A Citizen's Guide to Indiana

This post at DailyKos made me ponder Dick Cheney for a few moments. Just letting you know the trigger-point for this post, I’m not saying it really told me anything new or which I didn’t suspect. But, when this administration is reviewed in its entirety sometime decades hence, I think we’ll find that there was widespread disregard for the niceties of the law — be it with respect to proper use of classified materials, observance of due process, compliance with open door laws, observance of civil service laws, observance of campaign finance laws, observance of election laws, observance of the laws against torture, and other niggling details. I further think that we’ll find that George W. Bush didn’t really know what was going on, didn’t really know what the law was, and didn’t really care about either too much. I think we’ll find that Cheney knew exactly what was going on, knew exactly what the law was, and didn’t really care about either too much. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

The Evansville Courier Press has an article entitled Scooter Libby that is rather remarkable. It stands for the proposition that Scooter Libby, convicted of two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to federal prosecutors, received too harsh a sentence when the judge sentenced him to 30 months in jail and a $250,000 fine. Just to provide a bit of perspective, by my not at all expert calculations, this is about the same sentence as one might receive for possessing about 40 pounds of marijuana.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was charged with investigating the circumstances leading to Robert “Douchebag of Liberty” Novak’s outing of undercover CIA operative, Valerie Plame. In the course of his investigation, Libby apparently lied to him repeatedly, thereby hindering an effective investigation.

With respect to this investigation, the Evansville Courier Press makes the rather startling assertion “it was known from the outset that no crime had occurred and who the leakers were.” Known by whom? When? Editor & Publisher has a nice run down of the White House Press Secretary’s statements on the matter:

9/29/03 – White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan says that Karl Rove wasn’t involved. And yet, as it turns out, he was. McClellan says, “I’ve made it very clear, [Rove] was not involved, that there’s no truth to the suggestion that he was.”

10/7/03 – McClellan says he spoke to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and Elliott Abrams and they were not involved in leaking Plame’s identity.

10/10/03 – McClellan reports that he spoke with Libby, Rove, and Abrams about the Plame leak and those individuals “assured me that they were not involved in this.”

After that, the White House clammed up and claimed they wouldn’t comment on an “ongoing investigation.” So for the Courier Journal to claim that “it was known at the outset” who the leakers were is preposterous.

The editorial goes on to say:

Much about special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation is still not public, including why Libby felt compelled to lie. Was it to protect his boss, as administration critics suspect, or simply an overzealous defense of the White House rationale for going to war, as his defenders insist?

Protect his boss from what? The Courier Press has assured us that “it was known from the outset that no crime occurred.”

The Courier Press ends with this eyebrow raiser:

A pardon issued on the eve of Libby’s scheduled arrival at federal prison would be seen for what it is — hypocrisy and favoritism.

But Bush’s standing is so low that a pardon couldn’t do him much more damage, and it seems little enough to do for a loyal aide who is one of the dwindling few who still believe in this White House.

“Go on, George. Give him the pardon. Sure, it’s wrong, but what have you got to lose?”