www.justiceblind.com

In commuting the prison sentence of Lewis Libby (Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff) – who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the White House CIA leak scandal – President Bush said Libby’s sentence was excessive.  He said that the felony conviction and substantial fine were sufficient punishment for obstructing an investigation of a very serious criminal matter.

As a criminal justice professor, I can confidently tell you that this commutation is not only unwarranted but is also outrageous.  First, the sentence handed down to Libby (30 months) is typical of others convicted of the same offense.  White House Press Secretary Tony Snow would have you believe that the sentence was too harsh, saying: “The point here is to do what is consistent with the dictates of justice.”  In fact, the average sentence at the federal level of the 382 people convicted for obstruction of justice over the past two years is more than five years, and most offenders were sentenced to between 13 and 31 months!  Defense attorney Mark Tuohey reacted to the Libby sentence by saying: “This is sort of a standard sentence in that situation.  Call it what you want, but that's what it is. This was not some out-of-the-blue-sentence.”

Second, Libby’s sentence was handed down by Judge Reggie B. Walton, who was appointed to the bench by none other than George W. Bush!  Walton had been a deputy drug adviser as well as a federal prosecutor and Superior Court judge.  His “tough on crime” record is exactly what Bush wanted out of a judge.

Third, it was only a few weeks ago that the White House announced a new crime bill that would allow judges to hand down longer sentences than suggested by law but would bar judges from handing down shorter sentences.  In the Libby case, probation officers recommended that he serve 15-21 months.  Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald recommended more than 30 months. Judge Walton accepted Fitzgerald's interpretation of the law, which said Libby should be sentenced more harshly because of the seriousness of the investigation he obstructed.  Get that?  He did exactly what President Bush wanted him to do in such a case!

At time of sentencing, Judge Walton said: “I think the investigation that was embarked upon in this case was extremely serious, and the conduct that Mr. Libby has been convicted of that impeded that investigation is serious behavior.  There has to be a sentence that promotes respect for the law, and individuals have to understand that when you transgress the law, there are consequences for that.”

Given these facts, it makes no sense that Lewis Libby’s sentence was “excessive” or “too harsh.”

Finally, you should recall that it was President Bush who said that the person in the White House who leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer (Valerie Plame) would be fired from his or her job.  Plame’s identify was leaked by someone in the White House as payback against her husband (Ambassador Joe Wilson) because Wilson publicly questioned intelligence used to justify the Iraq War.  The investigation into this matter is what led to the conviction of Lewis Libby, who impeded efforts to find the person in the White House who leaked the information.

Clearly, President Bush is not at all interested in finding out who leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer during a time of war.  After all, this is a “high crime” and would justify impeachment.  What do you suppose Libby promised not to tell us in exchange for not going to prison?