U.S. Common Sense

This week, President Bush commuted the 30-month prison sentence of I. Scooter Libby following the Valerie Plame leak scandal.  For those of you who are not aware of the issue, in 2003, Robert Novak wrote an article entitled “Mission to Niger” in which he mentions the name of Valerie Plame, calling her an operative in the CIA.  Her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, charged that she was a covert agent and that her identity was exposed as part of a revenge campaign initiated by the Bush administration following his op-ed piece entitled “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.”  Since the exposing a covert agents identity is a criminal offense and investigation began that year with the appointing of Patrick Fitzgerald as the Special Counsel to determine the source of the leak. 

At the start of the investigation, Fitzgerald already knew two key facts which solved the mystery of the leak.  The first fact was that Plame did not meet the qualifications of a covert agent at the time the article was written.  In order for a leak of a covert agent’s status to be a criminal offense, the agent must be currently covert or was in a covert status in a foreign nation within the past five years.  From Joseph Wilsons own book, he moved back to the Washington, D.C. area in June 1997 (six years before the leak) at the same time as Valerie Plame.  The second fact Fitzgerald knew was that Richard Armitage was the source of the leak at the start of October 2003, a month before Scooter Libby was brought in for questioning.  With these two facts known, the investigation is complete and a report submitted for review, right?

Unfortunately no.  In the modern world of “gotcha politics,” someone has to be found guilty of something, even if the crime is not related directly to the investigation.  This is the case with Scooter Libby.  Be it simply faulty memory or a deliberate attempt to hide information from the investigator, Libby was indicted on five counts of obstruction of justice, giving false statements, and perjury.  These counts were not associated with the act of leaking the identity of Valerie Plame.  As a result of the indictment, Libby was sentenced to 30 months in jail, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine.  After being denied bail by the U.S. Court of Appeals, President Bush decided to commute the 30-month jail sentence.  This is different from a pardon which is a remission of punishment.

Obviously, this act has created some outrage, primarily those who are either opponents of President Bush or believe that the leak of identity of Plame was a coordinated attack against her and Joseph Wilson.  Strangely enough, one of the complaints came from former President Bill Clinton.  Clinton stated “I think there are guidelines for what happens when someone is convicted.  You’ve got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”  This is an interesting statement coming from the former President given some of his own controversial pardons in the past.  Many people remember the pardoning of Marc Rich when thinking of Clinton’s last-minute controversial pardons, but there is one pardon that I believe is more relevant to this case that is overlooked.

Henry Cisneros, President Clintons’ former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, was investigated in 1995 for lying to FBI investigators during his appointment in an attempt to cover up payments made to his mistress.  In 1997, Cisneros was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and giving false statements to investigators.  In 1999, Cisneros entered into a plea deal, pleading guilty to a misdemeanor of lying to the FBI.  As a result, he was fined $10,000 with no probation or jail time.  In one of his last acts as President, Clinton pardoned Cisneros.

This is why I find these two cases better examples for comparison than Marc Rich, who was guilty of tax evasion.  Looking at their indictments and sentences:

Cisneros:
- focus of independent counsel investigation
- indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and giving false statements
- fined $10,000.00 with no probation or jail time

Libby:
- not the focus on independent counsel investigation (Armitage was the focus)
- indicted on 5 counts of obstruction of justice, giving false statements, and perjury
- fined $250,000.00 with 2 years’ probation and 30 months of jail time

Cisneros, with more counts and being the focus of the investigation, received only a $10,000 fine while Libby, with less counts and not the focus of the investigation, received a $250,000 fine, 30 months in jail, and two years probation.  For some reason, President Clinton believes his pardon of Cisneros is less of an issue while the commutation of Libby’s 30-month jail sentence.  Maybe he believes his pardon was based on sound logic, just as President Bush.  Maybe he believes Cisneros was unjustly penalized for his actions, just as President Bush.  Whatever the case may be, it is difficult to understand the objection President Clinton has in this case that isn’t based solely upon partisan politics, and I wish President Clinton explain what his objections are and why his actions were justified.