Posted on 07/23/2009 9:35:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The saga of Scooter Libby continues with an in-depth report from Time on the final hours of the George Bush administration and Dick Cheney’s desperate attempt to get clemency for his former aide. Cheney “really got in the President’s face” like never before, according to one source close to Bush, but to no avail. By that time Bush had already been burned on one pardon — and for the president, the issue came down to one question:
-----------------------------------------------------
On the Sunday before he left office, Bush invited Sharp to the executive mansion for a farewell cigar.
While packing boxes in the upstairs residence, according to his associates, Bush noted that he was again under pressure from Cheney to pardon Libby. He characterized Cheney as a friend and a good Vice President but said his pardon request had little internal support. If the presidential staff were polled, the result would be 100 to 1 against a pardon, Bush joked. Then he turned to Sharp. “What’s the bottom line here? Did this guy lie or not?”
The lawyer, who had followed the case very closely, replied affirmatively.
Bush indicated that he had already come to that conclusion too.
“O.K., that’s it,” Bush said.
-------------------------------------------------------
The article is well worth the read. It describes the kind of inside-baseball that we all know exists in Washington and in every administration, but usually doesn’t get revealed until the next administration takes its place. It has no hint of illegal or even unethical behavior, but instead just the tactics of people who play to win in politics. It also dispels the notion that Bush was Cheney’s hand-puppet, as it makes plain that Bush played the same level of politics, and with the same talent.
On the issue of Libby and the pardon, that actually underscores the effort both men gave in pursuit of their values. For Cheney, the issue was loyalty and a sense of unfairness over the targeting of Libby in the Plame investigation. For Bush, as the passage above notes, the issue was maintaining the integrity of public service. He clearly sympathized with Libby’s plight, as he showed in commuting the sentence, but Bush could not bring himself to ignore that Libby lied to investigators and under oath.
Bush stuck to his view of justice and integrity, and in the end, I believe he made the right call for the right reasons.
But I still would have considered a pardon here. I have always been offended by the prosecutorial tactic of setting a perjury trap when they can't find a crime has been committed. It is unjust and should be unethical IMHO. When he discovered no crime had been committed, very early in his investigation, the prosecutor set a perjury trap as the only way he could give the media the Fitzmas they craved.
Unfortunately, Scooter broke the first rule of Grand Jurys: always tell the truth, never lie, and if you feel you would have to lie for some reason take the Fifth and refuse to give the testimony. And if you aren't really, really sure about what you remember for heaven's sake say you don't remember.
Good heavens, Mr. President, this is a war, not a garden party!
I on the other hand, was not convinced. Certainly not beyond a reasonble doubt. People do forget, and people can remember wrongly.
I think Issac Asimov once said about writing his memoirs, that it was a good thing he had kept a journal, because he remembered many incidents differently from what he had written.
That's a really good point. I emphasize in getting witnesses ready they don't have to answer and should not answer if they aren't really sure they remember accurately. Memory issues are one reason eyewitness testimony is one of the most unreliable, contrary to what most people think.
Old news, we read of this in the days following the end of Bush’s Presidency... so I guess Mr Morrisey had nothing else to report.
1. He should’ve said “I don’t remember”.
As we know now, Fitz knew perfectly well BEFORE he started questioning Scooter who was the real leak. And he also knew already that no laws were violated. It was a setup.
Now, if Scooter indeed remembered as he said, and his recollection was different from other people recollection of the same events, was there an intent to lie? I think it matters.
Did President Bush ever said something that he thought was true but wasn’t? Just looking at him I know it happened. How do I know? He looks human.
Could not he just “look him in his eyes” like he did with Putin and ask, Scooter, did you intend to lie?
2. All of the above notwithstanding, when one side tries to play by the rules and another side has no intention of doing this, where does it leave us? (a rhetorical question, of course)
I agree, which is why I think perjury traps ought to be a form of illegal entrapment.
I don't know what Bush was worried about. His poll numbers and "legacy" according to the news media couldn't have gotten any worse.
I followed this story from the beginning, very closely, and am far from convinced (and certainly far from any reasonable doubt) that Libby purposely told untruths to the investigators. I’m more convinced that Fitzgerald targeted Libby because of his Marc Rich grudge. Certainly, that Fitzgerald continued calling potential suspects before the grand jury after he knew no crime had been committed and that Plame’s name had been leaked by Armitage is the very definition of an out-of-control prosecutor.
Libby’s memory was flawed, certainly. So is mine and so is yours. I’m not sure any of us would survive questioning before a grand jury— Libby is a top-drawer attorney in his own right, and look what happened to him. Bottom line: Perjury traps are an abomination and have no place in a free country. And also recall that when Libby went back to his email records and found he’d spoken incorrectly to investigators, he went back voluntarily to correct the record. That was probably not a good idea, honorable though it might be.
Also, IIRC one cannot plead the fifth before a grand jury, but I’d be happy to be wrong about that. “I don’t remember” would seem to be the safest answer, and anything else you state from memory should be heavily larded with “to the best of my recollection”s, “I seem to recall”s and “I might be wrong but”s.
Finally, I have the very highest regard for Cheney and his ability to judge character... far more so than Bush, who looked into Putin’s eyes and saw his soul and so on. If Cheney vouches for Libby, that is sufficient for me.
The message to talented Republicans is: “Stay in private practice. Come to DC and we will destroy you and your family.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.