With Liberty and Justice for Some by Glenn Greenwald Read Free Book Online Page A

by the Bush CIA; the prosecution had been pursued by a Bush-appointed federal prosecutor, and Libby’s prison sentence was imposed by a Bush-appointed federal judge, all in line with the sentencing laws long advocated by the “tough-on-crime” wing of America’s political class. Simply put, the system that directed Scooter Libby to prison had been zealously constructed over the course of decades by the very conservative movement that was now aghast at his plight.
    Still, the stench of hypocrisy did not prevent the American right from elevating Libby’s protection to the ranks of its most impassioned causes. Indeed, many conservatives were more furious than grateful toward Bush when he announced his decision. In their eyes, commuting Libby’s sentence did not go far enough; they wanted a full presidential pardon. The crusade to free Scooter Libby became the cause célèbre of the year among the nation’s conservative elites. The list of Bush supporters agitating for an immediate pardon included Bill Kristol and National Review ’s Ramesh Ponnuru, while former Bush aide David Frum declared the prosecution a “travesty” and demanded: “Pardon Libby Now.” Fred Barnes, cofounder of the Weekly Standard , went on Fox News and assured viewers that it was only “a minor case,” that Libby has “been a loyal and effective member of this administration,” and therefore “there’s every reason to pardon him.” National Review ’s Byron York, meanwhile, cast aspersions on the integrity of the jurors.
    Marty Peretz, then the owner of the New Republic , proudly announced he was on the board of the Libby Defense Fund, a group of influential political and media figures who raised millions to pay for Libby’s high-priced team of lawyers. Pronouncing Libby “brilliant, very honest, and brave,” Peretz concluded that “the charges against Libby should go into the trash.” The Wall Street Journal editorial page insisted that “Mr. Bush owes the former aide a pardon, and an apology” and “the time for a pardon is now.” In an interview he gave after leaving office, Dick Cheney admitted that Bush’s refusal to grant Libby a full pardon was among his most contentious disputes with the president in the eight years they worked together.
    In demanding full-scale exoneration of Libby, his elite defenders were completely unconcerned with precepts of law and with questions of his guilt or innocence. What preoccupied them was not what Libby had done, but who he was. As they saw it, Libby was the kind of person who did not deserve to be branded a felon—and thus could not be a felon—even if he had committed felonies. For a man like Libby, punishment was simply inappropriate.
    One of the very few Republicans to speak out against special protection for Libby was the long-shot presidential candidate and former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore. When candidates were asked during a 2007 GOP presidential debate whether Libby should be pardoned, Gilmore opposed the notion, attributing his position to the fact that he was “steeped in the law.” He then eloquently elaborated in an interview with the Los Angeles Times : “If the public believes there’s one law for a certain group of people in high places and another law for regular people, then you will destroy the law and destroy the system.” Of course, Gilmore could afford to take such positions because he had virtually no chance of winning the nomination. Almost every other GOP candidate came out on Libby’s side.
    Media “Watchdogs” Demand Elite Impunity
     
    Support for Scooter Libby did not come from conservatives alone. It soon became apparent that establishment journalists would be as vigorous in demanding protection for Bush’s disgraced aide as they had been in advocating immunity for Richard Nixon and Caspar Weinberger.
    Shortly after Libby’s sentencing, Time ’s Joe Klein was just one of numerous prominent media figures fuming over the prospect that One of