Libby Loose Ends
by Josh Gerstein
Wed, 7 Mar 2007 at 6:42 PM
updated Wed, 7 Mar 2007 at 6:54 PM
Lewis Libby's convictions yesterday generated an orgy of press coverage. Most of the print coverage was accurate, which is more than I can say for the cable-news coverage leading up to the verdict, during which outright falsehoods about the case were flying so fast I could barely keep up with them. Still, there are some loose ends to tie up — or least identify.
The White House tried to isolate itself from the political damage yesterday by declaring that substantive comment would be improper because of the ongoing court proceedings, such as Libby's request for a new trial and the likely appeal. However, that line will be hard to hold to.
For one thing, in advance of Libby's sentencing, which is set for June 5, his lawyers will want to gather statements from his friends and coworkers touting his character and public service. Will the White House block such statements from current officials? Could it? When the flood of praise for Libby rolls in, will the press ask why the White House remains unwilling to address lingering questions such as why Karl Rove was never fired and whether Vice President Cheney really thought there was a West Wing conspiracy to save Mr. Rove and hang Libby out to dry?
Mr. Cheney's statement yesterday also dodged a key question: Will he be involved in any discussions about a pardon? He pledged not to comment about the case while it's still in the courts, but he didn't say he'd recused himself altogether. What are the ethics of pardon lobbying? "There are no rules," a law professor at Ohio State, Doug Berman, told me. He said that a conservative defense lawyer would probably advise Mr. Cheney to keep his nose out of it. Prosecutor Pat Fitzgerald's comments yesterday that he'd be happy to listen to any additional evidence Libby might want to provide seem to leave at least the theoretical possibility of criminal exposure for the vice president. With that threat hanging out there, any lobbying by Mr. Cheney for a Libby pardon could be seen as self-serving at best, and obstruction of justice at worst.
An outrageous suggestion? Plenty of people made it when President George H.W. Bush pardoned Cap Weinberger in the Iran-Contra affair. Similar arguments were also made to justify criminal investigations into President Clinton's pardons.
Another issue that could roil Libby's sentencing: the strong victim's rights provisions large majorities of lawmakers have woven into the legal system in recent years. Anyone who is a victim of Libby's crimes has a right to address the court. Who is a victim in this case? Joe and Valerie Wilson could create a show by demanding to speak at the sentencing, though one of their attorneys told me yesterday that it is doubtful they would make such a demand. They have a civil suit pending that could give them a better forum to make trouble for their enemies.
Theoretically, other CIA employees also could come forward and ask to be heard, which would up the drama-value of the sentencing. Those making the Hollywood film may want to borrow some courtroom sketches for their storyboards.
Latest Politics Homepage
|
Print
Send
RSS
