libby sentence commuted - why the fuss? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

powerclown · 07-03-2007, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

then we have the rationale floated by cowboy george for his action: the sentence was "excessive" and george all merciful (when it comes to wealthy, politically allied white men, who are of course the only people who matter).
the claims behind this amount to a wholesale whitewashing of the entire plame affair in a manner consistent with rightwing talkingpoints of the past 3 years. nothing major was involved. why? well clinton did x, y, z....

Actually, if one wanted to get technical about it, there is a fair case to be made that the sentence was excessive. Fitzgerald knew that Libby didn't out Plame, didn't violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the law at issue here from the start. Going ahead with the trial knowing that Libby was innocent of the charge while simultaneously knowing that Amritage was the actual source of the leak could be seen by some as definitive legal grounds for dismissing the case outright.

Willravel · 07-03-2007, 05:57 PM

He also knew Libby was lying. That's the kicker. The trial was about trying to force the truth from him. Of course, Libby had little to fear, knowing Bush would allow him to walk away, thus completing the circle of bullshit.

host · 07-03-2007, 06:22 PM

We participate on a forum, and in a country....where little discussion can take place. Some of us form our opinion under the influence of the context of what is actually happening..... from the quotes reported right from the horses' mouths.....I quote the white house web page quotes often....for that reason.

It's difficult to spin what is actually said and written by the key participants in events......if your intent is to convey the exact opposite of what is happening....

I know why they all do it.....in the tiny, tiny world where this unjust, disrespectful, abuse of authority that is quite possibly another in a series of executive branch obstruction of justice and the investigation of the Plame leak.....<b>is spun as "business as usual"</b>...they do it in lockstep because the ones who still cling to this failed political party and failed presidency, are afraid of confronting their own confidence.

You see it in irate, in ace, and in powerclown...... all posting with such confident pronouncements....backed by....WHAT?

They never tell you. I try to show where I got the confidence to post what I post, almost always. Most of the time, with a foundation at least as strong as this:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...=1&oref=slogin
July 3, 2007
Legal Confusion Follows Libby Decision
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 5:23 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush forced the CIA leak case into uncharted legal territory when he commuted the prison sentence of former White House aide I. Lewis ''Scooter'' Libby, a federal judge said Tuesday.

Bush eliminated Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term and left in place his two years of supervised release. But supervised release -- a form of probation -- is only available to people who have served prison time. Without prison, it's unclear what happens next.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton posed the question to Libby's attorneys and to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald: Does this mean Libby won't actually be required to serve supervised release? Should he just have to report to probation officials as if he spent time in prison?

The law, Walton said in court documents, ''does not appear to contemplate a situation in which a defendant may be placed under supervised release without first completing a term of incarceration.''

For now, it appears Libby is in legal limbo. Walton gave both sides until Monday to respond.

We cannot have a "competition of ideas" here....when one side so clearly goes about "making shit up", and the other works to methodically support every key point posted.

This is not routine. The president himself hired a criminal defense attorney, Jim Sharp, in response to Fitzgerald's investigation. Cheney did the same:

Quote:

If Rove is Indicted, Will Media Mention Bush's Criminal Defense ...
Tilted Forum Project > The Academy > Tilted Politics > If Rove is Indicted ... McClellan reluctantly admitted that Bush had retained Jim Sharp during a June ...
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/archive...p/t-91795.html - 91k - Supplemental Result -

The president is experiencing the most prolonged and severe disapproval polling results of any president since Nixon. In the midst of support by independents, for example, declining to 24 percent, he opts to block Libby's serving of even a day in jail, questioning the sentencing judge's determination, and not even consulting the relevant DOJ department or the prosecutor, before he acts.

An NPR contributor commented this afternoon that preemption of an entire prison sentence by a president had not occurred in 80 years.....

This stinks...and it will fuel the further decline of this president and of his party. We post again, and again, why this is so....and your confident, but empty dismissal of our examples of objections and of the serious implications for the reputation of the presidency and the principle of equal justice is all that you post in response.

When you resort to an "argument" that includes your confident assertion that special counsel Fitzgerald should have ignored Libby's perjury and obstruction....that it was he who erred, not Libby.....you would leave no prosecutor with the tool of legal deterrent to discourage future perjury and obstruction...and as Bush has pissed in all of our faces and on the US constitution, and not for the first time.....you shit up these pages, in lockstep....brimming with a confidence as misplaced and pathetic as Bush himself so often displays.....

Telluride · 07-03-2007, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seretogis

I can't see how anyone is defending this. Bush and the Republican party are crooks. Clinton and the Democratic party are crooks. Why is anyone arguing "who did it first" or which law-breaking is "worse" than the other?

I agree. Every so often I'll hear somebody complaining about how bad one party is and that things will be so much better if/when the other party comes into power...and it really bugs me. Both parties have done their fair share of immoral and abusive shit, so I see no reason why I should like or trust either one.

host · 07-03-2007, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

I agree. Every so often I'll hear somebody complaining about how bad one party is and that things will be so much better if/when the other party comes into power...and it really bugs me. Both parties have done their fair share of immoral and abusive shit, so I see no reason why I should like or trust either one.

Telluride, don't you think that you do yourself a disservice by posting (believing ????) such a simplistic dismissal of "both parties"? Can it really be that simple? I doubt it....

Anyone who wanted to, could have challenged this recent TFP Politics thread's title.....the challenges weren't very supportive of your argument:

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=116612">
So Tired of the "It's Both Parties" Denial/Dismissal</a>

....please read the following Glenn Greenwald excerpt, and then share with us, what he has wrong in his articulate opinion that is so totally opposite your "it's both parties", POV?

If he and I are incorrect. shouldn't it be only a small challenge for you to write something convincingly rebutting Greenwald's points...or the points in the "It's Both Parties" thread, linked above?

Simple, unsupported dismissals of "both parties", don't cut it here, Telluride.... they're not competitive, compared to the posted record here...unless you can show us otherwise...and they're not practical. Leahy, in the senate, and Waxman and Conyers, in the house, have held power for less than six months. They have demonstrably exercised more methodical practice of checks and balances in that time, than the previous congress performed in six years....

You do them...and us....a disservice by your dismissive opinion...and, from what Greenwald describes below, your POV is neither fair or accurate, IMO:

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...bby/index.html

....That Dick Cheney's top aide, one of the most well-connected neoconservatives on the planet, is protected from the consequences of his felonies ought to be anything but surprising. That is the country that we have. It is a result that is completely consistent with the "values" that define official Washington. No other outcome was possible.

The Plame investigation was urged by the Bush CIA and commenced by the Bush DOJ, Libby's conviction pursued by a Bush-appointed federal prosecutor, his jail sentence imposed by a Bush-appointed "tough-on-crime" federal judge, all <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTIzNzRhMGY5NGI0MGFkYzlmMDFmZTI3OTE5NmRiZTc=">pursuant to</a> harsh and merciless criminal laws <a href="http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/man-like-this-by-digby-i-dont-know.html">urged on</a> by the "tough-on-crime/no-mercy" GOP. Lewis Libby was sent to prison by the system constructed and desired by the very Republican movement protesting his plight.....

...... But the most significant disease highlighted by the Libby travesty is also the most obvious one. We have decided to be a country in which our highest Republican political officials can break the law freely, without any real consequence. In the United States, the law does not apply to the President and his closest aides. And there is one fact after the next which proves that.

Almost thirty years ago, the American people reacted with fury and horror over revelations by the Church Committee that every administration in prior decades had been spying on Americans for completely improper purposes. In response, they enacted a law, through their Congress, <b>making it a felony for any government official to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial approval, punishable by 5 years in prison for each offense.</b> Since 1977, it has been a felony in the United States for political officials to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial warrants.

But in December of 2005, The New York Times revealed that George Bush had been breaking this law -- committing felonies -- every day for the prior four years. And when he was caught, he went on television and proudly admitted what he had done and <b>vowed defiantly to continue doing it</b>. And our wise and serious Washington media establishment shrugged, even applauded. They directed their fury only at those who objected to the lawbreaking. The GOP-controlled Congress blocked every attempt to investigate this criminality -- with virtually no outcry -- and then set out to pass a new law making this criminality retroactively legal. In response to revelations that the President was deliberately breaking the law, official Washington fell all over itself figuring out the most efficient way to protect and defend the President's crimes.

Ever since Gerald Ford, with the support of our permanent Beltway ruling class, pardoned Richard Nixon for his crimes -- followed naturally by the current President's father shielding his own friends and aides from the consequences of serious criminal convictions for lying to Congress and deliberately breaking its laws, with <a href="http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/969">one of those criminals</a> then appointed with no objection by his son to run Middle East policy from the White House -- we have been a nation which allows our highest political officials to reside beyond the reach of law. It is just that simple.

And over the last six years, that "principle" has been extended to its most extreme though logical conclusions. This administration expressly adopted theories -- right out in the open -- which, as it its <a href="http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/ideology-of-lawlessness.html">central premise</a>, states that the President is greater than the law, that his "obligation" to protect the nation means that nothing and nobody can limit what he does, including -- especially -- the laws enacted by our Congress, no matter how radical and extreme that conduct is.

In response to this most audacious declaration of Presidential Omnipotence, our Sober Guardians of Political Wisdom shrugged. Those who objected too strenuously, who used terms such as "criminal" and "lawlessness" or who raised the specter of impeachment -- the tool created by the Founders to redress executive lawbreaking -- were branded as radicals or impetuous, unserious partisan hysterics. The only crime recognized by official Washington is using impetuous or excessively irreverent language to object to the lawbreaking and radicalism of the Leader, or acting too aggressively to investigate it. That is the only crime that triggers their outrage.

Even with an overarching Ideology of Lawlessness explicitly embraced by their President right in front of their faces -- an ideology used to torture people, to detain people in "law-free" dungeons around the world, even to abduct our fellow citizens on U.S. soil and put them into a black hole for years without any charges or even contact with the outside world -- our political establishment stood by him, supported him, insisting that he and his Vice President were serious, responsible men acting under difficult circumstances to protect us, and that the only ones deserving of true scorn were those who were overzealous in their criticisms of the Leaders.

The President and his followers know that they can apply completely different rules to themselves, and freely break the law, because our Washington establishment, our "political press," will never object too strenuously, or even at all. Over the last six years, our media has directed their hostility <b>only towards those who investigate or attempt to hold accountable</b> the most powerful members of our political system -- <h2>hence their attacks on the GOP prosecutor investigating the Bush administration's crimes</h2>, their anger towards the very few <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-silverstein30jun30,0,1939913.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail">investigative reporters</a> trying to uncover Washington's secrets, and their <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/26/matthews/index.html">righteous condemnation</a> towards each of the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/14/AR2006031401752.html">handful of attempts</a> by Congress to exercise investigative oversight of the administration.

The political press -- the function of which was envisioned by the Founders to investigate and hold accountable the most politically powerful -- now fulfill the exact oppose purpose in our country. They are slavishly protective of our highest political officials, and adversarial only to those who investigate, oppose and seek to hold those officials accountable. Hence, in official Washington, the Real Villains are Patrick Fitzgerald, Ken Silverstein, Russ Feingold and his Censure resolution, Pat Leahy and his disruptive subpoenas -- our Beltway elite reserves their venom for those who want to <a href="http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/19/cohen/index.html">turn the lights on</a> what our most powerful political officials are doing.

What kind of country do we expect to have when we have a ruling Washington class that believes that they and their fellow members of the Beltway elite constitute a separate class, one that resides above and beyond the law? That is plainly what they believe. And we now have exactly the country that one would expect would emerge from a political culture shaped by such a deeply insulated, corrupt and barren royal court.

In <a href="http://www.thisnation.com/library/books/federalist/70.html">Federalist No. 70</a>, Alexander Hamilton described the defining power of the King which made the British monarchy intolerably corrupt: "In England, the king is a perpetual magistrate; and it is a maxim which has obtained for the sake of the public peace, that <b>he is unaccountable for his administration, and his person sacred."</b> Thomas Paine proclaimed in Common Sense "that so far as we approve of monarch, that in America THE LAW IS KING." But little effort is required to see how far removed we now are from those basic principles.

It it no surprise that we have political leaders who are corrupt and abuse their power. Our whole political system is premised on the expectation that this will happen. But that expectation was accompanied by the attempt by the Founders to create as many safeguards and checks on those abuses as possible. Over the last six years, all of those safeguards have failed completely.

We have a radical and lawless government that has run rampant over the last six years precisely because the institutions designed to stop that abuse have not only stood idly by, but have actively defended and participated in it. We actually have a press corps that holds, as its central belief, <b>that our highest government officials should be free of investigation and accountability</b>. In every country ruled by a lawless government and a corrupt political and media elite, powerful political officials do not go to prison for crimes. That is why convicted felon Lewis Libby will remain free....

ubertuber · 07-03-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Actually, if one wanted to get technical about it, there is a fair case to be made that the sentence was excessive. Fitzgerald knew that Libby didn't out Plame, didn't violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the law at issue here from the start. Going ahead with the trial knowing that Libby was innocent of the charge while simultaneously knowing that Amritage was the actual source of the leak could be seen by some as definitive legal grounds for dismissing the case outright.

It seems like this is a variation of the "no underlying crime" theme. I see these arguments put forth over and over, yet they never makes sense to me. Libby wasn't convicted of the things you listed. He was convicted of something else - obstructing justice.

To follow your argument to its conclusion, recreational perjury and obstruction is fine. The only perjury that matters is perjury in cases where a guilty verdict is found in the charges that began the investigation. Of course, this doesn't make sense, in that there is no verdict at the time the perjury or obstruction is committed. To claim that it works itself out to nill is to say that the witness/party in question has the right and authority to decide for his or herself whether the investigation is justified or will be fruitful. That's obviously ridiculous.

The integrity of the entire criminal justice system relies on being able to conduct investigations. You can't allow obstruction or perjury in any circumstance, whether it is material in retrospect or not. That's the thing that got Clinton nailed, and truth be told he deserved more than he got, even if the thing that started it all was a blowjob or sexual harassment. And just because we screwed that one up (in terms of creating accountability) doesn't mean that we have to screw this one up as well.

That doesn't even begin to consider the question of what the outcome of Fitzgerald's investigation would have been without Libby's obstruction, to say nothing of the more informal resistance that was nearly constant.

Telluride · 07-03-2007, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Telluride, don't you think that you do yourself a disservice by posting (believing ????) such a simplistic dismissal of "both parties"? Can it really be that simple? I doubt it....

I didn't claim that there was an equal amount of corruption in both parties right now or even that one party has been more corrupt or abusive within a certain time frame. What I'm saying is that a look at the histories of both parties will show prominent politicians at the state and federal levels endorsing abuses of the rights of American citizens (which is why I don't trust either party or government in general). Do you disagree?

powerclown · 07-03-2007, 09:05 PM

In all seriousness, I'm not sure what your point is ubertuber.

It seems to me that at the point where Armitage came forward, the probability that an actual crime had been committed dropped to about zero. Now this doesn't mean that it was impossible for a crime to have happened, but it does seem unlikely. Dragging people in front of a grand jury to answer questions under oath seems like it should be done to investigate an actual crime, not to satisfy a overzealous prosecutor pursuing a case that originated from profound differences of opinion on U.S. foreign policy.

As neither a lawyer or a constitutional scholar I have no idea what the law says about this, but to me it looks like something that I would like to think would be considered an abuse of the grand jury process.

37OHSSV · 07-03-2007, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

<h2>If you were <s>Fitzgerald</s> Ken Starr, how would you have reacted when it became obvious that <s>Libby</s> Clinton was lying and obstructing?</h2>

Are you suggesting that politicians who lie and obstruct justice should always serve jail time, or that only selected ones should?

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshbaumgartner

Oh it is so harsh that a man convicted of four felonies in Federal court should have to spend a couple years in jail!

And this from a man who killed 150 Texans while being so darn proud of the fact he never once spent more than 15 minutes reviewing one of their cases. Not once did he even consider mercy or justice when it came to handing out the death penalty, but oh, one of his buddies might have to spend a year or two in jail, oh heavens, best show mercy there!

*shakes head* Is it just me that sees this as the least bit disingenuous on W's part?

I think the number of people at Waco was only 87 or so. Their cases were not reviewed because they were killed without trial.

Oh, you meant Bush! *shakes head*

This is one COLOSSAL tempest in a teapot.

Willravel · 07-03-2007, 10:47 PM

Yeah, justice is unimportant. Let's all go watch American Idol and allow the planet to get ass raped by selfish power hungry pricks.

Teapot in a tempest, more like.

host · 07-04-2007, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

In all seriousness, I'm not sure what your point is ubertuber.

It seems to me that at the point where Armitage came forward, the probability that an actual crime had been committed dropped to about zero. Now this doesn't mean that it was impossible for a crime to have happened, but it does seem unlikely. Dragging people in front of a grand jury to answer questions under oath seems like it should be done to investigate an actual crime, not to satisfy a overzealous prosecutor pursuing a case that originated from profound differences of opinion on U.S. foreign policy.

As neither a lawyer or a constitutional scholar I have no idea what the law says about this, but to me it looks like something that I would like to think would be considered an abuse of the grand jury process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telluride

I didn't claim that there was an equal amount of corruption in both parties right now or even that one party has been more corrupt or abusive within a certain time frame. What I'm saying is that a look at the histories of both parties will show prominent politicians at the state and federal levels endorsing abuses of the rights of American citizens (which is why I don't trust either party or government in general). Do you disagree?

Telluride, you've framed your response, and then your question in a measured and reasonable way....and of course, I do not disagree with you. If you are saying that the "history" of the malfeasance of both parties is grounds, at this time, to embrace alternative parties, I don't see that as practical or in the best interests of the majority. The democrats, before this year, did not control the house since Jan., 1995, and the senate, since Jan. 2003. IMO, our country is in a crisis of confidence in it's national leadership...and the only near term hope to mitigate it is to restore checks and balances, via renewal of oversight and accountability of the executive branch by the congress. The congress is now led by a democratic party majority. The house speaker and key senate and house committees are recently led by, so far.... inquisitive, deliberative, methodical, and....when appropriate....aggressive, no nonsense, congressmen and senators. They seem headed in a direction that will reveal whether the DOJ can ever again, under this president, function as the investigative and enforcement agency of the people of the United States, or only of the dictates of the executive branch....and sooner than I would have predicted. It's the wrong time to look elsewhere for a political remedy, IMO.

We deserve better than we've gotten. Use the democrats in the short term, to unseat as many republicans as possible, in November, 2008. Then, if they disappoint, back whoever you prefer in the 2010 mid-term elections. I see no other way to change course as quickly as is needed.....

<b>powerclown:</b>

This is from "one of your own"...he "gets it":

Quote:

http://captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010173.php
June 7, 2007
Was The Libby Sentence 'Extreme'?....

.....They found Libby guilty on four of five counts of perjury and obstruction of justice -- crimes that go to the heart of our justice system. Whether or not the investigation in question resulted in an indictment on the original charges, we cannot allow people to lie and obstruct justice, even when they believe they act with the best intentions. Keeping the conviction and the fine while commuting the prison sentence would be a good middle ground to acknowledging the adventuresome nature of Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation, and it also allows Libby to continue to pursue his appeals on the conviction.

However, I'm struck by the notion that the sentence is extreme or excessive. Federal sentencing guidelines for perjury and obstruction are pretty clear, as my friend Jeralyn Merritt points out. Obstruction of justice is a level 14 crime for sentencing purposes, and even with no criminal record, a single count at that level brings a 15-21 month sentence, as the DoJ chart shows. It also carries a 3-level upgrade if "the offense resulted in substantial interference with the administration of justice." That puts Libby's level at 17, with a 24-30 month sentence. If the defendant/convict abused a position of "special trust" -- and as a high-ranking government official, Libby qualifies -- the level on sentencing has to be increased two levels to 19. That puts the potential sentence at 30-37 months -- and that's not accounting for multiple convictions for perjury.

Federal judges do not have a lot of leeway on sentencing. That's because conservatives insisted on these sentencing guidelines more than twenty years ago, frustrated with a judiciary that gave too many slaps on the wrist. They work well, too, but they tie the hands of federal judges. Judge Reggie Walton expressed sorrow and frustration at the sentencing, but his hands were mostly tied. As I wrote earlier this week, the convictions made the sentencing an anticlimax, and Walton appears to have actually taken it easy on Libby. Walton's only other option would have been to vacate the convictions, but he had no real legal basis on which to do that.

I believe Bush will wait for the appeals process to run its course before inteceding on Libby's behalf in any way. If he does intercede, he would be better advised to take Otis' advice.

Doesn't Ed Morrissey of captainsquartersblog.com make an identical argument to that of "team Fitzgerald", displayed below?

Doesn't Bush....if this article can be relied on....seem like an unconscionable elitest and hypocrite? He unleashed Judge Walton on the U.S. public....but not on his own Scooter Libby?

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6468944.story

LOS ANGELES TIMES
Libby's judge known as 'tough guy'; that's why Bush appointed him
Libby's judge was one of the president's first judicial appointments.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer

June 7, 2007

WASHINGTON — Years ago, when he was a local trial judge, Reggie B. Walton developed a reputation for his sentencing of ordinary street thugs.

"If you got convicted, he was going to smack you," said Randall Eliason, a former prosecutor who recalled that Walton would often sentence defendants more harshly than other judges would.

That Walton would put the Bush administration in an uncomfortable position of having to consider a politically charged pardon for Libby is highly ironic: The 58-year-old jurist was one of the first appointments that Bush made to the federal bench in October 2001, a prime example of a new law-and-order mentality that the administration wanted to infuse in the courts.

"Bush wanted people to know that 'I appoint tough guys to the bench,' " said Roscoe Howard, the U.S. attorney in Washington during Bush's first term. "They appointed him just for what he did to Scooter; they were just not expecting it to happen to Scooter."

By all accounts, Walton is a tough guy. A judge for more than 25 years, he did two separate stints on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, appointed by both Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He served as an associate director of the White House drug control office and as chairman of a national commission to curb prison rape.

The Washington Post reported an incident two years ago in which Walton, driving his family in downtown Washington to the airport for a vacation, noticed a cabdriver being attacked. The 5-foot-9 judge, who played football at West Virginia State University, stopped his vehicle, wrestled the attacker to the ground and held him in check until police arrived.

"He started toward me," Walton told the Washington Post. "I had to take him down."

Despite Walton's history as a "long ball hitter" when it comes to sending criminals to jail, lawyers and legal experts said the punishment he imposed on Libby was within his discretion under the law.

The 2 1/2 year sentence was within the range of guidelines that the Bush administration has created and espoused for federal judges to follow to ensure that defendants are punished the same regardless of the judge hearing their case. The administration and Republican members of Congress have admonished other judges who give defendants a break under the guidelines . . .

<b>I post the influences on my opinion, powerclown....right outta the "record"....and yours come from....where?</b>

Quote:

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-s...memo052507.pdf
Page 1

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW)
v. ))
I. LEWIS LIBBY, )
also known as Scooter Libby )
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, PATRICK J. FITZGERALD,
Special Counsel, respectfully submits the following sentencing memorandum:

........This memorandum addresses the seriousness of defendant’s
offense conduct and <b>responds to certain possible mitigating arguments identified in the
Presentence Investigation Report</b>.....

<b>II. Seriousness of Defendant’s Offense Conduct</b>.........

....Page 2

.....As President Bush stated on October 6,
2003: “[t]his is a very serious matter, and our administration takes it seriously. . . . We’re
talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will set a clear signal we expect other leaks
to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth.” Remarks by President Bush at
Press Availability with President Kibaki of Kenya, Oct. 6, 2003, at
http://whitehouse.gov/news/releases/...0031006-3.html. The President and his
spokesman made it clear on repeated occasions that the President expected everyone in his
administration to cooperate and provide information to the investigators.......

.....Page 7

<b>III. Response to Certain Arguments in Mitigation</b>
In this case, as is his right, Mr. Libby maintains that despite his conviction, he is
totally innocent. He has expressed no remorse, no acceptance of responsibility, and no
recognition that there is anything he should have done differently – either with respect to his
false statements and testimony, or his role in providing reporters with classified information
about Ms. Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA.

Instead, on Mr. Libby’s behalf his supporters have submitted to the probation office
and the Court a variety of arguments challenging the propriety of his prosecution. These
arguments for leniency paint Mr. Libby as the victim of an improper, unnecessary, and
politically motivated investigation, an unfair indictment, and a wrongful conviction. These
arguments mirror comments made by the defense’s public relations team and posted on the
defense website, www.scooterlibby.com, before, during and after the trial. The submission
of these arguments on Mr. Libby’s behalf is well known to Mr. Libby and his attorneys, and
while they have not to date explicitly embraced these arguments, neither have they disavowed
them. The government submits that these arguments are completely at odds with the kind of
contrition that normally is a pre-condition to leniency. We address the lack of merit of these
arguments in the event the defense presses such arguments as supporting a lenient sentence.

<b>A. Mr. Libby’s Public Service</b>
In the Offender Characteristics Section of the Presentence Investigation Report, a
number of Mr. Libby’s supporters cite Mr. Libby’s public service on behalf of our national

Page 8

security during the war against terrorism, and note the fact that Mr. Libby worked long hours
for the government under great stress, when he could have earned a more lucrative salary in
the private practice of law. We take no issue with Mr. Libby’s service to the government and
recognize that it did indeed involve long hours, great stress and foregone income. While
some may fervently support particular policy positions Mr. Libby advocated, and others
strenuously object to those same positions, what is relevant for sentencing is not any effort
at assessing the correctness of those policies, but recognition of a positive aspect of Mr.
Libby’s character: namely that Mr. Libby worked long and hard to advance policies that he
believed were in the best interests of the United States. We have never challenged that
aspect of Mr. Libby’s background and do not do so now.

However, some of those who spoke to the Probation Office on Mr. Libby’s behalf
advocate that his service in the public sector should excuse him from imposition of any
punishment for his crimes. [Sentence redacted and filed under seal.]

It is worth placing such suggestions in
context by noting that there are many others who have served the nation at great personal
hardship, the overwhelming majority of whom are of considerably less means than Mr.
Libby. Yet we would not be prepared to excuse those who served in the FBI, the CIA, the
military or the Peace Corps if they were found to have perjured themselves and committed

Page 9

obstruction of justice during a criminal investigation of a national security matter. We should
not apply a different set of rules to Mr. Libby because he served in the White House.

<b>B. Propriety of Mr. Libby’s Prosecution</b>
Others of Mr. Libby’s friends and associates <b>interviewed for the Presentence
Investigation Report assert that his prosecution was unwarranted, unjust, and motivated by
politics.</b> [Remainder of paragraph redacted and filed under seal.]

Page 10

<h3>The argument that Mr. Libby is an innocent wrongly charged</h3> because it was known
early in the investigation that others had leaked the identity of Valerie Wilson overlooks
critical facts as well as the jury’s carefully reasoned verdict. First, the evidence at trial
proved that Mr. Libby was guilty, not innocent. Mr. Libby learned about Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment in June 2003 directly from the Vice President, as well as from senior
government officials from both the State Department (Marc Grossman) and the CIA (Bob
Grenier) and Cathie Martin, who handled public affairs for the Vice President. <b>The evidence
showed that Mr. Libby was aggravated about Ambassador Wilson</b> and paid exceptionally
close attention in June and July 2003 to media stories about Mr. Wilson. Mr. Libby disclosed
information about Ms. Wilson’s employment <h3>to Judith Miller on June 23.</h3>

Following Ambassador Wilson’s Op Ed <h3>in the New York Times on July 6, 2003</h3>, Mr.
Libby inserted himself even more in the press response to Mr. Wilson. On July 7, he
disclosed the information <b>about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment to Ari Fleischer</b>, then the
White House press secretary, in what Mr. Fleischer described as a “weird lunch.” The next
morning, Mr. Libby disclosed the information about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment again
to reporter Miller. Mr. Libby provided information about Mr. Wilson and Ms. Wilson on the
condition that any attribution <b>disguise him as a “former Hill staffer.”</b> Later that week, Mr.

Page 11

Libby confirmed the information about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment to reporter Matt
Cooper, who had first learned the information from Karl Rove.

The evidence at trial further established that when the investigation began, Mr. Libby
kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned
about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment. The evidence <b>proved that Mr. Libby invented a
conversation about Ms. Wilson’s employment with Mr. Russert, lied about other
conversations with other officials and reporters and claimed not to have known the
information</b> he was spreading to reporters about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment was true.

Mr. Libby even went so far as to claim that he was “surprised” and “taken aback” by what
Mr. Russert had told him about Ms. Wilson and the CIA on July 10, and to claim that Mr.
Libby did not even know at the time of his conversations with reporters that Mr. Wilson had
a wife. Mr. Libby also claimed to have a clear memory <h3>that the only topic he did not discuss
with the Vice President in the aftermath of the Wilson Op Ed was Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment.</h3>

Second, it is <b>undisputed but of no moment that it was known early in the investigation
that two other persons (Richard Armitage and Karl Rove)</h3> in addition to Mr. Libby had
disclosed Ms. Wilson’s identity to reporters, and that Messrs. Armitage and Rove were the
sources for columnist Robert Novak’s July 14, 2003 column, which first publicly disclosed
Ms. Wilson’s CIA affiliation. The investigation was never limited to disclosure of Ms.
Wilson’s CIA affiliation to Mr. Novak; rather, from the outset the investigation sought to

Page 12

determine who disclosed information about Ms. Wilson to various reporters, including – but
not limited to – Mr. Novak.

From these facts, <h3>it is argued either that the entire investigation should have been
quickly terminated or that it was inappropriate that at the end of the investigation only Mr.
Libby was charged. We address both arguments below.</h3>

<b>1. Termination of the Investigation</b>
The assertion that the collective facts known at an early point in the investigation
warranted a summary termination of the investigation does not stand up to close scrutiny.

First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that <h3>Ms. Wilson qualified under the
relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity
had been disclosed by public officials</h3>, including Mr. Libby, to the press. Early in the
investigation, however, the critical issue remained as to precisely what the particular officials
knew about Ms. Wilson’s status and what the officials intended when they disclosed her
identity to the media. Moreover, in assessing the intent of these individuals, it was necessary
to determine whether there was concerted action by any combination of the officials known
to have disclosed the information about Ms. Plame to the media as anonymous sources, and
also whether any of those who were involved acted at the direction of others.

This was particularly <h3>important in light of Mr. Libby’s statement to the FBI that he may have
discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with reporters at the specific direction of the Vice President.</h3>

Page 13

Finally, it remained to be determined whether the accounts of various persons who
disclosed the information to the media were truthful, and, if not, whether any false statement
made could be proven to be intentionally false. In that vein, it became apparent at an early
stage of the investigation that <b>Mr. Libby’s account was sharply contradicted by the accounts
of other witnesses, most notably Tim Russert. The investigation thus appropriately continued</b>
for several months after the October 2003 disclosures by Messrs. Armitage, Rove and Libby,
under the direction of then Attorney General Ashcroft, until late December 2003 when
Special Counsel was appointed.

The investigation then continued for the same reasons. It also bears note that <h3>although certain
of Mr. Libby’s supporters have suggested that it was improper for the investigation to continue
without publicly disclosing what Mr. Armitage, Mr. Rove, and Mr. Libby admitted in interviews or
before the grand jury, maintaining the confidentiality of witness statements and testimony was
not only required by law, but was an appropriate and routine investigative practice that protected
witnesses’ privacy, reduced the risk that witnesses would influence each others’ recollections and
testimony, and protected the reputations of uncharged persons.</h3>

To accept the argument that Mr. Libby’s prosecution is the inappropriate product of
an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, <h3>one must accept the
proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking
government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information
about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly

Page 14

contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant
activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby
himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice
President.</h3> <h2>To state this claim is to refute it.</h2> Peremptorily closing this investigation in the
face of the information available at its early stages <h3>would have been a dereliction of duty, and
would have afforded Mr. Libby and others preferential treatment not accorded to ordinary
persons implicated in criminal investigations.</h3>

<b>2. Prosecution of Mr. Libby for Obstruction of Justice and Perjury in
the Absence of a Prosecution of Any Person for the Underlying
Disclosure of Classified Information</b>

Nor is it of any consequence to Mr. Libby’s conduct – perjury and obstruction of
justice – that others may have engaged in similar disclosures of classified information for
which neither Mr. Libby nor they were charged. At the end of the investigation, after all the
information was gathered – including testimony of the reporters and relevant documents –
a decision was made not to pursue substantive charges for the disclosure of classified
information about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment.

This fact does not support the logical leap
that investigators knew at the beginning of the investigation that no such charges would be
brought, nor does it have any bearing on the propriety of Mr. Libby’s prosecution for perjury.
While not commenting on the reasons for the charging decisions as to any other
persons, we can say that the reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly
relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson

Page 15

included, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby’s false testimony obscured a
confident determination of what in fact occurred, particularly where the accounts of the
reporters with whom Mr. Libby spoke (and their notes) did not include any explicit evidence
specifically proving that Mr. Libby knew that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent. <b>On the other
hand, there was clear proof of perjury and obstruction of justice which could be prosecuted
in a relatively straightforward trial.</b> As Judge Tatel noted in his concurring opinion in In re
Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 438 F.3d 1141, 1182 (D.C. Cir. 2006), “insofar as false
testimony may have impaired the special counsel’s identification of culprits, perjury in this
context is itself a crime with national security implications. What’s more, because the
charges contemplated here relate to false denials of responsibility for Plame’s exposure,
prosecuting perjury or false statements would be tantamount to punishing the leak.”

Finally, the suggestion that there is something unusual or inappropriate about pursuing
a prosecution for a crime of obstruction where the underlying crime is not prosecuted is a red
herring <h3>(and oddly suggests that Mr. Libby’s prosecution would not have been “wrongful”
if only the government had brought more charges against him or others).</h3> Such perjury
prosecutions are hardly unusual; indeed, <b>as the Supreme Court noted in Mandujano, our
system of justice would break down if witnesses were allowed to lie with impunity.</b> This is
especially true where the lies at issue succeeded in preventing the investigators from
determining with confidence what had occurred.

Page 16

In light of the foregoing, the assertions offered in mitigation are <h3>consistent with an
effort by Mr. Libby’s supporters to shift blame away from Mr. Libby for his illegal conduct
and onto those who investigated and prosecuted Mr. Libby for unexplained “political”
reasons.</h3> The assertions provide no basis for Mr. Libby to receive a reduced sentence.

The record should be clear that the grand jury investigation was conducted fairly and in
appropriate secrecy; <h3>Mr. Libby had ample legal resources and talent available to him to raise
all appropriate legal challenges and mount a legal defense</h3>; the Court provided Mr. Libby
substantial opportunity to follow through on the defense he proffered; and the jury carefully
and dispassionately weighed the evidence over the course of many days and convicted on
four counts and acquitted on another. <h3>While the disappointment of Mr. Libby’s friends and
supporters is understandable, it is inappropriate to deride the judicial process as “politics at
its worst” on behalf of a defendant who, the evidence has established beyond a reasonable
doubt, showed contempt for the judicial process when he obstructed justice by repeatedly
lying under oath about material matters in a serious criminal investigation.</h3>

<b>IV. Conclusion</b>
Mr. Libby, a high-ranking public official and experienced lawyer, lied repeatedly and
blatantly about matters at the heart of a criminal investigation concerning the disclosure of
a covert intelligence officer’s identity. <h3>He has shown no regret for his actions, which
significantly impeded the investigation. Mr. Libby’s prosecution was based not upon politics
but upon his own conduct, as well as upon a principle fundamental to preserving our judicial

Page 17

system’s independence from politics:</h3> that any witness, whatever his political affiliation,
whatever his views on any policy or national issue, <h2>whether he works in the White House or
drives a truck to earn a living, must tell the truth</h2> when he raises his hand and takes an oath
in a judicial proceeding, or gives a statement to federal law enforcement officers. <h3>The
judicial system has not corruptly mistreated Mr. Libby; Mr. Libby has been found by a jury
of his peers to have corrupted the judicial system.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that Mr. Libby should be
sentenced to a term of imprisonment within the applicable range of 30 to 37 months</h3> as set
forth in a separate memorandum being filed today addressing the sentencing guidelines
calculations. It is respectfully submitted that the sentencing range is reasonable and
appropriate and that the Court should determine the precise sentence within that range in
light of all the factors set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a).

Respectfully submitted,
/s/
PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
Special Counsel
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 353-5300
Dated: May 25, 2007

You can read Libby's defense team's unsuccessful pleadings to the court here:

Quote:

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF I. LEWIS LIBBY: http://salonmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/pdf/libby.pdf

DEFENDANT I. LEWIS LIBBY’S OPPOSITION TO
THE GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
ITS PROPOSED SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATIONS: http://salonmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/pd...y_response.pdf

It is important to note that the Probation Service's pre-sentencing report on Libby has not been released. We can gain insight into it's unusual (unprecedented...one of a kind...) preferential consideration of Libby, by the frequent citing of it by Libby's attorneys in the pleadings linked below. It shows such concern for convicted felon Libby, that it cannot be viewed as legitimate or impartial work product of a DOJ agency that is not known, in other cases, for anything like what the defense represents that it determined about Libby.

...and Libby showed no remorse and was unapologetic at sentencing:

Quote:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/j...bby_06-05.html
Originally Aired: June 5, 2007
Analysis

Libby Sentenced to More Than Two Years in CIA Leak Case

......JIM LEHRER: And that he thought the evidence proved the case, that he had lied about what he knew about what was going on at the time, correct?

CAROL LEONNIG: Absolutely. The judge also, you know, as you know, has a reputation as a "by the book," sort of long-ball hitter kind of judge, who is pretty hard on criminals, whether they're white-collar or violent criminals. And what he said to Scooter Libby today was that he agreed with the prosecution, that the prison sentence should be increased because of the seriousness of the investigation that Scooter Libby impeded, and also because the lies that he told forever shielded from the public the knowledge of whether those crimes were committed by Mr. Libby, the leaks, or by someone else.

JIM LEHRER: What did Libby say on his behalf in open court today?

CAROL LEONNIG: Well, you know, I've covered a lot of sentencings, and I found his comments really interesting. First of all, he was unflinching, as he was when the verdict was read, and throughout this experience he's been sort of an emotionless person.

He said that he was very grateful to the court personnel for all their help to him while he had been in the courthouse for the last year-and-a-half. And, finally, he said he just hoped the judge would take into consideration his own life and not just the jury's verdict.

But, again, <b>what I found striking was that Scooter Libby never said, "I'm sorry" or "I did something wrong" or "I made a mistake and I'll never do it again." Most defendants say that, and he did not.</b>

JIM LEHRER: Would Judge Walton have expected that and wanted that, as well, do you think?

CAROL LEONNIG: I think so. <b>I think most federal judges I've seen on the bench want to see some contrition and remorse, if only because it's an indicator that someone's acknowledged what a jury has found to be true.</b>

JIM LEHRER: Now, how do you read the judge's take on what happens next on this issue, the request from the defense to let Libby remain free while the appeal is decided?

CAROL LEONNIG: Well, it's also striking. I mean, I was talking to some legal experts today after the hearing. And the judge definitely broke away from the increasing trend in federal courts to release white-collar criminals pending their appeal and let them be free. The law sort of presumes that Scooter Libby will go to prison immediately after sentencing, but the trend has been in the other direction.

And Judge Walton went, again, by the book and said his feeling was, "You should go to prison immediately after sentencing," but after the defense pleaded with the judge to reconsider, he said, "OK, I'll listen to you for another week, and I'll decide next week at a hearing."

JIM LEHRER: And is this solely at the discretion of the judge? Can that be appealed itself?

CAROL LEONNIG: It's at his discretion. There can be back-and-forth over it, but ultimately it's his discretion.

JIM LEHRER: OK. Carol Leonnig, again, thank you very much.

CAROL LEONNIG: Thank you, Jim.....

....further in the link in the preceding quote box.... National Review's Byron York and The Nation's David Corn, engage in a debate identical to the one that <b>I am trying</b> to engage here....

irateplatypus · 07-04-2007, 08:10 AM

the reaction to the OP is, in general, variations on the certainty of mr. libby's guilt. that's really not relevant and not something i would even begin to contest.

i must restate...

if you are outraged by this libby business, there are only two morally consistent arguments available:

1) this libby case is an extra-ordinary abuse of power and insult to justice!
2) this libby case is just the latest in a never-ending string of abuses and i am opposed to all of them in measure proportionate to their severity

the first is very difficult or impossible to argue (dc_dux is the only one who's attempted it). the second demands a moral consistency that i haven't witnessed on this board. if you can't demonstrate the first and don't qualify to argue to second, you're guilty of the same preferential notion of justice for which you condemn the president.

-------------------------

host, i appreciate your discipline for citing resources... but i find your posting style more distracting than convincing. in addition to helpful source documents you also tend to post op/eds and info from dubious sources. what's more, they're often posted in their entirety. for what it's worth, i think they'd be more effective if your restated the argument in your own words and linked only to sources confirming objective facts that may not be readily accepted.

roachboy · 07-04-2007, 08:30 AM

i do not see what distinction you are trying to make with your repeated "you either think a or b" move, irate. the effect of it is to box in anyone who would take your post seriously--the problem is either pardons in general or this particular pardon/commutation. that is a false binary, as we say in the biz. what it does is erase context, erase this particular context, in order to substitute two alternate contexts--objections in principle to pardons or the list of previous pardons. i do not know what you imagine you accomplish with this move, but you seem quite committed to it, as if this false binary is enough to put those who find this latest move on the part of cowboy george to be problematic in an awkward spot.

the other problem is your insistence on switching away from the category of the political and onto some "moral" grounds in the fashioning of judgments. there is no justification provided for this switch.
there is no rationale for it, so far as i can can tell either.
what it seems cheap to me. like nothing is happening with or through it: except that you get to dictate not only the way the question is framed, but the grounds on which any possible critique of it can be articulated.
which is your prerogative, i suppose--you can try to do what you like--but there is no reason to expect that anyone who is not you will buy your thinking.

so there is no agreement about the way you are framing this question.
none.
so if you dont want to interact with host's posts and dont want to take seriously the response he provided you, then maybe we can start again in another way and you can defend the moves that shape your repetitions of the op.

dc_dux · 07-04-2007, 08:43 AM

Irate...

Several more facts that have come to light would further make the case for your 1) this libby case is an extra-ordinary abuse of power and insult to justice:

Presidential pardons and/or commutations are generally made after a portion of the term in prison had been served:

Sentencing experts said Bush's action appeared to be without recent precedent. They could not recall another case in which someone sentenced to prison had received a presidential commutation without having served any part of that sentence. Presidents have customarily commuted sentences only when someone has served substantial time.

"We can't find any cases, certainly in the last half century, where the president commuted a sentence before it had even started to be served," said Margaret Colgate Love, a former pardon attorney at the Justice Department. "This is really, really unusual."

Further, in making his case for the commutation, Bush's position that the prison sentence was "excessive" contradicts the policies and practices of his own DoJ (with whom he did not confer):

....records show that the Justice Department under the Bush administration frequently has sought sentences that are as long, or longer, in cases similar to Libby's. Three-fourths of the 198 defendants sentenced in federal court last year for obstruction of justice — one of four crimes Libby was found guilty of in March — got some prison time. According to federal data, the average sentence defendants received for that charge alone was 70 months.

(I would suggest Libby's obstruction was worse than most of the other 198 sentenced last year because of the violation of the public trust that accompanied his position in the highest level at the White House)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss

I dont have a problem with presidential pardons in general. I would prefer they be used by a president to correct an injustice or to acknowledge someone who had accepted responsibility for his actions and expressed contrition (and served time) rather than as a political favor, but even the latter is a perk of the office. I would have had no complaint if Bush pardoned Libby at the end of his term next year and after Libby had served some time.

I do have a problem with the manner in which this commutation was presented and rationalized.

guy44 · 07-04-2007, 09:45 AM

Libby wasn't convicted of outing a CIA officer, although if there was true justice in the world he would be. He was convicted of lying about what he did, under oath, which is illegal. It's called perjury.

So why should he get off while this guy doesn't, if there's no underlying crime and perjury isn't a huge deal?

Quote:

[I]n a case decided two weeks ago by the United States Supreme Court and widely discussed by legal specialists in light of the Libby case, the Justice Department persuaded the court to affirm the 33-month sentence of a defendant whose case closely resembled that against Mr. Libby. The defendant, Victor A. Rita, was, like Mr. Libby, convicted of perjury, making false statements to federal agents and obstruction of justice. Mr. Rita has performed extensive government service, just as Mr. Libby has. Mr. Rita served in the armed forces for more than 25 years, receiving 35 commendations, awards and medals. Like Mr. Libby, Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.

The judges who sentenced the two men increased their sentences by taking account of the crimes about which they lied. Mr. Rita's perjury concerned what the court called "a possible violation of a machine-gun registration law"; Mr. Libby's of a possible violation of a federal law making it a crime to disclose the identities of undercover intelligence agents in some circumstances.

When Mr. Rita argued that his 33-month sentence had failed to consider his history and circumstances adequately, the Justice Department strenuously disagreed.

Both men were convicted of the EXACT same crime. The only difference I can see is that Rita was convicted of lying about a machine-gun registration law, while Libby was lying to cover his role (and almost certainly the role of Cheney, and maybe even Bush) in outing an undercover CIA agent for political gain.

Gee, I wonder who got off?

tecoyah · 07-04-2007, 11:55 AM

and yet......

Attorneys see irony in Libby case

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush knew what he was getting in 2001 when he made Reggie B. Walton one of his first picks for a seat on the federal bench: a tough-on-crime judge with a reputation for handing down stiff sentences.

A former deputy drug adviser, federal prosecutor and Superior Court judge, Walton seemed a perfect fit for the new president. And Walton didn't disappoint, proving to be exactly the kind of no-nonsense judge Bush was looking for.

Until now.

When erasing former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 2 1/2-year prison term in the CIA leak case, Bush said Walton was being too harsh.

What a freakin' joke we have become

fastom · 07-04-2007, 04:40 PM

There is probably a good reason for springing Libby. There are some pretty big skeletons in the White House closet.

reconmike · 07-04-2007, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

There is probably a good reason for springing Libby. There are some pretty big skeletons in the White House closet.

There are always, ALWAYS big skeletons in the white house closet, no matter what party is there.

fastom · 07-04-2007, 08:23 PM

True that. I guess as long as the bad guys control both parties it'll never change.

It's funny how the CIA just admitted they used to commit crimes, George Sr was CIA leader before he was president. Clinton and the Mena drug thing involved Bush too.

It's like finding out that two rival car dealers that have ads slamming the other dealer are owned by the same person.

Jenny Hatch · 07-05-2007, 06:48 AM

I wish Libby had been given a full pardon for his non- crime and that Bush would have had the guts to do it right now.

Jenny

Dilbert1234567 · 07-05-2007, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

I wish Libby had been given a full pardon for his non- crime and that Bush would have had the guts to do it right now.

Jenny

he broke the law, he knowingly exposed an operative, ruining her entire career, a career dedicated to protecting the USA, pissed away for revenge. he should be hung for treason, not pardoned.

tecoyah · 07-05-2007, 07:32 AM

Yeah....certainly no favoritism to be seen here...move along/

Oh shit....whats that down there

Quote:

Bush Filed a Motion Last Year to Uphold the 33-Month Sentence of Victor Rita, a 24-Year Marine Corps Vet Convicted on Same Crimes as Libby
Last month, the Supreme Court agreed with the Bush Justice Dept., ruling against Rita’s appeal for a reduced sentence based his exemplary military service.

Sen. Joe Biden:
Tony Snow said that President Bush decided to commute Scooter Libby’s two and a half year-prison sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice, because it was “excessive.”

Yet last year the Bush Administration filed a “friend-of-the-court brief” with the Supreme Court, in an attempt to uphold a lower court’s ruling that a 33-month prison sentence for Victor Rita, who was convicted of the same exact charges, perjury and obstruction of justice, was “reasonable.”

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/07...rita-sentence/

host · 07-05-2007, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenny Hatch

I wish Libby had been given a full pardon for his non- crime and that Bush would have had the guts to do it right now.

Jenny

Jenny, my good friend, Bill Henrickson....put it thusly:

Quote:

“In some ways, commutation is worse [for the cause of justice] than a pardon. With a commutation, Scooter Libby retains his Fifth Amendment rights.” If Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., for example, were to call a hearing, Libby could still plead the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination, remaining silent. Had he been pardoned and been completely cleared of any wrongdoing, then he would have a harder time refusing to answer questions. Libby’s continued silence protects Bush and Cheney.

The commutation also allows the Bush administration to remain silent. As Bush said, “I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby’s appeals have been exhausted.”

So the commutation ensures that Libby will not cooperate with Fitzgerald, and will not cooperate with Congress. Why does this matter? Because this case is not about obstruction of justice, it is not about perjury. Ultimately, this case is about war.

The Bush administration’s case for war depended on false claims about weapons of mass destruction. President George H.W. Bush hailed Wilson as “a true American hero” for his role as acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. But when Wilson publicly debunked the George W. Bush administration’s claim about African uranium, he was attacked, his wife was outed, her career ruined. Her job: an undercover CIA operative investigating weapons of mass destruction. This week, the United Nations formally closed down its weapons search program in Iraq, the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. So much for WMD.

Thompson released a statement after the commutation, saying, “This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life.” Good Americans sent to war, and who died, now number close to 3,600. They will not be getting on with their lives. And let’s not forget the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed. More than 20,000 Americans are wounded, some with limbs lost, some blinded, some brain-damaged. They have no choice but to get on with their lives, but without a star-studded fundraising committee.

The Declaration of Independence speaks of unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It also says that when a government “becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.”

(With apologies for lack of attribution of the above, to Marcy Wheeler, aka "emptywheel"...)

powerclown · 07-05-2007, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

My issue is the blatant disregard the Administration has shown for our system of justice, not only with the pardon but in virtually dozens of "forgetful" witnesses, obstruction of investigations and multiple levels of secrecy that do not seem related to national security. If you see no problem with what is going on up there...that is certainly your perogative. Understand though, that many do not carry the level of trust you do, when it comes to the foundations of the country they live in.

Understood. I acknowledge politics being played on both sides of the aisle...spilling over into the public domain. My thing is that this trial was on very, very shaky and partisan ground from the start, initiated by an anti-war politico with a frogmarch agenda. I think what Joe Wilson tried to do policically was shady, and the white house fought back politically.

Playing Politics with Libby
by Alan Dershowitz
Posted July 3, 2007 | 10:09 AM (EST)

The outcry against President Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's sentence is misplaced. President Bush acted hours after the U.S. Court of Appeals denied Libby bail pending appeal. That judicial decision was entirely political. The appellate judges had to see that Libby's arguments on appeal were sound and strong -- that under existing law he was entitled to bail pending appeal. (That is why I joined several other law professors in filing an amicus brief on this limited issue.) After all, if he were to be sent to jail for a year and then if his conviction were to be reversed on appeal, he could not get the year back. But if he remained out on bail and then lost the appeal, the government would get its year. In non-political cases, bail should have and probably would have been granted on issues of the kind raised by Libby.

But the court of appeals' judges, as well as the district court judge, wanted to force President Bush's hand. They didn't want to give him the luxury of being able to issue a pardon before the upcoming presidential election. Had Libby been allowed to be out on appeal, he would probably have remained free until after the election. It would then have been possible for President Bush to pardon him after the election but before he left office, as presidents often do during the lame duck hiatus. To preclude that possibility, the judges denied Libby bail pending appeal. The president then acted politically. But the president's action -- whether right or wrong on its merits -- was well within his authority, since pardons are part of the political process, not the judicial process. What the judges did was also political, but that was entirely improper, because judges are not allowed to act politically. They do act politically, of course, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's disgracefully political decision in Bush v. Gore. But the fact that they do act politically does not make it right. It is never proper for a court to take partisan political considerations into account when seeking to administer justice in an individual case.

The trial judge too acted politically, when he imposed the harshly excessive sentence on Libby, virtually provoking the president into commuting it.

This was entirely a political case from beginning to end. Libby's actions were political. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political. The trial judges' rulings were political. The appellate court judges' decision to deny bail was political. And the president's decision to commute the sentence was political. But only the president acted within his authority by acting politically in commuting the politically motivated sentence.

host · 07-05-2007, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Understood. I acknowledge politics being played on both sides of the aisle...spilling over into the public domain. My thing is that this trial was on very, very shaky and partisan ground from the start, initiated by an anti-war politico with a frogmarch agenda. I think what Joe Wilson tried to do policically was shady, and the white house fought back politically.....

powerclown, could you please post your article in a quote box....like the rest of us do.....

The article you posted is the work of an extreme partisan. You ignore that, by posting it, and....in order to hold the opinion that you posted, you must ignore the fact that Joe Wilson had no influence on the decision to prosecute Libby. Libby was prosecuted by a US Atty appointed by Bush, in a trail heard by a federal judge appointed by Bush, and Libby was investigated via a DOJ headed by an Atty General, appointed by Bush. The US Atty who acted as special counsel and prosecutor of Libby was appointed by Asst. Atty. General, Jame Comey, who was appointed by Bush. Two of the three judges on the appellate panel criticized by your articles narrator, Dershowitz were appointed by Reagan or by Bush's father....

You Dershowitz article has to compete with the following information, and, considering that he accuses 3 judges on the appellate panel and the trial judge, Reggie Walton, of somehow "playing politics", I can demonstrate how ludicrous Dershowitz's opinion is, by providing the background of one of the appellate panel judges, David Sentelle, and that of trial Judge Walton.....

On the one hand, your argument consists of the unsubstantiated accusations of Dershowitz, which fly in the face of the record of Sentelle and Walton, and your own opinion that this is "Wilson's fault". You attempt to advance these ideas as "reasonable"...things I'm assuming that you believe that we should consider, when the only non-Republican appointee in "the mix", is one democratic appointee of the three judges on the appellate panel. Even Joe Wilson was a Bush '41 dispatched, (to Baghdad) career diplomat, who Bush '41 once described as a "hero"....and Wilson had no influence over the investigative, indictment, trial process, or over Libbyy's appeal.

If Dershowitz's article is representative of why you feel so strongly opposite to the record of what happened in the Libby prosecution, and <b>the key things that you must deny to reach your conclusions...i.e.... that this is somehow "partisan", even though only Bush appointees took the Libby investigation, prosecution, and sentencing, all the way up to the point of appeal, and then, David Sentelle, of all people....ruled against Libby</b>....if this is how your "opinion gathering process", "works" with other issues....how would someone like me....ever be able to engage you in a substantative discussion on any issue?

powerclown....in order for a prosecution to be "partisan", or politically influenced, wouldn't it be most likely that a Bush appointed judge would be prosecuting a politically connected member if the opposing party. Here is what can happen, when that is the case....does this seem remotely lime the way Judge Walton treated Libby???? Both sentencings took place last month:

Quote:

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...328/1001&cid=0

July 5, 2007
Siegelman, Scrushy led off in shackles

By Marty Roney

Former Gov. Don Siegelman and ousted Healthsouth CEO Richard Scrushy begin their first full day in prison today after being sentenced to about 7 years each on federal corruption charges.

Both men were led out of the federal courthouse in shackles and handcuffs Thursday night. U.S. Marshals refused to say where they will be held until the Federal Bureau of Prisons decides to which facility they will be assigned.

Scrushy and Siegelman appeared surprised when U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller refused to let them set up a voluntary surrender date or remain free on appeal bond.

"I'm shocked disappointed and surprised," said Vince Kilborn, one of Siegelman's attorneys, of his client being taken into custody. "The governor is upbeat. The last time I saw him he was in a holding cell. He was in shackles but his hands were free. He was concerned about consoling me."

Siegelman attorney David McDonald, holding the belt and suit jacket of the former governor because prisoners are not allowed to wear them, echoed Kilborn's remarks. He said Siegelman had remained positive, even professing his continued faith in the judicial system, following the sentence.........

<b>Is it even a possibility that David Sentelle, given his own record and reputation.... one of three appellate judges accused by Dershowitz of :

Quote:

That judicial decision was entirely political. The appellate judges had to see that Libby's arguments on appeal were sound and strong

....could possibly have acted as Dershowitz described....AGAINST Libby...out of a partisan motivation?</b>

Quote:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...B80&refer=home
Libby, Ex-Cheney Aide, Must Go to Jail During Appeal (Update2)

By Cary O'Reilly
Enlarge Image
Lewis "Scooter" Libby leaves Federal Court

July 2 (Bloomberg)

..... Three-Judge Panel

The three-judge appeals panel that issued today's order included Judges <h2>David Sentelle</h2>, nominated by President Ronald Reagan; Karen LeCraft Henderson, nominated by President George H.W. Bush, and David Tatel, nominated by President Bill Clinton. ........

Quote:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...oth%2c%20Lauch
August 17, 1994, Wednesday
By PETER APPLEBOME, (Special to The New York Times); National Desk

Special to The New York Times

When David B. Sentelle was nominated to be a Federal judge in 1985, his patron, Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, said that he had decided when he first met Mr. Sentelle, "I would do whatever I could to make sure that this young man's integrity and talent, principles and courage, would be used by this country."

Now as he is embroiled in the controversy over the replacement of Robert B. Fiske Jr. by Kenneth W. Starr as the Whitewater independent counsel, Judge Sentelle has already had an influence on the country that may exceed the Republican Senator's fondest expectations.

He was a member of the three-judge panels that overturned the Iran-contra convictions of Oliver L. North and John M. Poindexter, and he is regarded as the driving force behind the appointment of Mr. Starr, whose conservative credentials have riled Democrats.

Friends and critics alike here recall Judge Sentelle, 51, as a first-rate lawyer; an affable, folksy personality; and a politically savvy, ideologically committed leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party and a supporter of Mr. Helms.

"I used to see David on a number of issues, everything from Confederate monuments to minority set-asides," said Harvey Gantt, who dealt with Mr. Sentelle often in the late 1970's when Mr. Sentelle headed the local Republican Party and Mr. Gantt, a Democrat, sat on the City Council. "I can't remember David being on on my side about anything, but he was a very affable fellow, a friendly assassin, cowboy boots and all."

In the current dispute, Democrats say the judge acted improperly by having lunch with Senators Helms and Lauch Faircloth, North Carolina's other conservative Republican Senator, while the Federal appeals panel he headed was still considering the future of the special prosecutor. Mr. Faircloth was a leader of the effort to oust Mr. Fiske because he thought Mr. Fiske had not been tough enough in his investigation.

On Aug. 5, three weeks after the lunch, the three-judge panel, which oversees matters involving special counsels, replaced Mr. Fiske, whose work on Whitewater had generally pleased the White House. It chose Mr. Starr, a former Solicitor General in the Bush Administration, to replace him. Many Democrats were outraged by the appointment of Mr. Starr, a strong conservative who had been highly critical of President Clinton's claim of immunity in a sexual harassment suit. Removal Is Sought

Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum, Democrat of Ohio, said today that Mr. Starr should either step down or be removed and that Judge Sentelle should either step down or be removed from the judicial panel before he "has another chance to taint the appearance of another appointment."

Asked tonight for comment, Judge Sentelle said, "I don't talk to reporters."

The judge has issued a single written statement saying that the lunch was a routine social event and "to the best of my recollection nothing in these discussions concerned independent counsel matters."

People here who know Judge Sentelle generally describe him as a first-rate judge and lawyer. And even North Carolina Democrats are less likely to see an improper use of judicial power than further evidence of Mr. Helms's genius at finding like-minded conservatives and putting them in positions of power.

"I don't think there's a conspiracy here, just good politics," said State Representative Paul Luebke, a liberal Democrat and a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro who has frequently written on North Carolina politics. "Senator Helms has always known how to recognize talent and support capable Republicans who share his views. The real story is that David Sentelle was tapped years ago by Senator Helms as a young man with a bright future, and he ended up doing the sort of thing that would make Senator Helms proud of him." Steps to Success

There are few wildly conflicting views of David Bryan Sentelle, whom President Ronald Reagan chose in 1987 to join the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The son of a mill worker from Canton, N.C., Judge Sentelle's public life has centered on conservative, Republican politics and a successful career in the law.

At the University of North Carolina, he was president of the Young Republicans and chairman of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom. After graduating from the university's law school in 1968, he entered private practice in Asheville, in the hills of western North Carolina where he grew up, and then moved to Charlotte as an Assistant United States Attorney from 1970 to 1974.

He served as a state district judge from 1974 to 1977, becoming increasingly active in Republican politics and serving as Mecklenburg County Republican chairman in 1979 and 1980 until he ran unsuccessfully for the Mecklenburg County Commission.

He then worked in private practice until being named by Mr. Reagan in 1985 as a Federal district judge for the Western District of North Carolina, in Asheville. Two years later, 12 years first impressing Mr. Helms, he was named to the powerful appeals court in Washington to fill the vacancy created by the elevation of Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court. Judge Sentelle's ties to Senator Faircloth, who became a Republican only in February 1991 and comes from the other side of North Carolina, are not as long-lived. 'Just a Good Guy'

It is far harder to find harsh critics of Judge Sentelle here in Charlotte than in Washington. Tom Ray, a longtime lawyer here and a prominent Democrat, said the judge's integrity was beyond dispute.

"David has always appeared to me to be rather conservative," Mr. Ray said, "but a man of great common sense. He's just a good guy. I have never heard of anybody questioning his integrity or the strength of his character. Nobody could seriously contend that he wasn't qualified for that court."

Phil Van Hoy, a lawyer and friend of Judge Sentelle, said the judge's rulings were determined by the law, not politics, and he scoffed at the notion that there was anything sinister about a luncheon between three North Carolinians in Washington.

"I think it's comical that anyone would make that sort of accusation about Dave," Mr. Van Hoy said, "especially when it comes from the people who see nothing untoward about Roger Altman having 40 meetings with the specific purpose of blowing the beans about what investigators are up to. If you're going to conspire, you don't do it in the middle of the Senate dining room with everyone watching."

But others, including Mr. Ray, said the luncheon was, at the least, a lapse of judgment. A more common response from critics is an uncomfortable sense of deja vu about Mr. Helms's continuing ability to affect government and policy despite his standing at the outer fringes of the political grid.

"From my perspective, Helms is still a more skilled politician than most people give him credit for," Mr. Luebke said. "That's why he's been elected four times despite always being more conservative than the majority of the people in North Carolina. He's always thought better about his long-range goals than have most senators, and that he recognized the potential of someone like Judge Sentelle 20 years ago is typical of his skill as a politician."

Quote:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-917269.html

Toni Locy. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: Nov 3, 1994.

Two former presidents of the American Bar Association said yesterday they were surprised by the way a federal supervisory judge rejected questions raised about the propriety of appeals Judge David B. Sentelle's luncheon meeting with Republican senators as he was considering appointment of the Whitewater independent counsel.

In a harsh 16-page opinion issued Tuesday and obtained by The Washington Post, Judge Harry T. Edwards, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, called citizens who filed complaints against Sentelle "naive" and said they have a "fundamental misunderstanding" of how such appointments are made.

Three citizens filed complaints about Sentelle's July 14 luncheon on Capitol Hill with Sens. Jesse Helms and Lauch Faircloth, both North Carolina Republicans. Five former ABA presidents, in an unprecedented action, wrote a letter in September to the three-judge panel that Sentelle heads - and which is responsible for appointing independent counsels - asking the judges to act in an impartial manner in the future. They did not file a formal complaint.

"I can assure you that the one thing the five of us do not suffer from is naivete," said Robert MacCrate, a New York lawyer who was among the former ABA presidents critical of Sentelle.

Helms and Faircloth are staunch critics of the Clinton administration, but Faircloth was especially critical of early findings of special counsel Robert B. Fiske Jr. in investigating President Clinton's Whitewater real estate deal and his involvement with a failed Arkansas savings and loan.

MacCrate and John J. Curtin, a Boston lawyer and former ABA president, said Edwards may have missed the real point: that the public has a different view of the "appearance of impropriety" than judges and lawyers.

Two weeks after the luncheon, Sentelle's panel replaced Fiske with former solicitor general Kenneth W. Starr, who also served with Sentelle on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The panel cited Fiske's appointment by Attorney General Janet Reno as a possible conflict of interest.

Edwards is revered by many lawyers for his common-sense approach to the law. "I am surprised that someone who can make as good sense as I have found Judge Edwards to make would take this approach in this instance," MacCrate said.

Edwards, in dismissing the complaints, said Sentelle could consult with anyone he wanted about the appointment because he was not acting as a so-called Article III judge at the time, but as an Article II judge. Article III judges decide cases between adversaries and must guard against outside contacts, while Article II judges make appointments and must seek input, Edwards said.

"The whole point was not whether he was acting as an Article II or Article III judge," said Curtin, "but whether or not the public would feel there was an appearance of impropriety. It is an interesting legal distinction."

Sara Ruschaupt, a self-described housewife who filed one of the complaints, said Edwards was condescending. "It's like patting me on the head and telling me, `Don't worry your pretty little head about it. We know what we're talking about.' That's insulting," she said.

Quote:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/1990s/consor42.html
‘Politicized’ Prosecutors

By Robert Parry

The late U.S. Appeals Court Judge George MacKinnon, a respected Republican who oversaw independent counsels from 1985-92, stated that he would not have picked Kenneth Starr to investigate President Clinton, according to MacKinnon's son.

The son, James D. MacKinnon, said Judge MacKinnon objected to Starr's appointment in 1994, in part, because of the appearance of partisanship arising from Starr's senior position in the prior administration.

Judge MacKinnon also expressed concern about Starr's frequent public appearances, which the judge felt "were wholly inappropriate for an independent counsel," James MacKinnon wrote in a letter to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.

Judge MacKinnon "was always most careful to appoint independent counsels whose motivations could not be criticized," his son stated. "My father always felt that independent counsels and judges should be extraordinarily discreet with any public comments, and be as anonymous as possible and simply do their work." Judge MacKinnon died in 1995.

James MacKinnon wrote the letter about his father's views on Feb. 3, in response to comments made by Frank in a TV interview. But the correspondence was not made public at the time. James MacKinnon faxed me a copy of the letter on Dec. 2 after I contacted him while reporting about the politicization of the special prosecutor apparatus.

Judge MacKinnon's view is significant because MacKinnon was an old-line conservative Republican who jealously defended the impartiality of the special prosecutor system. MacKinnon was a friend of Richard Nixon who appointed MacKinnon to the federal bench in 1969.

MacKinnon's statements to his son also indicate that had he been re-appointed chief of the three-judge panel that picks special prosecutors in 1992, Starr likely would never have been assigned to investigate President Clinton. The political landscape might look very different today.

In 1992, for reasons that have never been explained, Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist replaced MacKinnon with one of the most right-wing judges in the federal judiciary, U.S. Appeals Court Judge David Sentelle.

By naming Sentelle, Rehnquist altered the political climate surrouding the selection of special prosecutors, effectively injecting conservative ideology into the process in a way that had been avoided during the previous 14 years.

With the Sentelle appointment, Rehnquist also ignored a provision in the 1978 Ethics in Government Act designed to safeguard the process against politics. The original law stipulated that "priority shall be given to senior circuit judges and retired judges."

The law’s drafters hoped that recommendation would prevent appointment of younger, more politically ambitious judges who might, in turn, use their position to advance a partisan cause.

Before Sentelle, the judges named to lead the special-prosecutor panel were all senior jurists known for their non-partisanship. Rehnquist broke with that tradition in naming Sentelle, who was an active junior judge then in his 40s.

A North Carolina Republican, Sentelle was seen as a hard-line conservative, a protege of Sen. Jesse Helms and a close ally of Sen. Lauch Faircloth, two of the Senate's most conservative members.

Before donning black robes, Sentelle also had been a Republican Party activist. He had served as chairman of the Mecklenburg County Republican Party and had been a Reagan delegate at the 1984 GOP national convention. Sentelle was so enamored of the former president that he named his daughter, Reagan.

Even after his appointment to the federal bench, Sentelle engaged in public writings harshly critical of liberals. In one article, Sentelle accused "leftist heretics" of wishing to turn the United States into "a collectivist, egalitarian, materialistic, race-conscious, hyper-secular, and socially permissive state." [See the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, winter 1991.]

Sentelle "takes politics seriously enough that he would do what it takes to make sure his party comes out on top," commented Ted Arrington, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. [Legal Times, March 24, 1997]

By contrast, MacKinnon was cast more in the Eisenhower mold of reformist Republican who shunned overt partisanship. Some modern-day Republicans doubted his commitment to the ideological cause.

MacKinnon fell further out of GOP favor with his choice of Lawrence Walsh to investigate the Iran-contra scandal in 1986. Though a life-long Republican, too, Walsh refused to look the other way when he encountered what he considered significant crimes by President Reagan and his national security aides.

To the dismay of conservatives, Walsh pursued the scandal aggressively, winning convictions against White House aide Oliver North and Reagan's national security adviser John Poindexter. Walsh also squeezed guilty pleas out of other Reagan administration officials.

MacKinnon staunchly backed Walsh. But Reagan-appointed judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington bristled at the Iran-contra convictions.

In his book Firewall, Walsh called those judges "a powerful band of Republican appointees [who] waited like the strategic reserves of an embattled army."

A leader of this partisan faction was Judge Laurence H. Silberman, an obstreperous conservative. Silberman had served as a foreign policy advisor to Reagan's 1980 campaign and took part in a controversial meeting with an Iranian emissary behind President Carter's back during the Iran-hostage crisis.

At one point during the Iran-contra scandal, Silberman berated MacKinnon. "At a D.C. circuit conference, he [Silberman] had gotten into a shouting match about independent counsel with Judge George MacKinnon," Walsh wrote. "Silberman not only had hostile views but seemed to hold them in anger."

On the North appeal in 1990, Silberman teamed up with Sentelle to overturn North's convictions. Sentelle also served on a second three-judge panel that threw out Poindexter's convictions.

Despite the North-Poindexter setbacks, Walsh kept digging. By 1991, his investigators had discovered hidden documents revealing an elaborate Iran-contra cover-up. In effect, Walsh learned that North had told the truth when he claimed to be the "fall guy" for the scandal.

In 1992, Walsh confronted former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger with evidence of his role in the cover-up. When Weinberger refused to admit he had lied about his knowledge of Reagan's Iran-contra decisions, Walsh indicted Weinberger on perjury and obstruction charges.

The Weinberger indictment touched off a conservative firestorm against Walsh and, less visibly, against his protector, Judge MacKinnon. Walsh's breakthrough on the cover-up threatened to tarnish Reagan's legacy and complicated President Bush's re-election strategies in 1992.

Rehnquist, a conservative Republican who had been elevated to the chief justice spot by Reagan, moved to replace MacKinnon. In an interview, Walsh told me that he received a call from MacKinnon sometime in early 1992 with the news that Rehnquist was easing MacKinnon out and bringing Sentelle in.

"He [MacKinnon] was giving me a heads up," Walsh said, adding that it was clear that MacKinnon would have liked to continue in the post. "He really loved that job," Walsh said.

Rehnquist has never explained his reasoning for replacing MacKinnon. But the supposed rationale for picking Sentelle was that he had some prosecutorial experience while other judges didn't.

The law, however, says nothing about a background as a prosecutor. The law does grant "priority" to senior and retired judges, a provision Rehnquist ignored.

Since his appointment, Sentelle has steered nearly all sensitive investigations into the hands of partisan Republicans.

In late 1992, when the Bush administration was caught searching Clinton's passport files looking for derogatory information, Sentelle's three-judge panel handed off the investigation to GOP stalwart Joseph diGenova, who found no wrongdoing by his Republican associates.

After Clinton's inauguration, Sentelle's panel kept picking Republicans for high-profile cases. David Barrett, head of Lawyers for Reagan in 1980, was named to pursue allegations that Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros had understated how much money he had paid a mistress.

Barrett built the case into an 18-count felony indictment, which is still pending. [For a critical review of this case, see The New Yorker, Nov. 30, 1998.]

Another Sentelle appointee, Donald Smaltz, amassed a 30-count indictment against Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy for accepting free tickets to sporting events and other favors. On Dec. 2, a federal jury in Washington acquitted Espy on all counts, a verdict that sparked new questions about the overreach of Sentelle's prosecutors.

But Sentelle's most controversial special prosecutor was Kenneth Starr. When the Whitewater issue bubbled to the boiling point in early 1994, the independent law had lapsed. So, Attorney General Janet Reno picked Republican Robert Fiske to investigate.

Fiske made progress in the Arkansas phase of the inquiry but annoyed some conservatives by concluding that White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster had committed suicide in July 1993. Some conservatives were pushing vague conspiracy theories about Foster's "murder." One of the conservatives angered by Fiske's findings was Sen. Faircloth, Sentelle's friend.

After a Capitol Hill lunch with Helms and Faircloth, Sentelle ousted Fiske and arranged the appointment of Starr in August 1994. Starr's selection prompted complaints from some Democrats because Starr had served as solicitor general for President Bush and was an active Republican. Starr also had assisted the Paula Jones legal team with a friend-of-the-court brief against Clinton.

But Sentelle's choice stuck. Over the next four-plus years, Starr's investigation careened through a variety of allegations against the president -- Whitewater, the Travel Office firings, the FBI's delivery of GOP personnel files to the White House and, finally, the Monica Lewinsky matter.

As the investigations dragged on, other concerns about Starr arose, particularly whether he had become obsessed with pinning some crime on the president to justify the expensive investigation.

Starr did conclude that there was no case to be made against Clinton on Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate -- but he kept those decisions secret until his November testimony before the House Judiciary Committee.

With the start of the Lewinsky scandal in January, however, Starr finally felt he could make an impeachment case against Clinton. But Starr's single-mindedness drew more Democratic complaints.

In the early days of the scandal, Rep. Frank commented on the different standards applied by MacKinnon and Sentelle.

“Look at the contrast,” Frank said. “When Judge MacKinnon appointed an independent counsel to investigate Ronald Reagan in Iran-Contra, Lawrence Walsh, he picked a Republican who had served in the Eisenhower administration. The analogy here would have been somebody from the Kennedy or Carter administrations to investigate Clinton.” [NBC’s Meet the Press, Jan. 31, 1998]

In writing to Frank, James MacKinnon stated, "You are correct. He [Judge MacKinnon] was always most careful to appoint independent counsels whose motivations could not be criticized."

According to MacKinnon's son, another part of the judge's opposition to the Starr appointment was the appearance that Starr might be "using his office to promote himself. He [Judge MacKinnon] did not conclude that was the case, but he was very uncomfortable with the appearance."

The history of the past six years might have been very different if MacKinnon had remained in charge of special prosecutors in 1992. Clearly, Kenneth Starr would not be appearing before the House Judiciary Committee making the case for impeachment.

But a larger question might be whether Rehnquist's political loyalty to the Reagan administration -- rather than a commitment to impartial prosecutions -- led to Sentelle replacing MacKinnon.

That question could be phrased another way: Did Rehnquist and Sentelle effectively rig the special-prosecutor apparatus starting in 1992 to protect Republicans and to punish Democrats?

....and Judge Walton's background:

Quote:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...la-home-center
Libby's judge known as 'tough guy'; that's why Bush appointed him
Libby's judge was one of the president's first judicial appointments.
By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer
June 7, 2007

......That Walton would put the Bush administration in an uncomfortable position of having to consider a politically charged pardon for Libby is highly ironic: The 58-year-old jurist was one of the first appointments that Bush made to the federal bench in October 2001, a prime example of a new law-and-order mentality that the administration wanted to infuse in the courts.

"Bush wanted people to know that 'I appoint tough guys to the bench,' " said Roscoe Howard, the U.S. attorney in Washington during Bush's first term. "They appointed him just for what he did to Scooter; they were just not expecting it to happen to Scooter."

By all accounts, Walton is a tough guy. A judge for more than 25 years, he did two separate stints on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, appointed by both Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. He served as an associate director of the White House drug control office and as chairman of a national commission to curb prison rape.....

guy44 · 07-05-2007, 03:33 PM

Isn't it obvious why this pardon is special? I mean, there a dozen reasons, but the big one is that the president pardoned a man who very well might have had information that could have resulted in criminal charges for the Preznit. He pardoned a guy who might have been able to rat on him.

It creates, at the very least (cause I'm like 99.9% sure Libby is guilty as fuck and should go to jail for life for disclosing the name of an undercover CIA agent for political gains, at then covering that up) the perception of a quid pro quo. Bush makes sure he does no time, and Libby doesn't spill the beans.

reconmike · 07-05-2007, 04:08 PM

Host, do you want to paste tons of shit to correct one of your own, guy44 as to who actually leaked Plame's name to the press?

Or should I do it? (just took a cut and paste for republicans course) :P

host · 07-05-2007, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Host, do you want to paste tons of shit to correct one of your own, guy44 as to who actually leaked Plame's name to the press?

Or should I do it? (just took a cut and paste for republicans course) :P

hey mike...this is not over, and if you would read and not chronically compalin about long posts and your scroll wheel....you might find that much of what you know.....is counter to the actual record. It is as if I have not provided, lately, and over the past year, most of the court filings by both sides in the Libby indictment and trial, and much of the pre-sentencing motions. You show how much you ignore about what Libby's prosecution and conviction was about, when you try to shift the issue to Armitage and Rove. Fitzgerald filed more than one brief, and said more than once in court, and to the press, that Libby was the only witness who lied to investigators and to the grand jury, and <b>obstructed the investigations goal of finding out if the leaks were disclosed at the behest of a high official in the executive branch, and or part of an organized effort authorized by high officials...such as....Cheney or even Bush....</b>and, as you know....Libby was convicted of blocking the investigation's efforts to answer those two questions.....Now...is there anything you still aren't altogether clear about, mike?

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003603.php
Libby Fallout: House Committee Plans Hearing, Defense Lawyers Rejoice
By Paul Kiel - July 5, 2007, 11:39 AM

It turns out that a president can't make the unprecedented move of commuting a former aide's prison sentence without some consequences.

On Capitol Hill, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) has already called for hearing next Wednesday at noon titled "The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials." According to a committee aide, the hearing will have an eye to the future as much as the past. President Bush thinks jail time is "excessive" for an administration official convicted of lying to protect higher administration officials. In his statement announcing the hearing, Conyers worried about such a precedent: "Taken to its extreme, the use of such authority could completely circumvent the law enforcement process and prevent credible efforts to investigate wrongdoing in the executive branch." The aide told me that potential witnesses for the hearing include legal scholars, pardon experts, and administration officials.

That's not all. The president's order has created some confusion for Judge Reggie B. Walton, the Bush appointee who was responsible for that "excessive" 30 month sentence. Walton's <a href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/07/legal-complicat.html">scratching</a> his head over Bush's move to remove the incarceration portion of the sentence while retaining the two-year period of supervised release which was to follow Libby's jail time, something not technically possible. He's asked both sides to weigh in on what should be done.

But the biggest impact is likely to come on the broader legal front. As The Los Angeles Times <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-libby4jul04,1,2591950,full.story">showed</a> yesterday, Libby's prison sentence was not "excessive" by legal standards, but such a statement by the president is sure to be embraced by defense lawyers all around the country (experts have already <a href="http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/whitecollarcrime_blog/2007/07/the-libby-motio.html">dubbed</a> such an argument "The Libby Motion"). They're also sure to mention Bush's <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003579.php">assertion</a> that Libby's sentence as it stands after the commutation ($250,000 fine and two years probation) is "harsh." Meanwhile, the Times reports, "Federal prosecutors said Tuesday the action would make it harder for them to persuade judges to deliver appropriate sentences." This from an administration that's continually and inflexibly pushed for truly harsh penalties. The New York Sun <a href="http://www.nysun.com/article/57843">reports</a that the first such invocation of Bush's order might come from an alleged Hamas operative convicted of obstruction charges.

Quote:

http://oversight.house.gov/documents...1245-54779.pdf
Statement of Rep. Henry A. Waxman
Committee on Government Reform
Hearing on Marc Rich Pardon
March 1, 2001

Three weeks ago, at the Committee’s first hearing on the Marc Rich pardon, I criticized
President Clinton’s actions. I said the Rich pardon was bad precedent, an end run around the
judicial process, and appeared to set a double standard for the wealthy and powerful.
Almost immediately the phones in my office lit up. Oddly, many of the calls were from
anti-Clinton viewers accusing me of being an apologist for the President. But I also received
many calls from Democrats demanding that I explain why I wasn’t supporting President
Clinton’s actions.
That’s where I want to start today. I want to particularly direct my comments to
Democrats around our country who are puzzled why congressional Democrats aren’t fiercely
defending President Clinton.
If a Republican President had presided over a pardon process that resembled the chaotic
mess that seemingly characterized the final days of the Clinton Administration, I would be
outraged and would criticize it. Issuing pardons is one of the most profound powers given to the
President. At a minimum, the decision-making process must be careful and above reproach. It’s
clear that President Clinton’s efforts weren’t.
President Clinton had two equally important responsibilities in deciding whether to grant
pardons. First, the President could not grant a pardon in exchange for any personal benefit. A
quid pro quo obviously would break the law. And although the President’s pardon power is
absolute, it’s not above the law.
To this point, I have seen no evidence that the President broke any law. I’ve seen a lot of
evidence of bad judgment, but not illegality.
But given the extraordinary circumstances of the Rich pardon, it’s important that the U.S.
Attorney’s office in New York fully, quickly, and impartially investigate this issue. The U.S.
Attorney is doing that, and its investigation should resolve any question of illegality for the
American people.
President Clinton’s second fundamental obligation is just as important as the first – he
must protect the American public’s trust by exercising sound judgment.
This isn’t a legal standard. It’s a subjective measure, and President Clinton failed to meet
it. The combination of revelations, ranging from the Marc Rich and New Square pardons to the
role Hugh Rodham played in the pardon process, are disturbing and raise serious questions about
the President’s judgment.

And if anyone should have been sensitive to this, it was the President. He has been
subject to a constant barrage of attacks and scrutiny, some unquestionably justified but most
reckless and unfair. He knows whatever he does will be questioned–even if he didn’t actually do
it.
During the battle over impeachment, I repeatedly noted a distinction between private
conduct and official activities. The President’s relationship with a White House intern was a
personal failing and a betrayal to his family. Everything that sprang from that scandal–including
his false testimony under oath–came from that personal failure.
In this case, however, Mr. Clinton’s failure to exercise sound judgment affected one of
the most important duties of the Presidency. Bad judgment is obviously not impeachable. But
the failures in the pardon process should embarrass every Democrat and every American. It is a
shameful lapse that must be acknowledged, because to ignore it would betray basic principles of
justice that Democrats believe in.
I know that many Democrats fear that criticizing President’s Clinton’s actions will
somehow negate all the accomplishments of his Administration. I disagree. President Clinton’s
disciplined and masterful handling of our nation’s economy, and his leadership on a score of
health and environmental issues, will not be forgotten.
Democrats–and I hope even some Republicans–should be proud of the progress we made
and the immense talents President Clinton brought to the White House. Those truths remain
despite the President’s other failings.
But when he makes a serious mistake, as I think he did in this case, Democrats must be
willing to say so.
I hope that helps explain to my Democratic callers why I’ve been so critical of the
President’s conduct.
But I also want to address the anti-Clinton callers who attack me for being an apologist
for the President and the First Lady. At the same time that I believe that President Clinton made
grave errors, I also believe that there’s clearly a double standard that’s applied to him. Pointing
out that there’s a double standard isn’t an attempt to excuse what’s happened–it’s just the facts.
One major reason we’re holding this hearing is to investigate whether President Clinton
pardoned Marc Rich in exchange for contributions. Republicans are saying that an investigation
is essential because of the suspicious circumstances that Marc Rich’s former wife gave hundreds
of thousands of dollars to the DNC and the Clinton library.
Well, compare this to the pardon that President Bush gave in 1989 to Armand Hammer,
the former head of Occidental Petroleum, who pled guilty to making illegal campaign
contributions. According to news reports, Mr. Hammer gave over $100,000 to the Republican
Party and $100,000 to the Bush-Quayle Inaugural Committee shortly before he received this
pardon.

The appearance of a quid pro quo is just as strong in the Hammer case as in the Rich
case–if not stronger, since Mr. Hammer himself gave the contributions. But there was never an
investigation of former President Bush.
The Committee has now opened a new front by investigating the involvement of the First
Lady’s brother in two of the last-minute pardons. Here again there is a parallel in the former
Bush Administration. According to news reports, former President Bush’s son, Jeb Bush,
successfully lobbied his father’s White House in 1990 for the release of an anti-Castro terrorist
named Orlando Bosch.
But we aren’t investigating former President Bush or his son, just former President
Clinton and his brother-in-law.
If we’re genuinely concerned about the undue influence of relatives on policy-makers,
there are also lots of examples we could investigate in Congress. Rep. Tom DeLay is the
majority whip. After his brother, Randy, became a lobbyist for Cemex, which is a Mexican
cement company, Mr. DeLay asked the Commerce Department for special treatment for the
company. Senator Ted Stevens’s brother, Ben, lobbies for organizations that have been reported
to have received millions of dollars in earmarked appropriations from Senator Stevens. And
Scott Hatch, Senator Hatch’s son, represents entities like the American Tort Reform Association,
even though they have extensive interests before Senator Hatch’s own committee.
I’m not impugning the actions of any of those individuals, and I don’t question the
integrity of any of their actions. But I don’t believe this Committee should engage in selective
indignation.
The Committee’s pursuit of the Clinton library is another example of the double standard.
In 1997, during the Committee’s campaign finance investigation I asked to subpoena records
from the Bush and Reagan libraries about potential fundraising abuses involving those
administrations. But I was turned down. It seems we can pursue President Clinton’s library, but
not President Bush’s or President Reagan’s.
I also wanted to investigate the Jesse Helms Foundation. Senator Helm’s foundation had
reportedly received large contributions from foreign governments at the same time that the
Senator was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. But again there was no inquiry.
As I say this, I have no doubt that my phone is again ringing off of the hook in my office
with people criticizing me for having the temerity to point out these inconsistencies. But we
need to keep perspective. American taxpayers have already spent over $140 million
investigating President Clinton. I realize that ridiculing the Clintons makes great entertainment
for some, but this obsession with the Clintons isn’t healthy. President Clinton is not going to be
impeached again–and he’s no longer the President.

At times, the feeding frenzy involving President Clinton is unfair. He is denounced as an
individual bent on thwarting or stonewalling the Committee’s investigation. But in fact, in this
case he has taken the extraordinary step of waiving executive privilege–the President’s
constitutional prerogative–to allow his top advisors to testify.
And at other times, the frenzy displaces our sense of priorities. It is amazing that the
news that President Clinton’s brother, Roger, asked for pardons became the lead story in the
country, even displacing the FBI spy scandal. After all, Roger Clinton was unsuccessful and
there is no evidence to date that he received any payments for his efforts.
Mr. Chairman, I want to comment for the record on your insistence that Beth Dozoretz be
required to assert the Fifth Amendment during today’s hearing. Mrs. Dozoretz has already
informed the Committee that given the U.S. Attorney’s investigation in New York, she will not
be able to participate in today’s hearing. There is congressional precedent for requiring a witness
to assert the Fifth Amendment. But I don’t think it’s constructive to call Mrs. Dozoretz before
the Committee if the goal is to punish her for asserting a constitutional right and to create a
media spectacle.
I also want to note my disappointment in the Committee’s treatment of Peter Kadzik. Mr
Kadzik was informed a few days ago that he might be invited to today’s hearing. The hearing
conflicted with appointments he already had scheduled in California for today, and he informed
the Committee he could not participate, but was willing to cooperate in any other way possible
with us.
When Mr. Kadzik stepped off his plane yesterday in Los Angeles, he was greeted by a
federal marshal, who served him with a subpoena requiring his presence today. So Mr. Kadzik
had to cancel his meetings and immediately board another flight back here.
That all would have been necessary if Mr. Kadzik were an essential witness for today’s
hearing. But he’s not. In fact, earlier this week, your staff told him that he wouldn’t have to
testify if I would agree to excuse Scooter Libby from today’s hearing. Since Mr. Libby was Marc
Rich’s lawyer for more than ten years and helped develop the argument that was ultimately
presented to the President as a justification for his pardon, we felt he should testify. I regret he
has been placed so far down on the witness list that we won’t hear from him for at least four
hours and maybe even after nightfall.
Mr. Chairman, given the developments of the last few weeks, I think it’s appropriate to
have this hearing. Clearly, there is widespread interest in obtaining the views of today’s
witnesses. But I think we need to think twice before continuing with additional investigation.
There’s a criminal investigation going on in New York that can answer whether illegal conduct is
involved. We could spend months investigating the details of all of President Clinton’s pardons,
but I seriously question whether it makes sense for us to conduct another redundant investigation.
I look forward to listening to today’s witnesses.

Waxman's second installment of <b>Rep. Waxman's Statement - "The Controversial Pardon of International Fugitive Marc Rich -- Day Two”</b>
is even more illuminating and it can be found here: http://oversight.house.gov/documents...1245-54779.pdf

Waxman points out how unfairly Clinton was treated by the republican congress, and contradicts Tony Snow's claim that "Clinton had left office and there was no big reaction by republicans to his pardoning of Marc Rich.
Waxman also relates that Scooter Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer for more than ten years, and that prominent republicans in former presidential administrations lobbied aggressively for Marc Rich's pardon...

reconmike · 07-05-2007, 04:39 PM

Host, let me surmise as to the way I see the whole Plame affair, from what I have read, Plame was outed, someone's head was going to roll, Libby did the best the buck stops here, taking one for the team, even though he didn't out Plame, Amritage did.
He was convicted of obstruction, sentenced to 2.5 yrs even though he didnt out Plame.

He appealed his bail was denied, and then has his sentence commuted.

Did I sum up what I read correctly? Is it factually correct?

host · 07-05-2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Host, let me surmise as to the way I see the whole Plame affair, from what I have read, Plame was outed, someone's head was going to roll, Libby did the best the buck stops here, taking one for the team, even though he didn't out Plame, Amritage did.
He was convicted of obstruction, sentenced to 2.5 yrs even though he didnt out Plame.

He appealed his bail was denied, and then has his sentence commuted.

Did I sum up what I read correctly? Is it factually correct?

...mike, the irony is that your "take" is the way Libby approached his perjury and obstruction. If he could make it seem as if he was covering up...or couldn't recall, or was mistaken about who he heard about Plame's identity from....and who he then told....he could convince supporters....folks like you, mike....that the investigation was not about the executive branch's sensitivity to the controversy of who forged the "evidence" that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellow cake uranium from niger....not about the administration's political revenge that included at least Cheney...and maybe higher...authorizing the leaking of Plame's name, and affiliation with the CIA, during a time of war...when she was working,as Cheney knew....in a covert status in a managerial role, analyzing the WMD threat....

....and the difference between you and I, mike....is that I....as special counsel Fitzgerald did....want to know if Cheney or Bush did...or did not.... do those illegal and inexcusable things....during a time of war that they hyped as an excuse to rape our constitutional protections....

...and you, mike....regard the questions as none of the business of Fitzgerald's investigation....let alone any of my business....to know, and you, yourself, either feign disinterest, or truly have no interest in knowing. I think that your years in the Corps reinforced an acceptance of only needing to know what was required to do your job....

my "job" is to be a citizen in the U.S., taking an active interest in what the officials who serve me, are "up to"......

.....and, you refer to me as partisan?

Telluride · 07-05-2007, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Telluride, you've framed your response, and then your question in a measured and reasonable way....and of course, I do not disagree with you. If you are saying that the "history" of the malfeasance of both parties is grounds, at this time, to embrace alternative parties, I don't see that as practical or in the best interests of the majority. The democrats, before this year, did not control the house since Jan., 1995, and the senate, since Jan. 2003. IMO, our country is in a crisis of confidence in it's national leadership...and the only near term hope to mitigate it is to restore checks and balances, via renewal of oversight and accountability of the executive branch by the congress. The congress is now led by a democratic party majority. The house speaker and key senate and house committees are recently led by, so far.... inquisitive, deliberative, methodical, and....when appropriate....aggressive, no nonsense, congressmen and senators. They seem headed in a direction that will reveal whether the DOJ can ever again, under this president, function as the investigative and enforcement agency of the people of the United States, or only of the dictates of the executive branch....and sooner than I would have predicted. It's the wrong time to look elsewhere for a political remedy, IMO.

We deserve better than we've gotten. Use the democrats in the short term, to unseat as many republicans as possible, in November, 2008. Then, if they disappoint, back whoever you prefer in the 2010 mid-term elections. I see no other way to change course as quickly as is needed.....

The problem is that politicians from both parties are already disappointing me and have been doing so for quite some time. Both have worked to increase the size/power of government and both have waged war on people and nations that didn't attack us. My goal is not to simply kick a certain party out of office. It's to kick politicians with certain views out of office regardless of which political party they belong to.

As far as the presidential election goes, the only candidate that I actually like so far is Ron Paul. I don't care much for the rest of the Republican hopefuls, nor am I impressed with any of the Democratic favorites for the nomination. It's certainly possible that some other good, honorable leaders will throw their hats into the arena...but, as it stands, Ron Paul is the only current candidate that I will vote for. If he doesn't get the GOP nomination - and "the powers that be" will probably make sure that he doesn't - I will vote third party. I will be using this same approach for elections for other offices.

ratbastid · 07-05-2007, 07:07 PM

Here's the bottom line, for me. I want the President to be above even the perception of ethically inappropriate behavior. In fact, he promised us exactly that.

Can ANYONE deny that this APPEARS to be ethically questionable?

Willravel · 07-05-2007, 07:13 PM

I can't deny it. I can't deny it one bit.

Telluride · 07-05-2007, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

Here's the bottom line, for me. I want the President to be above even the perception of ethically inappropriate behavior. In fact, he promised us exactly that.

Can ANYONE deny that this APPEARS to be ethically questionable?

Bush has done a number of things that appear to be ethically and/or logically questionable. Including this situation with Libby.

roachboy · 07-06-2007, 07:39 AM

this is an interesting perspective. source link is itself a link.

Quote:

Jeff Lomonaco, Please Report to the Department of Pre-Crime

Jeff Lomonaco called the Libby pardon half a month ago, in an op-ed he submitted to the Los Angeles Times but that it did not take:

Why Bush will Commute Libby's Sentence - but Not Pardon Him

With Judge Reggie Walton's ruling that Scooter Libby must begin serving his prison sentence before the appeal of his convictions has run its course, the pressure from Libby's supporters on President Bush to keep Libby out of prison is certain to intensify. President Bush, however, is unlikely to outright pardon Libby for a simple reason: to protect himself and Vice President Cheney.

If Bush were to pardon Libby, he and Vice President Cheney would give up the rationale they have used successfully for four years to avoid addressing their own roles in the case. And Libby's trial made very clear that the President and Vice President played significant and troubling roles at the very heart of the case. It is for the very same reason that Bush is more likely to follow the advice some have offered him and commute Libby's prison sentence, allowing Libby to remain free while he pursues legal vindication.

Libby was convicted on four counts of obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements in connection with the account he gave to investigators of how he learned the identify of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson and whether and how he disclosed that information to the press.

At the trial, the event that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said was at the heart of the case was Libby's July 8, 2003 conversation with New York Times reporter Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel.

Both prosecution and defense agreed that this interview was of unusual, even singular nature and importance. Kept secret from others in the Office of the Vice President, most notably Cheney's chief press aide Cathie Martin, who would normally handle interview logistics with reporters, both sides also agreed that Libby was acting at Cheney's direction in talking with Miller. There was no dispute that, after Libby expressed reservations about leaking classified information to Miller, Cheney went to President Bush to get his authorization to leak information to the press to answer the searing criticisms Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, had made of the administration's case for war.

There was dispute, however, over the distinct purpose of what the defense called the "secret mission" Libby undertook at the behest of the President and Vice President. Libby and his defense team contended that it was to leak Miller portions of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraqi WMD to bolster the administration's case. And Libby categorically denied to the grand jury that the meeting had anything to do with Plame and her CIA identity.

However, the trial (and pretrial wrangling) revealed two problems with the defense's depiction of Libby's "NIE secret mission.". First, the prosecution showed at trial, principally through Judith Miller's testimony about the July 8 meeting backed up by her contemporaneous notes of it, that Libby did indeed disclose Plame's CIA identity to her. It was also demonstrated that Cheney himself was focused on the idea that Wilson's wife had sent him on his mission for the CIA at that very moment.

Second, it turns out that Libby was leaking portions of the NIE to other reporters, and doing so without the secrecy that surrounded his meeting with Miller, both before and after he leaked that information to Miller on July 8. Libby leaked the NIE to Bob Woodward in June, and - in press aide Cathie Martin's presence - to David Sanger and Andrea Martin in July.

Together, those revelations undercut the notion that the NIE leak was the distinctive purpose of Libby's secret mission, and instead make clear that at least part of the distinctive purpose was to leak Plame's CIA identity to Miller in an effort to get the Times to publish that information.

That in turn raises troubling questions about Cheney and Bush's role in sending Libby on his secret mission. Cheney's hand-written notes on Wilson's op-ed from two days earlier showed that he was focused on Wilson's wife's alleged role in her husband's mission. Libby was acting at Cheney's direction. How likely is it that Cheney did not direct Libby to disclose information about Plame to Miller?

And what was the substance of Cheney and Bush's discussion shortly before Libby went on his secret mission to disclose previously-classified information to the press with the President's permission? Published reports have indicated that Bush told Cheney something to the effect of "Get it out," or "Let's get this out," referring to information that would damage the case Joe Wilson was making against the administration. Libby himself testified before the grand jury that Cheney told him something strikingly similar. That means that if Bush and Cheney discussed Wilson's wife before the direction was given, the President was effectively authorizing his subordinate to disclose Plame's CIA identity to the press.

It is precisely out of the desire to avoid such uncomfortable questions for himself and his vice president that President Bush is likely not to pardon Libby but to commute his sentence, or otherwise keep him out of prison without fully clearing him. That would enable Libby to remain free while he seeks legal vindication through the appeals process. But more importantly, it would enable Bush and Cheney to continue the strategy they have successfully pursued in deterring journalists seeking their explanations with claims that they shouldn't comment on an ongoing legal proceeding. If Bush were to pardon Libby, he and Cheney would no longer have such a rationale for evading the press' questions - nor would Libby be able to claim the right against self-incrimination to resist testifying before Congress about the role that Cheney and Bush played in directing his conduct.

But if Bush simply commutes Libby's prison sentence without effectively vacating Libby's conviction, the appeals process goes forward and Bush and Cheney continue to have their rationale for not answering the press' questions. This strategy would also have the added benefit for Bush of eliminating the chance, however remote, that under the pressure of prison time away from his family and abandoned by the White House he served loyally, Libby himself would tell the true story of his own and others' conduct.

However, in one sense, all of this is beside the point. There is no reason why the press and Congress should rest content with Bush and Cheney's refusal to answer questions about their own role in what turned out to be an important episode in the history of the Bush administration. Regardless of what he does, the President should not be allowed to complete the cover up of his and Cheney's role that Libby successfully conducted for four years, and for which he is now on the verge of being punished.

source: http://www.prwatch.org/node/6221
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/0...omonaco-p.html

dc_dux · 07-06-2007, 09:43 AM

If all else fails, Libby can always resume his kinky writing career:

The book is about a young Japanese man who runs a remote mountain inn and becomes embroiled in a world of intrigue. "A world of intrigue," in this case, involves:

* a scene of incest between two uncles and their niece;
* a hunter asking his companions if they should fuck a freshly killed deer while it's still warm;
* the description of a prepubescent girl's painted "mound" and pleasing lack of vaginal odor;
* a story about a girl who's kept in a cage and raped by a bear to train her to become a prostitute.

http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/libby/dirtypolitician/

guy44 · 07-06-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Host, do you want to paste tons of shit to correct one of your own, guy44 as to who actually leaked Plame's name to the press?

Or should I do it? (just took a cut and paste for republicans course) :P

Say reconmike, let's do a little correcting of your post, OK?

First, here's what I said:

Quote:

I'm like 99.9% sure Libby is guilty as fuck and should go to jail for life for disclosing the name of an undercover CIA agent for political gains

Now, this isn't very complicated. Armitage was the first person to leak the name. But before that was ever published, Libby was already doing his best to be the one to leak it:

Quote:

Miller reports:

... in an interview with me on June 23 [2003], Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, discussed Mr. Wilson's activities and placed blame for intelligence failures on the C.I.A. In later conversations with me, on July 8 and July 12 [2003], Mr. Libby, ... [at the time] Mr. Cheney's top aide, played down the importance of Mr. Wilson's mission and questioned his performance. ... My notes indicate that well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A. ... My notes do not show that Mr. Libby identified Mr. Wilson's wife by name [i.e., Valerie Plame]. Nor do they show that he described Valerie Wilson as a covert agent or "operative"

Since Novack's column came out on July 14, six and twelve days after Miller's conversations with Libby respectively, Libby was clearly, as I wrote, disclosing the name of an undercover CIA agent for political gains (even if he didn't technically name her, like a NY Times reporter can't find out who the wife of a former ambassador is).

So, did Libby leak the name to the press? Yes. Did his leak happen to lead to the first article about Plame? No. But that doesn't mean he wasn't trying.

host · 07-06-2007, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

Understood. I acknowledge politics being played on both sides of the aisle...spilling over into the public domain. My thing is that <b>this trial was on very, very shaky and partisan ground from the start, initiated by an anti-war politico with a frogmarch agenda</b>. I think what Joe Wilson tried to do policically was shady, and the white house fought back politically.

Playing Politics with Libby
by Alan Dershowitz
Posted July 3, 2007 | 10:09 AM (EST)

The outcry against President Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's sentence is misplaced. President Bush acted hours after the U.S. Court of Appeals denied Libby bail pending appeal. That judicial decision was entirely political. The appellate judges had to see that Libby's arguments on appeal were sound and strong -- that under existing law he was entitled to bail pending appeal. (That is why I joined several other law professors in filing an amicus brief on this limited issue.) After all, if he were to be sent to jail for a year and then if his conviction were to be reversed on appeal, he could not get the year back. But if he remained out on bail and then lost the appeal, the government would get its year. In non-political cases, bail should have and probably would have been granted on issues of the kind raised by Libby.

But <b>the court of appeals' judges, as well as the district court judge, wanted to force President Bush's hand. They didn't want to give him the luxury of being able to issue a pardon before the upcoming presidential election.</b> Had Libby been allowed to be out on appeal, he would probably have remained free until after the election. It would then have been possible for President Bush to pardon him after the election but before he left office, as presidents often do during the lame duck hiatus. To preclude that possibility, the judges denied Libby bail pending appeal. The president then acted politically. But the president's action -- whether right or wrong on its merits -- was well within his authority, since pardons are part of the political process, not the judicial process. What the judges did was also political, but that was entirely improper, because judges are not allowed to act politically. They do act politically, of course, as evidenced by the Supreme Court's disgracefully political decision in Bush v. Gore. But the fact that they do act politically does not make it right. It is never proper for a court to take partisan political considerations into account when seeking to administer justice in an individual case.

<b>The trial judge too acted politically, when he imposed the harshly excessive sentence on Libby</b>, virtually provoking the president into commuting it.

This was entirely a political case from beginning to end. Libby's actions were political. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political. The trial judges' rulings were political. The appellate court judges' decision to deny bail was political. And the president's decision to commute the sentence was political. But only the president acted within his authority by acting politically in commuting the politically motivated sentence.

powerclown...re-reading your logic and that of Dershowitz in his oped piece in your post #64, makes me question my own sanity, since I have to assume that you think that what Dershowitz wrote, is sensible and credible, and that there is a comparison between the "partisanship" shown by the SCOTUS majority in Bush v. Gore, and the alleged (by you, and by Dershowitz) partisanship levied against Libby, by...of all people... Judge Reggie Walton, and 4th district appellate court
Judge David Sentelle....

You're blowing my mind, powerclown.....it's as if you are telling me that it is pouring rain, when I see with my own eyes, that the sun is shining, and there isn't a cloud in the sky.

This post describes partisan treatment of a convicted, high profile defendant in a politically charge case, and no opportunity was afforded the sentenced person to remain free while he filed a motion to stay free pending appeal, and then while he was afforded an emergency appellate hearing that contested the trial judges decision:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...49&postcount=3

I grew more incredulous when I compared the opinions of you and Dershowitz, to the facts in the Libby case, Gore v. Bush, and the Gov. Siegelman case, and now I cannot fathom that you and Dershowitz even inhabit the same intellectual planet that I inhabit.....

...are the two of you _________? ...I'll leave it to others to complete my question, and I'm convinced by your opinion and your posting of Dershowitz's oped, that we need two separate forums on TFP to discuss politics.....I concede that we truly are that far apart now, and I cannot accept that any two people, knowing the backgrounds of Judge Walton and Judge Sentelle, and not both diagnosed clinically as paranoid personalities, could independently come up with the idea that those two judges....or anyone at DOJ involved in Libby's case, acted...in any way...from any influences of partisan prejudices AGAINST Libby, in any imaginable, or even unimaginable way...it's just not possible for that to have happened.....

reconmike · 07-06-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guy44

Say reconmike, let's do a little correcting of your post, OK?

First, here's what I said:

Now, this isn't very complicated. Armitage was the first person to leak the name. But before that was ever published, Libby was already doing his best to be the one to leak it:

Sorry but Armitage WAS the first person to leak Plame's name, he did it to Novak on july 7, so if ya want to split hairs Armitage actually said Plame was an op a whole day before Libby even insinuated he knew of a undercover op.

Quote:

Since Novack's column came out on July 14, six and twelve days after Miller's conversations with Libby respectively, Libby was clearly, as I wrote, disclosing the name of an undercover CIA agent for political gains (even if he didn't technically name her, like a NY Times reporter can't find out who the wife of a former ambassador is).

Again July 7th is the day Novak found out Plame's name a day before Libby met with Miller.

Quote:

So, did Libby leak the name to the press? Yes. Did his leak happen to lead to the first article about Plame? No. But that doesn't mean he wasn't trying.

And to answer your questions here;

No Libby did not leak shit

And I have been trying to fuck Morgan Fairchild for years, doesnt mean I have suceeded.

host · 07-06-2007, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Sorry but Armitage WAS the first person to leak Plame's name, he did it to Novak on july 7, so if ya want to split hairs Armitage actually said Plame was an op a whole day before Libby even insinuated he knew of a undercover op.

Again July 7th is the day Novak found out Plame's name a day before Libby met with Miller.

And to answer your questions here;

<h2>No Libby did not leak shit</h2>

And I have been trying to fuck Morgan Fairchild for years, doesnt mean I have suceeded.

...reconmiike, Libby was not charged with leaking details of Valerie Plame's employment, or her connection to Joe Wilson....and his oped did not appear in the NY Times until July 6, 2003...so what's this, on June 23?

<b>Background....reported 15 months before Libby's criminal trial, and just days before Fitzgerald indicted Libby:</b>

Quote:

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njw...05/1020nj1.htm

WHITE HOUSE
Secret Service Records Prompted Key Miller Testimony

By Murray Waas, special to National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
<h3>Thursday, Oct. 20, 2005</h3>

New York Times reporter Judith Miller told the federal grand jury in the CIA leak case that she might have met with I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby on June 23, 2003 only after prosecutors showed her Secret Service logs that indicated she and Libby had indeed met that day in the Executive Office Building adjacent to the White House, according to attorneys familiar with her testimony.

When a prosecutor first questioned Miller during her initial grand jury appearance on September 30, 2005 sources said, she did not bring up the June 23 meeting in recounting her various contacts with Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney. Pressed by prosecutors who then brought up the specific date of the meeting, Miller testified that she still could not recall the June meeting with Libby, in which they discussed a controversial CIA-sponsored mission to Africa by former Ambassador Joe Wilson, or the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

When a prosecutor presented Miller with copies of the White House-complex visitation logs, she said such a meeting was possible.

Shortly after her September 30 testimony, <h3>Miller discovered her notes from the June 23 meeting, and returned on October 12 for a second round of grand jury testimony. In this second appearance, Miller recounted details from her June 23 meeting with Libby, with the assistance of her notes.</h3>

Bob Bennett, an attorney for Miller, confirmed in an interview that Miller's October 12 testimony "corrected" her earlier statements to the grand jury regarding the June 23 meeting. Bennett declined to provide specifics of anything Miller said during either of her grand jury appearances, except to say: "We went back on the second occasion to provide those additional notes that were found, and correct the grand jury testimony reflecting on the June 23 meeting."

Bennett said that Miller's testimony is now "correct, complete, and accurate." .....

Reporting of Judith Miller's testimony at Libby's trial:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...013000178.html
Reporter's Account Hurts Libby Defense
Miller Testifies of White House Aide's Unmasking of Agent

By Carol D. Leonnig and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 31, 2007; Page A01

.....Deliberately and sometimes defensively offering her account in Libby's perjury trial, Miller told the jury that "a very irritated and angry" <h2>Libby told her in a confidential conversation on June 23, 2003, that the wife of a prominent critic of the Iraq war worked at the CIA. Libby had told investigators he believed he first learned that information from another journalist nearly three weeks later -- the assertion at the core of the charges against him........</h2>

.....Miller testified that Libby, then the chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, shared this information as they talked alone in his office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building and that he complained that the CIA and a former ambassador were unfairly trying to blame the White House for using faulty intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq. <h2>He then mentioned that the wife of the ambassador, Joseph C. Wilson IV, worked at a bureau of the CIA.....</h2>

Unofficial transcript of Fitzgerald's questioning of Miller, at Libby's trial, to further explain preceding WaPo reporting.....

Quote:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/01/3...live-judy-one/
Libby Live: Judy One
By: emptywheel

.........Fitzgerald: Did there come a time when you met with Libby

<h2>Miller: In OEOB, June 23. (Voice waivers)</h2>

M Mr. Libby appeared agitated and frustrated and angry

F HOw could you tell

M He's a lowkey and controlled guy, what he said made me think I was correct. He was concerned that CIA was beginning to backpdal to distance self from unequivocal estimates it provided before the war through a "perverted war of leaks."

F Did the topic of Joseph Wilson come up

F What do you recall was said

M His office had learned that he had been sent overseas, initially referred to as clandestine guy. VP had asked about a report in Winter 2002, in Africa, CIA hd sent Mr Wilson out to investigate claim.

F Was Libby saying VP sent WIlson

M the contrary. He said that VP did not know that Mr Wilson had been sent.

2:29

F What he said about Winter 2002 and how it related to trip.

M There had been reports, a report had gone up to the Hill indicating that Iraq hunting for uranium in Niger. VP had asked about those reporters, agency had taken upon itself to find out more. In the beginning he referred to Wilson as clandestine guy.

<h2>F Mr. Wilson's wife (voice not in great shape)

M Yes, when he was discussing intell reporting, he said his wife (referring to Wilson) worked in the bureau

F What did you understand bureau to mean</h2>

M I was a little unsure, My understanding was FBI, <h2>but the context it was clear he was referring to CIA

F Any particular bureau?

M I thought he was using bureau to refer to Nonproliferation burea, but I wasn't sure.</h2>

F How did you write it in notes

M In parentheses. He had mentioned it as an aside or because I was puzzled by it. I put a question mark about it.

F Why

M I can't be sure.

F any other discussion.

Sidebar.

Judy slouches, looks at lawyers.

2:32

Big eyes, looking forward.

F Any other conversation about pres and WH and CIA?

M Yes, Mr Libby seemed really unhappy and irritated abotu the fact that he accused CIA of leaking info that would distance agency from earlier estimates. He said that nobody had ever come to WH from CIA and said Mr. Pres, this is not correct, this is not right. He thought if CIA had such doubts they should have shared them

F relevance to Wilson

M People were beginning to focus on Wilson, but Wilson was a ruse, an irrelevance

F Did you cover the area you were assigned to.

Walton Was he using Wilson's name

M First as a clandestine guy, then began talking about Joe Wilson by name

F Returning to conversation about the wife working in bureau, did he indicate whether he had heard it from reporters

M NO

F Op-ed?

M Yes. I was surprised by it. Because it was first time that someone who had purported to be part of collection mechanism, first time someone was publicly alleging that admin had lied or distorted info about WMD. It was a serious charge. Second thing that surprised me, I wondered how the CIA would have permitted him to write such an article attacking the president.

Now speaking with her hands.

M Or excuse me sir–or whether it had approved it.

F You met with Libby again

M July 8 at St Regis, in dining room. Mr Libby's choice. About 2 hours.

F Did Libby have papers

M piece of paper in pocket

F Single or more than one

M DOn't remember. Libby was frustrated, quietly agitated. more wideranging discussion about intell that admin had collected and Powell presentation.

F June 23 ground rules:

M Off the record

F At beginning of July 8

M No discussion at beginning of specific attributions

F Mr Wilson was discussed, did ground rules remain same

<h3>M Ground rules changed. Libby said, when we shifted into alleged efforts to acquire uranium, he wanted to be identified on deeper background and I think he said something like Former Hill staffer

F had you ever been asked by him before to treat him as Former Hill staffer

M No

F demeanor?

M Equally frustrated and unhappy</h3>

F what discussed. [Judy uncomfortable]

M SAid plenty of info before Powell presentation was given, supporting Iraq hunting uranium, it had been shown that IRaq HAD acquired uranium in Africa, prior to 1st gulf war, in 80s IAEA stated taht Iraq had acquired, after that several different reports that Iraq in market again for uranium. 2 reports, for a long-term arrangement for large quantities, and then a shorter term amount, then referred to anohter report, a third report, the arrival of a delegation in 1999 this delegation was seeking a broader trade relationship, since Niger only had one export, officials had concluded that Iraq was interested in uranium, Author of this report was Joe Wilson. The report had gone up to the Hill. Talking about info provided to Hill, which had prompted VP questions.

<h2>F Did he indicate who provided this report

M CIA

F Discussion about Mr. Wilson's wife on this occasion.

M Two streams of reporting on uranium and efforst by Iraq to aquire uranium, first stream reports like Wilson, –then made an aside, Wilson's wife works at WINPAC Weapons Intelligence Nonproliferation and Arms Control, specifically focused on WMD.

F Before June 23, had you ever heard that Wilson's wife worked at CIA/

M Not before that meeting

F On July 8, any new info

M WINPAC was new

F Any discussion of covert or non-covert?

M Not that I remember no, No discussion whether she was classified or non-classified.

F Any discussion of learnign this from other newspaper reporters.

F discussion about NIE </h2>

M Defended NIE, based on reporting from many different sources He said classified version even stronger, it was not at all equivocal. Said if anything classified was stronger

F Any qualificatoin, any place where a doubt would be expressed

M Yes, didn't know classified or unclassified, said INR had expressed doubts about uranium hunting, alleged uranium hunting activities, had been included in appendix. What he was saying was that these doubts not prominently featured. He said policy makers had not seen them

F Did you take notes, anything particular about process

Obejction sustained

F Pen or pencil

M Used pen. The pen didn't work

2:46

F Did you talk to other people

M I think I did, as soon as I remember learning about Wilson's wife

M I don't remember who, I consulted my notes, references by initials and names, not tied to any interview in any notebook, can't remember whether it was before or after info became public.

F Did you speak to him again

M Wanted follow-up. We agreed to speak on phone, I recall less about that meeting. The first time Libby called me I was getting into a taxi, I couldn't take notes, Didn't want to talk in a taxi, spoke from home in Sag Harbor

F Did you take notes, have you reviewed those notes, clear memory of conversation

M Not very clearly–

F what do you remember

M I remember telling him that I didn't think I was going to write a story about it, the NYT wasn't interested in pursuing Plame story. We talked about retraction of 16 words. It was more following up on other two conversations. Don't have specific memory of other things

F saw Libby in person

M In Jackson Hole WY, at a rodeo, I went with my husband. This figure approached me, began talking to me, it became time to introduce husband, it became clearer I didn't know who it was. Judy, you don't know who this is, sunglasses, black t-shirt, cowboy boots. I had never seen him in any thing but a suit. Just some banter about meeting in Aspen. Meeting of Aspen startegy group. Topic had been lack of WMD in Iraq.

F A subpoena, what did you do in response

M I decided to fight the subpoena

F Where, who

M Judge Hogan, we lost effort to quash subpoena, we appealed, Federal Appellate court, our appeal was rejected, appealed to SCOTUS, SCOTUS declined to hear case. I returned to Hogan's chambers, he ordered me to comply, I told him I did not have a waiver from my source that I believed was person. I was held in contempt.....

If you were one of the eleven jurors who voted Libby guilty, and you listened to Miller's trial testimony, and then you later read reconmike's post about Armitage, how credible would reconmike seem to you....about as credible as Scooter Libby or Dick Cheney?

<h2>It's as if those remaining supporters of this still outrageous and illegal Bush/Cheney "treason op" are either sniffing glue, were brainwashed by Rove and the RNC, or both !</h2>

07-04-2007, 08:10 AM	#52 (permalink)
irateplatypus can't help but laugh Location: dar al-harb	the reaction to the OP is, in general, variations on the certainty of mr. libby's guilt. that's really not relevant and not something i would even begin to contest. i must restate... if you are outraged by this libby business, there are only two morally consistent arguments available: 1) this libby case is an extra-ordinary abuse of power and insult to justice! 2) this libby case is just the latest in a never-ending string of abuses and i am opposed to all of them in measure proportionate to their severity the first is very difficult or impossible to argue (dc_dux is the only one who's attempted it). the second demands a moral consistency that i haven't witnessed on this board. if you can't demonstrate the first and don't qualify to argue to second, you're guilty of the same preferential notion of justice for which you condemn the president. ------------------------- host, i appreciate your discipline for citing resources... but i find your posting style more distracting than convincing. in addition to helpful source documents you also tend to post op/eds and info from dubious sources. what's more, they're often posted in their entirety. for what it's worth, i think they'd be more effective if your restated the argument in your own words and linked only to sources confirming objective facts that may not be readily accepted. __________________ If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves. ~ Winston Churchill

07-04-2007, 08:30 AM	#53 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i do not see what distinction you are trying to make with your repeated "you either think a or b" move, irate. the effect of it is to box in anyone who would take your post seriously--the problem is either pardons in general or this particular pardon/commutation. that is a false binary, as we say in the biz. what it does is erase context, erase this particular context, in order to substitute two alternate contexts--objections in principle to pardons or the list of previous pardons. i do not know what you imagine you accomplish with this move, but you seem quite committed to it, as if this false binary is enough to put those who find this latest move on the part of cowboy george to be problematic in an awkward spot. the other problem is your insistence on switching away from the category of the political and onto some "moral" grounds in the fashioning of judgments. there is no justification provided for this switch. there is no rationale for it, so far as i can can tell either. what it seems cheap to me. like nothing is happening with or through it: except that you get to dictate not only the way the question is framed, but the grounds on which any possible critique of it can be articulated. which is your prerogative, i suppose--you can try to do what you like--but there is no reason to expect that anyone who is not you will buy your thinking. so there is no agreement about the way you are framing this question. none. so if you dont want to interact with host's posts and dont want to take seriously the response he provided you, then maybe we can start again in another way and you can defend the moves that shape your repetitions of the op. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

07-04-2007, 08:43 AM	#54 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Irate... Several more facts that have come to light would further make the case for your 1) this libby case is an extra-ordinary abuse of power and insult to justice: Presidential pardons and/or commutations are generally made after a portion of the term in prison had been served: Sentencing experts said Bush's action appeared to be without recent precedent. They could not recall another case in which someone sentenced to prison had received a presidential commutation without having served any part of that sentence. Presidents have customarily commuted sentences only when someone has served substantial time. "We can't find any cases, certainly in the last half century, where the president commuted a sentence before it had even started to be served," said Margaret Colgate Love, a former pardon attorney at the Justice Department. "This is really, really unusual." Further, in making his case for the commutation, Bush's position that the prison sentence was "excessive" contradicts the policies and practices of his own DoJ (with whom he did not confer): ....records show that the Justice Department under the Bush administration frequently has sought sentences that are as long, or longer, in cases similar to Libby's. Three-fourths of the 198 defendants sentenced in federal court last year for obstruction of justice — one of four crimes Libby was found guilty of in March — got some prison time. According to federal data, the average sentence defendants received for that charge alone was 70 months. (I would suggest Libby's obstruction was worse than most of the other 198 sentenced last year because of the violation of the public trust that accompanied his position in the highest level at the White House) http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...tory?track=rss I dont have a problem with presidential pardons in general. I would prefer they be used by a president to correct an injustice or to acknowledge someone who had accepted responsibility for his actions and expressed contrition (and served time) rather than as a political favor, but even the latter is a perk of the office. I would have had no complaint if Bush pardoned Libby at the end of his term next year and after Libby had served some time. I do have a problem with the manner in which this commutation was presented and rationalized. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-04-2007 at 09:17 AM..

07-05-2007, 03:33 PM	#66 (permalink)
guy44 Somnabulist Location: corner of No and Where	Isn't it obvious why this pardon is special? I mean, there a dozen reasons, but the big one is that the president pardoned a man who very well might have had information that could have resulted in criminal charges for the Preznit. He pardoned a guy who might have been able to rat on him. It creates, at the very least (cause I'm like 99.9% sure Libby is guilty as fuck and should go to jail for life for disclosing the name of an undercover CIA agent for political gains, at then covering that up) the perception of a quid pro quo. Bush makes sure he does no time, and Libby doesn't spill the beans. __________________ "You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

07-05-2007, 04:08 PM	#67 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Host, do you want to paste tons of shit to correct one of your own, guy44 as to who actually leaked Plame's name to the press? Or should I do it? (just took a cut and paste for republicans course) :P __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

07-03-2007, 05:57 PM	#42 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	He also knew Libby was lying. That's the kicker. The trial was about trying to force the truth from him. Of course, Libby had little to fear, knowing Bush would allow him to walk away, thus completing the circle of bullshit.

07-03-2007, 09:05 PM	#48 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	In all seriousness, I'm not sure what your point is ubertuber. It seems to me that at the point where Armitage came forward, the probability that an actual crime had been committed dropped to about zero. Now this doesn't mean that it was impossible for a crime to have happened, but it does seem unlikely. Dragging people in front of a grand jury to answer questions under oath seems like it should be done to investigate an actual crime, not to satisfy a overzealous prosecutor pursuing a case that originated from profound differences of opinion on U.S. foreign policy. As neither a lawyer or a constitutional scholar I have no idea what the law says about this, but to me it looks like something that I would like to think would be considered an abuse of the grand jury process.

07-03-2007, 10:47 PM	#50 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Yeah, justice is unimportant. Let's all go watch American Idol and allow the planet to get ass raped by selfish power hungry pricks. Teapot in a tempest, more like.

07-04-2007, 04:40 PM	#57 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	There is probably a good reason for springing Libby. There are some pretty big skeletons in the White House closet.

07-04-2007, 08:23 PM	#59 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	True that. I guess as long as the bad guys control both parties it'll never change. It's funny how the CIA just admitted they used to commit crimes, George Sr was CIA leader before he was president. Clinton and the Mena drug thing involved Bush too. It's like finding out that two rival car dealers that have ads slamming the other dealer are owned by the same person.

07-05-2007, 06:48 AM	#60 (permalink)
Jenny Hatch Upright	I wish Libby had been given a full pardon for his non- crime and that Bush would have had the guts to do it right now. Jenny

07-05-2007, 04:39 PM	#69 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Host, let me surmise as to the way I see the whole Plame affair, from what I have read, Plame was outed, someone's head was going to roll, Libby did the best the buck stops here, taking one for the team, even though he didn't out Plame, Amritage did. He was convicted of obstruction, sentenced to 2.5 yrs even though he didnt out Plame. He appealed his bail was denied, and then has his sentence commuted. Did I sum up what I read correctly? Is it factually correct? __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

07-05-2007, 07:07 PM	#72 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Here's the bottom line, for me. I want the President to be above even the perception of ethically inappropriate behavior. In fact, he promised us exactly that. Can ANYONE deny that this APPEARS to be ethically questionable?

07-05-2007, 07:13 PM	#73 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I can't deny it. I can't deny it one bit.

07-06-2007, 09:43 AM	#76 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	If all else fails, Libby can always resume his kinky writing career: The book is about a young Japanese man who runs a remote mountain inn and becomes embroiled in a world of intrigue. "A world of intrigue," in this case, involves: * a scene of incest between two uncles and their niece; * a hunter asking his companions if they should fuck a freshly killed deer while it's still warm; * the description of a prepubescent girl's painted "mound" and pleasing lack of vaginal odor; * a story about a girl who's kept in a cage and raped by a bear to train her to become a prostitute. http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/libby/dirtypolitician/ __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 07-06-2007 at 09:47 AM..