The other man is in a less lofty position. After years of sacrifice and service to his country, he sits at home with his wife and two children awaiting a prison sentence. His name is Scooter Libby.
As you may recall, for some inexplicable reason, the CIA sent the husband of one of its employees to Niger on a sensitive mission. She had suggested it. He came back to the U.S. and proceeded to publicly blast the administration. Naturally, everyone wanted to know “who is this guy?” and “why was he sent to Niger?” Just as naturally, the fact that he was married to Valerie Plame at the CIA was leaked.
Having virtually guaranteed that Ms. Plame’s identity would be ultimately disclosed by using her, shall we say, “politically active” husband, the CIA then demanded that this leak of her name be investigated by the Justice Department for a possible violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
The Justice Department, bowing to political and media pressure, appointed a Special Counsel to investigate the leak and promised that the Justice Department would exercise
no supervision over him whatsoever — a status even the Attorney General does not have.
The only problem with this little scenario was that there was no violation of the law,
by anyone, and everybody — the CIA, the Justice Department and the Special Counsel knew it.
Ms. Plame was not a “covered person” under the statute and it was obvious from the outset.
Furthermore, Justice and the Special Counsel
knew who leaked Plames’s name and it
wasn’t Scooter Libby.
But the Beltway machinery was well oiled and geared up so the Special Counsel spent the next two years moving heaven and earth to come up with something, anything.
Finally he came up with some inconsistent recollections by Scooter Libby, who had been up to his ears studying National Intelligence Estimates.
But he worked for Dick Cheney, so that apparently was enough for the special counsel.
I didn’t know Scooter Libby, but I did know something about this intersection of law, politics, special counsels and intelligence.
And it was obvious to me that what was happening was not right.
So I called him to see what I could do to help, and along the way we became friends.
You know the rest of the story: a D.C. jury convicted him.
In our system all citizens are guaranteed equal protection.
And when we appropriate
unlimited resources and give
unlimited power and direct it all toward
one individual, there had better be extraordinary circumstances.
There were none here.
Just a case of public officials without the courage to do the right thing and stop this farce before it began.
In no other prosecutor’s office in the country would a case like this one have been brought.
Incidentally, this was shortly after Sandy Berger, the National Security Advisor to President Bill Clinton, received a slap on the wrist by the Justice Department for lying about and then confessing that he stole and destroyed what we think were classified documents. We’ll never know, because he destroyed them.
But we do know that he didn’t want the 9-11 Commission to see them.
But nobody was clamoring for his head.
Back to Libby.
I have called for a pardon for Scooter Libby.
When you rectify an injustice using the provisions of the law, just as when you reverse an erroneous court decision, you are not disregarding the rule of law, you are enforcing and protecting it.
The Roberts nomination shows us that we can win against those who would use the Constitution for their own ends, even though it is always a fight.
Libby’s prosecution demonstrates how injustices can occur when public officials lack the courage to go against the public clamor and to do the right thing, thereby perverting the rule of law.
All this of course, reminds us of what Washington has become and why more good people are not coming into public service.
Add to that the bitter divisiveness on Capitol Hill with regard to all things large and small, and you can almost see Americans throwing up their hands. They’ve got to be wondering, how are today’s leaders going to lead us with regard to all these difficult issues if they can’t even agree on fundamentals — things that are supposed to bind us together.
Some of you may think that this is not a very optimistic outlook.
I’m reminded of something my Daddy used to say:
A man who walks around smiling all the time can’t possibly know what’s going on.
However, I am optimistic. I think we all are.
But as Americans, our optimism comes not from an analysis of how things are, but from our belief that we can change what we see for the better.
We have road maps — at least two of them in fact — the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution — to guide us.
How can we look at the world without thinking about inalienable rights, and doing everything necessary to protect our country?
How can we think of fiscal policy or even health-care policy without remembering the limitations appropriately placed upon government and the importance of individual freedom?
This is a message that needs to be delivered. The people in this room have been delivering it for a long time. We must rededicate ourselves to this commitment and to the magnificent legacy we have been given.
And I am honored to join you in this effort. Thank you.
< Back 1 2 
