Ethics Newsline®

WASHINGTON
The harsh sentence given to former vice-presidential aide Lewis “Scooter” Libby last week kicked off vigorous debate over the ethics implications of the sentence itself, the apparent conflict of interest in members of the executive branch of government publicly decrying the sentence, and of a possible pardon by President Bush.

Libby was sentenced to two-and-a-half years for obstructing a federal investigation into the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s identity. As the Baltimore Sun reports, the unexpectedly harsh sentence drew criticism from some who claimed it was out of line with the circumstances of the case, in which no arrests or convictions materialized for the original alleged crime.

Shortly after the sentence was announced, Vice President Cheney raised eyebrows when he said that he hoped Libby would eventually get off — an odd statement for a sitting vice president, say legal experts quoted by the New York Times, who point out that Cheney is sworn to uphold the law and runs the branch of government that prosecuted Libby.

At the same time, President Bush faces the dilemma of whether to pardon Libby, a loyal adviser and one of the architects of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The Boston Globe reports that while a Bush spokesperson has said the president will “not intervene,” she did not specifically rule out a pardon.

The Globe also quotes Stephen Hess, a political analyst from George Washington University, as saying the question of the pardon “is not if but when. The pressures from [Republican] loyalists and in the administration will be enormous. From the loyalists’ point of view, Libby was falling on his sword for the vice president.”

While many newspaper editorials argued for a pardon, the trade journal Editor & Publisher notes that a surprising number of papers that usually back the administration did not support a pardon. The Chicago Tribune, for example, offered this: “Thirty months (and a $250,000 fine) is a stiff sentence for Libby. He has a legal process to appeal. But Bush should steer clear of this matter. First, because he has a conflict of interest — Libby was serving the political interests of the administration when he committed his crimes. Second, because a pardon would be as indefensible as some of the pardons Clinton issued as he exited the White House.”

A judge is expected to rule next week on whether Libby can stay out of prison while his appeal is argued.