Jody Bottum and Scooter Libby

First Things editor Jody Bottum is a friend of mine, and a good man. But I am hard-pressed to understand the reasoning behind his letter to Judge Reggie Walton, on behalf of Scooter Libby. You can find it in this PDF file containing all the letters, pro and con, that the judge received regarding Libby's sentencing. Scroll down to page 29.

If you read the letter as a heartfelt plea for mercy on a friend in trouble, it makes perfect sense. But the content of the plea is morally troubling. Jody pays tribute to Scooter Libby's skills as a conversationalist, a literary analyst and doting parent, in an attempt to humanize Libby so that the judge will go lenient on him in sentencing. Again, at a human level, this is understandable; I trust that Scooter Libby is everything Jody says he is.

But what kind of message does this send about equal justice in America? Is a convicted lawbreaker who doesn't know how to wax eloquently on narrative structure, and who doesn't read bedtime stories to his children at night, somehow less deserving of mercy? Does being well-educated and articulate mitigate one's culpability of a crime? This letter strikes me as special pleading on Libby's behalf because he, Libby, is a member of the cultural elite. If you are a poor person, black, brown or white, and you read this appeal, how does it sound to you?

In his letter to the judge, Jody says he fears from all this "a deep philosophical injury, not just to my friend, but to the nation." He recalls Ovid's advice to men in ancient Rome who would involve themselves in the "bloodsports" of Roman politics: keep your head down, stay quiet. Jody says that the fate of Scooter Libby sends a message that to serve your country in the public realm can result in financial ruin, professional disgrace, and even jailing.

To that, one might say: yes, if you undertake to practice the bloodsports of American politics, and to cover your tracks by lying under oath to an investigator. Nowhere in this is there a recognition that Scooter Libby -- thoughtful parent, avid reader, sparkling interlocutor -- broke the law by telling a lie about his apparent effort to manipulate the press for partisan political advantage.

Perhaps Jody doesn't think his friend Scooter broke the law, but that's not the argument he makes in this letter. Had he addressed the lawbreaking, I might have read the letter differently. However, the impression one gets from this letter is that to Jody, Scooter Libby's lawbreaking doesn't really matter; what matters is that what's happening to that fine chap Scooter Libby is just not cricket, because this sort of thing doesn't happen to People Like Us.

Jody writes to the judge that sending Libby to jail would further injure "our shared lives in this country." It seems to me a far worse injury to our shared lives in this country would result if Judge Walton allowed this prominent member of the ruling elite to get away with lying under oath.

Once again: why is it that so many conservatives who were so clear about the need for even the president of the United States to be subject to the rule of law re: lying under oath in a criminal investigation (when it was Bill Clinton) are now filled with consideration and pity for a Republican who has done the same thing? What kind of message does this send about conservatives' dedication to principle? Or does the rule of law only apply to unlettered vulgarians?