This just keeps getting better and better!

Don't forget the entertainment from watching the Clintons try and condemn this.

Corpus Juris @ WTWC did a very good compare & contrast of the two cases yesterday.

I thought liberals were in favor of strict enforcement of gun laws?

Except of course when it's tactically convenient not to be.

not to get too into the weeds here, but the IIPA is not the only law that could have been broken by revealing plame's identity. the espionage act could also apply, which doesn't have the same standard of intent as the IIPA.

you know the kids today, IIPA this and IIPA that.

Don't forget the entertainment from watching the Clintons try and condemn this.

What's your point, you equivocating fuck?

i thought conservatives liked soldiers better than lawyer/bureaucrats.

Bush has plenty of precedent for haphazard, one-off decisions that don't pass the smell test: Bush v. Gore.

the other lied about his role in outing a covert CIA operative during a time of war.

One more thing: it has still not been proven Plame was covert. Bruce Sanford, one of the authors of the law protecting covert agents in question, has persuasively argued Plame was not covert at all.

Link

"At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert.""

Al,

(please help me, I'm talking to an android)

If Victor Rita was trying to secure weapons illegally, then, as a liberal, I say throw the book at him. But we're not discussing gun laws, we're discussing perjury.

So, again, we're not saying Rita shouldn't be punished, we're saying Libby should be.

Al, you Schmendrick, that trope has been taken out behind the barn and two were put behind the right ear. She was covert and your leaders committed treason.

The law says "served abroad." You can argue, I suppose, that "served abroad" means "stationed permanently abroad"

But if someone has a permanent fictitious business cover operating overseas for the purpose of espionage (let's call it "Jooster Brennings" for the sake of argument), and makes periodic TDY trips to supervise and make use of this fictitious espionage cover, it would be hard to argue that that person has not been "serving abroad."

Al,

(here I go again)

Although he didn't reveal it until May 25 of this year, Patrick Fitzgerald had concluded early on that Ms. Plame was indeed covert. (Source: The Daily Howler)

But then he's only the US Attorney prosecuting the case. What could he possibly know?

But then he's only the US Attorney prosecuting the case. What could he possibly know?

A lot more than Al. Then again, brain-damaged orangutans know a lot more than Al

What would the 4th of July be with out Al dumping on the Constitution of the United States in his blind fidelity to the Bush Crime Family! I'm still waiting for egbert to jump in with a comment equally stupid. As a Vietnam era veteran I am still wondering how the chickenhawks come to hate America so much!

Fred, they have never put anything on the line, cowards that they are, so it's easy for them to dismiss what they have never served.

I still see no discussion of Libby's motive in the media. It's like it's off limits or something. Bush pretty much agreed with the jury's decision when he commuted the sentence, yet no one will ask him "Mr. President, since you agree with the jury's decision, although you feel the punishment was excessive, why do you think Mr. Libby committed the crimes he was convicted of"?
As a matter of fact, no one seems to be willing to ask that question of any of Libby's defenders, even though I've seen little if any disagreement with the conviction itself. Libby's motive is at the core of this whole affair, but is not discussed. Why is that?

As a Vietnam era veteran I am still wondering how the chickenhawks come to hate America so much

With their mindset, if they were living 231 years ago, they'd be known as tories.

On the birthday of this great country, I remain hopeful that our Republic will survive these petty and greedy men who have done so much harm in six and a half years. It was not rich capitalists like George W. Bush who made this country great, but people like my father. A man who was raised during the Great Depression by parents of Czech immigrants and who survived at times on nothing more than coffee and oatmeal. He served in WWII in the South Pacific, came home and worked like a dog as a tool and die maker, making the machines that build this into the greatest industrial power this world has ever seen. He belonged to a union, and proudly paid his dues and his taxes, recognizing that shared sacrifice is required to lift all boats, unlike the wealthy conservatives who think they should enjoy all the fruits of this great democracy without ever having to pay a dime for them. He paid for his three children to go to college that he could never afford and never complained once, even when he came home so exhausted he could only make his way to bed. He died at age 66 after only year of retirement from cancer caused by inhaling industrial chemicals and fumes from heavy machinery.

No, this country will survive these self-absorbed war profiteers who luxuriate in the blood of men like my father, who gave so much so that we all can stand on their shoulders. We will make this a great nation again and never, ever let these charlatans use the slaughter of innocents like what occurred on 9-11-01 as an excuse to take away our liberties and loot our Treasury. We will survive and they will perish.

And Bush couldn't even thumb his nose at the rule of law competently.

Commutation order doubtless drafted in haste.

As a result of Libby suddenly deciding he didn't like the idea of jail, or liked it less than the idea of cooperation with prosecutors?

There was not even a day between the decision not to delay Libby's reporting to prison and the commutation. Yet surely this could have been expected...

These asshats can't plan anything, from a war on down.

Even Fred Barnes, bootlick that he is, admits that commuting the sentence was purely political.

"With their mindset, if they were living 231 years ago, they'd be known as tories."

No, they'd still be known as the same things they are known as today.
Cowardly, embittered, cringing lickspittles to the powerful. They didn't pick the wrong side out of principle, they picked it because they are amoral, spineless poltroons.
They're lacking something in the brain department also.

Compare and contrast: Al's own words

Exhibit A:
I thought liberals were in favor of strict enforcement of gun laws?
Except of course when it's tactically convenient not to be.

Exhibit B:
One more thing: it has still not been proven Plame was covert. Bruce Sanford, one of the authors of the law protecting covert agents in question, has persuasively argued Plame was not covert at all.

Unknowing Bystander: "Hey! Look over there, that man is wearing his ass as a hat!"
PA Commenters: "Him? Oh that's nothing. Its just Al, our local Asshat."

notes
• Gun Law comment: Moronic beyond belief
• Covert Status: The CIA (ya know the ones that employed her as an agent?) said she was covert. End of story.

Don't hold back, David.

I was never much of a flag waver. Until these asshats started questioning my patriotism - and none of them had a DD-214 to show me. (There are two of 'em in our important papers.)

Anybody here think that the 250k will come out of Libby's checking account? His defense was paid for by his fascist buddies, so will this "fine".

That payoff may even come as a signing bonus from the AEI when he starts employment there, like wolfowitz.

The felony? As if Libby ever planned to use that law degree ever again in the future.

The only thing that would punish Libby was jail time; all that other BS has been taken care of as I have written. Bush, etal are laughing at us right now, and the cowardly Dems will do nothing except pass non-binding resolutions, hold hearings whose conclusions they do not act upon, and go whine on Sunday morning shows. Calculating, tringulating, passive pussies.

You ever wonder how wingnuts keep getting elected though their positions disagree with the majority of Americans? Just reread the previous paragraph above. People are drawn to aggressive individuals willing to take positions and genuinely fight for them.

Did the impeachment of Clinton in 1998, when the majority of the nation opposed it and where the votes were not in the Senate, set the pugs back, as is debated by the Dems at this time? Why the debate about this now, when Bush's crimes dwarf Clinton's. Dem's did not do their job when they voted for the Iraq resolution, regardless of how HRC wants to spin it, and they are not doing their job now.

Let impeachment hearings begin, NOW. When this stuff is on 24-7 on corporate whore TV, who can calculate what the vote will be and how much outrage the public will have, thus pressuring an impeachment vote by even the nuttiest wingnuts. The Dems calculate away their duty to the nation.

I am really pissed.

"Although he didn't reveal it until May 25 of this year, Patrick Fitzgerald had concluded early on that Ms. Plame was indeed covert. (Source: The Daily Howler)"

Question, Then why hasn't he prosecuted the leaker, Richard Armitage. It seem very odd to me that he says a crime was committed, he knows who committed the crime but he does nothing.

The problem with liberalism is that it keeps on hoping that the latest outrage on our country by the Bushistas and the Republicans can be resolved simply by calm and quite recitation of facts and the conlusions that logically follow from the the empirical data.

Obviously, to say that this has not worked during the the last seven years would be an understatement.

We need to find some other ways to correct the consequences of the rape of our nation by this GOP crowd.

So it's agreed - we are all oficially shocked to discover that this Administration has no respect for the law and can't even be bothered to pretend it does. I'm glad that's finally settled.

Will there EVER be a Fitzmas? I'm beginning to think this guy is another Nifong.

Truth,

Because ultimately Fitz is a Republican. The fact that Libby's prosecution is the only one that has come of this ordeal is telling.

Armitage was an outsider, not a real koolaid drinker, just like his boss Powell. Libby was much more apt to clam up during prosecution than Armitage. Pugs couldn't afford a non-loony admin official to go to trial.

Something had to be done about the Plame outing, and this was the smartest thing. Get Fitz to go after the one that will not spill the inner workings, and then pardon or commute the sentence if he is found guilty.

Abra cadabra - Dems will do nothing about it, inner workings are not exposed, and Bush's popularity is still higher than it would have been if it was Armitage.

I happen to agree with Professor Berman. I thing the sentences in both the Rita and Libby cases were excessive, but they were both within the guidelines and were appropriate considering what the Law and Order crowd has demanded of our judges.

Berman argues that as non-violent first offenders neither of them should have gone to jail. I figure a sentence similar to Martha Stewart's 4 months inside and 4 months under house arrest might have sent a good message to others.

The supreme court upheld the sentence in Rita's case so nobody should feel comfortable second guessing either the judge in that case or Walton in the Libby case.

ITMFA!

If Fitz was on the take, he would have closed the investigation by now.

His supporters won't have to explain or justify it. They can't. They'll do just what the Bush retainers and their supporters in the media have always done scream - Clinton did it and then go into a laundry list of the fake Clinotn scandals they help create. The commutation stinks to high heaven. No current GOP Congressperson are defending it, so why not do something constructive for the public for a change like have hearings to limit the power of the President to pardon. That would be a win-win for everyone.

Chris, have you contacted you Congresscritter to express your outrage over this apostasy?

How on gawd's green earth can Libby's sentence be considered excessive when the severity of the underlying crime of outing a covert agent during a time of war is taken into account? People could have gotten killed, and for all we know, some may have.

gregor

I feel your pain, but I respectfully disagree. I have not encountered a single person, outside of some inside the beltway neocon wackos, willing to say they approve of Bush's performance in the Libby commutation. It is a lot like the social security issue, the more they spin it the worse it seems to be for the administration. They wanted a three day story. They might get an 18 month story.

Pelosi is going to be under a lot of pressure trying to hold off the impeachment crowd after the Libby commutation. Folks might not be able to understand the Valerie Plame story, but they sure understand how wrong it is to give special treatment to a buddy convicted of 4 felonies.

Frank, when I hear morons like Al, I truly realize the truth that right-wingers' opinion on the Plame case and the Libby commutation are to be ignored. Their opinions have no place in civil society, so please don't bother offering us your worthless, ignorant, dishonest viewpoint on the issue. You an your ilk spent 2 years babbling like idiots about how Plame wasn't covert, because that's what the lying Bush-partisans told you to say, and we knew you were lying then. THere's no reason to listen to you now. So keep quiet.

Disputo, a reasonable person could, and in the case of Judge Walton did, agree with you.

I just wonder about what is gained wasting prison space on some first offender convicted of a non-violent accessory after the fact crime like lying or obstruction. Libby could pay for house arrest. He could work (writing a book maybe)while under house arrest to support his family.

Truth Politik: Question, Then why hasn't he prosecuted the leaker, Richard Armitage.

I believe it's a question of motive. Armitage admitted he let Plame's name slip inadvertantly. He wasn't involved in the conspiracy to discredit the Wilsons and the CIA for contradicting the administration's lies.

I think we can assume that Fitzgerald had sound reasons for proceeding the way he did. Hint: he's not a flaming leftist.

DJ writes:

With their mindset, if they were living 231 years ago, they'd be known as tories.

Those supporting the Bush commutation are on the wrong side of justice and on the wrong side of American history.

So this is independence day, big freakin whoop. Judging from the mood of this country, I think we need a movement to evolve that will restore independence to "we the people" who are more and more being forced thru fear tactics and total disregard for the law into a "serf class". It is my firm belief that it is going to take us "serfs" hitting the streets of Washington not in the thousands but in the millions for this bunch to get the message. Bush and his cronies understand one thing --Force. And like Ghandi did in India, peaceful insubordination by sheer numbers will win the day. We all must organize, anti-war, progressives, immigrants, the poor, the shrinking middle class, all who are dissatisfied into one entity and go against this criminal so-called elite known as Bush and the neocons.

Sorry, but I don't believe in a caste system whereby white collar crime is treated differently from other crimes. I believe that a CEO whose biz decisions lead to the deaths of 1000 people is one thousand times as guilty as the thug who kills one person. And the person who covers for the CEO is 1000 times as guilty as the person who covers for the thug.

China has it right when they sentenced the head of their FDA-equivalent to death.

We got non-violent people sitting in jail for life for possession -- I shed no tears for the 2.5 yrs Libby was facing.

I just wonder about what is gained wasting prison space on some first offender convicted of a non-violent accessory after the fact crime like lying or obstruction.

Gives the next guy something serious to think about.

I believe it's a question of motive. Armitage admitted he let Plame's name slip inadvertantly.

More specifically, it is one of intent. Fitz didn't charge Armitage precisely because his actions didn't meet the statutory criteria.

Wingnuts know this, they just don't care.

not in the thousands but in the millions

Home Depot has noted a strange, sudden rise in pichfork sales...

Blue Girl,

My congressman is Ted Poe, senators are Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

I might as well contact my dachsund and complain.

Disputo,

Armitage only told Novak, correct?

What about the sources for Cooper and the others. I think Cooper's was Rove, correct? And Russert's contact....sorry I can't remember the details but they were not all Armitage.

Why weren't these prosecuted? It is believable, from what we know of Armitage, that there was not intent. What of the others?

Ah - I live in a red state as well, but my congressional district is geographically and politically as far left as my state goes. It is really all that has kept my head from exploding the past few years. That, and Claire is a breath of fresh air. I would love to see her in a hair-pullin' cat-fight with the cheerleader!

I disagree Chris. The Republicans are the one's who need to hear from us. In fact I wish that I had a Republican representing me who I could complain to. All the Dems who represent me are way ahead of the curve and it is a waste of time contacting them. Eg, Durbin sent me an email asking *me* to help put public pressure on the WH by writing letters to the editor expressing my outrage.

KBH actually shows some sense at times, but Poe and Cornyn are fringe wingnuts to the nth degree.

I was arguing impeachment above because you don't know what the ultimate voting pattern would be by moderately sane Reps, and predicting that now is stupid. And, not going after impeachment shows weakness and lack of resolve in what you really believe in...what is best for the nation.

Poe and Cornyn will never turn, though, IMO.

Disputo,

Maybe you are right. I think I will write to Hutchison. Poe and Cornyn are a waste of time.

Chris,

The first instinct of the political animal is self preservation.

Wingnuts are political animals. They will turn if they know it is political suicide not to turn. The louder you complain, the more people complain, the more Poe and Cornyn will listen. If the noise becomes loud enough all but the most foolish will switch sides.

The insult to the rule of law occasioned by the Libby commutation is easily understood. If you keep pushing, more and more people will join you. Even Poe and Cornyn will take notice.

Let's fill the streets of Washington to overflowing. It's time for courage. Bush, Cheney, the neocons, Repugs, and any including Dems who would strive to continue to act as though they are gods that are looking out for our "good" must be brought to the realization that we are pissed and we're not going to take their shit any longer. We must organize!

Sentencing experts cannot find a single other instance in American history in which someone sentenced to prison had received a presidential commutation without having served any part of that sentence.

The history says it all. When people look back on this episode they will know that the commutation came to keep Libby quiet to keep the president and vice-president out of bigger trouble.

For an interesting take on the whole Plame scandal, see my blog. And as far as the CIA discrediting the admin's BS about the weapons, the CIA can still just be covering its ass, and trying not to look complicit with the admin, if the admin was engaged in what the CIA thought was too obvious a lie. The CIA's bigger priority could be to not be perceived as a Gestapo (a deceiver of the American public) by the American public, but it's second biggest priority could have been to advance Bush's agenda and get us into war in Iraq, which they could have attempted by other means (if not by bolstering Bush's story in the media). I think the CIA probably is a conservative organization.

"...reconcile Bush law with real law."

How many tank divisions can the courts or the US congress muster?

The big question... when the time comes and the Bush regime is pushed into the final corner, will the US military stand with Bush or the people?

At that moment, who will have the courage to step up and be the Boris Yeltsin of the US?

Buford, I have faith that the Military would stand with the American people and for the rule of law.

mhr - you really are a tool. you bastards are the real threat to our constitution and the rule of law. You must have an impressive set of stones to say the shit you do and mean it. Un-fucking-believable, and repre-fucking-hensible. I wanted to get that in before your tripe gets banished to the ether one more time.

Now, when the CIA makes a decision that we should get into a war with Iraq, and they promote us getting into that war, that does *not* mean that they made that decision as a pure security decision-- if that's what happened. It does *not* mean that they are not neocon assholes, and that they do not want to do all this stuff for the same reasons as all the other neocon assholes, that you criticize the neocons for. Remember, this is real life, not a movie. There is no reason to think that the CIA are white-hat-wearing heroes, with infallible judgment, and completely disinterested, flawless, moral wisdom, down to a man. There is no reason to think they are not principally Rush Limbaugh loving, racist, chauvinistic assholes. How do you know that the person you met sometime who was really racist and stupid and conservative was not in the CIA? You don't know. Remember, the common man's version of neoconism is just "all those brown people are stupid and a threat and we'd all be safer if we just turned their countries into a parking lot." Show me why I shouldn't think CIA guys think just like that, and I'll start thinking that maybe there was some valid, security-based reason for them to want us to conquer Iraq, that we just all have never been made privy to, or even been hinted at (surely, if Iraq was more closely involved with Al Qaeda, it wouldn't have helped Al Qaeda for the CIA to allow it to be reported that Al Qaeda was definitely involved with Iraq).

what is gained wasting prison space on some first offender convicted of a non-violent accessory after the fact crime like lying or obstruction

When a management staff member of the executive office of government is found guilty of lying to obstruct an investigation of his own affairs, a sentence of 30 months is a symbolic punishment for the disgrace to the nation and the egregiousness of the crime. It is not excessive nor inhumane. I do agree that generally first time non-threatening to property or body offenders should not serve time in penal institutions, nor the second or third timers as well.

One more thing: If you've already read my latest blog post, you may be asking yourself, "Why would the CIA leak an agent's cover through WH personnel instead of just to the paper?" There are two possible explanations: One is that it's a kind of brother-against-brother, comraderie thing. If Plame herself and her most immediate colleagues and supervisors weren't complicit in the leak, then they may have disagreed with a CIA decision to leak her identity. Sure enough, there's a difference between the WH's CIA contact leaking an agent's identity him-or-her-self, or through a minion, to the press, on the one hand, and giving the identity to the President-and-WH, and saying, "Do with it what you will," on the other. If the latter, then if the CIA leaker is pushed into a corner by adverse agents, he-or-she can always say, "I didn't leak it to the press. Someone else did." Here's a second, more likely explanation: let's say the identity was leaked to a paper through an undercover, CIA minion. Then, it's possible everybody else in the CIA doesn't know that person was in the CIA, especially if the CIA people involved in facilitating the leak for the president want to keep the whole thing on the super-down-low. Then, by skipping having that person leak to the press, and having the WH do it instead, the CIA skips the chance of agents taking rogue, vigilante action against the leaker- killing one of their own in a dark alley. The true explanation, if the CIA was actually complicit, may be a little of both of these explanations.

(surely, if Iraq was more closely involved with Al Qaeda, it wouldn't have helped Al Qaeda for the CIA to allow it to be reported that Al Qaeda was definitely involved with Iraq).

Also, if the CIA had better information about Saddam actually having WMD, what would it hurt to allow that general idea to be known, since everybody was already talking about whether Saddam had WMD or not, or was hiding them, anyway.

Fascinating. I can't see it in a million years, but fascinating nonetheless.

Are you working on a screenplay; or a book treatment?

Liberals' favorite Amendments:
1st and 4th.

Conservatives' favorite Amendments:
2nd and 5th.

Chris: "What about the sources for Cooper and the others. I think Cooper's was Rove, correct? And Russert's contact....sorry I can't remember the details but they were not all Armitage. Why weren't these prosecuted? It is believable, from what we know of Armitage, that there was not intent. What of the others?"

The federal statute requires that the perpetrator "knowingly" outed an NOC, meaning that they had to commit their act while simultaneously knowing that Valerie Plame had covert status.

It is entirely conceivable that Karl Rove never inquired as to Ms. Plame's status prior to divulging to Matt Cooper her position with the CIA. Not that he would have cared one way or the other, but he was not guilty of violating the law if in fact he was unaware of Plame's protected status.

However, I think the most damage in this sordid affair was done not Bob Novak's initial July 14, 2003 outing of Plame, but rather his follow-up article one week later, which quite effectively rolled up the CIA's entire Brewster Jennings front operation in southern Asia. The Plame leak could have been contained; Novak's subsequent revelations about Brewster Jennings could not. Who knows how many people were endangered by this foolhardy act.

Who leaked to Bob Novak the classified details about the Brewster Jennings operation? Why isn't anyone talking about that? That answer could well be the proverbial magic string that unravels this thing.

Those supporting the Bush commutation are on the wrong side of justice and on the wrong side of American history.

Posted by: Andy

Unless, of course, we've been living for the past six years under a coup d'état If that's the case, they'll get to write the history books. But your right about justice.

What ever the case is Fitzgerald has done a poor job and I doubt that Rudy will keep him.

"However, I think the most damage in this sordid affair was done not Bob Novak's initial July 14, 2003 outing of Plame, but rather his follow-up article one week later, which quite effectively rolled up the CIA's entire Brewster Jennings front operation in southern Asia. The Plame leak could have been contained; Novak's subsequent revelations about Brewster Jennings could not. Who knows how many people were endangered by this foolhardy act.

Who leaked to Bob Novak the classified details about the Brewster Jennings operation? Why isn't anyone talking about that? That answer could well be the proverbial magic string that unravels this thing." Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on July 4, 2007 at 4:04 PM

I agree, and this is something that also needs to be asked about repeatedly as well in this whole affair. Indeed, it is the subsequent leaking of BJ&a that makes me think it is possible this was intended primarily to neutralize that nuclear counter proliferations operation for reasons of their own. Such reasons potentially ranging from having their lies about the Iraq nukes exposed (as Joe Wilson was doing), to prevent the CIA from being able to dispute nuke claims against other enemies (like Iran), or even possibly because they were tracing the origins of the fake Niger uranium documents and they were coming too close to allies of Cheney and the core PNAC neoconservatives. Having it look like Joe Wilson was the intended target (as this outing has appeared from the outset) would provide a beautiful cover for that purpose, and I cannot dismiss that possibility given all that is known to date. While outing her and BJ&a to shut up Joe Wilson and to send a warning to the CIA not to cross them would be horrific enough, if the actual primary goal was to destroy a critical operations unit tracking loose nukes in the world during "time of war" (according to all the GOPers that is what the last six years have been after all) then this was the blackest treason since Benedict Arnold.

Good point to raise Donald from Hawaii, but then I have never known you to be anything other than a good thinker/writer and well worth the time to read.

Both Rita and Libby are first-time offenders

Oddly, no - the news story is carefully phrased as follows:

Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.

In fact, Rita had been convicted of perjury in May 1986 - from the Supreme Court opinion:

Rita was convicted in May 1986, and sentenced to five years’ probation for making false statements in connection with the purchase of firearms. Because this conviction took place more than 10 years before the present offense, it did not count against Rita.

As to some of the other assertions above:

1. Armitage leaked to Bob Woodward on June 13, 2003 but only "remembered" after the grand jury had expired in Nov 2005. Bonus Baffler - Armitage had spent two years refusing to meet with Novak, then called him in June 203 set up an interview, which took place in July 2003. Maybe his disclosure was not so inadvertent - even more that Cheney, Colin Powell (after his UN speech) was seen as the Admin advocate on WMDs, so Wilson's charge that the Admin twisted the intel may have stung. That said, Powell did not specifically cite the Niger story to the UN.

2. On the Brewster-Jenings fantasy - please, Novak learned it by calling up Ms. Plame's FEC disclosure statement online, which stated her employer as Brewster-Jennings.

Isle of Lucy, what's more likely-- that Bush et al would pick a fight with someone strong, and try to intimidate them, or that they would pick a fight with someone weak, and try to intimidate them? That is, that they would pick a fight with the CIA, who they were already on good terms with, probably, since W's father George was in the CIA, instead of trying to manage them by maintaining a good relationship with them, or that they would pick on someone who could never threaten them and who they didn't need to curry favor with? Because when I see the Bushies, I see them forcing nobodies wearing Kerry t-shirts out of their rallies, I don't see them issuing statements discrediting the CIA broadly or criticizing the CIA or trying to de-fund them. This is not a group of people that is shy to really attack people via the press / the media, yet they chose not to go after the CIA like they went after Kerry and like they routinely go after liberals, federal workers who disagree with their policies of politicization of non-political entities, journalists, and opposing politicians. That the Bushies would try to intimidate the CIA to me, is, if anything, a story that is more askance from reality than a story of cooperation with the CIA.

GwB has gotten so twisted about Iraq and his legacy (how many people have been invited to the WH to talk about it?) that missteps like the commutation are now merely errors of omission; he has no good advisors and was just protecting Dick's lad.
The good news is that this is one more cudgel with which to pummel the Republican 2008 candidate(s).

GwB has so screwed Republicans and the party, they may need to change the name. Tory? Whig? Unsocial Democrats?

How could you compare Rita and Libby? Libby worked for Cheney and has political connections. Rita doesn't. Libby could have talked to stay out of jail and caused trouble for Cheney. Rita can't offer anything.

No comparison.

"...Now, of course, we do know the administration officials - Libby, Rove, Armitage - who revealed the identity of a CIA agent, endangering her and her network.
One of them, Scooter Libby, committed perjury and obstructed justice and was convicted for it.
But thanks to President Bush, he won't spend a day in jail.
And thanks to deep-pocketed friends like Fred Thompson over at the Libby Legal Defense Fund, Libby won't have to cough up one thin dime for his crimes.
So much for what is legal and what is right. But then again, that's what passes for the rule of law in Bush administration."
—Perrspective

And we all know it was a quid pro quo deal. Criminals, all of them. Worst administration ever.
And with Fred Thompson emerging as the Reagan look-alike, reporters must ask him
time and time again about his role with Scooter Libby and the cover-up.

Worst.President.Ever

Huffington Post had some pertinent articles on the Libby fiasco.
Someone over there commented that instead of Scooter, his name should be "Skater Libby."
It was the first time I had a smile since the commuted sentence was announced.
I think it was at Dkos that I read that Libby didn't get a sentence, he got a "comma."

AND meet Professor David R. Dow of Houston, TX.

This in the NYT comments section today:

To the Editor:

When George W. Bush was governor of Texas, he presided over more than 150 executions. In more than one-third of the cases — 57 in all — lawyers representing condemned inmates asked then-Governor Bush for a commutation of sentence, so that the inmates would serve life in prison rather than face execution.

Some of these inmates had been represented by lawyers who slept during trials. Some were mentally retarded. Some were juveniles at the time they committed the crime for which they were sentenced to death.

In all these cases, Governor Bush refused to commute their sentences, saying that the inmates had had full access to the judicial system.

I. Lewis Libby Jr. had the best lawyers money can buy. His crime cannot be attributed to youth or retardation. He has expressed no remorse whatsoever for lying to a grand jury or participating in the administration’s effort to mislead the American people about the war in Iraq. President Bush’s commutation of Mr. Libby’s sentence is certainly legal, but it just as surely offends the fundamental constitutional value of equality.

Because President Bush signed a commutation, a rich and powerful man will spend not a day in prison, while 57 poor and poorly connected human beings died because Governor Bush refused to lift a pen for them.

David R. Dow

Houston, July 3, 2007

The writer is a professor at the University of Houston Law Center who represents death row inmates, including several who sought commutation from then-Governor Bush.

And the Murdock press is running around to say this won't hurt Republicans or that the line is divided and Republicans ( if we are to assume conservative voters) liked this "commutation" Bush gave Libby. The liberal press is a press that doesn't put lipstick on a pig, and those pigs Dick Cheney and George Bush must have daily lipstick put on them by Faux news Murdock.

And this "The president said he would hold accountable anyone involved in the Valerie Plame leak case. By his action today, the president shows his word is not to be believed."
HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF.

David Brooks and right-wing pundits always align themselves with Bush but do they ever think about the GOP voters - or what is left of the GOP party? Is the Republican party about the people that vote for Republicans are is it just about Bushies?

Is David Brooks in a hurry for his party to be completely out of power? As the news is now asking "will this Libby commutation hurt the Republican Party?" It this act doesn't bother GOP voters, why then even ask the questions? Brooks and Broder are all about the Bush, not the voters. The netroots of the GOP must only have been K-Street lobbyist.

I assume Mr. Benen is not a lawyer because he makes a dopey comment about defense lawyers trying to take advantage of the Libby commutation. It has no legal effect on the sentencing issue of any other defendant. The fact that it gives defense attorneys something else to bloviate about is not of any significance.

The commutation is an exercise of the president's plenary power. In this case, it appears to be mostly a political and personal decision.

It is a nauseating visual of Bush deciding the fate of people on death row.
And showing no compassion. Recall he made fun of the woman pleading for her life.

I don't have two nickels in that dime, but I would bet Bush the Senior advised Junior
to commute Libby's sentence--after all,
Bush's father pardoned former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and five other individuals in the Iran-Contra arms and money scandal on Christmas Eve 1992. There was never legal follow-up with that criminal crew after the pardon.
But the cloud of cover-up is part of Bush41's legacy.

"Both Rita and Libby are first-time offenders . . ."

Well, that's actually not true. Rita had a previous conviction for a similar offense. I wrote about it here.

His previous conviction didn't count for purposes of computing his sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines, because of its age. But it's inaccurate to say he was a first-time offender.

I still disagree strongly with the commutation.

Del Capslock: I still see no discussion of Libby's motive in the media. It's like it's off limits or something. Bush pretty much agreed with the jury's decision when he commuted the sentence, yet no one will ask him "Mr. President, since you agree with the jury's decision, although you feel the punishment was excessive, why do you think Mr. Libby committed the crimes he was convicted of"?
As a matter of fact, no one seems to be willing to ask that question of any of Libby's defenders, even though I've seen little if any disagreement with the conviction itself. Libby's motive is at the core of this whole affair, but is not discussed. Why is that?

It is harder to reach agreement on his motive than on the question of whether he committed perjury. After reading various commentaries, and after reading the semi-transcripts that were posted online by FireDogLake, my inference was that he was trying to cover up the extraordinary efforts made in the vice President's office to highlight, twist, exaggerate, etc. the evidence that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program. I think this was Kevin Drum's idea as well. Despite qualifications from the CIA (whom they did not trust after 911) the White House Staff, and especially Cheney's staff, were convinced that Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program, and they spun all the intelligence assessments to support this view. Had Libby answered all FBI and Grand Jury questions truthfully, the scale of that effort would have been obvioud, and it would have been politically damaging.

The lies also had the effect of making it impossible to determine whether the Vice President's staff had a role in outing Plame, either working in parallel with Armitage's inadvertant (?) leak, or in making the information known (via a complex chain) to Armitage.

He may also have had the classic insider's motive of keeping all information out of prying minds.

Fitz is a Republican.

Fitz is neither Republican nor Democratic - but an independent. However George W. Bush appointed Reggie Walton, the judge that sentenced Libby.

...Bush made Reggie Walton one of his first choices for a seat on the federal bench: a tough-on-crime judge with a reputation for handing down stiff sentences. ...

Why do Repugs tell us that Bush governors from the far right? Frankly I don't believe that today conservatives even know that conservative party stands for anymore. The conservative party is now synonymous with what?

Unbid contracts, liar, criminal, friends of people like jack Abramoff, friends of K-Street lobbyist, torture, no habeas corpus rights for ANY American that Bush doesn't wish to have that right, wiretapping, cherry-pick evidence about the reasons to go to war, The right of presidental vindictive-ness, the rights of a VP to be the real decider behind the presidental face that is Bush?

I just don't think this is what Reagen or Barry Goldwater had in mind.

Does being a conservative mean that voters must do whatever Bush says EVEN if it goes again US Constituently law? Why even make Bush take the oath of office - since it is meaningless to the GOP, to Bush, to conservative voters?

Bush has turned what is left of the Party into a cult following and Bush maybe consider far-right, far-right must have the same meaning as term criminal.

"Don't forget the entertainment from watching the Clintons try and condemn this."

Clinton was tried and aquitted.

Clinton lied about a frigging blow job.

Libby lied about being told to out Plame by the Dark Lord. His obstruction of justice led the prosecutor from finding out WHO ordered the outing.

Clinton's lies hurt no one.

Weenie ReThuglicans repeat stupid talking points ad infinitum.

"One more thing: it has still not been proven Plame was covert."

Oh, I think it has. The reason it hasn't been "proved" in court is that Libby's obstruction of justice was effective and stopped the investigation from going further.

The CIA has outlined just exactly HOW she was covert.

Pay attention.

"As a matter of fact, no one seems to be willing to ask that question of any of Libby's defenders..."

Actually, Libby's defenders have been busy saying it was a faulty memory.

This may be the first time a president has commuted a sentence before even one day was served, but Republicans presidents do have a habit of pardoning people before they are even convicted (see Nixon, Weinbuger, Abrams).

"Then why hasn't he prosecuted the leaker, Richard Armitage."

Uh, first of all, end a question with a question mark.

Second of all, who told Armitage, huh? Armitage may have been a convenient gossip to rope unwittingly in the campaign, but the Dark Lord was the main mover and Scooter his little errand boy.

Armitage may have told NOVAK, but other little helpers were scurrying around trying to get several journalists to bite. Charactistically, only Count Novakula bit. (pun intended)

I also have Durbin and communicate with him often. He's doing what I think he can, although I feel he could be doing more.
On the other hand we have our wonderful Bush enabling Repug Ray LaHood. He's a do nothing piece of crap. Writing to him would be futile.
I know I'm getting off subject but the Dems need to put the Repugs on the line with Bush and Cheney and start getting a ballsack. The "I" word should be being used everyday!!
Bush stepped over the line years ago and has been able to do whatever he wants when he wants. This "Scooter Incident" should be the straw that breaks the camels back. Think Archibald Cox and his firing by Nixon.
Impeachment proceedings should and could lead to resignations. At least that's my hope.

"On the Brewster-Jenings fantasy - please, Novak learned it by calling up Ms. Plame's FEC disclosure statement online, which stated her employer as Brewster-Jennings."

Oh, puleeze.

That was her COVER, you stupid twit.

He may also have had the classic insider's motive of keeping all information out of prying minds.

I have a pretty good idea why Libby broke the law. Actually, I think everyone knows why. It's just that depending on the point of view, he's a hero who sacrificed for a noble cause or a lying elitist scumbag. So, make his defenders answer the question publicly. His motive is highly relevant if you are arguing for commutation or a pardon.

So now Al thinks that liberals are hypocrites because they think Libby should get the same sentence as a convicted gun-runner? If stupidity were against the law, no president could ever exercise enough pardons to set him free.

"On the Brewster-Jenings[sic] fantasy - please, Novak learned it by calling up Ms. Plame's FEC disclosure statement online, which stated her employer as Brewster-Jennings." Posted by: Tom Maguire on July 4, 2007 at 4:36 PM

So Novak Says.

"Don't forget the entertainment from watching the Clintons try and condemn this."

Cal Gal at 9:27, he means that Clinton had some questionable pardons, including that of Mark Rich-- but of course, none of these were as questionable as Bush's pardon of Libby.

Chris: My . . . senators are Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson.

As a fellow Texan, I feel your pain.

Tom McGuire: In fact, Rita had been convicted of perjury in May 1986 - from the Supreme Court opinion . . .

Which is irrelevant to any issue being discussed, since it was irrelevant for sentencing purposes.

Rita should be getting more support from a political philosophy that hates gun control laws and anybody who is a victim of them and Libby less for his involvement in damaging American national security.

But conservatives are nothing if not inconsistent.

brian: It has no legal effect on the sentencing issue of any other defendant.

I take it brian is not a lawyer.

The president of the United States has declared that a sentence of any time in jail at all for perjury and other felonies is "excessive."

The president is the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country, charged with ensuring the laws are fairly and accurately enforced.

His opinion, therefore, is persuasive authority for legal purposes and as such may be legitimately cited in sentencing arguments.

The only way for Bush to have avoided that, and relied solely on his "plenary" power would have been to commute Libby's sentence without opinion.

As usual, Bush is too smart by some fraction much smaller than 1/2.

It's time for action. These criminals might do something worse yet. Be wary of them.

The bottom line is that Bush pointed to no special circumstances in the Libby case that would distinguish it from other cases - he chose to base his decision solely on the "excessiveness" of the punishment.

As far as I know, Clinton gave no reasons for his pardons or commutations and, therefore, there is no basis on which to question his decisions as inconsistent with other cases.

Bush chose to give a reason because he's a clueless manipulator who wants to make the commutation look legitimate when it clearly is not and he failed miserably, just like he's failed virtually every other action of his administration.

The president of the United States has declared that a sentence of any time in jail at all for perjury and other felonies is "excessive."

The president is the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the country, charged with ensuring the laws are fairly and accurately enforced.

His opinion, therefore, is persuasive authority for legal purposes and as such may be legitimately cited in sentencing arguments.

lol...

I love the way the Fox kool-aid drinkers who probably haven't read a paper or even looked into the laws this administration and their friends have broken. As a Republican, I support the military. Not these neo-cons who have kidnapped our party. The only reason Bush let Libby off is because he has dirt on the real person running this group. Cheney, yet he will let this elderly veteran rot in jail, along with the two border patrol agents. We still haven't heard why they are still there. Chalk one more thing up to these fascists who don't give a damn about this country, our military and the majority of the Americans who don't support them any longer.

This is hardly an apples to apples comparison you have given.
Rita had purchased a gun kit that the federal government deemed might be used to create a machine gun. Rita agreed to allow the feds to inspect the kit. But between the time of the request and the time that the feds came to inspect the kit, Victor had contacted the gun company and exchanged the kit for a different one. He then proceeded in lying under oath about his original purchase, his conversation agreeing to the inspection, and his subsequent exchange.

Victor Rita had been convicted in 1986 of making false statements about a purchase of guns. In that case, he was sentenced to five years probation. Not 33 months.

He was in fact a guy with a history of purchasing guns and lying about those purchased to the federal government. What would seem to be "more" relevant to this case was the five years probation that Rita received the first time he was convicted of making false statements to the government.

Secondly, the judge in that case correctly bumped the level from the base level of 14 (15-21 months) to 20 (33-41) because in fact Rita's false statements and perjury were directly related to the outcome of the federal investigation. By trying to mislead the federal government about which kit he purchased, he was indeed thwarting the main focus of the investigation. In fact, Rita himself (and his kit) was pretty much the entire basis of the investigation.

On the flip side... Scooter Libby was never the focus of the original investigation into the leak. Fitzgerald knew upfront that the original leak came from Richard Armitage. Scooter Libby's testimony regarding his conversations with Russert and Cooper had little or nothing to do with the main goal of the investigation (if there even was one). I was (as were many legal experts) amazed that Walton deemed these conversations so important to the case that they needed to be classified as extraordinary to the point of nearly doubling the sentence.

Maybe the most significant difference however was the federal sentencing office suggested a lesser (not higher) punishment then the level 14 (15-21 months) for a first time offender in the Libby case.

I will also note that the USSC findings in the Rita case suggest that there are indeed 6th amendment issues with a judge who uses specific "facts" in determining sentencing that were not presented to the jury during the course of the trial. They only found that in this case (Rita) that the issue did not apply. One could certainly argue that they would apply in the Libby case since Fitzgerald came out after the trial to make certain arguments (such as the status of Plame) that he never proved during trial. Walton's ruling on sentence clearly took some of these Fitzgerald arguments into consideration with his sentence.

>Sentencing experts cannot find a single other instance in American history in which someone sentenced to prison had received a presidential commutation without having served any part of that sentence. (Bush is quite a trailblazer.)

Which is exactly why authors like this one should consult clemency experts and not sentencing experts. Why, I found an example in all of 17 minutes and wrote about it back in way back in MARCH.

http://libbypardon.net/2007/03/shoe-switching-time.html

Catch the bus next time around!