Scooter Libby-a Pardon?

I have to admit I am somewhat torn by the Scooter Libby trial, his conviction for perjury and lying to investigators and his sentence of 30 months in prison. On the one hand, as a retired law enforcement agent who testified hundreds of times in trials and grand jury hearings-and never lied- I feel strongly about perjury. In short, it is absolutely wrong, and it is a dagger pointed at the heart of our judicial system. If our courts cannot depend on people testifying truthfully under oath, then how does our system of justice survive? I also feel that those in power need to be held accountable when they abuse our trust. During the impeachment of Bill Clinton, I supported his removal from office because he was the president and clearly committed perjury. (Of course, I was biased from the outset- I thought he was a corrupt president all around.) With the Scooter Libby case, I am troubled. On the one hand, if Libby intentially lied to investigators and the Grand Jury, then shame on him. On the other hand, this case seems to have at least the potential for an abuse of judicial power. The truth is I don't much like presidential pardons. Those issued by Clinton in his last days in office smack to me of corruption and selling of pardons. I believe that presidential pardons should be limited to those cases where the president believes there has been a miscarriage of justice. I believe that the Libby case is a miscarriage, and that President Bush should issue a pardon.

This case began with allegations that someone in government improperly leaked to a reporter (Robert Novak) that Valerie Plame (the wife of Joseph Wilson) was a CIA employee. Wilson, of course, had been commisioned by the CIA to travel to the African nation of Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase uranium from that country. Wilson came back reporting that the stories were false and proceeded to become a vocal critic of the Bush adminstration. The employment of Wilson's wife at the CIA arose under speculation that she had helped her husband get the assignment.

Thus arose an investigation as to who had divulged the identity of "a covert undercover agent" from the CIA (Plame). It was pointed out that divulging the name of a covert CIA employee was a crime. The issue became a political circus with Bush opponents charging that the name of Wilson's wife was released in an attempt to discredit Wilson or at the least to clarify that the White House had not been involved in Wilson's appointment. The case was eventually turned over to an independent counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, who took over the investigation.

Interestingly, when Fitzgerald came into the picture, there were two items that had already been made clear: First, that Valerie Plame did not qualify as a "covert agent". For the past several years, she had been working at CIA HQs at Langley, Virginia and had not been operating in the field. Second, that the person who had actually given the name of Plame to Novak was not Libby, but Richard Armitage of the State Department. Case closed, right? Hardly. Fitzgerald continued to investigate the non-crime and had Libby repeatedly questioned and brought into the Grand Jury. Eventually, contradictions arose in Libby's statements and -Voila! an indictment for perjury. This is what is called in judicial circles as a process prosecution. Even if no underlying crime was committed, if a witness/suspect is found to have lied to investigators or to the Grand Jury, prosecution may follow. And in this case, it did.

Libby's defense was that his memory was faulty, and that he may have inadvertently given conflicting statements. A jury listened to the evidence and convicted him. Now he is sentenced to 30 months in prison.

So is this an abuse of prosecutorial discretion (prosecutors don't have to file charges on every single offense that comes before them -for many reasons.)? Given the highly charged political nature of this case, I suspect it is. Joseph Wilson, a political figure determined to discredit the Bush administration has become a favorite of the left-wing talk circuit. And what of Valerie Plame, who had her "cover blown" by the Bush White House (actually Armitage)? Well, she was so concerned about the compromise of her identity that she and her husband did a photo spread for Vanity Fair.

I concede that I could be wrong on this. Maybe Libby deliberately lied for whatever motive. But I am very troubled by the ongoing criminalization of politics in Washington. It seems that this is becoming an accepted tactic-to try and hang criminal charges on one's political opponents. I guess the bottom line is that I have doubts about this case. Therefore, I feel that if Bush believes that there has been a miscarriage of justice, then he should bite the political bullet and pardon Mr Libby.