Charles Krauthammer has written an excellent column in the Washington Post (reprinted at RealClearPolitics) on the Libby prosecution. He is one of a growing number of conservatives who believe that the Fitzgerald prosecution of Libby was a travesty and that President Bush should pardon Mr. Libby. I concur with virtually everything he wrote, except the idea that the President should pardon Mr. Libby immediately.
I agree that it is much more likely that Mr. Libby forgot the timing of his discussions than that he intentionally lied about them, particularly given that he had no reason to lie. We should not, however, be so willing to dismiss a jury verdict simply because we do not like the result, or even because the prosecution was an unnecessary witch hunt (as this one was). We weren't on the jury and we did not hear the testimony. If Mr. Libby did commit perjury, he deserves his fate, notwithstanding that the Fitzgerald investigation was pointless.
We have an appeals system which we should let run its course. I had not been aware of the ruling Krauthammer mentioned regarding Tim Russert's testimony (this involved two instances where Russert's memory of events was documented as faulty; the Court refused to allow the jury to see that evidence). I hope that will form the basis for reversal. Although Mr. Libby will have to endure the stress and cost of the appeal, a reversal on appeal would be a far greater vindication than a Presidential pardon. In the pardon scenario, Libby would always carry the taint of his conviction, since a pardon will be attacked as purely political.
No doubt, our legal system has often been misused in the past few years for political purposes. The special prosecutor system should have a fork stuck in it. There have been other judicial fiascoes like the OJ trial and the recent carnival surrounding Anna Nicole. Despite that, it is basically a good system. We should not further undermine the system by ignoring the jury verdict in such a high profile trial. Such an act would only reinforce the belief, held by much of the general public, that rich, famous, or well-connected people do not have to answer to a higher authority.
Let the system work and leave politics out of it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The venue was Washington, DC.
How many of Libby's peers would you find as jurors there?
The jury pool must reflect the population's various percentages.
On the seventh day the reflecting jury asked for an explanation of "reasonable doubt."
Based on the population's various percentages, it would be obvious at that point that the public schools needed more looking at and that school vouchers might help future wrongly accused to be rightly judged.
Anonymous:
I understand your points.
Clearly, a Washington, D.C. jury was pretty likely to be biased against Libby's position.
I'm not so sure that your implication that the jurors may not have been well-educated enough to fairly weigh the evidence is valid, however.
In any event, while I certainly concur with the view that the verdict may be unfair in light of the contemptible nature of the investigation, I still hesitate to have the jury decision voided by a pardon. I truly believe that would further harm a judicial system that has suffered a lot of blows.
Post a Comment