Reminding I Needed

Atrios:

Inevitably, the subject of Marc Rich comes up every time presidential pardons come up. Without going into all of the issues, can we just remind the world that... Marc Rich's lawyer was Scooter Libby.

I had totally forgotten that. Still, the fact that noteworthy recent uses of the pardon power seem to range from abusive in a minor way (nothing bad happened as a result of Rich getting pardoned, but it was still wrong) to abusive in major ways (this Libby business, the outrageous Iran-Contra pardons) doesn't make a strong case that the unchecked pardon power is a good thing.

Comments

The pardon process is a reasonable check by the executive on the judiciary, conceived of as an emergency override switch. Unfortunately, the problem comes, as in so many other cases, from the erosion of the total ability of the other branches to check the executive. The logical response to an unjust pardon is impeachment proceedings-- but it seems that congress has yet to grow the spine it will take to exercise its constitutional authority to smack the executive back into line.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | July 3, 2007 11:24 AM

I don't really see what the point of Libby being Rich's lawyer is. A lawyer does not have to, and should not in fact, share his client's interests or be involved in his affairs. He is supposed to be a neutral expert who works for money, not for the principle of the thing. Otherwise pro bono work would be screwed and no murderer could make a real defense.

As for the rest of it, I think it is all part of the long and inevitable decline of the Republic. Once people started Borking each other left right and center, it was inevitable that this sort of thing would go on. Does anyone doubt that FDR or Ike, well perhaps not Ike, had people that did much worse than Libby? FDR regularly set the IRS on people he did not like. Instead of a private agreement that both sides would restrain themselves in their pursuit of each other outside the election cycle, it is gloves off. Since Nixon's impeachment both sides have sought to use the Courts to do what the voters will not. The response is a misuse of the pardon power. If this is not checked it will end much worse than this.

Posted by HeiGou | July 3, 2007 11:28 AM

Another check in the system of checks and balances is elections. The electorate (i.e. democrats who feel Libby shouldn't be pardoned) can punish Republicans by not voting for their next candidate for the executive in 08'. Likewise they probably shouldn't vote for the wife of an ex-President who committed perjury, like Libby, and pardoned March Rich (who employed Libby at the time.) If, that is, they feel strongly about perjury and the abuse of the pardon power.

Yglesias attempts to distinguish between different types of pardons:

"Still, the fact that noteworthy recent uses of the pardon power seem to range from abusive in a minor way (nothing bad happened as a result of Rich getting pardoned, but it was still wrong) to abusive in major ways (this Libby business,..."

Nothing bad happened? What happened b/c of this Libby business. The Iraq war?

Obviously the Iraq war would have gona ahead anyway, even if the White House hadn't been playing hard-ball politics with the CIA. I don't see how Joe Wilson's revelations would swing things one way or another. I think the whole story was blown out of proportion and the White House was stupid for obsessing about Wilson and Plame.

Posted by Peter | July 3, 2007 11:40 AM

Yes, I'm sure the thing that's most likely to happen in the next few years is a Constitutional admendment stripping away the President's power of pardon.

Get a grip, Matt. The sea of corruption known as the Bush Administration just vomited up another tsunami, and here you are chasing ponies in Never-Never land.

Posted by lampwick | July 3, 2007 11:40 AM

My impression of the Marc Rich case was that an awful lot of people, from all across the political spectrum thought that the charges against Rich, and the sentence sought, were insanely out of proportion to any possible actual offence. Add to that the fact that Barak was deperately begging Clinton to pardon Rich in order to give him (Barak) a boost in the upcoming Israeli elections. So why was the Rich pardon so abusive? You might notice that the artificial outrage over the Rich pardon melted as quicly as a sno-cone in hell.

Posted by Paul Gottlieb | July 3, 2007 11:45 AM

"What happened b/c of this Libby business."

CIA assets in North Africa were compromised. You never, ever, ever say who your spies were, even after they're done being spies.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | July 3, 2007 11:48 AM

I don't really see what the point of Libby being Rich's lawyer is.

Libby worked to defend, and ultimately to secure a pardon for, the one man the Bushistas love to hold up, more than any other, as an example of how corrupt Clinton's pardons were. Libby aided Rich for a decade and a half.

A lawyer does not have to, and should not in fact, share his client's interests or be involved in his affairs.

a lawyer can choose to not represent, for 15 years, a scoundrel like Rich, if he/she wants.

if Libby didn't want to be associated with a guy who evaded taxes and traded arms with Iran during the hostage crisis, he didn't have to be. he chose to. and he chose to work to get Rich a pardon.

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 11:51 AM

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 11:51 AM:"Libby worked to defend, and ultimately to secure a pardon for, the one man the Bushistas love to hold up, more than any other, as an example of how corrupt Clinton's pardons were. Libby aided Rich for a decade and a half."

Sorry but what is the evidence that Libby worked to secure a pardon for Rich? He was his lawyer from 1985 or so to 2000. How is that "aiding"? He was employed by Rich. Guilt is not for lawyers to decide. It is for Courts. Even guilty people are entitled to legal representation. I can see why Libby should have declined to accept the case but I don't see why any blame should attach to him as long as he did nothing unethical. No one has ever condemned Charles Manson's lawyer.

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 11:51 AM:"a lawyer can choose to not represent, for 15 years, a scoundrel like Rich, if he/she wants."

Sure. See Charles Manson above.

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 11:51 AM:"if Libby didn't want to be associated with a guy who evaded taxes and traded arms with Iran during the hostage crisis, he didn't have to be. he chose to. and he chose to work to get Rich a pardon."

Who allegedly evaded taxes and traded with Iran. Arms? What arms? Rich and Green were commodities traders. In oil and gas.

Posted by HeiGou | July 3, 2007 12:05 PM

If I understand cleek's position, it's that advocating for Rich's pardon was worse than granting it. And employing someone who advocated for Rich's pardon is worse than granting it. And so on.

Matt, where would you place the pardon of Susan Macdougal, who protected Clinton by refusing to testify, in the range?

Posted by Thomas | July 3, 2007 12:12 PM

Matt, where would you place the pardon of Susan Macdougal, who protected Clinton by refusing to testify, in the range?

You mean refusing to lie in court at the behest of Kenneth Starr? I'd place her pretty low.

Posted by JP | July 3, 2007 12:16 PM

I'd be considerably less outraged if Libby had been pardoned after serving his sentence.

Posted by Matt Weiner | July 3, 2007 12:24 PM

I see the right-wing myth of Susan McDougal will never die.

Posted by Steve | July 3, 2007 12:37 PM

Sorry but what is the evidence that Libby worked to secure a pardon for Rich?

for one, Bill Clinton, who would know, said Libby was involved in the effort. Libby denies it. so now we have the word of an acquitted perjurer vs. that of a convicted perjurer.

He was employed by Rich.

indeed he was. voluntarily, even.

Guilt is not for lawyers to decide. It is for Courts.

too funny. as if a lawyer's job is to not do his damnedest to convince the court that his client is innocent, always, regardless of where the guilt actually lies. and Libby defended the great Satan Marc Rich, for 15 years. his choice. whatever Rich did, Libby defended it. Libby defended the very crimes for which Rich was convicted of and then pardoned of. he chose to take money to work to convince various Courts that his client was not guilty of the things he was actually guilty of.

if what Rich did was so wrong that Clinton deserves criticism over it, then Libby's constant defense of those acts deserves a little criticism, too. or, to put it simply: i don't buy the idea that lawyers don't become tainted by the guilt when they choose to convince the court of the innocence of the guilty.

No one has ever condemned Charles Manson's lawyer.

Manson wasn't pardoned. and his lawyer didn't go on a killing spree of his own, before being pardoned himself.

Arms? What arms?

right. my mistake.

----

If I understand cleek's position...

and you apparently don't.

i don't particularly care about Rich's pardon. but, the people who do/did are making noises now about Libby's commutation that are 180deg out of phase with the noises they made about Rich's. that's what interesting here. the fact that Libby was a big factor in defending Rich all those years just raises the contrast between Then and Now a bit.

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 12:41 PM

i don't buy the idea that lawyers don't become tainted by the guilt when they choose to convince the court of the innocence of the guilty.

Call me old fashioned, but I do.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 3, 2007 12:46 PM

Never mind Marc Rich - what about Clinton's pardon of the FALN bombers as a sorry attempt to curry favor with a NY voting bloc?

I find it endlessly amusing that people can't grasp the simple concept that "it depends on whose ox is being gored".

Posted by James Robertson | July 3, 2007 12:51 PM

but I do.

so, there's nothing unethical about a lawyer trying to get a murderer off the hook ?

call me old fashioned, but i think that's called "bearing false witness", and i think that's been formally frowned-upon since the Bronze Age.

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 12:53 PM

This is indeed an outrage. It seems to me that the reason this administration & repus in general keep doing this and expecting to get away with it is the very fact that seem to get away with these outrages everytime. I have never understood why the dems have never made more of the fact that a convicted felon like eliot abrams was rehired in the Bush whitehouse. One of my biggest disappointment with the dem leadership is the sense that no matter the outrage from the other side, they will find a way to accomodate themselves to it. This was quite prevelent during the clinton era when I think it became settle behavior on the part of the repubs. the idea that the other side can f**k with you with impunity and not expect to pay any price for if.

Posted by newdome | July 3, 2007 12:56 PM

You have trials to decide who is a murderer and who isn't. No way should lawyers decide to be judges and decide that for themselves. It's their job to mount an ethical defense (which doesn't include lying) and the strongest ethical defense they can make.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 3, 2007 12:59 PM

Pardons are probably one of the few instances in the Constitution where the Founders didn't put in enough checks and balances. Maybe we should amend the Constitution to require the Senate to approve pardons proposed by the Executive before they have force of law. That will never happen in reality of course anymore than Bush will get impeached over this commutation.

Posted by Ron | July 3, 2007 1:02 PM

You have trials to decide who is a murderer and who isn't.

only in the sense that "murder" is a specific legal term. out here in the real world, the murderer himself decides if he will be a murderer or not, when he commits himself to doing the deed. and often we can know for certain if a person is a real-life murderer or not, without needing a trial - sometimes they tell us, sometimes we see them do it, etc..

the jury didn't decide that OJ didn't really kill those people. they just decided they couldn't stick him with the label, in the legal sense. does that mean he didn't really do it? and more to the point, do we think his phalanx of lawyers were all utterly convinced of his innocence ?

No way should lawyers decide to be judges and decide that for themselves.

anyone with sufficient information can make that decision for themselves. and sometimes that information doesn't really require much effort to discover. lawyers are as capable as anyone else in that regard.

It's their job to mount an ethical defense (which doesn't include lying) and the strongest ethical defense they can make.

nothing against lawyers in general, of course, but it's undeniable that there are lawyers out there who are willing to defend the indefensible. if, after 15 years of defending him, Libby wasn't able to decide if Rich wasn't a criminal or not... well, that doesn't really help the Free Libby movement either.

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 1:21 PM

We the people, Time Magazine's Person of the Year, elected to be Vice President a man who traded with Iraq during the embargo. We're going to quibble over commuting the man who helped him try to discredit a critic? That's like complaining about the guy who blocked Lucky Luciano's Borsalino hat.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 3, 2007 1:22 PM

so, there's nothing unethical about a lawyer trying to get a murderer off the hook? call me old fashioned, but i think that's called "bearing false witness"

No, it's not. Disclaimer: I'm a lawyer. But let me explain to you, cleek: You are not allowed to knowingly put up false evidence to the court or to the jury. And most lawyers wouldn't think of crossing that line -- the penalty is disbarment. What you do, in a criminal case, is try to get the jury to see all of the holes in the prosecution's case (and there always are some), and your job is to hold the government to its burden of demonstrating guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before it may exercise the truly extraordinary power of restricting someone's liberty. Defending one who has committed a crime is not vouching for his innocence -- it's making the government prove otherwise.

But I do agree that, except when one serves as appointed counsel, you always have a choice as to who you wish to represent. And it's fair, to a greater or lesser degree depending on the circumstances, to hold a lawyer responsible for whom he chooses as a client. I don't think Libby's rep of Marc Rich is all that important myself, frankly, but if Rich is truly the monster that Libby's defenders make him out to be, then it's more than fair to ask why Libby's choice to represent that monster in asking for a pardon doesn't say something about Libby's character.

Posted by Glenn | July 3, 2007 1:38 PM

nothing against lawyers in general, of course, but it's undeniable that there are lawyers out there who are willing to defend the indefensible.

You had a lot of people on death row in "air tight" cases where everyone knew they were guilty until DNA evidence came around and exonerated them. I don't care how cock-eyed the story is everyone gets a defense otherwise what's the point of trials in the first place?

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 3, 2007 1:40 PM

You guys are arguing about something which is pretty irrelevant. Everyone has the right to a defense attorney, sure. But advocating for a pardon is something entirely different. If I take money from Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer to make the case for them to receive a pardon, I have no problem if a certain stigma attaches to my choice of client. On the other hand, if all I do is represent them at trial, then yes, I do expect people to understand that I'm simply fulfilling a Constitutional role.

Posted by Steve | July 3, 2007 1:54 PM

Defending one who has committed a crime is not vouching for his innocence -- it's making the government prove otherwise.

but if you've done your job in representing the interests of your client, the results are the same.

----

You had a lot of people on death row in "air tight" cases where everyone knew they were guilty until DNA evidence came around and exonerated them.

the Columbine killers were never tried. are (were) they murderers or not ?

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 1:56 PM

Never mind Marc Rich - what about Clinton's pardon of the FALN bombers as a sorry attempt to curry favor with a NY voting bloc?

I find it endlessly amusing that people can't grasp the simple concept that "it depends on whose ox is being gored".

Posted by James Robertson

I suppose that pardoning individuals who have received sentences in excess of guidelines and who have already served time in prison in excess of those same guidelines is similar to a commutation of a sentence that falls squarely within the sentencing guidelines before a single day of said sentence is served.

On second thought, I don't believe that the two are equivalent in any way other than that the power derives from the same clause of the Constitution.

I grasp your concept James, even though I disagree with your premise. You seem to have a handful of straws. In your grasp.

Posted by milo | July 3, 2007 1:56 PM

I am surprised at people who keep claiming that the story was blown out of proportion. Really? Could it not be that the guys were nervous because they had good reason to be nervous?

Libby was a key guy in the whole sordid affair who obviously knows a lot. I am not at all surprised that he was pardoned/sentence commuted/whatever.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | July 3, 2007 2:07 PM

but if you've done your job in representing the interests of your client, the results are the same.

Ah, but your argument was that it amounts to "bearing false witness." Moving the goalposts, I see. Not that I agree with your new point, either, though.

Posted by Glenn | July 3, 2007 2:07 PM

Let me add my voice to those complaining about the "nothing bad happened" because of the Rich pardon. Rich fled the country rather than face numerous felony charges, which were, shockingly, a lot more serious than the charges against Libby. Clinton's pardon was a grotesque perversion of justice. It's a strike against Libby that he represented Rich, but it's three strikes against Clinton that he pardoned him.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | July 3, 2007 2:22 PM

I am hoping that Scooter makes a cameo in Carmeron's next "Stop Snitching!" video!

Any enterprising graphic artists will to create a Scooter/Stop Snitching! logo? It'll go on my homepage.....

Posted by notchris | July 3, 2007 2:34 PM

Glenn,

I think I agree with your take on the matter. My opinion is that if you represent someone for 15 years, you become pretty responsible for your behavior. Even OJ's lawyers- somebody has to step up and do that job. I can understand that. But when you offer someone your services on an ongoing basis for 15 years, what you are saying is that, yeah, I'm okay with taking money from you- profiting from and enabling your acts even if they are illegal. And Vanneman, I disagree. Clinton may have had various political reasons (some representing legitimate goals) for pardoning Rich. Libby represented him for the sole purpose of making money. I think that's worse.

Posted by mpowell | July 3, 2007 2:43 PM

Ah, but your argument was that it amounts to "bearing false witness.

if you know your client did what he's accused of doing but you try to win his freedom by rhetorical flourish, procedural trickery or any other tactic, you are, in effect, lying about his guilt. because, if he's guilty (real-world guilt, not legal guilt), he deserves punishment. and ethically, you should only work to see that the punishment is just (this is different than "smallest possible"; and yes, i know that conflicts with your job as lawyer. but that's not my ethical conundrum). and yet, people are acquitted of crimes they really did commit, all the time. lawyers actively work to deceive the court about innocence, motive, circumstances, etc.. and yes, of course prosecutors do it too.

Moving the goalposts, I see.

hardly.

Not that I agree with your new point, either, though.

i'm not surprised. i defend the fine art of computer programming whenever i get the chance, too.

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 3:03 PM

Marc Rich didn't slip up just once, he was an international organized criminal who took part, among other things, in the dismantling of the ex-Soviet Union's industrial stock (he bribed plant managers to sell him Russian factories for scrap) -- much of this while Libby represented him.

So, Libby was a mob lawyer. Now, being a mob lawyer is perfectly legal and it pays really well. Generally, however, lawyers who choose to go that route know they are forfeiting a career of high honors, such as serving as the VP's chief of staff. You can be a mob lawyer and get elected mayor of Las Vegas, but that's normally about it. So, how did mob lawyer Libby get such a crucial post in the federal government. What was it about Marc Rich's crimes that made them so pardonable and Libby assistance so untarnishing? The answer is pretty obvious.

Posted by Steve Sailer | July 3, 2007 3:35 PM

"What was it about Marc Rich's crimes that made them so pardonable and Libby assistance so untarnishing? The answer is pretty obvious."

Can you spell it out for those of us who don't know what you are referring to? Thanks.

Posted by Chris | July 3, 2007 4:37 PM

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 12:41 PM:"for one, Bill Clinton, who would know, said Libby was involved in the effort. Libby denies it. so now we have the word of an acquitted perjurer vs. that of a convicted perjurer."

Correct me if I am wrong but Clinton was never acquitted. He was found to have committed perjury but that this did not amount to a reason to impeach him, no? So Libby denies it. Fine.

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 12:41 PM:"as if a lawyer's job is to not do his damnedest to convince the court that his client is innocent, always, regardless of where the guilt actually lies."

You are right. It is not. A lawyer's job is to show the flaws in the Prosecution's case within the limits of professional legal ethics. A lawyer may not, for instance, state for a fact something he knows to be untrue - like his client is not guilty when the client has admitted it in private. A lawyer can, however, make it very clear to the client that he does not want to know if he is guilty or not. Legal ethics are a funny business.

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 12:41 PM:"whatever Rich did, Libby defended it."

I see no evidence of that because that, of course, was not Libby's job. We don't know what Rich did as it happens. But Libby's job was to show what the Feds could not prove.

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 12:41 PM:"Libby defended the very crimes for which Rich was convicted of and then pardoned of."

Sorry but when was Rich convicted again?

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 12:41 PM:"he chose to take money to work to convince various Courts that his client was not guilty of the things he was actually guilty of."

Sorry but how do you know Rich was guilty? Libby's job was to convince a jury the Feds had not made their case or get his client the best plea bargain he could. No more.

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 12:41 PM:"if what Rich did was so wrong that Clinton deserves criticism over it, then Libby's constant defense of those acts deserves a little criticism, too. or, to put it simply: i don't buy the idea that lawyers don't become tainted by the guilt when they choose to convince the court of the innocence of the guilty."

You are welcome to buy what you like but the entire Western legal system relies on lawyers willing to defend people - even bad people. Or would you like a system like the Soviet Union where Defense lawyers begin with a denunciation of their client's crimes?

Posted by cleek | July 3, 2007 12:41 PM:"i don't particularly care about Rich's pardon. but, the people who do/did are making noises now about Libby's commutation that are 180deg out of phase with the noises they made about Rich's. that's what interesting here. the fact that Libby was a big factor in defending Rich all those years just raises the contrast between Then and Now a bit."

There is a world of difference between a lawyer doing his best for a client and a President exercising a pardon. Clinton did not have to pardon Rich. Someone should have defended Rich - even if he was guilty. See the difference?

Posted by HeiGou | July 4, 2007 5:09 AM