As you have doubtless heard, President Bush commuted Irving Louis "Scooter" Libby's jail sentence today. Many were hoping that Libby's sentence would, if nothing else, serve as an incentive for Libby to start coming clean about criminal activity in the White House. President Bush today eliminated what they feel may have been the only thing that might have led to justice being done in this case:
In response, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald acknowledged that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative, but disputed the rationale:
Joe Wilson, one of the victims of the crime being investigated, spoke to Spencer Ackerman of Talking Points Memo earlier today about President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's jail sentence:
On MSNBC's Countdown this evening, Wilson, describing the Bush administration as "corrupt to the core", claimed that "our system of justice has been usurped" and that "Congress should begin to investigate the matter" immediately.

Melanie Sloan, legal counsel to Joe and Valerie Wilson, said in a statement today:
Many believe that the commutation was simply a way of ensuring Libby's ongoing lack of cooperation. Josh Marshall, for example, put it this way:
If Marshall is right in assuming that the decision to "correct" a judge's sentence originated with Dick Cheney, does this mean that the Vice President is now a member of all three branches of government?

The real questions to debate:

First, was the sentence in the Libby case "excessive"? Why or why not?

As President Bush acknowledged that Libby was guilty as charged, should he have tried to come up with some other justification for commuting Libby's sentence (or, indeed, for granting him a full pardon)?

Is President Bush, as Joe Wilson seems to think, an accessory to obstruction of justice or even, through his commutation of Libby's sentence, an active participant in that obstruction? Why or why not?

First, was the sentence in the Libby case "excessive"? Why or why not?

No we're talking about months. Thirty years might have been exessive.

As President Bush acknowledged that Libby was guilty as charged, should he have tried to come up with some other justification for commuting Libby's sentence (or, indeed, for granting him a full pardon)?

No, what has Bush said in the past six years that has been coherent? What could he have said that would have made sense? How could Bush not trip over his own tongue?

Is President Bush, as Joe Wilson seems to think, an accessory to obstruction of justice or, through his commutation of Libby's sentence, an active participant in that obstruction?

In a moral sense, yes. It seems to violate the Department of Justice guidelines for pardons and commutations, which Bush has previously endorsed. From a legal standpoint, probably not, since the constitution gives the president broad pardoning power. As Governor of Texas, Bush could not have done this under the state constitution. Maybe Texans know more than I give them credit for.

First, was the sentence in the Libby case "excessive"? Why or why not?
The penalty for treason is supposed to be death.

As President Bush acknowledged that Libby was guilty as charged, should he have tried to come up with some other justification for commuting Libby's sentence (or, indeed, for granting him a full pardon)?
That would mean giving up the fifth amendment. This allows Scooter to continue to obstruct justice.

Is President Bush, as Joe Wilson seems to think, an accessory to obstruction of justice or even, through his commutation of Libby's sentence, an active participant in that obstruction? Why or why not?
Yes, Bush is obstructing justice. The oddness of commuting rather than pardoning is pretty blatant.

First, was the sentence in the Libby case "excessive"? Why or why not?
Certainly. Prosecutor who finds out he has the wrong man wasts millions to get Libby for what???

How much time did Bill CLINTON get? How much did HE pay.

Stupid waste of taxpayer money in both cases.

As President Bush acknowledged that Libby was guilty as charged, should he have tried to come up with some other justification for commuting Libby's sentence (or, indeed, for granting him a full pardon)?

Hey no one beates Bill Clinton for pardons. This is a half genture to the base at best.


Is President Bush, as Joe Wilson seems to think, an accessory to obstruction of justice or even, through his commutation of Libby's sentence, an active participant in that obstruction? Why or why not?

Give me a break. Look at the people bill got PAID to pardon. This is so ludicrous it is laugh

First, was the sentence in the Libby case "excessive"? Why or why not?
Absolutely not. As for Bush’s assertion:

Flat out lie. Number one, he has proven time and again that he has no respect for the law. Number two, wasn’t he also the one who vowed that the person responsible for the leak would be held accountable? Psh, yah right.


Martha Stewart got 5 months jail time for her crimes, plus house arrest, plus probation. Scooter Libby’s sentence was appropriate. Even Paris Hilton served more time!

As President Bush acknowledged that Libby was guilty as charged, should he have tried to come up with some other justification for commuting Libby's sentence (or, indeed, for granting him a full pardon)?

Why bother? Since when has he ever justified any shady action he has taken? He’s the decider, he doesn’t have to justify anything! His whole administration feels they are above the law, and since they’ve gotten away with it for so long, why in the world would they change now? I’m sure they see it as a sop to their hard core supporters, but it is a slap in the face to the legal system, and to the American people.

I’ll address the third question later.

First, was the sentence in the Libby case "excessive"? Why or why not?

Considering that Libby was convicted for lying in a criminal investigation where the prosecutor ultimately decided not to prosecute the known and admitted perpetrator of the crime, I'd say that the sentence was excessive.

As President Bush acknowledged that Libby was guilty as charged, should he have tried to come up with some other justification for commuting Libby's sentence (or, indeed, for granting him a full pardon)?

Why? As some have pointed out, Bush has no political capital to lose. Commutation is a Presidential prerogative. He need not give ANY rationale and he will pay no political price no matter how unpopular this action is.

Is President Bush, as Joe Wilson seems to think, an accessory to obstruction of justice or even, through his commutation of Libby's sentence, an active participant in that obstruction? Why or why not?

Joe Wilson lives in his own little reality. Bush's decision to commute Libby is not obstruction of justice. Fitzgerald was not going to prosecute anyone else, so what further "justice" could be obstructed? Now whether or not there was something to Bush obstructing justice in the original case, again I will point out that Fitzgerald decided long ago not to prosecute Richard Armitage, the original leaker. Justice jumped the tracks long ago.

Well, it doesn't surprise me a bit that the party of limited government, fiscal restraint, and moral authority continue to be the party of hypocrisy. Personally, I could care less why Libby lied, but he did. If there was no crime, he had no reason to lie. The Bushbots can't seem to get their head wrapped around the premise that if there were no underlying problem, there would be no need to lie. But Libby clearly lied and clearly obstructed justice to the point that the underlying crime could not be determined. Armitage may not have known Plame was covert. Fair enough.

But Cheney did.

And that's why Cheney never got touched. Libby lied for him like a cheap rug and Dick "I didn't go to Vietnam because I had better crap to do" Cheney let Libby take the fall. And in the end, multi-millionaire Scooter Libby walks with a fine. The 1919 White Sox could've taken a play from this book.

This might be ok for my fellow republicans, but this makes me sick. It's bad enough they sold out for every failed policy Bush has touched, but now they say it's ok to perjure yourself as long as the case don't matter. They will feel no shame because it would take moral integrity to feel it.

Libby lied to a jury. Period. End of story. It doesn't matter why. Nobody should be allowed to lie under oath. Seems to me I heard strong voices supporting my statement long ago.

Unfortunately, Bush's approvals will go up because these crumbs are what the base needs to get back on the bandwagon. As usual, the republicans will compare Clinton's actions to Bush's because they can't compare Bush to anybody held in higher regard than Clinton. I used to think the republican party is full of cowards. In reality, it's full of phonies.

PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED.

How and when did Libby commit treason? Don't bother answering you don't know the answer. Libby never comitted treason. Perjury at best and even that's ridiculous considering Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was within days of his investigation which should have ended the investigation. Further if you want to hang someone, hang Dick Armitage or Bob Novak the ACTUAL leakers.

Look, real sorry Merry Fitzmas didn't work out the way you hoped but that's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes. People like you have tried to get anything you can to stick to Bush/Cheney and you never can - mostly because you're horribly wrong - and because you have underestimated this administration since day one - newsflash not only aren't they dumb, they're smarter than you by a shot. The full pardon vs commutation was a way to appease the people looking for blood while sticking it to them at the same time. They're messing with you and your powerless to stop them. At least Bush had the spine to do this long before the end of his term.

And here's the funny part - Libby should be in jail while Fitzgerald is getting disbarred.

Should you be interested, Ted, the TPM Café is tracking the specious right-wing "Clinton did it!" rationalization of the commutation. Here, however, we are discussing George W Bush and Irving Louis Libby. If you want to deflect criticism of the Bush White House through absurdist digressions comparing unlike objects, start your own damned thread. Might I recommend the History Debate forum?


To answer my own questions:

First, was the sentence in the Libby case "excessive"? Why or why not?

I had no idea what the penalty for Libby's crimes should have been, so I looked it up. In relation to obstruction of justice, I mostly found sources relating to state law. This, from the Ohio State Bar Association, was typical:
As the penalty for violating the Intelligence Authorization Act, the federal crime in question, is (according the the US Code) a fine up to $250,000 and a prison sentence up to five years - to be served consecutive to any other charge - this sentence doesn't look "excessive" even on the basis of one of the four charges.

I was starting to look into the penalties for perjury and making false statements, when I came across someone at the Washington Post who had done the research for me - and in the context of the case in question. This is from an article that appeared when the charges against Libby were first brought:
Libby was found guilty of four of the five charges, which, according to CNN this time, could have resulted in anything up to 25 years and $1 million. So... Libby got thirty months instead of twenty-five years and $250,000 fine instead of $1,000,000. Anyone finding this penalty "excessive" should be in an institution for the criminally insane - or, presumably, the Oval Office.

As President Bush acknowledged that Libby was guilty as charged, should he have tried to come up with some other justification for commuting Libby's sentence (or, indeed, for granting him a full pardon)?

Bush should have pardoned the bum or left him swinging. The commutation is too transparently political, too blatant a symptom of corruption. Disagree with the verdict, if you must, Mr. President, or exonerate Libby due to his years of faithful service or something, if you think a few hardcore partisans might buy it - but please, for the love of God, don't play Sheriff Baca to Scooter's Paris Hilton. It's embarrassing. Of course, this action has nothing whatsoever to do with "excessive" sentencing. It has only to do with the ongoing cover-up of high crimes in the Executive and how best to obstruct their investigation. That should be obvious to anyone at this point. Are you smarter than a fifth grader?

Is President Bush, as Joe Wilson seems to think, an accessory to obstruction of justice or even, through his commutation of Libby's sentence, an active participant in that obstruction? Why or why not?

A legal case would be difficult to prove due to the massive and ongoing obstruction of this investigation (and the fact that the guy with the pardon power is part of the obstruction in the first place - who watches the watchmen?), but there is no way to view Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence as anything but further obstruction of justice. As the Patrick Fitzgerald blog put it, this is a whitewash of a cover-up of a crime - or, as Woody Allen put it in Bananas, "a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham". At the very least, Bush's decision guarantees that Libby will remain silent, which was the point - and that he'll be able to invoke the Fifth Amendment before Congress and not risk being cited for contempt. That's almost as convenient as a terrorist attack the day Gordon Brown takes office.

Aw c'mon. Did ANYBODY really think Dick Cheney was going to let his boy do serious jail time? Libby can probably get his old job back.

The fix was in before the verdict and sentence was handed down. So much for the damnable lie that this White House respects the law.

Good. Now George Bush has his own Marc Rich.

Sounds good to me. I'm ready to take the lemons Bush has handed us and start making lemonade.

That's sure going to taste good while watching the election returns on the night of November 4, 2008.

This may be the biggest gift to Democrats since George Allen's "macaca" moment.

As you might expect, Libby's pardon has drawn some responses from the prospective presidential candidates.

Hillary Clinton: "Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice."

John Edwards: "Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today. President Bush has just sent exactly the wrong signal to the country and the world. In George Bush's America, it is apparently okay to misuse intelligence for political gain, mislead prosecutors and lie to the FBI. George Bush and his cronies think they are above the law and the rest of us live with the consequences. The cause of equal justice in America took a serious blow today."

Barack Obama: "This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law. This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people’s faith in a government that puts the country’s progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years."

Joe Biden: Hours after a federal appeals court ruled that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby would to have to begin serving his prison sentence while appealing his conviction for crimes of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, President Bush commuted his sentence.

Last week Vice President Cheney asserted that he was beyond the reach of the law. Today, President Bush demonstrated the lengths he would go to, ensuring that even aides to Dick Cheney are beyond the judgment of the law.

It is time for the American people to be heard.

I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law.

Fred Thompson: "I am very happy for Scooter Libby. I know that this is a great relief to him, his wife and children. While for a long time I have urged a pardon for Scooter, I respect the President's decision. This will allow a good American, who has done a lot for his country, to resume his life."

John "Straight Talk" McCain: Election Central just sent an e-mail to John McCain campaign spokesman Danny Diaz, asking if the Senator has any comment on the Libby commutation. His reply: "Nope."

Well, with the Senator's money problems, maybe the campaign couldn't spare the paper to fax out a statement.

all quotes: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

I have two concerns with this comment.

If the crime is perjury, the punishment should decided based upon the severity and extent of the perjury, not its nature. That is, if the real harm in perjury is how it obstructs and complicates a criminal investigation, then it makes sense to base the sentence on the obstruction, and not the circumstances. Though, in order to obstruct the truth, the perjury must be related to the original investigation, perjury itself is a relatively independent crime.

Secondly, your comment indicates a belief that no jail time was warranted. Remember, a president can commute just a proportion of the jail time rather than the whole thing. In that case, you are asserting, as another poster indicated, that Scooter Libby deserved less time in jail than Paris Hilton. I could be misreading you, however, in which case, you would believe Scooter Libby deserves at least some time in jail.

How was Wilson a victim of the crime being investigated? Please be specific.

First, was the sentence in the Libby case "excessive"? Why or why not?
Yes, it was excessive, in fact, it was a travesty. Fitzgerald's investigation was predicated upon a lie, Fitzgerald effectively perjured himself to the grand jury in question by leading them to believe that he was still seeking the source of the leak, information that he had by the third day of his investigation.

As President Bush acknowledged that Libby was guilty as charged, should he have tried to come up with some other justification for commuting Libby's sentence (or, indeed, for granting him a full pardon)?
Yes, he should have come up with a different justification, namely that the entire investigation after Day 3 was an illegal witchunt and everything thereafter was tainted. Bush should have pardoned Libby and instructed the Justice Department to explore bringing charges of entrapment and violating Libby's civil rights against Fitzgerald.

Is President Bush, as Joe Wilson seems to think, an accessory to obstruction of justice or even, through his commutation of Libby's sentence, an active participant in that obstruction? Why or why not?
No, President Bush is merely an Johnny Come Lately active participant in the obstruction of a partisan witchhunt. Joe Wilson wouldn't know "justice" (which is based in truth) if it bit him in the keester.

Oh, please - no one is that dense. The case is about revealing the covert status of Wilson's wife in order to punish and discredit him, about the egregious, illegal conduct that ended a woman's career and put her family, including her husband, in real danger. This case is not about frivolous gossip, it is about a willful attempt to smear a critic by breaking federal law - and Joe Wilson was the target of that smear. Indeed, the civil suit brought by Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame against Cheney, Libby, Rove, and Armitage for the violation their Constitutional rights is largely based on testimony from the Fitzgerald investigation.

You are right, though, in attempting to minimize the importance of Wilson and Plame as the victims here. The real victims are the people of the United States of America. It is our laws that have been broken - and our trust that has been violated.


First, there is nothing wrong with a witch-hunt when it's clear there are witches about. But, boy, when some people inherit a talking point, they really run with it, don't they? It's a pity they don't do any independent research - or thinking - themselves.

In FACT, there is no reason to believe that Armitage was the first - or only - person to leak Plame's name and position. All we know is that he was Bob Novak's source as of a meeting on July 8, 2003. There is no reason to believe that Armitage's role in the leak undermines the allegation that there was concerted action by multiple people in the White House to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Wilson. There is no reason to believe that Armitage's role in leaking the information to Novak is related to the fact that Libby disclosed the information to Judith Miller before Novak's piece appeared or that Matthew Cooper's source was Karl Rove. There is no reason to believe that Armitage had anything to do with Dick Cheney having specifically directed Libby to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents in late June or early July of 2003. And there is certainly no reason to believe that Armitage's role in the whole sordid affair exonerates Libby, Rove, Cheney, or anyone else. In short, there is no reason on God's earth to believe that Armitage was or is the be-all and end-all of a criminal investigation which is still open.

Nobody has yet been charged with the leak in part because Libby's perjuries and obfuscations have made it very hard to determine with whom it actually originated - or even if it did constitute a violation of the law. As DaytonRocker put it, "Libby clearly lied and clearly obstructed justice to the point that the underlying crime could not be determined." And the president has just rewarded him for it. I can't wait for Libby's Medal of Freedom to be awarded.

But, hey, saying that Fitzgerald had one name of one participant in the leak at the start of an investigation into what may well have been a broad conspiracy originating in the highest office in the country, involving top aides to the President, and possibly orchestrated by the Vice President himself means that the Special Counsel should therefore have folded up shop and gone home makes for a distracting, if idiotic, argument. Keep believing it (if, in fact, you do): such faith in some of the worst people ever to have held high office in this country has a sort of naive charm. If it weren't so desperately sick, it'd almost be cute.



I can't entirely agree. Nor would the Founders. In the state conventions to ratify the Constitution, impeachment was widely discussed and the debates suggest that those who adopted the Constitution saw the impeachment power of the House as a way to address abuses of power or breaches of trust. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina stated that the impeachment power was established to address "those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust". In the Virginia convention, George Mason specifically argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:
Further, Alexander Hamilton described impeachment in Federalist No. 65 as
The caps are in the original. Apparently, the framers of the Constitution not only felt that presidential prerogatives should only be used with the utmost propriety, devoid of political motivation, but also that the president should be held personally - Constitutionally - accountable for ANY rationale that might apply specifically to pardoning issues, lest that rationale be in any way "suspicious". You, evidently, are wiser and more intimately familiar with Constitutional intent than they.

Here's a scathing attack on Bushco. However, not for the reasons you might think.

Like most Bushbots, they are not forward thinkers.

If Bush had pardoned Libby, Libby could not have taken the fifth at future hearings should Fitzgerald pursue this further. But he gets those protections since he is still serving a sentence - just not in jail.

Meet the new GOP - Government Of Phonies.

I am most interested to learn of our President's new interest in the appropriateness of the sentences meted out to given convicted criminals. I wonder if he will now extend similar clemency to those having been found with small quantities of marijuana, or shoplifting a video tape, and sentenced to 20 years to life based on "third time" laws?

Probably not, Vladimir. I would, however be happy if Bush finally saw the light, and at least commuted the sentences of Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean. That they are in prison for 10 years, while "Scooter" goes free, is the real travesty here.

Oh, and this from Bush on 2/10/04:


He certainly will. The only good news is that, barring any major political disaster by the Dems in the next year, the GOP is toast in 2008.

Ahhhh, I see! Here I thought that Bush meant that the person would be fired and left to the justice system, when what he really meant was that that person need not worry because Bush would "take care of" that pesky sentence so that it would be like nothing ever happened. Down is up, and black is white. Gotcha.

Gotta keep that 20% happy, I guess.

Can't argue with your here.

The problem with these quotes are that Libby didn't leak anything to anyone. At worst he committed perjury in a case that seem to have been a major waste of time and money since we all know who the leaker was and it wasn't Libby at least he didn't remember what Fitzgerald wanted him to. Frankly I think he committed perjury. Why? I'm not sure. Panicked maybe?

So ultimately Bush clearly wasn't talking about some guy who got caught up in a bogus investigation that's ultimately unsolved. No one. NO ONE has been charged with outing Valerie Plame. No one. Want to be up in arms? Want to be angry? Be angry about that.

No one has been charged because the investigation was obstructed. Duh.
Context for you law and order conservatives. use bugmenot so you don't have any excuse for not reading it.
Law and order doesn't just apply to people with brown skin.

Oh, indeed. The best thing about this travesty of justice is the disgust that it will engender among the voters. I'll be most curious to see if any of the Republican contenders now have the courage to repudiate it.

Lest I offend your strident sensibilities Wentz it is entirely proper to bring into the debate in historical perspectives. Obviously the Clinton era offers a great deal of similar circumstances.

Again let me say for the record I though going after Clinton for perjury was as politically motivated and as much a waste of money as the Libby affair.

That said he did “get away with it� and no fine, probation etc. So the left wing “outrage� at the Libby pardon somehow seems a little hollow.

This amplified by all the pardons done by Bill for which he or his campaign got PAID

So please spare me the outrage – please.

Even if, as I am guessing you assume, there were bigger fish to fry regarding this leak there is no question that Dick Armitage leaked this information to Bob Novak. Why not convict him? No need for an investigation here. He admitted it.

Ahh, because if he didn't know she was covert they can't convict.... sounds like a really bad case to begin with. Yet, Fizgerald specifically asks that Armitage not reveal himself:Which in and of itself is not a terribly sinister request. Odd since Fitzgerald is supposed to be looking for the leaker, which he found!

However how does any of this play into the Rovian plot of discrediting Joe Wilson? How'd they get Dick Armitage to spill the beans to Bob Novak? And why? Did they really want Valerie Wilson/Plame dead? Did the fact that Joe Wilson's wife did have had some influence on him going to Niger somehow negate Joe Wilson's (alleged) expertise in that area of the world? Why did Joe Wilson say:

Lest we all forget this goes back the the 16 Words which depending on who you want to listen to is either correct or cherry picked information.

Alas, that's not the question at hand. The question here is Did Bush Do Anything Wrong? Of course the President can commute or pardon anyone he likes at his own political peril. Of course Bush's political capital isn't particularly good at the moment and he's a lame duck anyway. Ahhh, but there's a huge difference between a Pardon and Commutation; right?
Well nefariously the use of a commutation makes it so that Libby can still claim the 5th! If he were Pardoned he'd be unable to claim the 5th. I'm not sure where that idea comes from but anyone can claim the 5th. Further if Libby were going to ever have claimed the 5th it seems he should have done it with Fitzgerald.

As for the latest hope that Bush will be driven from office or that there will be a clean sweep for the Democrats in 2008 over this let's face it - Bush outfoxed the people screaming about this again by doing it now. Libby will be old news by the time the 2008 elections are here. You might as well bring up voter fraud in 2000.

This still leaves us with the question, Did Bush Do Anything Wrong? Not according to Fitzgerald:Fitzgerald did go on to comment, correctly, that Libby was sentenced properly (if not lightly) for the crime he did commit. Now whether Libby should have been put into a position to commit a crime at all considering that the leaker was already known is the subject of another thread.

I'm hesitant to wade in here because the same regurgitated crap is gonna come up. Future Libby threads should be called "The Partial Birth Aborted Justice of Skating 'Scooter' Libby" from now on.

For the millionth time. Libby wasn't convicted of leaking because he obstructed justice. Yes, the law stipulates that the leaker must have guilty knowledge. In this case the leaker was the government, not idiotic reporters granting anonymity faster than you can say whiplash to publish the story before anyone else. They couldn't break the law because the law stipulates you need to know you're exposing a covert agent. Judith Miller was jailed in contempt of court for failure to cooperate with Fitzgerald. Scooter could have been jailed in contempt of court, released, and come clean like she did, but some time during the investigation he decided covering up for someone was more important than cooperating with the prosecutor. Call it weak if you want. A jury of Libby's peers believe Libby lied to the prosecution and obstructed justice. If you or anyone really think it's "weak" you need to apply the same strict prosecutorial standards to the investigation of any crime (illegal drugs, rape, shoplifting, abusing children to collect on insurance, etc.) and I know you and others won't, so do us all a favor and stop acting like you're genuinely concerned that this is a case of an overzealous prosecutor.

Don't worry, deeply concerned citizens. I'm sure Libby will get his pardon right before Bush leaves office.

But I am very concerned about over zealous prosecutors. See also Mike Nifong. Libby lied. I question whether he should have been that position in the first place. However, once he was he shouldn't have lied. He belongs in jail.

nt, you've previously accused me of mis-understanding irony. I don't think that this is the case, although chutzpah may be a better word. Maybe she is cut out to be president if she can say this with a straight face.

Fitzgerald wasn't looking for a scapegoat to increase his chances of reelection like Nifong. Fitzgerald can look forward to working for a private practice or changing his voter registration card if he ever wants to have a high profile government position again. What has Fitzgerald done as a prosecutor that you extend your concern to his case? If Nifong had acted ethically at all and there was enough evidence to prosecute, the case would have gone to trial without DNA tampering and the lacrosse players aqcuited or found guilty.



Maybe she can say it with a straight face, but I'm still not voting for her.

Fitzgerald was to investigate who leaked Plame's identity. Within a few hours he has the answer. The answer was Dick Armitage. However Fitzgerald went on for months looking for bigger game. He went on an elephant hunt and winged a pigeon. He was very much looking to get someone higher up on the food chain. You may have been hoping he would too.

Further no one has been charged with leaking Plame's identity. At all. No one. Despite a confession by Armitage.

I will freely admit that the facts surrounding this case have puzzled me from the very beginning. Who said what, when and where. Who didn't know this and who couldn't have possibly done that. The Bush Administration, Special Proescutor Fitzgerald, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, Armitage, Novak, Democrats, Republicans, CIA, it played out like a poorly scripted political thriller with an even worse climax.

From someone who doesn't pretend to know a whole lot about the case, all I can comment on is the abstract because it is obvious through reading these posts that there is a subvert aspect to many of the arguments. Libby was not the leak for the CIA agent, but he lied to the investigators. What I havent caught (someone provide the link please?) is what he lied about? I apologize if I havent caught up, but i think this is the important point that should be debated if anything. If his lie actually hindered the investigation then he should be in jail. But if the lie had little actual relevance to the investigation than i could believe that his lie was more of a slip of the tongue.

Unfortunately, whether Libby was is guilty or whether Wilson is a victim really is not the focus of this case. Its obvious that this case is about the Bush Administration itself, not so much discovering the identity of a CIA leak. I just think that it would be a shame if some of us had out distrust (or outright hatred) for the Bush Administration cloud our good judgment about whether justice has been carried out. It is difficult to seperate the context of the situation (Bush, Iraq War, Niger uranium) but we would all be at fault if we put our own personal opinions about Bush skew the ideal of justice. If Libby lied in order to cover up someone else, that is wrong and he should have been punished. If Fitzgerald continued the investigation well after he knew the truth, that is wrong as well. I know I would not like to be investigated for a crime that the police have already solved only to be charged with something else.

Libby probably bit the bullet for a number of his colleagues and he has been rewarded for his loyalty. If nothing else, its impressive that he was willing to take the 2 1/2 year fall for people all too happy to hang him out to dry. Cant buy that type of loyalty. But all in all, Bush is a lame duck with little to no political capital. He will finish his second term achieving absolutely nothing, a feat even for him. I do not think this reflects poorly on the GOP but it does make you angry that millions of dollars were spent on a high-profile investigation that as of now yielded only one perjury convictions and no jail time. Talk about a gross misuse of our tax dollars.

What did I just type two posts ago? Armitage can't be charged according to the law because he didn't know Plame was covert, ergo he didn't leak. We could argue that Armitage did know Plame was covert and Fitzgerald refused to prosecute--that would be a witch hunt--but be prepared to back this up with testimony. That doesn't mean someone didn't leak. Scooter got in the way of Fitzgerald finding that someone and Fitzgerald hit a dead end. He could've still tried to get Scooter to cooperate if the prospect of jail time loomed over his head.

Scooter is chump change. While I won't excuse his partisan loyalty like a loyal partisan I would have preferred seeing Fitzgerald dragging the leaker to D.C. court. The reporters were never part of the food chain. Libby didn't have to intercede on behalf of someone else and place himself in the crosshairs. He decided to obfuscate and Fitzgerald can't know for certain if the leak originated with Libby (if he knew of Plame's status) and someone in the White House (I'm guessing Cheney). If a state prosecutor discovers there's only one witness who can identify a fleeing suspect and the witness's cooperation aids in the suspect's capture, do you think the state prosecutor should cut the uncooperative, lying witness a break because he doesn't even register in the food chain?


To be precise he was convicted of two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice and one count of making false statements.

There were far more than one person that propelled this leak. Armitage happened to be Novak's source. You're simply getting hung up on a talking point because apparently, that's your limit of knowledge about this case.

But Armitage didn't know she was covert. The problem is, Matt Cooper, Judith Miller, and others were leaked to as well. So, where was the source of the original leak? Who knew she was covert and passed her name around like a hot smoking doobie? Cheney clearly was the guy and Cheney started the ball rolling with Libby. Had Libby told the truth, the leaker with knowledge of her status would have been exposed - Cheney. But Libby lied like a cheap rug. He could have told the truth and avoided everything. He didn't know she was covert. Only Cheney and Rove did.

There is no question Libby lied to protect Cheney. My 8 year old daughter has the intelligence to know that nobody lies under oath when the truth would be easier (i.e. no crime commited). You would have to suspend logic to beleive some would lie and risk going to jail if no crime were committed. And Libby didn't lie about one thing, he lied about 7 things all corroborated by multiple witnesses. The Government of Phonies apparently think it's ok to give false testimony under oath and to a jury as long as you are justified. Or unless your name is Clinton.

The republican party is an embarrassment and should be ashamed of itself that it can't raise itself to a moral standard higher than Clinton.

You seem to know a lot about this. More than anyone has been able to prove.

Again you seem to be very sure about all of this and yet a really smart guy like Fitzgerald couldn't get more than a perjury charge out of all this. It's as if he were either wrong or very outfoxed. That can't be though, everyone knows how stupid Bushco is...

This will end up being a lot like the 2000 elections, the 2002 elections, the 2004 elections, AWOL, LiHOP, MiHOP, 16 Words... all excuses, all near misses, all incapable of taking away Republican power.

PS - I'm sure your 8 year old daughter is very smart and adorable and I hope she doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about perjury and people named Scooter!

Ok Ted,

On May 21 you said this about Paris Hilton.





http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/01/lkl.01.html

Ok, Ted, let's get this straight. It doesn't sound like Hilton got much of a bargain after all. You are demanding 45 days for someone sent to jail for a misdemeanor probation violation, but have no problem with Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence. Who cares, Libby is only a "felon" - perjury and obstruction of justic and "minor" stuff liker that. Do you think for one minute Libby wasn't protecting Cheney and possibly Bush?

So, let's see.

Does Libby get to spend time in Arpaio's hell-hole?

No.

Does Libby get to spend even one day 23 hour portion of a day in an 8' X 12' jail?

No. He goes to his home without an even ankle bracelet.

Does Libby have to shower or use the toilet in front of other prisoners?

No.

Does Libby have to wear an orange jump-suit?

No.

Does Libby have to do without TV or Radio for even one day?

No.

No. He seem to have on some fine threads yesterday.

Does he have to eat bologna like jail food?

Hell no! He can go to a fine restaurant order smoked salmon or porterhouse steak or whatever. If he's around Bush's inner circle he might order chicken fried steak. That's a dish many Texans like - one that James A. Michener once called a steak smeared with library paste.

Ah, the creature comforts still available to thne "scooter."



Yeah, Ted you and Arpaio want to lock people like Hilton, jailed on misdemeanor charges, in a tent. It doesn't seem to bother you that Bush is "pouring" felons back on the street.

This doesn't seem, even remotely, like equal justice Ted. How about a little consistency - just a little consistency, Ted?

Odd. Even Bush jr. did not find fault with the prosecutor, or the jury for that matter. The only reason for commutation was the "excessive" sentencing.

Whether Libbys guilt was identified by agressive proscuting or not is a mute point. It doesn't change the fact, the one that no one, not even Bush, disagrees with: that Scooter Libby was guilty of perjury.

Fitzgerald is not a part of this debate.

All Fitzgerald did is waste our money and time. He had the “leaker” and had no “case” so to justify the waste of money already spent he went after Libby.

Total stupid waste of taxpayer money.

I still don't understand why this has anything to do with this debate. Whether or not this was some sort of "side" crime committed to the original crime, the truth which everyone agrees with remains, is that a crime was committed. The main beef against the judicial process is over the sentencing, not the verdict.

Even so, my point stand mightily. A waste of resources if that's all that we got out of it. And I still request a link to what exactly those false statements were.

Might one of the reasons this is "all we got" be because any pressure the prosecution has placed on Libby to cooperate has just been eliminated?

Didn't GW just waste tax payers dollars by undoing the enforcement of the law?

The first debate question is one that I haven't seen tackled head on yet. I'm curious to know as to how it would be excessive, how it would be so out of the ordinary for someone convicted of similar circumstances. The Clinton and "no crime" arguments are largely irrelevant to Bush's reasoning for the pardon.

Hell, you can read or listen to them here. He was found guilty of lying on all these transcripts.

Not that I think anybody really cares. The republicans calling for a pardon are as hypocritical as the democrats that tried to protect that liar-in-chief Clinton. Finding consistency in this mess is like trying to find Paris Hilton's first lover. It can't be done.

leder and ted,

Sometimes prosecutors take what they can get when they can’t get more.

The feds wanted to pin a murder rap on Al Capone. With as many buffers separating Capone and his crimes, the feds settled for an income tax evasion conviction.

Was this a waste of time and taxpayer money?

http://www.chicagohs.org/history/capone/cpn1.html

Another infamous case involved a Louisville, Kentucky businessman, Mel Ignatow’s, September, 1988 murder of his girlfriend, Brenda Sue Schaefer.

The state of Kentucky had a body and an eyewitness to Ignatow’s murder/torture of Schaefer. Despite the evidence, a jury acquitted Ignatow. Then he sold his house. He had had another girlfriend photograph his murder/torture of Schaefer. When an installer changed the carpeting in one room, he found the film in an air conditioning duct on the floor. Ignatow then admitted the murder, but because of the constitutional stricture against double jeopardy, he couldn’t be retried. He was subsequently convicted of both a federal (lying to a grand jury - sound familiar ) and state perjury charges. He ended up spending about ten years combined time in federal and state prisons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow

Were the feds and the state of Kentucky wrong to “waste” taxpayer money prosecuting Ignatow for perjury, when they couldn’t retry him for murder?

It seems to me that we didn’t get more because Libby thwarted the process.

BTW: I would have liked more, too - Dick Cheney's and Karl Rove's heads on a platter.

I got an interesting email today that stated the DOJ's guidelines specify that in order to apply a commutation "a convict MUST first have started to serve their sentence AND have abandoned all appeals."

But who cares about laws, eh?

The top story on Google says that a pardon is not completely out of the realm of possibility either.

Pays to know the right people, I guess.

The above trumps DoJ guidelines any and every day.

My opinion is no. The federal sentencing guidelines were ruled unconstitutional 1 or 2 years ago but most judges refer to it. The base offense level for perjury is 14; pretty high. I have an idea of what the minimum and maximum is for each charge, but judges take a lot into consideration when they pass sentence. Jagwease doesn't post on this board any more, but here's his take:

I would have given him 5 years if it was in my court (I don't have sentencing guidelines). Perjury and obstruction of justice are daggers into the very heart of the legal system. That he was at the height of political power is even more aggravating of the sentence. Yes it was severe and needed to be more severe. And to answer your question about how many others serve that much time for that - most everyone convicted of those offenses in federal court. The Supreme Court just shot down an appeal on almost an identical case with a 36 month sentence on the grounds that it was too harsh. SCOTUS said noooo problemo with 36 months in the grey bar motel.

Society recognizes five principal reasons for the sentence of those who violate the law. They are rehabilitation of the wrongdoer, punishment of the wrongdoer, protection of society from the wrongdoer, preservation of good order in society, and deterrence of the wrongdoer and those who know of his crimes and his sentence from committing the same or similar offenses.

A few of the well heeled going to prison will deter many of their ilk from committing the same or similar offenses.

I don't buy "the cops do it all the time" line either. I am sure that some are liars, but they are not being sentenced at the time. We will deal with them when they show up in court.

In parole determinations, obstruction of justice and perjury offenses are about as bad as you can get - even worse than rape, robbery, etc on the points scale.

Drug dealers, sure clemency is fine for them because of the weird huge mandatory minimum sentences. Crimes that go to the whole rule of law thing - no sympathy here.

If you think Libby is out ANYTHING you are out of your mind. He MAY lose his law license, but he will not pay a cent of his fine himself (Scooter Libby Defense Fund anyone?). He will end up in a cushy think tank job or just go work for Haliburton or some other major government contractor as an employee or a consultant. If/when he gets pardoned, there will be no legal impediments on him at all. I will bet his speaking fees will be at least 20K per speech. Cry me a river for his family.

He still has shown no remorse for what he has done. That alone would be the basis for me not granting him clemency.

This is a case of justice denied. It certainly does show that Bush no longer even pretends to care about public opinion.

First, the name is Wertz. Second, you haven't seen me get strident - this was child's play. Third, you have clearly mistaken me for someone who gives a damn about Bill Clinton.

I'm not a Clinton fan and I never have been. My "outrage" regarding your "historical perspective" had nothing to do with defending a knave like Clinton. It was solely and exclusively a reaction to the fact that the Clinton argument is largely - no, make that entirely - irrelevant to this debate. There are no salient comparisons that can be made between Clinton and Libby. President Clinton, as you surely know, was ACQUITTED. I'm not sure what class of conservative it takes to argue that those found innocent should be punished as severely as those proved guilty, but most of the conservatives I know tend to respect the rule of law rather than the law of the jungle. I guess partisanship knows no bounds in some. /shrug Further, there are virtually no similarities between Clinton's pardons, however questionable, and Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence. If you're looking for a serious parallel, might I recommend looking into the pardons of those involved with the Iran-Contra affair. Now there's another case involving very high crimes that breached the public trust, originated in the Executive, and directly affected national security, potentially endangering the entire population. I guess it runs in the family...

To be honest, though, I mostly questioned your "Clinton did it!" argument because it is old, tired, partisan, and lacking in any depth of thought whatsoever. It is nothing more than a reflex reaction from the Blame America's Last President First crew and has no place in a serious discussion of the Libby case (at least none that I've yet seen anywhere). It's a juvenile defense of despicable acts: "But, Mom, Billy did it first!" - even if he didn't. Bash Clinton to your heart's content (ideally elsewhere) and I'll quite possibly agree with many of your criticisms. Just stop trying to pretend that Clinton-bashing has anything to do with the present discussion - please.


I'm afraid you are mistaken. Fitzgerald may have had a leaker (possibly the most innocuous), but it is supremely unlikely that he had the leaker. This case has long had all the hallmarks of a conspiracy, as Fitzgerald stated in April of 2006. There is nothing to suggest that Armitage was the sole, first, or most culpable leaker involved and much to suggest that he wasn't (with many indications of who was). Libby's testimony could have been central to Fitzgerald's case. Indeed, it would have been - had Libby not perjured himself in order to obstruct the investigation. Fitzgerald "went after" Libby because Libby is a criminal, because Libby's his lies and obfuscation also happened to constitute numerous felonies. He "went after" Libby because it was his sworn duty to do so. Any prosecutor worth his salt would have done exactly the same.



Exactly - you're finally getting the point. It was Libby's obstruction of justice that made the case impossible to prove. That said, it was well over a year ago that Fitzgerald stated, on the basis of grand jury testimony from Libby among others, that there was a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" Wilson through the misuse of classified information. Fitzgerald, I suspect, does "know a lot about this" - even if, thanks to Libby's obstruction, it can't be proved.


Oh - maybe you aren't getting the point. My mistake. "Outfoxing&q