On Those Letters

by emptywheel

My mother is in town, so I'll be visiting rather than writing. I'll start catching up to my blogging on Saturday. But I did want to make an initial comment on the letters written in favor of leniency for Scooter. Sidney Blumenthal has a superb column at Salon on the letters in general:

One after another, the letter writers declare that Libby's "character" is "inconsistent" with the jury's verdict. These same words -- "character" and "inconsistent" -- appear dozens of times.

[snip]

The act of procuring these letters is further evidence of Libby's stove-piping of disinformation. Libby could not reasonably have expected to sway the judge, but there is a higher authority to which he is appealing. These letters constitute the beginnings of the Libby Lobby's pardon campaign.

Blumenthal is right. The letters weren't going to win Libby the Probation that his supporters were seeking. And judging from the look on Judge Walton's face as Ted Wells read the Wolfowitz letter (which, incidentally, was submitted after it became clear that these letters would be released publicly), the letters were too saccharine to do the job.

But I'd like to poach from my Guardian column of today, addressing much of the same ground Blumenthal did, to point out the glaring conflicts some of these letter-writers had.

Equally remarkable is the way others implicated in these events celebrate Libby's loyalty in letters written in support of leniency for Libby. Take Eric Edelman, Libby's former deputy. According to the indictment, Edelman suggested leaking information about the fact-finding trip to Africa undertaken by Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, to rebut Wilson's allegations just days before Libby first leaked Plame's identity to Judith Miller. In his letter, Edelman spoke of Libby's "loyalty to individuals."

And then there's Libby's mentor, Paul Wolfowitz, who just got forced to resign from the World Bank for his own ethical issues. Wolfowitz, at Libby's direction, leaked previously classified intelligence information to the Wall Street Journal as part of the response to Wilson's allegations. Wolfowitz celebrated Libby for his noble "spirit of selfless service" and "sense of duty."

And finally, there is Libby's former assistant, Jenny Mayfield. According to the trial testimony of Cheney aide David Addington, Mayfield stamped many incriminating documents turned over by the office of the vice president to the investigators with the words, "Treated as Top Secret/SCI," an improper classification. In her letter, Mayfield described how Libby has "stood by me." (To her credit, former Cheney aide Mary Matalin, who just days before the leak called Wilson a "snake" and counseled Libby to get the whole story out, celebrated Libby primarily for his kindness to children.)

I wasn't kidding about Matalin--I think she showed (go figure) real shrewdness in the way she wrote her letter. Rather than calling for leniency in her own voice, she mobilized the voice of her children and her husband, three "innocents," to call for leniency. She, someone intimately involved in the leak of Plame's identity, presented her plea for leniency in such a way that wouldn't a huge conflict.

But for Wolfowitz, who leaked what may have still been a classified document at Libby's request? For Edelman, who may have suggested the leaking campaign in the first place? For Mayfield, who appears to have been a dutiful functionary trying to limit the circulation of evidence incriminating Dick and Libby?

These people have no business calling for leniency. They're basically calling for the guy shielding their own roles in this case to be rewarded. And doing it, I might point out, all the while emphasizing the virtue of loyalty.

Comments

[Albert Fall]

Scooter has been hanging his hat at the Hudson Institute. I hear that writing letters for Scooter was a "homework assignment" for the think tankers there.

[nolo]

". . .Libby's statement was the latest event in a long series of events in which a man now convicted of impeding justice was celebrated in glowing terms. After the indictment, the conviction, and even the sentencing, the president and vice president have consistently extolled Libby's service. On Tuesday, Cheney repeated such praise: "Speaking as friends, we hope that our system will return a final result consistent with what we know of this fine man. . ."

simply jaw-slacking.

unless you've watched
cheney for a while. . .

as i've said before, he
is the sitting vice president,
and libby's lies are the fire-
wall between him and the business
end of a fitzgerlad-drawn-criminal
indictment. allegedly.

bush? incompetent -- doesn't
fully appreciate the stakes involved.
knows only loyalty -- and only as a
one way street. fits him well.

cheney? can you say. . .

m o n s t e r ?

the latest? -- cheney blocks career
of lawyer protecting the citizens'
fourth amendment rights from FISA-
violative wiretapping. . .

[ital. quote above, from the EW guardian piece.]

excellent work, EW. . .

[hauksdottir]

Marcy,

Would you send me your email address, since that link doesn't work?

OT... Goodling

You might want to cogitate upon this with regards to dot-connection:

Malek's responsiveness program was extensively investigated by the Senate Watergate committee. The panel found that the program was aimed at influencing decisions concerning government "grants, contracts, loans, subsidies, procurement and construction projects," decisions regarding "legal and regulatory actions," and even personnel decisions that affected protected "career positions" -- all to advance Nixon's reelection [WPost]

(my bold)

" No written communications from the White House to the Departments -- all information about the program would be transmitted verbally . . . documents prepared would not indicate White House involvement in any way."
-- March 17, 1972, Malek memo to Haldeman. [WPost]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/6/182434/8934

The latest DoJ document dump has a few Goodling pretties in it.

the only thing in dump 2, on page 4, Monica tells Paul Corts to send the (secret) delegation (of hiring/firing authority) to her OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM
Posted by: Steve5117
Date: June 6, 2007 07:36 PM

snip

2:7
Paul Corts is the Assistant Attorney General for Administration, Chief Financial Officer, and Chief Acquisition Officer for the DOJ.

Mike Allen is a procurement person for DOJ. PMA is the President's Management Agenda. It is designed to improve management in the agencies. Getting to Green means meeting the objectives. Human Capital and Faith Based are two of the criteria.

Linda M. Springer is the eighth Director of the United States Office of Personnel Management. Clay Johnson is the Deputy Director for Management at the Office of Management and Budget. I cannot identify "Mari" or Robert L. Marshall.

Why are Corts, Allen and Marshall involved in the delegation of power to Goodling?
Posted by: masaccio
Date: June 6, 2007 11:14 PM

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003373.php#comments
**************************

Still no hint of what Robert L Marshall does, but it is quite possibly directing the flow of money (contracts, etc.) to "approved" people, likewise with Corts and Allen... and little Miss Goodling kept the book on approved people.

If so, her influence wasn't limited to just hiring practices, but also financial practices. I suspect that more than the purchase of paperclips is involved.

[hauksdottir]

dratskies, let's close that italic!

[Woodhall Hollow]

Ah mockery from the blogoshere!

Blumenthal points out a curious thing about the Wolfowitz letter--in that he includes an antidote in which Libby actively works to prevent a reporter from disclosing the name of a CIA operative (working, once again, late into the night, far from family and friends). Which is a strange admission that Libby had to know exactly what he was doing when he outed Plame to reporters.

I wonder if Fitz will find some way to highlight this in he response to Wells appeals, all in good snark, of course.

[jrod]

Hmm. Character letters from co-conspirators. That's really impressive!

[Mauimom]

Wow, Marcy, I didn't know you wrote for The Guardian!! Great job!

[masaccio]

I put up a comment on the prior thread about my reading of the letters. I understand the focus on the powerful, but to me, the interesting thing is the range of letters from drivers, secretaries, very junior lawyers at firms where he practiced, and social friends, which also include language similar to that described by Blumenthal and EW. For me, this consistency argues for accuracy. It suggests strongly that Libby acted intentionally to serve some purpose which he thought was greater than his honor and, indirectly, his family.

I cannot understand why his wife puts up with it.

[*xyz]

Marcy, great to see you in the Guardian!

I just have two quick questions:

1. If the letters constitute the beginning of a pardon campaign, then why did Libby's legal team take the apparently inconsistent step of attempting to prevent the letters from being publicly released?

2. It is my understanding that Libby's legal team received all of the letters requesting clemency, then reviewed the letters and delivered them in a single bundle to Judge Walton (ostensibly to streamline the process - but in reality to vet the letters). If this is the case, I am curious why the legal team did not catch the problems in Wolfowitz's letter and either exclude the letter from the bundle or send it back to Wolfowitz for revision.

Keep up the great work.

[masaccio]

And, EW, don't forget John Hannah, pages 131-2.

[P J Evans]

Woodhall Hollow:

Nitpicking.... in
he includes an antidote in which Libby actively works to prevent

antidote is way the wrong word. You want anecdote (a story) rather than antidote (something that counteracts poison).
Although I have to admit, I'd like to see antidotes available for these people.

[bmaz]

masaccio - Greetings. I thought you raised an excellent question regarding spousal privilege applicability to congressional testimony. I don't specifically know the answer, and a quick look around predicably did not yield a definitive answer (doesn't come up very much I wouldn't think). My best guess is that the privilege still holds. Other privileges (executive, self incrimination etc.) are honored for congressional testimony. Granted, those have a different and more compelling basis than the spousal privilege. But if you read the language of the discussions in the legislative history from congresses consideration of the privilege for courts, it is pretty passionate; I would certainly argue they would have to honor it if it were my client.

[bmaz]

I have been accused of being slanted befor; now even my text has that characteristic. Crikey.

[Neil]

Leniency letters, Libby’s noteworthy lack of remorse, Harriet Grant

Assuming Libby was a man of “character”, a man who respected the rule of law and wanted to have an honorable career in it, it is completely understandable that so many letters would make the claim about his character. “Inconsistent" follows when one grants credibility to the conviction that Libby lied and obstructed justice. The leniency letters say it is inconsistent with the Libby I know that he would do this, therefore don’t give him jail time. Libby’s conspicuous lack of remorse is worth considering in this context. Let’s assume;
- he is usually a man of character,
- he is not easily confused
- he understands and respects the law
- he is guilty of lying under oath to obstruct justice
- he knows he is guilty and finally
- (what seems entirely inconsistent with other premises)
- he is not remorseful.

1. One explanation is his lack of remorse as a tactical maneuver. Libby will maintain the innocent pose to facilitate the pardon, and therefore he has no remorse. The leniency letters facilitate this. The problem with this analysis is that Libby’s is not a TV actor. He is a person going through a hellish experience. His lack of remorse was evident early in the process and has remained so throughout. While there may be some merit in this explanation it is not thorough and therefore not compelling.

2. Another explanation is that Libby’s thinking regarding his own perjury and obstruction transcend his traditional values. Like others who came before him, Libby came to believe (with practice as chief of staff OVP) the law does not apply to senior White House officials who are responsible for pulling the levers of power - more specifically that a lie and obstruction of justice in the service of a greater purpose is justified. If this is Libby’s thinking, it is not clear, as one would expect Libby’s thinking to be. This explanation is inconsistent with Libby as a clear thinker (“not easily confused”).

3. Finally, Libby’s lack of remorse could come from believing someone else was responsible for his conduct, perhaps his boss who put him in that position and kept him there. Furthermore, Libby’s own sense of duty has further tied his hands, the question of his criminal behavior notwithstanding.

While there is merit to 1 and 2, they are not thorough in explaining Libby’s lack of remorse. To me #3 explains it more fully. I’m not ready to bestow victim status on Libby. He chose to break the law by leaking classified information to the press about WMD and a CIA NOC on his bosses’ authorization. He chose to lie and obstruct justice. It’s just may be telling to consider that his lack of remorse is based in real human emotions about the position he finds himself in and who had a hand in putting him there.

Harriet Grant’s reaction to the verdict, a sense that Libby’s colleagues have abandoned him and left him holding the bag despite commitments to the contrary, seems to fit.

I may just be talking out my arse but I thought I’d put it out there.

[bmaz]

Neil - Wouldn't the hypothetical Scooter you construct above, assuming he has the upright portion of character for right and wrong those people described, at this point be lashing back at the people who put him in this position? I would if I were him. Would have a long time ago. I can't disagree with any of your points individually, but they don't mesh into a logical whole for this Scooter's actions to date.

[Woodhall Hollow]

P J Evans--you are right of course. It must have been some kind of Freudian slip on my part, since the anecdote antidotes the party line!

thanks for the head's up!

[Katie Jensen]

Yes, you'd think he'd be getting a tad antsy but he is hoping for appeal, it's not over yet. Certainly Cheney's big advertisement in support of Libby after the verdict was a "there, there sweetheart, don't worry your pretty head, we will protect you, don't forget, who's your daddy??"

Libby will certainly hold out for the appeal or for the pardon, but I love that Walton is working to close the bargain and force him to serve some jail time as he waits word of appeal and/or pardon. That has got to increase the pressure.

But I would guess that not only does feel certain they will take care of him, he also must have fear of crossing this neo con group. They have considerable power and they outted a spy. He knows first hand that they will make him pay if he opens his mouth. Honestly this whole "vast right wing conspiracy" works just like the mob. (which has a very direct sort of power and an indirect sort of power based on fear). If I were Libby I would fear crossing them.

[Neil]

I can't disagree with any of your points individually, but they don't mesh into a logical whole for this Scooter's actions to date.
Posted by: bmaz | June 07, 2007 at 11:24

I'm trying to find the match, the scenario that explains all the facts in evidence. Libby's lack of remorse is a fact that is key to unlocking the problem.

[earlofhuntingdon]

Re Cheney blocking Patrick Philbin's promotion, since when does the constitutional nullity called the Vice President have authority to block the Attorney General from making senior appointments to his legal staff?

Philbin was part of Comey's team and had apparently been at the bedside during the Ashcroft hospital visit. It's not clear what role he played in martialing the readied resignations at DOJ or in supporting Comey during his heated WH visits afterwards. I believe he had also worked closely with Goldsmith, for whom Addington developed contempt when he tossed out as flat wrong the tortured work of John Yoo.

Philbin had been recommended to be the principal deputy to the Solicitor General, who is the USG's top litigator at the Supreme Court. Presumably, that was after Ashcroft, Comey and Goldsmith had left, because it was 'Fredo who agreed with the recommendation. 'Fredo then did a 180 and meekly stood down when Cheney (presumably via Addington, whom I would expect more closely followed such things) shouted "No".

What's the Spanish word for "gelding"?

[bmaz]

Neil - You know, from a strictly personal view, my guess is that Scooter is not a bad guy (compare with Cheney). And it is true that many Dems had a respect for him and were able to work with him. I think this was all prior to 2000; but still. It is my understanding that wife Harriet is quite a bit more liberal and enlightened than (may even be a Dem) Libby and his current crowd. But there has been plenty of opportunity for him to do the right thing, and he has budged not one bit. I don't know haow this will all play out, but Libby isn't going to take a turn toward the light now; he is to far down the dark road.

[bmaz]

earlofhuntington - I believe that phrase is "Alberto Gonzales".

[Woodhall Hollow]

Neil--there was an interesting article in Salon a month or so ago, about young Scooter written by someone who knew him (or interviewed those who did?) when he was at prep school and college. It was a portrait of a young sycophant--a guy who was not as wealthy and privileged as the WASPS in that world, and who was desperate to do whatever it took to be a part of the in-crowd. In other words, he became, very early on, very good at playing a role. Nice (always nice), honorable, loyal, etc. I'm thinking of the Mary Matalin story of Mr Scooter being such a great guy with the poor Cheney grandkids.

[thevineyard]

I am an avid reader of this site and admire the work you are all doing greatly. I rarely comment but have been thinking about this issue. I think Neil is on it with points 2 and 3. Probably Libby does not believe the laws as we know them apply to the Senior White House staff. After all, he was Cheney's Cheney. He feels a great duty to those ideas and the people he has worked to promote all these years. The Neo-Con idea of "the greater good" is obtuse in the extreme, but there it is. And if he buckles and gives evidence he will be thrown out of the circle he enjoys and might also be in danger as Katie Jenson suggests. He got "pinched" but he "done good." And he has the pardon in his pocket. A year in jail might not bother him as much as the other narcissistic losses. Unfortunately for our democracy, that bodes ill for Fitzgerald getting new evidence.

[Dismayed]

I've been waiting for someone to say it and finally Katie J did. You have to think of these guys definition of Honor, in the same way one thinks of the mob. They are crooks that work on a whole other level. Like the mob they think (know) that they are above the law so long as they hold to the code. You get big rewards, you take big risks, those these guys are all hughe cowards they have mouse balls compared to any half assed mobster. But you don't talk. Loyalty is too the family.

Libby probably isn't that bad a guy. He's just a guy who is willing to do what is necessary to 'make things happen' to serve the 'correct' adgenda that the 'average person' can't understand. Libby is a loyal foot soldier. In 41 he would have been goosestepping. As would what is it now 29-32 percent of the electorate.

You can't really blame Libby for holding the line. He's always going to be a villan to people who love democracy and the rule of law. Holding the line makes him a hero with the goosestep crowd. If he turns on his bosses - he'll just be nothing. Better to be loyal and 'loved' than to be nothing.

[QuickSilver]

I hope you continue your gig with The Grauniad. It bodes well for the British press breaking key aspects of the attorney-firing scandal.

EW, what do you make of Wolfowitz's not-so-casual mention of Libby's pro bono work for Armitage? Was that news to you, and do you have any more detail on that? Surely that was a dig against the players whose alibi didn't cover or protect Libby, right? What was your take on it?