While we wait to hear from the jury in the Libby perjury case it might be useful to spend a few minutes contrasting the judicial treatment received by two senior members of opposing political factions.
I. Lewis Libby was charged with perjury in lying about his role in outing a CIA operative. The actual outer Richard Armitage, was granted immunity and can be heard during the trial actually doing the supposed crime with Bob Woodward. It was already acknowledged that Armitage had been the source of the original column by Bob Novak.
Beyond the charge of perjury it had also been alleged that Libby was the point man for a full court administration response to undermine hapless Joe Wilson by damaging him and his family by outing his covert wife. The supposed leader of this Machiavellian effort was none other than VP Dick Cheney.
During the course of testimony we now find that the retribution consisted of two conversations. One in which Judith Miller acknowledged Libby mentioning Plame and the other in which Matt Cooper told Libby that he heard Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and according to Cooper's notes Libby replied that "yes, I heard that too." Cooper considered that high level confirmation of Plame's status.
That amounts to the entire Cheney led effort to out Valerie Plame. Apparently that is enough cannon fodder for conspiracy theorists. After three years and millions of dollars in legal fees, prosecutor Fitzgerald has indicted no one for the original referral of a crime and has based his whole case on Tim Russert's memory. If convicted, Libby faces possible jail time but for the most part he has already been convicted by virtue of the damage done to his professional life and to his pocketbook.
Now compare the treatment of one Sandy Berger, former National Security advisor to President Clinton. Berger was playing a role in representing the Clinton administration in the 9/11 committee hearings. During the process Berger was caught red handed stealing classified documents apparently for the purpose of revising history for the protection of his own or Clinton's legacy relative to the Clinton administrations activities prior to the twin tower attacks. This is only speculation since Berger's case was tied up so neatly and swept under the rug before any real questions got answered.
How was Berger treated differently than Libby? Well lets start anywhere in the story. For instance when the Archives knew Berger was a thief did they set up surveillance? Did they set up a sting? Heck no, they called Clinton lawyer David Kendall.
The rest of the story is even more cloudy. The Justice Department negotiated a guilty plea to a misdemeanor, a $10,000 fine and loss of security clearance for 3 years for Mr. Berger. This settlement was summarily rejected by U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson and replaced by a $56,000 fine, 2 years probation, 100 hours of community service and loss of security clearance.
When informed of Berger being caught red handed in a breach of national security and possible commission of a felony it was reported that some senior members of the Clinton administration were heard to remark "that darn Sandy, he is so forgetful". When confronted with the accusation of theft of the documents Berger flat out denied it and then later admitted it. It is note worthy that Sandy 'forgot" he stole documents and then lied about it within days of the crime. Contrast Libby being charged with perjury some years after a rather innocuous conversation.
This is similar to treatment received in the court of public opinion in the congressional page cases involving Mark Foley and Gerry Studds. Foley talked dirty with a page in emails and resigned in disgrace. Gerry Studds was censured by the house for actually doing dirty and he got re-elected 6 times.
