Today marks the eighth anniversary of former vice presidential adviser I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s indictment by a federal grand jury.
Called to testify on the leak of former covert CIA Agent Valerie Plame Wilson’s name to the press, the indictment of Libby had a profound impact on journalists and the use of presidential pardons.
Although Libby did not admit any wrongdoing, his questionable actions prompted a jury to convict him on counts of obstruction, perjury and lying to the FBI, according to the Washington Post.
Libby’s indictment, however trivial it may appear to some, serves as a painful reminder of something that forever changed the public’s perception of former New York Times reporter Judith Miller and former President George W. Bush.
The event that precipitated Libby’s indictment occurred on July 14, 2003 when columnist Robert Novak wrote that the wife of diplomat
Joseph Wilson was an active CIA operative. Novak cited the information as coming from two government officials, according to the Washington Post.
The revelation that Valerie Plame Wilson was an active CIA operative prompted an investigation, as the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 prohibits government officials, including officials like Libby, from revealing the identities of active intelligence officials, according to the Washington Post.
Why was the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson’s name to the press so important?
Her husband had angered the White House when he wrote an editorial in the New York Times titled, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” The editorial said, “Some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.”
Was Valerie Plame Wilson’s name leaked in retaliation for her husband’s editorial?
Following a series of investigations, Miller was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury regarding her knowledge on the leak of Valerie Plame Wilson’s name to the press.
In an act of solidarity, Miller initially refused to identify her source and spent 85 days in jail. Miller’s initial refusal to testify prompts a discussion on whether journalists should be immune from having to reveal their sources.
Although Miller eventually revealed her source as Libby, it’s important to note that the act of exposing a source could be particularly damaging to a journalist’s career.
As a journalist, Miller should be obligated to not reveal her sources if she promised them complete confidentiality. Breaches of such trust could have ended Miller’s career or led her into a lawsuit.
Following Miller’s testimony, Libby was indicted by a grand jury following a contradiction in which he couldn’t remember where he first heard mention of Valerie Plame Wilson’s name.
Nearly four years after the investigation began, Libby was sentenced to 30 months in prison and ordered to pay a fine of $250,000, according to the Washington Post.
The story received even more notoriety when Bush pardoned Libby and commuted his sentence.
“I respect the jury’s verdict,” Bush said, according to the Washington Post. “But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.”
Should Bush have commuted Libby’s sentence?
Yes, he had the right. To do so, however, implies the U.S. justice system doesn’t have full authority when it should.
The anniversary of Libby’s indictment serves as a painful reminder of the power the U.S. government can wield.
Leaking names and commuting sentences shouldn’t be done casually because such actions could either ruin or save someone’s career.
Shane Newell is a junior journalism major and the opinions editor at the Daily 49er.