Bush commutes Libby's sentence

UPDATED

The only word for it is "contempt."

President Bush spared former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby from a 2 1/2-year prison term on Monday, issuing an order that commutes his sentence.

Contempt for justice; contempt for decency; contempt for the rule of law.

Developing. More to come.

UPDATE

Bush's statement:

Statement by the President

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

So, the sentence is "excessive." It falls within the federal sentencing guidelines for the crime of which Libby was convicted, but it is "excessive." Well, one can only hope that the president will now undertake a thorough review of all sentences handed down in the federal criminal justice system to make certain that none of them is "excessive," either. Justice demands no less.

The "he has already suffered enough" argument is particularly offensive. Everybody who is charged with a crime, unless he pleads out, has to endure a trial. Everybody convicted of a crime suffers some loss of reputation and esteem. The spouses and children of convicted felons likewise tend to suffer shame and remorse. Scooter Libby and his family are not exceptional in this regard. The only regard in which they are set apart is that they belong to a political tribe that protects its own and excuses their offenses under any and all circumstances, even at the expense of justice itself.

One wonders if Bush, assuming he even read the statement before it was issued, appreciates the irony of the fifth and sixth paragraphs. By outlining the arguments of Libby's critics and defenders, the statement places in sharp relief just how weak his defenders' arguments are. Still, the president decided to excuse his lackey from suffering any meaningful consequences for his crimes.

Nobody involved in this sordid mess even has the decency to hang his head in shame.

UPDATE II

From AMERICAblog:

CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that "This is a complete departure from the usual procedure. Scooter Libby is getting a very special brand of justice. He is getting enormous privileges that are not available to ordinary criminal convicts."

UPDATE III

A.L. notes:

Keep in mind, this is a guy who in all his time in Texas never commuted a single death sentence. But now he intervenes because a 30 month sentence for committing multiple serious felonies--a sentence that is well-within the sentencing guidelines--is "excessive."