Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The levels of hypocrisy in Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence just keep going down. Some of them are incredibly obvious, like the fact that so many of the truly braindead are claiming that the whole thing was a "political witch hunt" - one perpetrated by a Bush-appointed prosecutor in front of a Bush-appointed judge, for crying out loud. And some have pointed out that Bush commuted the sentence as "too harsh" even though it fell within the Federal sentencing guidelines that he went to the Supreme Court to argue for earlier this year. But it's even worse than that.
Would you believe the case over those sentencing guidelines involved the same exact offense that Libby was convicted or? The defendant was Victor Rita, a military veteran who was accused or perjury and obstruction of justice and received a 33 month sentence (Libby received 30 months for the same offense). He asked that the sentence be reduced in light of his long military service. Bush's DOJ filed an amicus brief arguing against giving him a lighter sentence and in favor of upholding the Federal sentencing guidelines.
And when you read that brief you see just how deep the hypocrisy goes. In that brief, the Bush administration argued that the sentencing guidelines must be upheld because failure to do so would result in those accused of the same crime being treated differently. "A system that permits significant disparity in sentences imposed on similarly situated offenders," the administration argued, "fails to 'promote respect for the law' or 'provide just punishment.'" They urged the Court to uphold those guidelines in order to fulfill "the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct."
The brief also notes that 33 months for the crime or perjury and obstruction of justice was at "the bottom of the advisory guidelines range." Libby's sentence was 3 months shorter than that. And the defendant in that case could point to a lifetime of military service as a compensating factor; Libby cannot. Yet we still hear from his defenders that his work in the administration amounts to "public service" and should weight against his sentence. This whole thing is hypocritical on so many levels that it almost boggles the mind. Let's detail them...
If you're a military vet and you commit perjury and obstruction of justice, you must spend a minimum of 33 months in prison for your crimes and that sentence cannot be reduced at all because to do so would result in people who commit the same crime being treated disparately by the legal system. But...
If you're a Bush aide and you commit perjury and obstruction of justice, a 30 month sentence is not only too much despite being on the low end of the Federal sentencing guidelines, it has to be eliminated completely. Because of your long record of service to the country. And the fact that this results in those convicted of the same crime being treated disparately.....I'm sorry, what was the question? Brief? What brief? We don't know what you're talking about (sticking fingers in ears) LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA.
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
Comments
Being a "appointee" does not guarantee loyalty as seen most strikingly for example with King Henry and Thomas a Beckett.
Posted by: Mark Olson | July 6, 2007 9:39 AM
It's disgusting.
But I find solace in that with such low approval numbers and aura of incompetence, W will be forever branded as America's Neville Chamberlain.
Posted by: Royale | July 6, 2007 9:59 AM
Two words: Ollie North.
If you can get a presidential pardon for selling arms to a declared enemy in order to continue to fund an illegal terrorist operation in another country, despite an explicit Congressional descision that said terrorists must not be funded, and come out of it all regarded as a patriotic hero, then outing an undercover CIA agent in the service of launching an illegal war based on a pack of lies should get you the Congressional Medal of Honour.
I wouldn't be at all suprised...
Posted by: Dunc | July 6, 2007 10:02 AM
"launching an illegal war based on a pack of lies should get you the Congressional Medal of Honour."
....and a show on Fox News.
Posted by: Royale | July 6, 2007 10:05 AM
Mark Olson said: Being a "appointee" does not guarantee loyalty...
True enough - but when several of the decision-makers in the case are appointed by a single Republican President, it is ludicrous to then blame the entire result on a left-wing conspiracy. Though that doesn't seem to have stopped anyone.
Posted by: BobApril | July 6, 2007 10:15 AM
Will somebody please explain this to me. Obviously, Bush's reputation is shot and there's nothing he can do about this. But doesn't he have advisors who care about the future of the Republican party? How could anybody possibly think this is a good PR move? I figure
A) Bush simply doesn't care anymore, screw his advisors or the American public.
B) There's something about politics I don't get. Or there's some material benefit to keeping Libby out of jail.
or
C) The GOP is so far sunk in the quicksand of corruption that they couldn't get out even if they tried. But honestly, I'm too optimistic to think that there really is a Legion of Doom in the White House that's so cartoonishly evil that they have no grip on reality.
Sigh...what is it, another 18 months?
Posted by: Brandon | July 6, 2007 10:16 AM
...I'm too optimistic to think that there really is a Legion of Doom in the White House that's so cartoonishly evil that they have no grip on reality.
That might be slightly too harsh. I don't see them as evil, just far too self-righteous. So much so that they don't listen to any outside opinion, because they are all telling each other how right they are.
The only thing worse than surrounding yourself with opportunistic ambitious "yes-men" is surrounding yourself with people who ALWAYS express agreement because they honestly agree. The extra sincerity has got to help cement the wall between themselves and reality.
As far as your choices - is it possible that Libby has more that he could say, and getting his sentence commuted is a payoff to help keep him silent? That would fall under choice B, I think. If the commutation is followed up by a full pardon after the election, then that rather sinister theory would make even more sense.
Posted by: BobApril | July 6, 2007 10:25 AM
I rather suspect that the next Republican presidential candidate will be running on a thinly-veiled "at least I'm better than the last arsehole" platform. The rest of the Republican party will be pushing the line "hey, all that trouble recently? Yeah, that was all Bush. And he's gone now. Pay no attention to the fact that almost all of the people who were running the show with him are still running the show now."
Posted by: MartinM | July 6, 2007 10:27 AM
Brandon says: "But doesn't he have advisors who care about the future of the Republican party? How could anybody possibly think this is a good PR move?" Two words: attention span. Nobody but the hardcore will be thinking about this by the time the election rolls around. Bush had to do this to satisfy his base who need to continue to believe that whatever is done that they disagree with is an act of politics, and whatever they do is an act of patriotism and courage.
Posted by: Alan B. | July 6, 2007 10:29 AM
Alan B is right. This will be forgotten in no time and they know that. You may not be able to fool all of the people all of the time, but you can fool enough of them - or distract enough of them - to win elections.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 6, 2007 10:38 AM
You are both right, but you leave out the reason. The media will deliberately stop talking about this as soon as possible, and refuse to "rehash old news" when the elections get close.
If our media did its job, this mess -- and all of the Republicans' other messes -- would not be forgotten.
Posted by: xebecs | July 6, 2007 10:45 AM
That's not entirely true. Heck, I first heard about the commutation while watching CNN. Obviously Fox News will conveniently forget this whole incident, and Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher will be reminding us of it until the end of time. But I think the media handles these situations as well as they can, considering they're dealing with a public that really doesn't care.
Posted by: Brandon | July 6, 2007 11:17 AM
I don't blame the media for this. The media reports what sells and the fact is that the American people would much rather hear reports about Paris Hilton's drunken parties or Britney Spears in rehab. We not only get the government we deserve, we get the media we deserve too.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 6, 2007 11:27 AM
xebecs,
Honestly, I have never seen the media do it's job for the entirety of my life. I don't expect anything to change now.
Posted by: MrvnMouse | July 6, 2007 11:37 AM
"The levels of hypocrisy in Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence just keep going down."
Don't you mean "going up"?
Posted by: PhysioProf | July 6, 2007 1:19 PM
In addition to problems with what the media reports (I'm not as willing to forgive the media as Ed is), there is the "liberal media bias" formula. That hard core 30% of Americans wont listen to the media if they had graphic video of Bush making shish kabobs with babies, kittens, and puppies over a burning copy of the Constitution. Then you have another 10-15% who take anything the media has to say about the GOP with "a grain of salt."
So you take the lack of media focus + hard core Republicans + skeptical moderate conservatives = 2008 wont be a slam dunk for the Democrats. Add in the fact that the Democrats handle their election campaigns horribly lately and you have a legitimate shot for a Republican win. If they can time some of these 1st amendment cases getting coverage at just the right times("the war on Christians" tripe) to keep the blood of the religious right boiling for a year or so, they can get roughly 40% of Americans to vote for whatever Republican they put up there.
They spin it just right, get the "perfect storm" of politics going, and we can look forward to an aircraft carrier named after dubya.
Posted by: dogmeatib | July 6, 2007 1:53 PM
Will somebody please explain this to me. Obviously, Bush's reputation is shot and there's nothing he can do about this. But doesn't he have advisors who care about the future of the Republican party? How could anybody possibly think this is a good PR move?
The theory is-- and I've heard both right-wing and left-wing commentators trying to actually justify Bush's action based on that theory-- that the election is in in another 16 months, and 16 months from now voters won't remember that this happened.
Seriously. That's the plan. They're assuming the American voter will completely forgive and forget anything within the space of 16 months, and so it doesn't matter what you do or what people think of you in July 2007 because it only matters how you're perceived in November 2008.
Let's see if they're right.
Posted by: Coin | July 6, 2007 2:19 PM
The Republicans will excuse Bush's behavior by playing the Who's a bigger hypocrite game pitting Bush against Clinton, just like the Clinton people excused what he did by doing the same thing with Ronald Reagan.
At least Ed's case for hypocrisy was done right, using timely, comparable situations. Meanwhile, the Bushies are all a twitter over Mark Rich...
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 6, 2007 2:23 PM
Only an idiot would think that pointing out Clinton's hypocrisy absolves Bush of his own. Of course, this is a nation full of idiots.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 6, 2007 2:27 PM
That's the really sad thing Ed. The hypocrite game we will see in the media ad nauseum is not about the hypocrisy of the presidents, but the hypocrisy of the commentators and supporters of those presidents. It is the most irritating aspect of American politics, as everyone gets criticized except the politicians who deserve it, which is, of course, the whole reason people play the game in the first place: to misdirect the attention away from their guy.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 6, 2007 2:41 PM
@ MartinM
Then you don't know our Republicans very well. They will blame Democrats for everything. 9/11 was Clinton's fault. Katrina was a mess because of the mayor and governor of LA. Iraq is a disaster because the Democrats want to cut and run.
There is no accountability with these folks. Obviously, we can all spend forever discussing the failures of various Administrations, but whenever the topic moves towards the failures of the Bush Administration, I've got to say to Republicans, "He's your guy. Those are your failed policies. That was your party that did this." But no man running for the Republican nomination is going to own up to it. This will always be the Democrats (I'm sorry Defeatocrats) fault to them.
Posted by: Jonathan | July 6, 2007 2:42 PM
Then you don't know our Republicans very well. They will blame Democrats for everything. 9/11 was Clinton's fault. Katrina was a mess because of the mayor and governor of LA. Iraq is a disaster because the Democrats want to cut and run.
You forgot: Scooter Libby was the Democrats fault for manufacturing trumped-up charges against Scooter Libby
Posted by: Coin | July 6, 2007 2:50 PM
I think that it is hard for the Republican Party to get Bush to do what is in its best interests for two reasons. One is, of course, that he doesn't have to do what they (he doesn't care about their support in future elections) and has his pride and other interests at stake. The other is that the Republican Party is not unified. Different factions are pushing him in different directions. The libertarians, religious right, corporate kleptocrats, neo-cons, and "traditional Republicans" (fiscally conservative, small government, socially fairly close to middle of the road) are really quite different from each other. With luck, of course, this will result in the collapse of the Party.
Posted by: Bill Poser | July 6, 2007 3:28 PM
Using a Republican-appointed prosecutor, a Republican-appointed trial judge, and two Republican-appointed appeals judges, no less. Those fiendishly clever and devious Democrats!
Posted by: Mithrandir | July 6, 2007 3:42 PM
Poser: Interestingly though one thing they do appear to be unified on is Scooter Libby.
So far I've seen a variety of Republicans step forward to praise or endorse the Scooter Libby decision, and so far none that I've seen step forward to condemn it.
And this appears to legitimately be a unifying point for at least some subset of Republicans. Quite a lot of the analyses I've seen over the last few days have implied Bush basically had no choice except to commute or pardon Libby, because failure to do so would have left him the target of enormous anger from "the base".
In this case it isn't just that the Republican Party can't get Bush to act in the party's best interests; it appears they actually don't want to.
This implies one of the following three things.
1. The Republican Party doesn't know what's in its own best interests.
2. Pardoning Scooter Libby was, in fact, in the Republican Party's best interests.
3. The Republican Party has some kind of compulsive need for unity where they will reflexively rally behind anyone and anything that they perceive as being under attack from "liberals", or at least will immediately jump to present the appearance of standing behind the positions of President Bush even if they wildly disagree with it.
Posted by: Coin | July 6, 2007 3:49 PM
Coin:
You hit the nail on the head. The Sports Team Mentality of America!
It's why we have only 2 real parties. Can't have three teams in the Superbowl/NBAFInals/StanleyCup?WorldSeriesChampoinship/MyTeamWinsThePresidency! And those other guys? Buncha loosers!
Posted by: SharonB | July 6, 2007 6:58 PM
I don't believe George Bush is a hypocrite. I'd do the same thing. If it were a friend, I'd have gone further and pardoned him or her. Why not? The president has this power for a reason--to offset unjust verdicts. But then, I don't think Paris Hilton should have gone to jail either--nor Martha Stewart. On the other hand, I do think Sandy Berger should be doing time--he is a thief and maybe worse.
Posted by: Maria | July 6, 2007 9:01 PM
Maria -
Are you serious? Seriously serious? If so, what, pray tell, was unjust about any of those people's sentences? The only one that I would question, would be Martha Stewart and not because she didn't particularly deserver prison time, but because if she had a cock, she probably wouldn't have gone down.
Posted by: DuWayne | July 6, 2007 9:24 PM
Oh yeah? http://www.gribbitonline.com/2007/07/05/clintonian-hypocrisy-in-action/
And you wouldn't dare call Gribbit an idiot, now would you?
Posted by: Brandon | July 6, 2007 11:39 PM
I rest my case.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | July 6, 2007 11:59 PM
The last paragraph in Lonely and lame, Bush agonises over legacy says it all:
Posted by: blf | July 7, 2007 3:19 AM
See? This is why democracy doesn't work. Like so many things, the problem is people.
I'm hoping for an alien invasion.
Posted by: SmellyTerror | July 7, 2007 9:09 AM
Yeah, Smelly! All hail our alien overlords!
Posted by: BobApril | July 7, 2007 2:05 PM
I wonder if the performance of the Republicans over the past 6 years is fuelling speculation that Fred Thompson will run. After all, he can rightly say that he had no part in it.
Plus he's articulate enough that there shouldn't be a repeat of the "Bushism" phenomenon.
Posted by: James | July 8, 2007 4:39 AM
I think this proves that the Bush admin hates the military...
:)
Posted by: slpage | July 9, 2007 10:08 AM