Conservatives are outraged about the fact that Scooter Libby was convicted on four counts of lying to a grand jury and to FBI agents. Why? Because, they say, Libby is a good and loyal soldier in their cause and, besides, his perjury is a side issue from the revelation of the CIA agent’s identity. They believe Libby should be pardoned immediately.
But wait — wasn’t it these same conservatives who drove the nation into the impeachment of Pres. Bill Clinton nine years ago over something really trifling, and tawdry to boot: a perjury about sex?
Conservative bristle at the comparison between Libby’s unimportant perjury and Clinton’s lie, which, as they said back then, posed a threat to our republic. If all this makes your head spin, hang on. It is actually quite simple to explain:
- Libby was lying to protect the vice president and, thus, America.
- Pres. Clinton was, you know — a Democrat.
This explains why the same Republicans who railed about “the rule of law” and moaned “What will we tell the children?” in 1998 are now yapping about legal technicalities and whining that the perjury is moot because there was “no underlying crime.”
Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-South Carolina) who was one of the House members who prosecuted the Clinton impeachment, summed up his party’s laws-are-for-Democrats point of view on the Libby verdict:
“When it came to the grand jury, he gave false testimony allegedly about his interaction. But the underlying charge that started this investigation never materialized. So you have to put it in that perspective…It’s a bad story but it’s a different story than the way it started.”
Sen. Kay Baily Hutchinson (R-Texas), who, during the Clinton impeachment said, “Something needs to be said that is a clear message that our rule of law is intact and the standards for perjury and obstruction of justice are not gray,” has changed her tune. On “Meet the Press” last Sunday she said:
“I certainly hope that, if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn’t indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars.”
On MSBNC’s “Hardball” on Tuesday, the day the verdicts were announced, Ed Rogers, the soul of soul-less rightwing authoritarianism, was so upset about the verdict he started to cry. “I am mad about this!” he yelped.
Yesterday, on the same show, Kate O’Bierne, the right’s Mother Superior on all things, said, with a straight face that she believed the jury was simply wrong — that Libby had simply forgotten, then remembered, then forgotten, then remembered again that he originally learned the covert identity of the CIA agent from his boss, Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, not NBC’s Tim Russert.
The rightwing press in lockstep is calling on Pres. Bush to pardon Libby. Despite his having been tried in a court of law by a jury of his peers, they say justice was not done.
This is an amazing display of rightwing hypocrisy — so egregious that you might think they would be ashamed of it. But they aren’t, because in their worldview, they make and enforce the laws, but they are not subject to them. Rules do not apply to them. It’s just that simple.
Update: Here we have the conservative mindset in its full fantastical flower. I happened up this logic-torturing screed written last September by Mark Levin, a girly-voiced troglodyte who made a name for himself as a frequent and fervent pro-impeachment talking head during the Clinton wars. In what follows, he provides talking points for fellow delusionists on how to square the circle in being critical of Libby’s perjury conviction while believing that Pres. Clinton committed a serious crime. It is a wonder to behold:
Unlike Libby, Clinton was not indicted despite overwhelming evidence of his actionable lies and obstructions. Indeed, Clinton’s offenses went so far as lying under oath during a deposition overseen by a federal judge, who later held him in contempt of court. Clinton never challenged the judge’s holding. During the course of that sworn deposition, he also knowingly lied to his attorney and knowingly allowed his lawyer to submit an affidavit at the deposition he knew to be false and, in fact, helped to concoct.
Clinton’s lies had nothing to do with issues of recollection or confusion, but were both overt and conspiratorial — including suborning perjury. Clinton led the cover-up and Clinton sought to fix the sexual harrassment lawsuit filed against him.
Unlike Libby, Clinton was the subject of the investigation. Libby was a bit player. Clinton had every reason to lie and cover-up his conduct as both the Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky matters would be politically devastating and expose him to civil liability. Libby had no reason to conceal anything about his discussions with reporters as those discussions were not criminal and, as we now know for certain, he was not part of some White House cabal to destroy Valerie Plame, as critics have long (and falsely) asserted.
So, I don’t buy the contention that if you argued that Clinton should have been indicted that there is some logical and moral equivalency between the cases. I don’t see it. Indeed, in the end, in a deal with the Independent Counsel, Clinton admitted that he “testified falsely” before the grand jury, he paid $25,000 to the federal court that held him in contempt for his lies in the civil case, he settled the Jones sexual-harassment suit for $850,000, and was disbarred for five years from practicing law in Arkansas and lost his bar membership before the U.S. Supreme Court.
As for impeachment, it is well understood that impeachment is a political process which should be and has been triggered in rare circumstances. The House concluded, among other things, that Clinton’s testimony before the grand jury was, in fact, false. (It rejected a count relating to Clinton’s perjury at the Jones deposition, for which he was eventually held in contempt, thanks to Lindsey Graham’s insistence that it was the weakest allegation when, in truth, it was the strongest.) Indeed, Clinton’s grand jury testimony in several respects was so absurd as to be embarrassing. Clinton’s considerable hands-on efforts to obstruct the investigation and use his office to protect himself as the subject of the investigation resulted in his impeachment. He abused his office even to the point of inventing phony privileges to withhold information from investigators. Of course, Libby didn’t serve in a constitutional office. Even if he had, Libby’s recollections about what he said to which reporters is on a completely different scale than Clinton spear-heading affirmative and significant acts of obstruction.
In any event, I don’t see how the arguments for Clinton’s impeachment are arguments for Libby’s indictment. I don’t see how those who argued against the indictment of Clinton can now argue for Libby’s indictment. And I do see why those who argue against Libby’s indictment would have argued for indicting Clinton.
Well maybe the special prosecutor should continue with his original investigation so there is an “underlying crime.”
Fitz needs to go before Conyers and testify to what evidence he’s procured to the “leak” case. Fingers point to the OVP and the Congress has a duty to investigate.
Yeah, that underlying crime would be treason.