Libby and Law

I imagine that the blogosphere is lit up like a Fourth of July night sky with posts about Libby, and so here I’m going to comment strictly on the legal aspects. This might be helpful to some people. I remember how little I knew about such things when I entered law school.

(I’ve been writing about Libby for some time; please look at my Labels.)

The presidential power to pardon is granted under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:

"The President ... shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."

A “reprieve” reduces the severity of a punishment without removing the guilt of the person reprieved. A pardon removes both punishment and guilt. In constitutional language, President Bush has granted Libby a reprieve.

The Constitution gives the President almost unlimited power to pardon or reprieve in the case of federal crimes. Certainly, however, the framers of the Constitution never foresaw that a president would himself break the law and then promise an underling such as Libby that the underling would be pardoned if he would lie under oath to protect the president.

My analysis is that while President Bush unarguably had the constitutional right to commute Libby’s sentence, he did not have the constitutional or legal right to engage in a deception in which he used the pardon power to hide his own crimes or those of his vice president by, in effect, bribing a witness before the witness testified. It seems obvious that Libby was informed by Bush and Cheney from the beginning that he could lie as much he pleased under oath because the commutation of any prison sentence was guaranteed. It’s worth noting that if the promised commutation had not been forthcoming, Libby could have done serious damage by belatedly telling all.

A legal act may be part of the evidence of a criminal offense, even though not in itself illegal. A legal act may, for example, be essential to the success of a criminal conspiracy.

A criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to achieve an illegal goal through legal and/or illegal actions, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions. For example, planning to rob a bank (an illegal act) in order to raise money for charity (a legal end) is a criminal conspiracy because the parties agreed to use illegal means to accomplish the goal. On the other hand, conspiring to set up a charitable organization (a legal act) in order to unlawfully launder money (an illegal end), is also a criminal conspiracy. Likewise a presidential pardon of a felon (a legal act) in order to hide crimes and obstruct justice (an illegal end), may also be considered a criminal conspiracy.

The crime of obstruction of justice includes crimes committed by judges, prosecutors, attorneys general, and elected officials in general. Obstruction of justice in the United States refers to the crime of offering interference of any sort to the work of police, investigators, regulatory agencies, prosecutors, or other (usually government) officials.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in “The Federalist #74” concerning a constitutional provision for a presidential pardon: ‘The reflection that the fate of a fellow-creature depended on his sole fiat, would naturally inspire scrupulousness and caution; the dread of being accused of weakness or connivance, would beget equal circumspection, though of a different kind.’

Alexander Hamilton didn’t know What-Me-Worry Bush did he? “Dread of being accused of weakness or connivance” for pardoning Libby? Bush considers all accusers so far beneath him that their outcries could never beget circumspection in that blockhead.

Lewis Libby: "Pardon me."

Lewis Libby, who helped Vice President Cheney and others betray an American CIA agent in order to punish her husband for telling truths that should have undermined a US invasion of Iraq, and who has been convicted and sentenced for lying under oath, is back in the news because the trial judge has refused to let Libby remain free until his appeal is decided . . . there being no chance that his appeal could succeed.

It is notable that now, as when Libby was convicted and sentenced, his name is invariably mentioned in conjunction with the possibility of a presidential pardon, almost as if the natural procedure for all convicted felons is sentencing, appeal, pardon . . . rather than sentencing, appeal, jail. As we all know, pardons are even rarer than honest politicians, almost unheard of. It is also rare for a convicted criminal to be freed pending appeal.

Last night on MSNBC’s “Countdown” a guest expert said something which supported my earlier assertions that there was almost no support among the general public for a presidential pardon. I argued that the instant clamor for a pardon arose from the fact that Libby is Jewish. In accord, the “Countdown” expert stated last night that there was very little support for a Libby pardon outside the Washington beltway, and that the support was primarily from neocons . . . the word “neocons” pertaining to a category of Jews who moved into “conservatism”. (I will write about the meaning of “neocon” soon.)

Below I copy some of my earlier comments, but first I want to suggest that perhaps the constant babble about a pardon is part of a campaign to give the impression – which may not be true – that President Bush can hardly wait to pardon Libby, and to give Bush an excuse to “bend to the public will”. Perhaps the neocons hope to pressure Bush by making it seem that a pardon for Libby is a foregone conclusion. But it is questionable whether any such pressure ever influences G.W. Bush, who, once set in motion, is about as responsive to public opinion as Godzilla demolishing a city.

The real danger that there might be a pardon comes from Libby’s now being able to make a deal with the prosecutor to avoid all or some of his prison term by telling everything that he knows and covered up with lies . . . which means putting Vice President Cheney on the skewer and bringing the fire a bit too close to G.W. Bush for comfort. But only a Godzilla completely immune to all opinion, including the judgments of history, would grant a pardon under such circumstances:

1. The Godfather (Bush/Cheney) does bad things. 2. Subordinate (Libby) lies in court to protect his boss, The Godfather. 3. Subordinate sentenced to jail. 4. Subordinate may avoid jail by spilling the beans about The Godfather. 5. Godfather – the only person with power to keep subordinate out of jail – grants presidential pardon in order to keep subordinate from squealing.

A little too obvious even for President Bush? We’ll see. The Godfather’s favorite method – simply rubbing subordinate out – would be a lot easier.

The rest of this post contains things I wrote about Libby earlier. If you didn’t read them before, let me guarantee you that they really are fabulously important and interesting.

I wrote on March 8, "Let’s Hear It for Libby, Folks”:

‘As one who thinks that I. Lewis Libby got what he deserved, I was surprised that last evening’s television news discussions were virtual pep rallies for Libby’s pardon. Guests had been selected to promote the idea that Libby was a wonderful guy who should be pardoned. Almost all of the Libby-related discussions centered on his prospects for a pardon. Yet no one suggested that Libby was not guilty of the serious crimes for which he was convicted; no one questioned that he consciously, deliberately committed those crimes over a long period.

‘That leads to my final observation on why Libby is being treated like a hero instead of a criminal. When I saw how he was being boosted by the media I checked this morning and found out that he is Jewish. I noticed years ago that whenever an individual somewhere in the world was accused of a crime and there was a great international media outcry in support of the accused and against the accuser, the accused was usually Jewish. It became a kind of game with me to notice the phenomenon of “worldwide outrage” and see if the individual the protest supported was a Jew.’

Soon after that I wrote:

‘Except for almost all their newspapers and television networks, Americans do NOT want Lewis Libby pardoned.

‘According to a new poll from CNN, most Americans do NOT want President Bush to pardon Vice President Cheney's convicted former chief of staff Lewis Libby. "Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose a presidential pardon for former White House aide Lewis 'Scooter' Libby after his conviction on perjury and other charges related to a CIA agent's exposure, according to a CNN poll out Monday," the news network reports.
Less than 20 percent support a Libby pardon.’

Interlude?

I’ve been mulling over a post for VIEW FROM THE MOON for several days, unsure why I haven’t written anything. For awhile I was asking, “What’s the use?” Maybe I’ll take Cindy Sheehan’s cue. Maybe I’ll just say, “The show is cancelled because of lack of interest.”

I picture those who look at this blog as falling into three groups: 1. A small group who agree with me on Zionism and other things, and who probably know more about them than I do, and who can read the same opinions a thousandfold on other websites. 2. A small group who regularly scan the Internet for anti-Zionist and “anti-Semitic” opinions and leave canned comments lifted from “talking points” distributed by the Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Center – lifted verbatim, spelling mistakes and all. 3. A very large proportion, a huge proportion, who have no idea what I’m talking about and couldn’t care less. To the latter crowd belong those who think that Iraq attacked the United States in New York, who believe that some nations are “evil” and some “good”, who have absorbed two generations of teachings that Arabs are sinister and cruel while Jews are noble victims, and who have no idea where Palestine and Israel and Iraq and Iran are, much less what Zionism is or how Israel came into being. If I could believe that VIEW FROM THE MOON had influenced even one of this latter group to become informed and to escape the conventional thinking about American foreign policy, I would feel successful and would never consider quitting. . . but I have no reason to be that optimistic.

Viewed from the Moon, the Earth still looks beautiful. . . silent, blue, seductively veiled in swirls of white clouds. But then it always looks that way. From the Moon you can’t see the explosions in Iraq or Palestine. You can’t hear the tortured screams of prisoners of the Americans and Israelis. If you had just arrived on the Moon, in fact, you would have the impression that you were looking across black space at a luminous cosmic paradise.

Paradise lost, perhaps, but not because of a heavenly Old Testament disciplinarian. Paradise lost, rather, because of the nature of humankind and its inability to organize itself so that its most wise, kind, generous and peaceful members are in charge of its nations. When the Earth is viewed from the Earth, where for the most part the greedy and selfish and brutal rule, the peaceful lunar view seems a sad mockery.

And yet lately Americans (those few paying any attention) could get the impression that we are going through a slight lull in the steady rise of violence and insanity. Here are some of the positive events that have created this intermezzo:

1. Neocon Paul Wolfowitz, one of the chief Iraq war criminals, booted out by the World Bank because of brazen misconduct and incompetence as President of the bank.

2. I. Lewis Libby, Wolfowitz’ protégé and co-planner of wars in the Middle East, given a reasonably hefty prison sentence for his crimes, although for some reason still walking around a free man.

3. Representatives of the United States sitting down and talking with Iranian representatives in the first public diplomatic discussions between the two nations in many years. This accompanied by a decrease in American anti-Iranian oratory and in what were almost daily Israeli threats to bomb Iran.

4. Some signs that even Republicans are finally starting to join in pressuring Bush to do something about ending (or at least altering) the American military presence in Iraq.

5. An increase in lip service to curbing global warming.

6. An upset tummy for G.W. Bush which kept him from embarrassing the United States overseas for at least a few hours.

7. That great American national icon (who may replace the Statue of Liberty as the symbol of American ideals and aspirations), Paris Hilton, put into jail for a series of flagrant violations of law, then let out by a strangely compassionate sheriff, and then put back again. Which of that is positive news and which is negative news depends on whether you are Paris Hilton or almost everybody else, but in general it gives the impression that justice is being done, or at least attempted, in a country where there is a blatant double system of incarceration for the rich and famous on the one hand everybody else on the other hand.


Of course I know that there have been negative as well as soothing developments in the past couple of weeks, and that the sewer of horrors gushes unabated in occupied Palestine and Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that those who scheme for war have not stopped their scheming, and that any apparent improvements in U.S. policies will probably prove illusory and shortlived. Nevertheless, being able to write a few positive things has provided a pleasant interlude.

Apologia

I’ve burrowed deep into my den preparing that report I promised on the Russian “oligarchs”, who have something in common with I. Lewis Libby in addition to the fact that all but one oligarch is running around free in spite of being a criminal.

I thought it would take me a morning to research and write the oligarch post, but it became so intriguing – like a mystery story in which new clues and connections keep turning up – that I’ve been holed up with it for three days. The sad side is that although I’m thoroughly entertained, most other people may find the twisted tale thoroughly boring.

Meanwhile, as I try to make the story shorter, it keeps getting longer.
----------

News


Today’s News:



My Comment on Today’s News:
There isn’t any. At least there’s nothing of importance new since yesterday, although the News Behemoth is belching forth the same amount of smoke as usual.

Interesting . . . fewer significant events don’t result in fewer words, but significant events may not be put into words at all.
-----------

Poll Results


I’ve taken a highly scientific poll of 1000 people, and here are the answers:

‘How many believe that G.W. Bush is a great leader and military strategist?’
2

‘How many believe that Saddam Hussein attacked the Twin Towers?’
3 (the same two, plus one Fox News commentator)

‘How many believe that Iran has atomic bombs which it can launch to Israel or the United States at any time?’
2 (the original two)

‘How many believe that Israel is an asset to the United States?’
2 (guess which 2)

‘What are your three main reasons for thinking that Israel is a great asset to the United States?’
1 (Reasons: a. All the U.S. bases that Israel has let us build in Israel. b. All the Israeli troops that are fighting alongside Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. c. “Duh, dunno. Doesn't Israel give us lots of money?”)


Oh, all right. It was a fantasy poll, but it was highly scientific.

If There Was Ever Any Doubt. . .

BULLETIN: UNITED STATES NO LONGER MOST POWERFUL NATION ON EARTH

If there was ever any doubt about whether a tiny Jewish colony in Palestine can control the foreign policy of “the most powerful nation on earth”, this story should put the doubt to rest.

Next to getting the U.S. troops out of Iraq, the most important demand on most voters' minds last November was that the Democrats do something to prevent Bush from starting a new war – specifically, against Iran. We now hear that the ever-heroic Democrats are dropping legislation which would require that Bush get approval from Congress before moving against Iran!

What could be worse for the Dems than once more, as they did before the invasion of Iraq, to give an irresponsible megalomaniac carte blanche to invade a Middle Eastern country? This time they can’t hide behind the “we didn’t know any better” lie over which they’re still rending their garments. They don’t even have that feeble an excuse for ignoring their people’s and their country’s interests.

Their reason for abdicating the right of Congress to veto a Bush attack on Iran: “There is widespread fear in Israel about Iran.”

Is that any reason to give a green light to a new war for the United States? Is there “widespread fear in California about Iran”? Is there “widespread fear about Iran in Minnesota or Michigan”? Not likely. What could there be to fear?

We see in this AP article a blood-chilling example of the power of the Israel Lobby over the Congress. Ironically, while the Democrats suffered dissolving spines, Cheney was giving a speech to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, probably the most powerful component of the Israel Lobby.

How much hard-biting analysis of the Israel influence on the junking of the Iran legislation will we hear on MSNBC tonight? I’ll wait to judge the status of Keith Olbermann’s spine until I see what he does with the story on his show.

Updated: 11:07 a.m. ET March 13, 2007
‘WASHINGTON - Democratic leaders are stripping from a military spending bill for the war in Iraq a requirement that President Bush gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.
‘House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other leaders agreed to remove the requirement concerning Iran after conservative Democrats as well as other lawmakers worried about its possible impact on Israel, officials said Monday.
‘The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.
‘Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview that there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.’

Even from here I can hear the squeak of the twisting of congressional arms by AIPAC.
--------------

And Now,
Good News:

Except for almost all their newspapers and television networks, Americans do NOT want Lewis Libby pardoned.

According to a new poll from CNN, most Americans do NOT want President Bush to pardon Vice President Cheney's convicted former chief of staff Lewis Libby. "Nearly 70 percent of Americans oppose a presidential pardon for former White House aide Lewis 'Scooter' Libby after his conviction on perjury and other charges related to a CIA agent's exposure, according to a CNN poll out Monday," the news network reports.
Less than 20 percent support a Libby pardon.

Antidote to "Pardon Libby" Headlines

If the concerted pleas for a presidential pardon for poor little “Scooter” Libby tug at your heartstrings, you need an antidote quickly. Read these interviews immediately and see your mental health care professional the next morning if you continue to feel any sympathy for Libby.

'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' March 6, 2007

FORMER ACTING U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ, JOSEPH WILSON

‘I think that the idea of a senior White House official [I. Lewis Libby] being convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury is something that ought to sadden everybody who believes in public service. The responsibility of a public servant to uphold and defend the Constitution is besmirched when they‘re convicted of crimes like this.

‘On the other hand, of course, I think it reconfirms that this is, in fact, a nation of laws, and that no man is above the law. And I think we can take some satisfaction that the Constitution has been defended by the prosecution, by the system of justice, and by the jury of peers that decided Mr. Libby‘s guilt today.

‘I think there‘s an implicit and explicit conflict of interest in the president exercising his pardon authority on behalf of somebody who worked for him.’
‘Whatever the last four or five years have been like for us [Ambassador Wilson and his wife, whose secret CIA status was exposed by her own government, primarily by Libby and Cheney] it‘s been mere inconvenience compared to what this administration has done to our service people and their families in the prosecution of a war that was justified on misinformation and lies, and was really undertaken not for the national security of the United States, but to prove an academic theory, which wasn‘t a very good academic theory at that.

[Comment by Fleming: Libby had a hand in creating the neocon “academic theory” of which Wilson speaks and Olbermann ignores. More about that in another post.]

WILSON CONTINUES: ‘And I would have appreciated the president acknowledging some sadness for the fate of his covert CIA officer [Ms. Wilson], who spent 20 years serving her country, many of those overseas, many of those in what‘s known as nonofficial cover, where she didn‘t even have the benefit of diplomatic protections if she‘d been picked up for espionage.

‘Yes, I would have welcomed that. But I would also welcome from the president of the United States some acknowledgement of what he‘s put our military through in the prosecution of this war in Iraq.


'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' March 9

JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR.
(Professor of Constitutional Law at The George Washington University Law School --
a nationally renowned legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory.}

‘Lying under oath is the same creature, no matter what the subject is. As you know, I testified in Congress in support of the Clinton impeachment, even though I voted for him. I thought he should be impeached because he lied under oath. He wasn‘t impeached because he had an affair.

‘The same could be said about Scooter Libby. And it‘s very distressing to see some of the people that, frankly, were on that same side during impeachment coming to a different view.

‘You know, perjury, you lift your hand and you take an oath to God. When you go into a courtroom and you lie, and you‘re a high-level official, who either makes the laws or enforces them, our system treats that very, very harshly, because we must. You cannot have that, you can‘t tolerate that, in a system committed to the rule of law.

‘Well, I‘m not too sure how honorable a pardon would be for Scooter Libby. First of all, he doesn‘t meet the criteria and the guidelines for a pardon. This is a president who‘s always said he‘s gone by the book. Well, the book [the U.S. Justice Department pardon guidelines] says that you should wait five years after a conviction. It says it‘s much harder to get a pardon if you‘re a high-ranking official. And you have to accept guilt. All three of those go against Scooter Libby.

INTERVIEWER: . . . list of things that people have been pardoned for, everything from bank fraud to submitting false statements to federal housing administration, to one guy‘s sentence in ‘47 for possessing an unregistered whiskey still.

TURLEY: I agree with that one. But there are some offenses that are a lot more sort of dangerous for society than a whiskey still. And while people in this country seem to think perjury is a minor crime, it‘s not. In my view, it‘s one of the most serious crimes, because it undermines the entire legal system. That‘s why prosecutors hate it, because you can‘t have a legal system, particularly with high officials who engage in that conduct.

‘You can live with a few more whiskey stills, but it‘s much, much more difficult to live with high-ranking officials who lie under oath and get away with it. Prominent officials, public officials, generally get longer sentences, because they betray a public trust. And it‘s important to tell the public that we don‘t have two systems. There aren‘t untouchables in our system, even if you are Scooter Libby, and the next guy above you in the pay grade is the vice president of the United States.

INTERVIEWER: The pardon guidelines also say that for serious crimes such as breach of public trust, a, quote, “suitable length of time should elapse before granting the pardon in order to avoid undermining the conviction‘s deterrent effect.”

TURLEY: Well, you know, because this is a real problem with Scooter Libby, because if he waits the five years, he‘ll be out of jail, simply because he‘s likely to get, under the sentencing guidelines, between one and a half and three years. You‘re supposed to go to jail for some time to taste the penalty. But for Scooter Libby, he‘d have to be pardoned at some point before the president leaves office. And there are many people that say he should (INAUDIBLE) be pardoned right after sentencing. That would be almost unprecedented in our system, and it would send a very clear message.

‘In my view, it would be an great abuse of the pardon power, because he‘s accused of covering up, obstructing justice, to protect the administration. For the president to use his unique authority to give a pardon to such a person before jail, in my view, would be disgraceful.’

Update on yesterday’s VIEW FROM THE MOON.

If these quotes don’t show the kind of orchestrated campaign whose basis I suggested yesterday, I don’t know what could. I said when I started this blog that I was going to publish the significant things which are missing from the U.S. news, and so I am going to repeat: Irving Lewis Libby is getting this incredibly high degree of media support because he is Jewish. By now Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald (hmmm, could he be Irish, or is it anti-Irish to ask?), is being painted as the villain in the Libby melodrama, while Libby, though undeniably a criminal, has been elevated to something just short of superhero.


Editor and Publisher:

'Law and Order Newspapers Urge Pardon for Libby
‘NEW YORK A number of newspapers normally tough on "law and order" issues have come out editorially for the immediate freeing of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, convicted on Tuesday in a federal court of four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice.’


The New York Post:

‘President Bush should make things right - by pardoning Libby.

‘Free Scooter Libby.’



Wall Street Journal:

‘The conviction is certainly a travesty of justice, though that is not the jury's fault. The 11 men and women were faced with confusing evidence of conflicting memories in a case that never should have been brought....’



Wall Street Journal March 7, 2007:
‘The Libby Travesty
Mr. Bush owes the former aide a pardon, and an apology. . . . The time for a pardon is now.’


New York Sun:

‘The president's best move would be to exercise his absolute and unfettered bedrock constitutional prerogative of a pardon.’


NRO Online:

‘The Time for a Pardon Is Now. A lot of Republicans seem to be nervous about a pre-2008 election pardon, and John Podhoretz argues . . . that as the leader of his party President Bush should wait until his last days in office to issue a pardon. I think Bush could pardon Libby tomorrow without its affecting the election one way or the other.’


Washington Post March 9, 2007

‘Fitzgerald's Folly
‘A Textbook Case for a Speedy Pardon

‘By Charles Krauthammer

‘A presidential pardon . . . should have been granted long before this egregious case came to trial. It should be granted now without any further delay.’
letters@ charleskrauthammer.com

Let’s Hear it for Libby, Folks!

Boston Globe: “Pressure on Bush for a Libby Pardon”
Pat Buchanan: Libby is a “Martyr of the War Party”

As one who thinks that I. Lewis Libby got what he deserved, I was surprised that last evening’s television news discussions were virtual pep rallies for Libby’s pardon. Guests had been selected to promote the idea that Libby was a wonderful guy who should be pardoned. Almost all of the Libby-related discussions centered on his prospects for a pardon. Yet no one suggested that Libby was not guilty of the serious crimes for which he was convicted; no one questioned that he consciously, deliberately committed those crimes over a long period.

By the time Bush pardons Libby, Bush he will be hailed as “bending to the public will” rather than cursed for letting one of his minions escape punishment for his crimes.

What are the arguments I heard favoring a pardon of this particular felon?

First, Libby is being painted as a “nice guy” who would be unhappy in prison, with a wife who would be unhappy because he was in prison and would also (teardrops) suffer if her husband isn’t pardoned because his obituary would mention that he was a convicted felon. There has long been an answer to that attitude: “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.” Most con men and political criminals come across as “nice guys” or they wouldn’t have succeeded in their crimes. Shouldn’t the "nice" facade be irrelevant?

Second phony argument: Instead of being a bad person for committing his crimes, Libby was actually an exceptionally good person because he committed his crimes in order to protect his bosses. We should all admire him because he stood strong and bravely lied in order to protect Dick Cheney, Carl Rove, and others. We should reward him instead of punishing him because he was loyal to people who committed worse crimes. I’ve never heard this exonerative argument applied to an Al Capone associate or a Mafia member who committed perjury or obstructed justice in order to protect a higher-up in the mob. The idea that someone should be considered innocent because he committed crimes in order to protect a higher-up who committed worse crimes is moral and legal perversion.

Third false argument: Libby was small fry. Why aren’t the really important criminals on trial? The jury was forced to make a decision about the wrong man. Sure Libby was guilty, the argument goes, but his guilt was not on the scale of, say, Cheney’s guilt. Why should the little guy suffer if the big crooks aren’t going to be charged and brought to trial? Well, first, Lewis Libby was not a little guy in the Bush gang. He played an important role compared to most people in the administration, and he was significantly instrumental in more costly deceptions than lying to protect himself and his bosses. (On another day soon I am going to write about Libby’s active role in the neocon plan which led to the disastrous invasion of Iraq as well as Libby becoming Cheney’s right hand man.) Second, in any rational system of justice, the fact that one person committed more serious crimes than an accomplice or co-conspirator does not exonerate the accomplice. The driver of the getaway car who waits outside the bank for the armed robbers is not spared prison time because he wasn’t pointing a gun at a cashier. He is punished appropriately to the degree of his own crime, just as Libby will be if the law is allowed to function. In fact the tendency in criminal law is sometimes to hold all the participants in a crime responsible for the most serious consequences of the crime even if those consequences are caused by only one individual among the participants.

The idea that a criminal like Libby should not be punished because his bosses committed worse crimes, and because he lied in order to protect the higher-ups, undermines the entire idea of a rational legal system.

But I smell something even worse here. Look at how it works. The prosecutor (who is part of the System, regardless of his proclaimed independence) can persuade a grand jury to indict almost anyone he wants, but he chooses only “Nice Little Lewis Libby” and leaves out Rove, Cheney, and other perpetrators of the “underlying crime”. Libby is easily convicted amid clear evidence of the crimes of the higher-ups. But the prosecutor says he’s not going after anybody except Libby regardless of the evidence, and the System cranks up the “Pardon Libby!” campaign . . . which means that not only will Libby not be punished, but that NO ONE will be punished for revealing the CIA status of Valerie Wilson because her husband told the truth about the lack of evidence to support an attack on Iraq. It also means that Bush won’t be a villain for pardoning Libby, but instead a loyal leader responding to the will of the people.

I realize that the prosecutor could have more than one reason for not indicting certain individuals, but regardless of his personal reasons, I smell a cover-up. This is just too neat. Very serious crimes are committed in relation to promoting a lie-based war, the evidence becomes as clear as the morning sun, and yet in the end no one at all is punished. Well, no one except the Wilsons, who are already being tacitly criticized in some quarters for getting a nice Jewish boy into trouble.

Yes, and that leads to my final observation on why Libby is being treated like a hero instead of a criminal. When I saw how he was being boosted by the media I checked this morning and found out that he is Jewish. I noticed years ago that whenever an individual somewhere in the world was accused of a crime and there was a great international media outcry in support of the accused and against the accuser, the accused was usually Jewish. It became a kind of game with me to notice the phenomenon of “worldwide outrage” and see if the individual the protest supported was a Jew. I recall specifically the cases of the Russian “oligarchs” Mikhail Khodorkovsky (Yukos) and Vladimir Gusinsky (media mogul), when they were challenged by the Russian justice system and President Vladimir Putin. I don’t exaggerate: ALL the press coverage I saw which was available in the United States at the time made Khodorkovsky and Gusinsky look like heroic victims (just like Lewis Libby) and Putin look like a monster. That led to my discovering that the accused are Jewish.

In order to show that neither Khodorkovsky nor Gusinsky were admirable figures, and that Putin was not just politically motivated in approving their prosecution in the Russian court system, I am going to publish information about the “oligarchs” on this blog as soon as this post has had time to be noticed. I will also plan to give other examples of accused Jews being supported by communications media and politicians despite their guilt. The support may be quite overt, as in Libby’s case, or it may consist more of failing to publicize the guilty party and diverting attention to non-Jewish culprits. In any case, we see it at work before our eyes this very day. I think that if Libby were a Baptist or Roman Catholic he would not be getting the widespread support he's getting.