-Contra affair. The first President Bush pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and five others convicted in that case, arguing they had acted out of service to the country.
"That was really a vindication of his political people. They were doing their job to protect the presidency," said Margaret Colgate Love, a former pardon attorney with the Justice Department. "This case is not as serious, but there is a similar premise for issuing a pardon."
--John McCary and Kara Scannell contributed to this article.
Write to John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com24, Evan Perez at evan.perez@wsj.com25 and Gary Fields at gary.fields@wsj.com26
URL for this article:
online.wsj.com |
