The lies he told

Libby deserves prison for undermining justice

Published March 7, 2007 at midnight

Text size

More Editorials

'Perjury by the chief executive of the land is nothing less than a subversion of the legal system."

That's what we said in 1998 at the time the House of Representatives was about to consider articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton, who lied under oath on more than one occasion. We need to revise that judgment only slightly with the conviction Tuesday of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby: Perjury by the vice president's former chief of staff is nothing less than a subversion of the legal system, too.

Libby lied to investigators multiple times, and these were not crimes that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald felt inclined to overlook. We don't blame him, although Fitzgerald's investigation should never have reached the point where he had to make such a decision, either (more on that in a moment). Moreover, if Libby lied to a grand jury, he deserves at least some time in prison.

Still, the Libby trial must count as one of the strangest political spectacles of recent times, given the lack of an underlying crime.

When the Valerie Plame story first broke in the press, the scenario was that her status as an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency had been leaked as part of a larger plan orchestrated by the White House for political reasons.

If true, that would have been a serious enough matter to justify an investigation, although the appointment of Fitzgerald was in turn prompted as much by politics as anything. His assignment was to determine whether, in fact, the White House was involved.

We won't rehash the whole thing, because that scenario soon unraveled. Many people still believe in the conspiracy, political passions being what they are, but the crucial point is that Fitzgerald could not have believed it. Plame's association with the CIA was first made public in a column by Robert Novak, and investigators knew even before Fitzgerald was named that Novak's source was Richard Armitage - from the State Department, not the White House.

At that point, the investigation probably should have ended. Disclosure of Plame's job, it turns out, was not a crime - in fact, given the trial testimony, it appears that half of the Washington press corps was talking about it, and no two of them seem to remember the conversations the same way.

But the investigation did not end. It went on for three years. Libby was interviewed several times, lied several times and eventually was convicted - on one count of making false statements to the FBI, two counts of perjury in front of a grand jury, and one count of obstruction of justice resulting from perjury.

Fitzgerald may sincerely believe, as he now says, that he was obliged to pursue the investigation. Special prosecutor Ken Starr believed the same about his investigation of President Clinton, although there was no crime underlying the perjury in that case, either.

Other prosecutors, however, simply do not have the resources or time to try every grand jury witness who they believe is guilty of perjury - particularly if underlying crimes are not involved.

In short, Libby's conviction says a great deal about his character - or lack of it - but it also provides additional evidence for why the appointment of a special prosecutor is almost always a mistake. We've been complaining about the practice for more than 20 years, and each succeeding administration only proves our point again.

Subscribe to the Rocky Mountain News