Reggie's Got Mail

by emptywheel

Judge Walton has announced that he will permit at least some kind of disclosure on the letters submitted in support of Libby's sentencing. Here is the letter Jane and I sent in support of the release of the letters:

We are two of the bloggers credentialed earlier this year to cover the Scooter Libby trial. Numerous commentators, including NYU Journalism Professor Jay Rosen, considered our coverage on FireDogLake.com to be among of the best coverage of the trial. After having served diligently to make the court’s proceedings readily accessible to the public, we were troubled to discover that Defense Counsel William Jeffress presented the possibility that bloggers might discuss the letters written in support of leniency for his client to be one of the biggest risks to the public release of those letters. “Given the extraordinary media scrutiny here, if any case presents the possibility that these letters, once released, would be published on the internet and their authors discussed, even mocked, by bloggers, it is this case.”

Yet even according to Jeffress’ own terms, those letters should be released. He writes: “Nixon views the interest vindicated by giving access to public records as ‘the citizen’s desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of [the government].’ … Other principles seen as favoring disclosure of judicial records are the need for fostering public confidence in the administration of justice and encouraging informed civic discourse.” All three of those principles apply in this case.

Scooter Libby is one of the highest ranking government officials to be convicted of a felony. The Government provided abundant evidence at trial that Libby’s perjury served to obscure the role of the Vice President in the leak of Valerie Wilson’s identity. The Vice President first told Defendant Libby of Ms. Wilson’s identity; he ordered Libby to leak materials to Judith Miller; following that order, Libby leaked Ms. Wilson’s CIA employ to Ms. Miller; and Libby and the Vice President continued to discuss the Wilsons during the week of the leak and thereafter. Most disturbing, Libby told the Vice President his cover story before he told that story to the FBI. By lying and obstructing the investigation into the leak, Libby appears to have protected the Vice President from any potential criminal exposure for the leak. And Libby prevented the American people from learning the truth about the Vice President’s role in the leak.

If Libby’s obstruction indeed served to protect the Vice President, then any leniency shown to Libby makes it more likely that Libby will continue to protect the Vice President. In other words, pleas for leniency towards Libby carry a distinct benefit for the Vice President (and any other government officials whose role Libby may have obscured).

The government’s filing on this matter notes that some of those who wrote letters in support of Libby are “current and former public officials.” These are precisely the kinds of people who might have an interest in intervening to benefit Vice President Cheney. Moreover, they are precisely the kind of people whose actions the American people deserve to be able to scrutinize. By releasing those letters, you can allow citizens to assess whether those supporting Libby may or may not be trying to influence Vice President Cheney or other government officials implicated in the case.

Furthermore, given recent revelations regarding the firing of at least nine US Attorneys, the situation here calls for the utmost transparency. In at least two cases (Iglesias and McKay), there are credible allegations that Administration supporters intervened improperly in hopes of affecting active criminal cases for political reasons. Given the sharp decline in public confidence in our judicial system resulting from such allegations, and given the prominence of the figures involved in this case, the only way to ensure confidence in the sentencing of Scooter Libby is to strive for the greatest transparency.

Finally, though, the letters should be released in the interests of informed civic discourse. Many of the likely letter-writers continue to pursue public careers. The public deserves to know, then, if such people believe obstruction of justice should simply be treated lightly because a powerful person worked long hours. For example, former Senator and likely presidential candidate Fred Thompson actively raised funds for Libby’s defense. If he were to write a letter belittling the jury verdict, that might suggest contempt for our jury system that presidential voters deserve to consider when they cast their presidential vote.

As bloggers, we strive to bring increased transparency to our judicial system. Our work has greatly heightened the interest and knowledge of the trial system among average citizens. Thus, we have a distinct and—contra Jeffress—completely appropriate interest in the release of letters sent. We urge you to release all of the letters sent in regards to the sentencing of Defendant Libby.

I'm headed home from Jane's house. Check back in when I hit MI.

 

Comments

[Waccamaw]

Firedogs rule!

Wishing you safe travels home, ew.

[EW Fan]

EW,

Are you and Jane going to submit a brief by 5 PM today? I'd say you qualify as "the media" that Judge Walton references in his order...

[Rayne]

Brava, excellently done. Have a nice trip home -- and stay cool, it's a scorcher here today.

[William Ockham]

I find it very interesting that Walton said he was inclined to permit disclosure after the sentencing, but wanted to be briefed on whether to allow disclosure before the sentencing.

[marksb]

Excellent letter and well argued. You didn't mention your book, but then, Walton probably knows (and has read) your work...

[Frank Probst]

I believe the title "Defendant Libby" is a bit out of date at this point. I think "Convicted Felon Libby" is more accurate.

[John B.]

That does have a nice ring to it don't it Frank.
Even if the future brings a pardon by the pResident,
he will still be and forever more be " Convivted Felon Libby."

CFL for short.

[Dismayed]

Probably no need to actually mail it to Judge Walton. I'm sure he reads TNH! Good job, EW.

[Paige]

I don't think you should be making a distinction between "bloggers" and "the public". Bloggers are part of the public, and the public has a right to know, whether they blog or not.

[Kagro X]

What if someone mocks this letter? On a blog?!

[Sid]

I learned from FDL, during the trial, the judge could answer questions submitted by the jury at his discretion. I suppose he could be selective also with the letters. Natch, I'd like to see them all available to the public, though.

[Woodhall Hollow]

Most excellently well written and stated!

Anyway, in a free country, what is so wrong with being ridiculed?

[readerOfTeaLeaves]

Why would writing a letter on behalf of a defendant be a deep, dark secret?
Public figure.
Public trial.
Public documents.
Public interest.
Public news coverage, over a period of years.

Making the letters public would expose who is perpetuating the 'Libby was a victim of an overzealous prosecutor' meme, and would show respect for the FBI and law enforcement efforts that went into this entire investigation. One thing that became very clear during the trial was the utter disregard of law enforcement (including FBI agents) by Libby, Cheney, and other Bushites. That was one of most shocking aspects of the whole mess, and it might provide a little righteous justice if those letters reveal the self-serving, catterwauling, expedient, arrogant people the FBI agents were up against.

Keeping those letters remain under wraps subverts justice over the longer term because it makes it too easy for the "Libby as victim" meme to reestablish itself.

[Ishmael]

WO - regarding disclosure of the letters prior to sentencing - I would think the distinction is that Judge Walton does not want it to appear that any reliance he may have placed on the letters was diminished by any media scrutiny, or, God forbid, "mockery" of the contents of the letters or the authors thereof prior to the sentence. He has bent over backwards to be fair to Scooter all the way through this process and I don't think he wants to give any grounds at all for appeal of the sentence. My read on this is that he is considering very full disclosure of the letters themselves, with the only redactions being for things like addresses, phone numbers, and other information that has no bearing on the sentence. BTW, the sensitivity of these tough-guy neocons (and perhaps Presidential candidate and Libby bagman Fred Thompson) is amazing - these are the "Vulcans" who are going to keep us safe in our beds at night from teh Terra?

[bmaz]

Ishmael - I think you are exactly right.

[bmaz]

Ishmael - I think you are exactly right.

[creeper]

Marcy and Jane, you rock!

[Maybeex]

One wonders if someone from Judge Walton's staff decides to look up the two bloggers that sent the letter, what he will think of the respectful title "Reggie's Got Mail" or the "Big Time Liar" post at Fire Dog Lake.

[Neil]

EW and JH, Thanks for sharing your letter to Judge Walton with us. As usual, you make a compelling argument. Was like it like passing a camel through the eye of a needle or more like shooting fish in a barrel? (That one's for you Jodi.) If Walton releases the letters, and I think he will, I ask only that you mock my letter in every way that occurs to you.

[Neil]

Dear Judge Walton,

I have no objection to having the letter I wrote - regarding Mr. I. Libby’s sentencing - made public. I stand behind my words when I wrote them, again when I sent them to you, and now as a matter of public record.

I ask only that you remove my address from the public version. I do not wish to be subject to retribution by ideologically driven people who support Mr. Libby’s lawlessness in spite of his conviction in the court of law, on four felony counts.

[freepatriot]

well of course bloggers are different that "Normal" people

normal people don't "mock" important government officials who have been convicted of four felonies

bloggers have been known to do that

normal people couldn't pick doug fieth out of a police lineup

bloggers are known to be able to do that

and normal people do NOT scrutinize every statement a politician makes

bloggers are known to do that

now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go to another site and Mock a public official who wrote a letter in support of a convicted felon ...

ROTFLMAO

[big brother]

If GW was Impeached would he use Blackwater to stay in office?

[Steve]

You've given three reasons the letters should be public:
1. accountability
2. building public confidence
3. encouraging informed discourse

I think there is a fourth, or at least an Accountability Part 2. As I read your explanation of the accountability principal, the point is to let the public see what kind of people support Libby's actions.

Another critical reason for disclosure is to be sure that what they say is accurate. If their statements are inaccurate, without disclosure, there is no way that those inaccuracies can be exposed. This would seem to be inconsistent with the whole adversarial nature of the court system.

[nolo]

as i assume everyone here knows
by now, big media has also filed
a brief in support of access to
the libby-supporter-letters. . .

i'll be blogging on their very-
compelling arguments shortly, but
i will note that even libby's defense
team, in their filings of today, seem
to concede that most of the letters
will be public -- now, it is all over,
save for the shouting -- that being,
whether they get released before sentencing.

the big media brief really nails ted
wells' team for not playing straight
with the kushner precedent. . .

a very entertaining read, indeed. . .

safe journeys to marcy -- continued
well-being to jane. . .

[pseudonymous in nc]

I think Ishmael's right: redactions of irrelevant information, and then send them off after sentence is passed.

Also, it's not as if Judge Walton isn't aware of another issue: the main players in this particular trial were notable for offering one story (or at least, their impression of the facts) to the public, and then testifying to something quite different. The use of hush-hush sourcing and double-secret attribution.

This trial was all about putting people on the record. That extends to those wanting Scooter to get a slap on the wrist and a limousine home.