Lewis Libby, Vice President's former staffer, sentenced: 30 Months in Jail

I read at the Washington Post today, that Lewis Libby has been sentenced to 30 months in prison for "lying to investigators about his role in leaking the identity of an undercover CIA officer."

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is the former Chief of Staff of Vice President Dick Cheney.

It has been said that evidence in this case leads to the conclusion that Libby's actions were not up to par and that he is responsible for blowing the cover of former CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity.

At best, Libby is guilty for not remembering who first told him that Joe Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife, Valerie Plame.

There has been lengthy debate as to whether Plame was an undercover agent. Former CIA Operations officer Fred Rustmann, Valerie Plame's first supervisor, stated she had undercover status for many years during his appearance on the Hannity & Colmes Show in July 2005. Rustmann also stated that all of Plame's and Wilson's friends knew of her work and Plame made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee.

CBS news reported in October 2005, that Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA for 18 years.

In this Washington Post article, it is mentioned that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald should have known that Valerie Plame was not a covert agent, and that Libby did not know her assigment was classified.

The discrepancies in the media and at the White House do not make it any easier to determine what really happened in this case.

For all I know he very well could be lying, or he just has a bad memory when it comes to classified government gossip.

The only thing that disturbs me is the fact that the very people who demanded prison time for Libby, are the same people who tried to convince us that it was okay for Bill Clinton to lie about oral sex in the Oval Office.

Is it okay to commit perjery on the stand at your trial when you're the President of the United States? Is it okay to forget that Clinton did in fact have "sexual relations with that woman" and lied about it?

Even Sandy Berger only received a $50,000 fine for illegally removing classified documents from the National Archives, where he had been reviewing them under authorization by Bill Clinton in preparation for testimony before the 9/11 Commission.

But now, when a Republican forgets who snitched about the cover of a CIA agent (I've read it was both Robert Novak and Tim Russert -- who's convicting them?), or allegedly lies about the details or his involvement, he is sentenced to serve 2 1/2 years behind bars? Is this not a double standard?

Are we really convicting this man for lying, or are we prosecuting him for being a Republican?

I'm all for Libby going to jail. Let's fry him. After all he lied, right?

But let's also go back and re-open the Clinton case. I think Bill and Scooter would make great cell mates.

Contributing Editor Dana J. Tuszke also blogs at The Dana Files.

Submitted by Dana J. Tuszke (view blog

) on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 2:22pm

Posted In

News & Politics

Comments (4)

Tell a Friend

Comments

Varying Degrees

Hi Dana,

I know we're always coming from opposing positions, but I appreciate your candor and willingness to lay it out.

So yes, I'm disagreeing with you. Again. (Sorry!)

First and foremost, there are degrees of lying. Lying about the dog eating your homework is not the same as lying about setting the school on fire.

Relating to perjury of Clinton versus that of Libby, If I Ran The Zoo offers:

...the seriousness of lying under oath depends entirely on what it is you're lying about.

And then maps out the differences (below):

Underlying offense:
Clinton: Not criminal; at worst, arguably relevant (tangentially) to a civil case that was dismissed by the judge as failing to state a cause of action.

Libby: Potentially serious criminal offenses (including, possibly, conspiracy) with deleterious consequences for national security.

Practical impact of lie:
Clinton: No apparent impact on litigation.

Libby: Made it impossible to determine what, if any, criminal offenses had been committed, or by whom.

Prosecutor:
Clinton: Conservative Republican; active in prior partisan efforts to embarrass the president.

Libby: Unaffiliated; no partisan motivation.

Scope of investigation:
Clinton: Initially limited to Whitewater, later expanded into unrelated areas. Perjury prosecution was for testimony completely irrelevant to original scope of investigation.

Libby: Limited to facts surrounding the leakage of a covert operative's identity, scope never changed. Perjury prosecution was for testimony directly related to original scope of investigation.

Media leaks:
Clinton: Prosecutor's office systematically leaked information embarrassing to the president.

Libby: No significant leaks.

Washington press corps party line:
Clinton: This is serious, and the president should resign.

Libby: This is trivial, and the prosecutor is out of control.

I recognize that these points may be a bit over-simplistic, but I mostly agree with them. The point is, it's not enough to say "they both lied, they should be treated equally." I think you have to ask, and examine what they lied about, who they lied to, and why.

----
Kristy is currently planning the BlogHer Conference in Chicago and blogging She Just Walks Around With It...where she hardly ever goes off on political diatribes except, you know, occasionally.

Submitted by KristySF on Tue, 06/05/2007 - 17:24