Via the Washington Monthly, my absolute favorite bit of info from the Libby commutation:
Bush said Tuesday that in reaching the decision on Libby, “I considered his background, his service to the country, as well as the jury verdict.” While vacating the prison sentence, he did not disturb other portions of the sentence, including a $250,000 fine and two years of a form of probation known as supervised release.
“But I felt like the 30-month sentencing was severe; made a judgment, a considered judgment that I believe is the right decision to make in this case, and I stand by it,” the president said.
Whether Libby would have to serve probation was in some doubt Tuesday. The sentencing judge in the case, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, said in court papers that it was unclear whether a defendant who had not done jail time could still be subject to supervisory release. He asked the lawyers to advise him on the issue.
Bwahaha. The judge doesn’t know how to enforce the standards set forth in the commutation because there is no precedent.
A lot of ink has been spilled detailing the evils of this administration, yet there may be anothr explanation for their behavior-
Maybe they are just stupid?
There is ample evidence for this, ranging from No Child Left Behind, the way they tried to sell the Immigration Bill, the handling of Iraq. Maybe we are dealing with an administration that is 2 parts evil, 3 parts stupid. Not quite wholly evil, but a mess nonetheless?
Teak111
One part evil, 99% hot gas.
ThymeZone
Maybe?
The Other Steve
Stupid is clearly up on the top of that list.
If you go back through the history of modern conservatism, back say to Goldwater. There are two chief aspects.
On the one hand, you have the kneejerk commentary that Goldwater and then later Reagan were good at. They’d say things that they weren’t serious about, but it’d start a good conversation.
On the other hand, you had the thoughtful retrospective commentary of people like William F. Buckley Jr. The thoughtful gave them creds, the kneejerk gave them passion.
But at some point following Reagan, and this was most likely under the influence of Gingrich, but had more to do probably with Limbaugh and such. They started treating the kneejerk as being thoughtful. And when the argument started, and people pointed out that was bullshit, they just convinced themselves that everybody was simply biased against them.
But essentially conservatism is really nothing more than anti-Liberalism. They’re against anything that liberals are for.
The problem is they’ve defined liberal so broadly, that it now includes anybody who doesn’t believe in the bullshit.
So in a bizzaro twist. William F. Buckley, Jr. is an enemy to the Republican party.
I think this commutation business is the last nail in the coffin.
Mr Furious
The key part to Bush’s (Cheney’s) bet is the fact that Libby can still plead the 5th, Congress should piss all over that by granting Libby immunity and call him to testify.
jg
You only think they’re stupid because you’re still holding out hope that there is a future in conservativism. There isn’t. This act, which undermines this country’s system of justice, is conservatism.
28 Percent
You are just upset because the idea of following precedent a LIBERAL concern has been dismissed out the window here. It is only activist judges who do not respect the rule of law who follow precedent but I ask you what law is precedent in? Where does the constitution say to follow precedent? It is nowhere only in the Magna Carta which is a quaint document that should not bind us it is not even American not that you LIBERALS would care about that! You think the president should not be able to do things to make sure that what he wants for this country happens just because it violates some stupid law you do not understand that 9/11 changed everything.
Zifnab
Oh, I wouldn’t say there is completely no precedent. There’s always Kentucky.
Punchy
TOS just fucking nails it
Jake
Since when have evil and stupid been mutually exclusive?
Fixed.
Imagine you’re a judge and some dipshit who has less understanding of the law than a waterbug over turns your decision. You might sulk, or go to the press and rant, or kick the dog when you got home.
Or you might say “OK Mr. Prolonged Deliberator, let’s see how well you really thought this out.”
Tim
TOS hits it out of the park.
ThymeZone
Yeah, but the air conditioning in the Metrodome is notorious for helping the long ball especially in the alleys.
It gets an asterisk.
Fwiffo
So, we’ve got some kind of malevolent, alternate-universe Chauncey Gardener running the country? At the end of his term, will he walk out of the White House and sink into the rose garden?
Zifnab
I prefer to think of him as an evil Mary Poppins.
Andrew
I think we’ll need to see the result of the urine test to make sure that his post wasn’t chemically assisted.
Tax Analyst
OK, so you’re a spoof, right? Because to say something that moronic, well, you just CAN’T be for real. If you disregard “Precedent” in the law then you are just making shit up as you go along. That kinda throws the whole concept of a nation that works under the “Rule of Law” right out the window. Following your “logic”, and I use that term loosely here, whoever becomes President can do WHATEVER they want WHENEVER they want to WHOMEVER they want…and they don’t call someone who has that type of power “President”, they call him “Your Majesty”. That not “Rule of Law”, my friend, it’s a Monarchy (or a dictatorship).
Chad N. Freude
Stupid, huh?
George: I’m sick about what’s happened to Scooter. I’ll pardon him.
Dick: George, you can’t pardon him, that would be too unpopular (not that we care, but think of the noise it would generate). Much better to commute his jail time to zero. This would have the effect of negating his parole and he’d be free of any probationary restraints. Of course he’d still have the felony conviction, but you can give him a full pardon as you walk out of the Oval Office for the last time, and then he can get his law license back and become a big time lobbyist and do all the other good shit that our loyal cronies get to do.
George: OK, I’ll do that. Can I have a pony?
Nah, that’s just a paranoid fantasy. It’s much more believable that they collectively don’t have the foresight of a four-year-old.
mrmobi
You know, TOS, I certainly didn’t agree with Barry Goldwater’s ideas when he was running for President, but at least you could respect that they were genuinely held, as are William F. Buckley’s. Poignant, isn’t it that an ultra-liberal such as myself can sympathize with someone who used to be known in my circle of friends as a “Crypto-Nazi?”
Reagan is another matter. Our first truly corporate President, he was groomed at GE for 11 years. He was, of course, originally a Democrat. But genuinely held beliefs, I don’t think so. It was Reagan who used the joke about the nine words Americans were most afraid of, “I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.” Thanks to Mr. McFlightsuit, it’s not a joke anymore.
Now, as long as Democrats resist the doomed idea of impeachment (the Senate, folks, HELLO), we just have to survive the next year and a half. This democracy is strong enough to survive incompetence and stupidity.
28Percent, your mastery of the incoherent is Jedi-like. I am not worthy.
One thing about American-ness, 28. You might remember that we murdered our way into ownership of this land, and that ALL of us come from somewhere else originally. The genocide perpetrated upon Native Americans is a stain that will never go away, and should never be forgotten.
I would also point out that most of the legal players on the prosecutorial side in the Libby case were George W. Bush appointees and Republicans. If you’re going to complain about activist judges, you might familiarize yourself with the facts. This, of course, assumes you can form and hold a thought.
I await your next post in complete awe at your mastery of spoof.
Chad N. Freude
Dammmit, Tax Analyst. I was hoping that 28 would be met with complete and total silence.
Chad N. Freude
Well, since .28 of the cat is out of the bag, let’s discuss why precedent is stupid.
Every case should be decided strictly on its own merits. The application of a law should depend entirely on the facts of a case and not be influenced by the facts of any previous case. Having predictability based on prior judicial decisions merely gives each side an unfair advantage over the other.
And if God were bound by precedent, there wouldn’t be any miracles.
J. Michael Neal
The key part to Bush’s (Cheney’s) bet is the fact that Libby can still plead the 5th, Congress should piss all over that by granting Libby immunity and call him to testify.
Why would they care about Libby still being able to assert his 5th Amendment rights? What in the world makes you think that they won’t just claim executive privilege to keep him from testifying?
dlw32
You guys really are optimists aren’t you? Living in the part of PA that resembles KY, the future doesn’t look that bright from here. The 28%-ers may still out number the reality-based community around here.
I know a few people (my mother and my siblings for example) who think Ann Coulter is getting a raw deal from the Liberally-biased Mainstream Media.
Tax Analyst
Sorry, Chad – It’s a knee-jerk reaction, sometimes (not often) I hear a Rep here giving an entirely incorrect answer on the phone and I go into spasm and start waving for them to put the call on hold so I can correct them.
Chad N. Freude
From the Validation of Worst Suspicions Department (from Talking Points Memo):
Mr Furious
Touché. Guess that makes me one part stupid.
Punchy
I used to think this, too. But now….I dunno. In effect, Bush has given the green light to any and all lawbreaking, malfeasance, and corruption. He has demonstrated his desire to jailbreak anyone who’s unlucky enough to get caught. This allows his minions vast and (before Bush, mostly uncharted) ample opportunity for graft, lying to Congress, ignoring regulations and rules, etc. Really, Bush has shown that he will no longer consider breaking the law punishable if his team does it.
That, my friend, can single-handedly unwind the core of this Republic.
Blakenator
I don’t know if stupid is the right term at the moment. Brazen and shameless come to mind because this crowd seems determined to “push the envelope” until there is some kind of blowback strong enough to stop them. I would hesitate to start using the term stupid until the American public succeeds in getting them out of power and into the penal system.
Shinobi
Maybe the bush administration is like one of those pug dogs, you know the ones that are so ugly that you start to be convinced they are actually cute. Maybe the Bush Administration is so stupid that that we somewhere got convinced they were smart.
Zifnab
But, wait. Think about it. Yeah, this is evil, but its lazy evil. I mean, Bush is the President. He’s like a two-year-old with a rocket launcher. Way more power than anyone should have, in the hands of someone who doesn’t know how to begin using it.
Case in point: Iraq Embassy.
You’d think, if they were really serious about staying in Iraq for keeps, they wouldn’t spend $1 billion on a giant piece of crap.
Likewise, with this Libby pardon, they’ve just created a giant legal mess. Like diving out of quicksand and into a tar pit. Does Bush really want to revisit this non-pardon pardon for the next six months, ironing out all the legal details? It will be a media nightmare.
Bombadil
Meh. You voted for them.
Punchy
Everyone pissed off that Rove never got indicted can all just relax. Perhaps Fitz knew this bullshit was coming, and decided not to bother.
The question posed on another blog was a good one: can Libby, now free, go right back to work for Cheney? Or is he barred from WH clearance due to the multiple felony convictions?
Redhawk
Sorry guys, but this was all legal. Perhaps President Bush sidestepped some guidelines, but that’s what they are–optional guidelines.
Fret all you want, but President Bush did nothing illegal, untoward, or nefarious. He corrected an egregious sentence, allowed Libby to be punished by an enormous fine and a police record, and that’s that. He’s certainly not the first President to help out old friends in tough jams.
Jake
Why didn’t they do that before? When he was … you know … still working for the EB.
Although it would be amusing if the Admin. suddenly claimed EP applied.
28 Percent
you think that you are saying that to make fun of him for what he didn’t say but he has a point if you would LISTEN. There is equal justice like when victims are protected but who was protecting Scooter Libby from Joe Wilson and patrick Fitzgarald? “Joe” Wilson was just trying to embarrass the president and stop the president from bringing peace to the middle east. You do not see that hate for Islamofascism is love for the Iraqi people and war with the islamofascists is the only way to get peace there though you do not see it. You get all hopped up about “sovereignty” and “self-determination” but when the Iraqi people had that so called “freedom” they were really living in slavery. So Scooter Libby was trying to bring peace and love and freedom to the middle east should he be punished for that? Everybody shoudl get equal justice and pay for their crimes but some justice is more equal than others.
RSA
He may be the first President to help himself out in this way, though. I’ve also read that it’s the first modern instance of a President commuting a sentence for which no portion has been served. Oh, well, at least there’s that enormous fine of a quarter million dollars, which Libby paid today out of his personal funds. Hey, wait a minute. . .
RSA
He may be the first President to help himself out in this way, though. I’ve also read that it’s the first modern instance of a President commuting a sentence for which no portion has been served. Oh, well, at least there’s that enormous fine of a quarter million dollars, which Libby paid today out of his personal funds. Hey, wait a minute. . .
The Other Steve
If Bush commuted Libby’s sentence as part of a deal to prevent Libby from giving the goods… wouldn’t that be a crime? Wouldn’t it be an impeachable crime?
I’m curious, how you might spin that one were it to be true and confirmed.
Redhawk
Unorthodox? Certainly. Self-serving? President Bush has never been implicated in this scandal, so, no. But most assuredly, not illegal.
The Dems in the House can call all the meetings they want until they’re blue in the face. I think they should probably call in a copy of the Constitution, read it, and it’ll save them many hours investigating bupkis.
LITBMueller
Using precedent means applying the rule of law established by a prior case, not relying on the facts of a prior case. Facts change from case to case, but the LAW cannot, otherwise there is no law – just the whims of guys named George. The reliance on precendent goes back at least to English Common Law and is the foundation of our modern, civilized legal system. Its not just some pain the ass doctrine that fucks stuff up. Its what makes the law the law! And its times when a court or, in this case, the President, tampers with or ignores precedent that things get really screwed up.
Because Executive Priviledge can be challenged in court. Pleading the 5th due to an open criminal matter is iron clad. If Scooter’s case was over and Bush/Cheney claimed EP, then the natural argument would be that the EP was extinguished by the resolution of the criminal matter – all of the facts, evidence and testimony were presented at trial, so there’s no more need for secrecy.
But, there’s no challenging the right of citizens to plead the 5th when their criminal case is still ongoing.
Jake
And the award for the Best Riff on Orwell During the Performance of a Spooftacular goes to…
Sri Ramkrishna
Wow, 28. I..I..I’m speechless. Truly, you are a gifted statesman of divine origins. I bow humbly before you. Clearly, you’ve communicated to us the will and intent of our Lord and Savior, George W. Bush and his apostle I Scooter Libby.
sri
Redhawk
Explain what you’re talking about. The crime was investigated. Neither President Bush, Vice Cheney, K. Rove, or anyone else was indicted. The crime of covering up his tracks got Libby busted. Case over.
What “goods” are you referring to? P. Fitzgerald looked into all aspects, so I’m quite sure he’d have found “the goods”. I think you’re really reaching here in some desperate attempt to somehow, in some way, show malfeasance. It was all legal, despite your conspiracy theory.
MBunge
“Unorthodox? Certainly. Self-serving? President Bush has never been implicated in this scandal, so, no. But most assuredly, not illegal.
The Dems in the House can call all the meetings they want until they’re blue in the face. I think they should probably call in a copy of the Constitution, read it, and it’ll save them many hours investigating bupkis.”
So, in 2009 when a Democratc President and a Democratic Congress appoint and approve completely unqualified partisans as U.S. Attorneys for the purpose of charging every Republican they can find with any crime they can think of…no one should worry about it because it will all be perfectly legal?
Mike
Zifnab
I never suggested what Bush did wasn’t legal, merely that it creates a number of other legal issues in its wake. Bush pardoned Libby because he claimed that serving prison time for perjury was too sever a sentence. Since using a pardon on a whim or to further a personal or political agenda would be grounds for impeachment, legally speaking Bush must have pardoned Libby because he disagrees with the 8-1 Supreme Court decision handed down just last month that declared sentences within the limits of the violated law are inherently constitutional. Bush has, in effect, thrown his legal weight against his own five conservative court justices. Therefore, the lawyers for both Bush and Libby will be instrumental in cleaning up this now questionable legal territory of whether a sentence is justifiable.
Who do you defer to in this situation? The Supreme Court or the President?
Chad N. Freude
LITBMueller –
This is not a snark, but if you read the paragraph about precedent in the full message context, you will recognize Angry Sarcasm.
jenniebee
Redhawk: egregious sentence? The punishment was well within the mandated guidelines and was fairly average for a perjury conviction, according to everything I’ve seen. Hardly an “unusual” punishment. The root of most people’s argument against Scooter’s sentence seems to be that only people of a certain class are “criminals,” people of better standing merely “break the law,” and their transgressions ought to be overlooked.
Chad N. Freude
Could we just pretend that 28 Percent is not posting and ignore him? Or are his luminous literary style and profound insights too compelling to greet with silent?
Dreggas
Bush = Gov. William J. LePetomaine
Cheney = Hedley Lamarr
Redhawk
First of all, I’m not arguing that what President Bush did was politically smart. I also have no problem with Mr. Libby spending 3-4 months in a FedPen. But the sentence was ridiculous for the crime committed.
Secondly, I’m no legal scholar but I’m pretty sure you cannot be impeached unless you break the law. Commuting a sentence does not demand a written or even verbal explanation (even though President Bush gave one anyway). So you may ask if it was politically motivated, but in no legal way may a lawyer or Congressman demand such explanation, and even should one be offered, it still does not invalidate the legal maneuver that P. Bush bestowed.
LITBMueller
Damn that Angry Sarcasm! He does that to me one more time, and I’m gonna kick his sarcastic ass!!! :)))
That’s not what Fitzgerald said when he indicted Libby. I quote:
That bolded bit is the key – it is the distinction between a violation of certain laws, or not. But, Fitgerald didn’t even get there because Libby tried to cover his, and his boss’s, asses.
Heh. Guess we’ll never know…
Dreggas
It was the same sentence anyone else would get under federally mandated sentencing guidelines pushed by Republicans themselves.
Don’t give me that horseshit about it being “excessive”. If it was so excessive why did republican assholes push for these guidelines? Of course that’s a dumb question because it’s obvious that, as is the case with everyone in this administration, there’s one set of rules and punishments for them and other rules for the rest of us.
The Other Steve
So you don’t deny that witness tampering may be the motive here?
Just curious. Your excuses seem to center around that what he did wasn’t not allowed. That’s kind of hedging your bets, ain’t it?
Andrew
Redhawk is the most boring-est spoofer of all time.
Zifnab
Not according to multiple judges, a Republican Prosecutor, and a jury of his peers.
You’re not a legal scholar, that’s right. However, impeachment can be invoked in the event of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” which our Founding Fathers later explained to include consist of abuses of power. A President could, for instance, order his military troops to arrest foreigners and have them raped, skinned, and beheaded. This would be, legally, within his authority. However, it would still be an impeachable offense.
Well, right. And there’s the problem. Because the pardon is assumed to be a legal maneuver and not an obstruction of justice, other lawyers can use Bush’s pardon as a precedent. As was explained above, they can demand that their clients get the same deal as Libby got, because the Executive Branch – the branch in charge of enforcing our laws – has deemed perjury to be a law it does not consider worth enforcing with jail time. Libby still skates, but now so do potentially thousands of other perjurers. Imagine what this will do to anti-racketeering efforts, murder cases, and other high-stakes legal situations. Do you think Tony Valone gives two shits about a quarter million dollar fine and parole? Do you think a guy on trial for murder cares about going in to debt when he’s facing the gas chamber? Sure, go ahead and lie to a jury. When the stakes are high enough, this Executive Branch has clearly stated that lying is now that much more acceptable of a risk to take.
Chad N. Freude
Perhaps you should raise this concern with the people who are trying to reinstate the current sentencing guidelines, which President Bush finds excessively harsh, as mandatory sentencing requirements. I believe they are called the Bush administration.
Chad N. Freude
Highly recommended for all you sentencing fans out there:
Sentencing Law and Policy
les
Quoth Redhawk:
Regrettably, young king george’s Supreme Ct. disagrees. Not that consistency troubles the Republican faithful.
jenniebee
Actually, Redhawk, the constitution is pretty vague about grounds for Impeachment. It says “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” which covers a multitude of sins.
Removing a sitting head of state has been a tricky legal business for as far back as there have been laws, and mostly it happens because the head of state has simply lost the confidence of the governed and another preferable candidate is available. Almost every time in the last thousand years of western history that that’s happened, challengers have simply found some grounds to give a veneer of legitimacy to the transfer of power and moved on (for a really fun rationale for removing a chief executive and the response of the legitimizing body to it, see Henry IV’s justifications for the removal of Richard II). Our government is interesting in that we have a legal mechanism not only for the removal of an executive (the Congress can chuck him basically any time they find the balls to do it, for any reason they care to think of, up to and including short-sheeting the beds in the Lincoln room, if that’s their inclination) but also stipulating his successor.
And there’s the rub! There will be no impeachment because removing W is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic and everybody in DC knows it.
The Other Steve
Yeah, but that was when they were sentencing people who weren’t Republican loyalists.
It’s the fact that Scooter is a Republican that makes it an excessive sentence.
Dreggas
This is already in the works. TPM had the goods on defense lawyers gearing up to use what is being termed a “Libby Motion”, not just to get people off but to get sentencing reduced because it’s “too harsh”.
What galls me most about this is that these same disingenuous asshats scream and holler whenever a judge takes into consideration someones “service to the community” when they are a first time offender and they demand the stiffest sentencing, but when it’s one of their own….eh it’s the same story again and again regardless of the crime.
28 Percent
Fixed.
Chad N. Freude
Not to mention that Congress would be immobilized and it would divide the country. Oh … um … wait…
Redhawk
Witness tampering? WTF are you talking about? Are you saying Libby is both a criminal and a witness? A witness to what?
Pat Fitzgerald investigated all of this! He found either no malfeasance, or not enough evidence to justify an indictment for anything related to the Plame outing other than a few misstatements by Libby. If Libby were indeed a witness to a crime, he would have spoke up while undergoing questioning by Fitzgerald. You guys are living in la-la land. The investigation is DONE. One person got nailed for an ancillary crime, period.
Absolutely absurd. Defense lawyers try a ton of tricks, arguments, sleight of hand, etc. This commuting has nothing whatsoever to do with future cases. Completely unrelated.
Chad N. Freude
Thanks.
Oops. Damn!
The Other Steve
But again, your argument amounts only to “It’s not a crime, unless you get caught.”
Chad N. Freude
And you know this because …?
Dreggas
Libby lied, no one knows WHY he lied, Fitzgerald himself said there is a heavy cloud of suspicion over the VP’s office. Libby however wouldn’t turn on the administration and those who said he wouldn’t because he knew he would never spend time in jail were right…he will never spend time in jail for covering up for others.
Redhawk
Will. Never. Happen. But feel free to illuminate one or two crazy wacked-out lawyers who attempt it, but never, ever get said motion granted. I am stunned that this is now the running argument against this commution, as if lawyers haven’t been arguing this ad infinitum.
Chad N. Freude
Something that seems to keep getting lost in this and other discussions is that a JURY weighed EVIDENCE and decided that Libby had committed PERJURY and OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE.
Perjury is not treated by our legal system, tattered as it may be, as a minor indiscretion. There is no concept of minor perjury, trivial perjury, or perjury that doesn’t really count. And under the system as it exists, perjurers are supposed to go to jail.
RSA
Why do we even have laws against obstruction of justice, anyway? They just distract people from the prosecution’s inability to win cases that are about real crimes.
Redhawk
I’m living in a factual world. You’re living in Conspiracy World. Nice to see this. Maybe you will next posit that President Bush is secretly stealing money from the Treasury. Hey, how do we know if he hasn’t been caught, right? It must be happening, because, of course, you can’t trust our President, and therefore, he must be doing illegal stuff!!
Sorry, but it’s “innocent until proven guilty” in my world. Nobody but Libby was indicted after a thorough investigation. In my justice system, that means the others must be considered innocent.
Rome Again
Well, I’m sorry, but “I don’t recall” doesn’t wipe away the stench of criminal activity in MY world.
Redhawk
So…what you proffer is a new subclass of individuals–not guilty, but “clearly not” innocent (definition?)??
You’re either charged with a crime, or being an accessory to it. Sans said indictment, you’re considered innocent. Period.
rachel
A Spoof Too Far
Punchy
Just like O.J., right? Innocent, eh?
Fucking moron.
les
A secret just for you, Redhawk baby; it’s called “obstruction of justice” because the prosecutor believes (and a jury and judge agreed) that the felon’s behavior prevented him from determining whether a crime was committed. Apparently your position is, if lying to a grand jury succeeds in preventing prosecution of a suspected crime, then the lying is not a crime. I’d be interested in knowing what legal system you are trained in.
Dreggas
Yet another thing given to us by those you are defending, yes there is another sub-class of individuals. They’re called “Persons of Interest”.
Redhawk
How does any of this relate to the LEGAL, appropriate, and acceptable commuting of L. Libby’s prison term? So many of you angry, bitter people are just trying literally any angle to show that this was somehow illegal or improper–which it was neither.
Pat Fitzgerald demonstrated enough misstatements by Libby to get a conviction. He did not indict another soul in this investigation, despite lots of time and resources. Ergo, they must be considered innocent of any crime of involvement; to still consider them possible criminals goes completely against the foundation of “innocent until proven guilty”.
If you think Cheney’s involved, go gather yourself an indictment. Until then, it’s all hot air.
jg
Libby’s lies prevented Fitz from finding out if anyone in the Wh was involved. Libby risked jail to protect people in the WH. People in the WH have now freed him from jail.
Move along! Nothing to see hee. No underlying crime! Conspiracy!!
Zifnab
Redhawk, think of it this way.
We both go to Walmart. I steal a radio. The police investigate. We’re both caught and I’m prosecuted. While on the witness stand, the prosecutor asks you if you saw me steal the radio. You say, “No, I didn’t see him steal anything. I wasn’t at Walmart.” The prosecutor can prove you are lying – cameras caught us both entering and leaving – but he can’t prove his assertion that you witnessed me stealing the radio.
You are now, effectively, an accessory to my crime. A crime I can’t be prosecuted for, specifically because you lied to protect me. Traditionally, being an accessory to a crime will get you as bad a sentence as the crime itself. Driving the getaway crime in a bank heist, for instance. Why is Libby’s crime not deserving of an equally sever sentence?
RSA
No one, as far as I can see, has called Bush’s action ILLEGAL. Most of us, though, think that the spirit of “I will restore honor and integrity to the White House” has been stamped on with a boot.
jg
Innocent until proven guilty is applicable in a court of law. Public opinion is under no such restriction. The fact that one has not be proven guilty of a crime does not stop one from being suspected of having comitting a crime. If someone lies to investigators and kills an investigation before it can get to its logical conclusion that does not mean the people who most likely were involved are not involved. It just means we were not able to determine they were involved. I’m free to read the situation in anyway I feel. It is not improper for me to see that clearly CYA is going on here. Remove any partisan blinders and look at the situation objectively and tell me there is nothing more to this story and we should let it go. You can not do that and call yourself honest.
Tim F.
Redhawk, your talking points are staler than your manly-guy handle.
Fitz did not prosecute? No kidding. You might not know that prosecutors often do not prosecute for underlying crimes because key witnesses perjure themselves rather than reveal incriminating knowledge. You know, like Libby did. Hannity apparently didn’t tell you that people call certain activities “obstruction of justice” because they obstruct justice.
Amusing stuff. But none of that patter can compare with this:
I can honestly say that in years of casually and not-so-casually studying philosophy I have never seen a dumber if-then syllogism than the little gem that you just delivered. Before angrily defending yourself, take a minute to reflect on the fact that the entire weight of your argument rests on faith in he unimpeachable good faith of a guy who a Republican court just convicted of perjury and obstructing justice. Only in your strange world would anybody doubt that a perjuring felon would fess up everything he knows to the authorities in absolute, total good faith. Yeesh.
Finally, I will be fascinated to hear on what basis you think that Scooter’s sentence was too harsh. The Supreme Court just affirmed a harsher sentence for the exact same crime, and the president’s DOJ has no problem with tougher penalties for people who lack Scooter’s connections. Clarify for me, do you think that all people who perjure and obstruct justice should walk free, or just loyal Republicans?
HyperIon
i understand the concept of “illegal”. but now you want to assert that there is no impropriety as well. what is the, um, legal definition of “improper”?
Tim F.
…would nobody doubt that a perjuring felon…
whatevs.
ThymeZone
Redhawk = spoof = blog PWNED.
Come on kids, let’s pay attention.
Dreggas
“Persons of Interest”
les
Geeze, we’ve hardly had idiocy at this level since the Darrell days. Redhawk again:
Umm, because you cite the failure to prosecute an underlying crime as support for commuting Scooter’s sentence? Hmm?
ThymeZone
Favorable to Democrats.
Fledermaus
TOS is right on this. It started with opposing the bills of the then dem congress. Then Gingrich comes up with the language double speak and crafting ludicrus bills so that the dems would vote against them and he could hammer them with one of his catch phrases. Then they had to oppose anything Clinton related, regardless of merit.
Finally with control of the WH and Congress they actually had to govern. And this is what did them in. Nearly every GOP policy proposal in the last 6 years has been judged on one single critera: How mad will it make the liberals? The more liberal outrage, the better the idea must be. Of course us liberals get pissed off at both conservative policies and stupid policies (despite much overlap, the two are not the same). The problem was after a while we could only get riled up at the really stupid shit Bush wanted to do, hence those were the policies persued most vigorously by BushCo and the GOP
Dreggas
Matthew Yglesias sums it up quite well
Chad N. Freude
Legal, yes. Appropriate, debatable. Acceptable, really no choice, it can’t be undone. But … How about hypocritical? Displaying contempt for the judiciary? Inconsistent with administration policy?
Y’know, laws sometimes get passed because something LEGAL’, appropriate, and acceptable is deemed harmful or morally reprehensible. Like, oh … slavery, say, or drinking alcohol, or prohibiting drinking alcohol, or …
Dreggas
Found Via Sullivan
jrg
2 parts evil, 3 parts stupid
I’ve always believed that there is no such thing as evil, really, only people who don’t care about anyone but themselves. Even a serial killer commits crimes for their own pleasure (the other person, suffering, is of secondary importance).
In other words, I don’t think the mindset of the Bush cabal really matters very much. Stupid, evil, whatever you want to call it, there is no pony under the pile of shit in the White House.
Pb
Awesome info there, Dreggas — and nice catch, Sully!
rachel
I think that’s the absolutely most infuriating thing about the whole affair: these people ignore (or mock) pleas for mercy by by any criminals who are not one of their own. Oh, they’re Christians, all right.
Dreggas
Here’s a Follow-up post from Sully WRT the link:
Link
As an aside Sully has been hammering this entire issue, it’s been wall to wall. It may cost me liberal cred (har har) but I like Sullivan, even if I disagree with him at times.
Dreggas
Bush admin “friend of the court” filing for libby
Dreggas
Fixed, read the article wrong.
Dreggas
Was the ink even dry on the check before the “clemency”?
ConservativelyLiberal
Cheney learned from the Nixon administration. Stonewall on everything, and don’t give an inch. With this approach, the Executive branch can operate with impunity and without any oversight. Classify everything as secret or exert Executive privilege and nobody will ever see what is really going on in Oz.
I will bet that the Dems remember this once they win the White House in 2008. I can hear the wingnuts screeching like fingernails on a chalkboard when this happens. But in the end, we all will pay dearly for allowing government without any oversight. We basically end up with a rolling monarchy. The leader changes, but little else does.
IMO, our government is truly out of control and our nation is now in decline. Government is non-responsive, our manufacturing has been exported for profit, businesses are moving their headquarters off-shore to avoid paying taxes, free-for-all illegal immigration is leading to depressed wages and pitting Americans trying to make a living against people who are looking to improve their lives by any means, and on and on and on…
There is a reason that nations/governments eventually collapse. Invariably it rots from within, with greed, cronyism and favoritism being the usual culprits. History has shown again and again that great nations eventually die, yet most American citizens think that this can not happen to them. News flash idiots, it can and I bet it eventually will. When societies meltdown, it ain’t pretty, and when a nation that is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons goes into meltdown, so will most of the world that it targets.
Sri Ramkrishna
Same here. Sully is going at this with a vengeance. His sense of outrage is pretty inspiring. I’ve learned more things about what’s going on with Bush from his blog than liberal ones.
sri
Pb
Yes, when he gets a bee in his bonnet, he’s something–he’s also done a great job in the past covering Katrina, and torture / rendition.
RSA
I meant to say this earlier, but the full recipe continues, “Addle well, and serve half-baked.”
Davebo
Well, in your world Fitzgerald still has around sixty million to spend on the investigation and of course, no worries with claims of exectutive priviledge.
So, do you really want to continue in the world you yourself designed?
I thought not. So do us all a favor and shut the fuck up, and silently take up your place among the 24 percenters.
The up side is, we’ve agreed to let you renew your drivers license. But it was quite a debate.
Redhawk
Posters galore here have been screaming “obstruction of justice”. This implies that the very act of granting clemency in this case is somehow “illegal”. It’s a shame with respect to your argument that the justice has been ajudicated; thus, there is nothing to obstruct. You may continue to insist that Cheney is at fault, or President Bush has something quid pro quo with Libby; the reality is that nothing untoward was discovered vis-a-vis Cheney, K. Rove, or P. Bush. Keep searching, however. Maybe you’ll find Cheney’s prints in a grassy knoll.
Your condescending tone is maddening. Do you think I am unaware of the crime with which Libby was charged? I am fully aware that L. Libby, for reasons I dare not speculate, obfuscated his role in Valerie Plame’s “outing”, and was henceforth convicted. So what’s your point? Does his misstatements therefore necessarily indict his superiors? Because of his erroneous testimony, how does that automatically ensnare Vice Cheney and President Bush? Only in Conspiracy World does one man’s mistakes forthrightly breed instant stain on those whose charge he resides.
An honorable man would answer questions under oath, and do so honestly. Perhaps you doubt the veracity of L. Libby’s statements; I do not. You apply your blinders so tightly as to search incessantly for only the most nefarious of Libby’s intentions. I, however, believe the man is honest and forthright, and additionally, trust the prosecutorial acumen of Pat Fitzgerald to get to the truth. I’m very sorry for you that you insist on believing only the worst of our government’s actions and proclamations. It must be a bitter grind for many of you to continue this rancid subjectivity on a daily basis.
Good day.
Rome Again
Let me take up my place among 24 percenters? WTF are you talking about. I wouldn’t be caught DEAD with those people.
By the way, YOU have absolutely nothing to do with me renewing my driver’s license asswipe. I have a privilege to drive because I earned it and I haven’t had an accident in almost 30 years. YOU are the one who needs to STFU!
Pb
And it’s even worse when we find out that we were right all along — ah, that rancid objectivity.
Rome Again
Or as TZ would say… Davebo, “Don’t post drunk!”
Bruce Moomaw
In reply to Redhawk: The people who defend the commutation are forced to keep insisting that — while they admit Libby was lying wholesale — he didn’t lie for any sane REASON, because there wasn’t anything important for him to cover up. Apparently he was just momentarily possessed by the Devil, or possibly by the spirit of Michael Moore. You, Mr. Hawk, follow in that tradition yourself.
Matt Yglesias is just the latest in a long line of people to point that curious fact out. Now let’s take a look at his very convincing-sounding explanation as to the precise reason Libby could have had for lying through his teeth:
“…[T]he reason why Armitage, Libby, and the other leakers weren’t prosecuted under the IIPA is that the IIPA requires proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the leaker had actual knowledge that the CIA agent’s employment was classified at the time of the leak.
“To prove that, you need to be able to prove how the person found out about the fact of CIA employment. In the case of Armitage, it was clear that he didn’t know; he found out from a document that said nothing about Plame’s covert status. In the case of Libby, it was less clear what he knew, but Fitzgerald nonetheless concluded that he couldn’t prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
“The real issue is what Cheney knew, and when he knew it. Libby’s lies were intentionally designed to keep Fitzgerald from getting a closer look at Cheney, and determining what role Cheney had in the leak campaign and whether he knew Plame was covert. That’s why the obstruction was a big deal. That’s also why no one was charged; the IIPA requires that you prove knowledge and Fitzgerald couldn’t.
“An additional point that’s relevant. Most of Libby’s defenders — George W. Bush, David Brooks, etc. — don’t seem to be denying that Libby committed a crime by lying under oath to investigators. They want us to say that, rather, he deserves to be treated very leniently because there was no big deal here. The alleged absence of an underlying crime is key to that theory.
The converse theory, however, is that there was an underlying crime, and the crime can’t be proven because Libby lied to investigators. If that theory is wrong — if there really was no crime — then it seems we ought to get some kind of explanation from Libby as to WHY he lied. People sometimes do have reasons to lie to investigators other than a desire to cover up criminal activity (hiding non-criminal activity that’s embarrassing is the obvious one); but if Libby wants mercy, he should offer up a plausible score on this account. But Libby hasn’t offered any such story. Instead, he’s offered a wildly implausible story — that he’s innocent. Under those circumstances, it’s VERY odd [for Bush] to offer clemency. He’s shown no remorse and appears to be continually engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice. Maybe there was no crime here; but if there wasn’t, then what was Libby doing? He’s not even trying to convince us that he had some other reason to lie.”
Yes indeed, my poppets.
ConservativelyLiberal
Dead on target Bruce. Simply put, for whatever reason he lied. He continues to deny he was lying, yet it is clear that he did so. He denies guilt, yet he is forgiven his ‘harsh’ sentence before he serves a day, exhausts his appeals or acknowledges his guilt.
The ol’ ‘Clinton did it’ won’t do it here. If Clinton could stand aside and let Susan McDougal get locked up, why not Bush? If Clinton had circumvented the court like Bush has and had prevented McDougal from serving a single day, you would still hear the Repugs braying to this day.
I am sick and tired of the ‘Clinton did it’ mentality of this administration and its supporters. When Clinton was president, they repudiated him. In retirement, they have embraced him. It is all a matter of convenience to them.
I may be an independent, but it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for another republican. Same with my wife and daughter. We know when we are being lied to, as do a lot of other people.
I hope Libby is the straw that breaks the back of this administration and their party for the next twenty years (or more). I hope the Democrats grow spines and impeach Cheney and Bush.
Are the democrats a better alternative? No, but the republicans have screwed things up so bad that it makes the democrats look good in comparison. The lesser of two evils, so to say.
Think about it. The Democrats did not win in 2006 (IMO), the Republicans lost. And they are going to lose again in 2008. People are sick of what has happened to our country, and they are sick of what has been done in the name of our country.
They can see through the charade. Bush is a puppet, and Cheney has his hand up ol’ chimpy’s ass. Anyone can see that Furious George is nothing more than a stuffed monkey, and Cheney is the man in the yellow hat.
Good one Bruce… On target.
Punchy
Oh just STFU. This Admin has done nothing but meld corruption with incompetence, and has proven–yes, proven–that they will go to any length to both hide it and encourage more of it. Most of us doubt his intentions b/c we’ve been bitchslapped repeatedly on a ton of issues, and aren’t ready to let it happen again.
RSA
I’m sick of this, too. What exactly did Bush mean by promising to restore integrity and honor to the White House? Even his hardcore supporters should be able to see the irony in the constant refrain of “Clinton did it.” If you say, “I’m going to be better than X,” you don’t get to justify your bad acts by whining, “But X did it, too!” (Leaving aside the stupidity of comparing Bush’s major blunders to Clinton’s minor missteps.)
jake
Unless you are a six year old who is just smart enough to know “Another little boy who looked just like me did it and ran away!” won’t work.
C-i-C now stands for Child-in-Charge. POTUS = Petulant Obnoxious Tween of the United States.
Zifnab
Dude! He’s a convicted perjurier. How can you not doubt the veracity of his statement? It’s like pointing to a murder and saying, “Yeah, he’s made some mistakes, but he’d never kill a guy.”
You’ve got to be kidding me. There’s no way this guy isn’t a spoof.
Bob In Pacifica
How about evil and brazen?
Face
There was a time when I would have thunk this too. But go visit Malkin’s site, or Redstate. They all talk like this…just completely nonsensical. In their world, for example, a lack of bombings in Baghdad is good. But so is a plethora of bombs (desperation!). A federal deficiet is bad. But spending 80 kajillion dollars on the mess in Iraq and the military, and the requisite debt it brings, is great (support the troops!). Rule of law…tough sentencing….the chair for someone who jaywalks….but they find Libby’s sentence “harsh” and “excessive”.
All of these 28%ers talk this way. They have to justify their worldview somehow, and it’s becoming increasingly obscene to what levels they’ll go to do so…
Tim F.
Your obtuseness, likewise. For example:
Your argument rests on this weirdly unshakable faith in the character of a convicted perjurer. Ergo, either you are too dim to compose an English sentence (apparently not the case) or you are trying to irritate me. If I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt I would conclude that you’re neither dim nor a troll but you’re just typing some sentences that you heard on Hannity without thinking too hard about what they mean.
Another example: I noticed that you didn’t answer the question at the end of my last comment. Do you believe that people who perjure and obstruct justice should walk free, or only those with Republican connections? Via his DOJ and his own actions your fave president has clearly chosen (B), now I am curious to see whether you agree.
Tim F.
I will correct myself again:
…weirdly unshakable faith in the character of a convicted perjurer. …
Bolding the important part helps underline the silliness of your position.
RSA
Somehow I’m not expecting a groundswell of support among core Republicans for adding flexibility to federal sentencing guidelines. That would be the rational implication, wouldn’t it?
chopper
pot, kettle, something about a dark color.
then:
followed by:
its almost comedy!
uh_clem
…go visit Malkin’s site, or Redstate. They all talk like this…
How do you know that they’re not trolling there too?
You have seen this, right?
(BTW, my troll radar indicates redhawk is genuine – misinformed, illogical, and self-contradictory, but the real thing)
The Other Steve
I especially liked it when Sullivan was calling us all cowards because we didn’t support the Iraq war.
Oh… wait….
The Other Steve
I am convinced redhawk is Teh Darrell, fresh from his trip to the mountains leading a scout troop.
Zifnab
I was hoping against hope.
Redhawk
Tim F., do you ever make cogent arguments, or just sling insults all day? I’m irritating you? Perhaps because you are unwilling to admit that what President Bush did was completely legal. You spend much time through myriad ways to pin the “illegal!” stamp on a Constitutionally-guarenteed legal step. It’s not illegal, and has been used by a ton of other Presidents in the past to offer relief of sentences, criminal records, and the like.
To answer your question more directly–No. Those who perjure or obstruct justice should spent time in jail. Not 30 months, not 20 months, maybe 6. It’s white-collar, non-violent, and technical. I have never said that I though Libby should walk free; I believe he should have spent a few months in a FedPen. However, his 30 months was a pure political move and President Bush recognized it and gave relief. Perhaps he should have commuted only part of it, but nonetheless, it was both legal and appropriate to offer relief to L. Libby.
Redhawk
Please show me the part in the Constitution where pardons and commuting of sentences are forbidden. Please show me the section that outlines how President Bush has obstructed justice by commuting a sentence of a former official. I won’t be here all day, but I’ll wait. Probably for quite awhile.
Misinformed, my ass. Some of you (Tim F.?) are poster children for what happens to logical arguments when emotions run amok. If you cannot demonstrate some percieved malfeasance of President Bush without resorting to “Libby must have lied to cover up some enormously illegal thing” sans any evidence, then you’re running on emotion and your argument fails. And then comes the insults. Nice.
RSA
I’ll repeat that no one here has said that Bush’s action was illegal. Redhawk is deliberately misreading what people have written in this thread, I think.
Zifnab
Cognizance, meet dissonance. Dissonance, cognizance. You two have fun now.
uh_clem
Those who perjure or obstruct justice should spent time in jail. Not 30 months, not 20 months, maybe 6. It’s white-collar, non-violent, and technical. I have never said that I though Libby should walk free; I believe he should have spent a few months in a FedPen.
While I tend to agree with you here, that’s not what the federal sentencing guidelines say. As the result of many years of one politician after another trying to out-hard-line the others, we have a very draconian federal sentencing structure. It requires 30 months not six. That’s the law.
If you think it’s too harsh, you should speak out against it, or act to get it changed. But first you should familiarize yourself with what the federal sentencing guidelines actually say – here’s a primary source link and a reasoned discussion in the context of the Libby case.
However, his 30 months was a pure political move and President Bush recognized it and gave relief.
Now you’re off into the ozone again. 30 months is exactly the minimum that the judge could have given Libby under the sentencing guidelines. Why is it “political” for a GOP appointed judge to have strictly followed the sentencing guidelines? 30 months is the law. period. If you don’t like the law, work to get it changed rather than accusing the judge of ulterior motives.
Redhawk
If so, why are people so up-in-arms over this? Why is the House holding “hearings” on this next week(?)? Why such scrunity over a simple and rather ubiquitous Presidental prerogative? If you’ll concede it’s legal and appropriate, then what exactly is the genesis of your anger? Are you only mad L.Libby didn’t get a few months in a FedPen (I concede that that would have been a better move politically)?
Hyperion
yes, i agree. that supercilious tone mixed with the idiotic content is very familiar.
Zifnab
Abusing power, including the power to pardon, is an impeachable offense. If George Bush used his pardon power to cover up a crime committed within his own office, he has exposed himself to the possibility of a Congressional Impeachment proceeding.
uh_clem
Getting back to the topic of the post – stupid or evil? – my take is that they exhibit classic Kruger-Dunning syndrome i.e. unskilled an unaware of it.
Bush thinks he’s a great statesman, but he’s too clueless to realize his own shortcomings.
He thinks he’s a great military strategist, but again he’s too incompetent to realize the mistakes.
And in the Libby case, he’s playing at lawyering but hopelessly out of his depth.
If only he knew a little bit more he’d realize what a boob he is.
Chad N. Freude
Perhaps because of the appearance of justice thwarted by presidential decree? Perhaps because of the appearance of favoritism for one convicted criminal over another? Perhaps because of the appearance of hypocrisy about appropriate penalties for perjury? Perhaps because of the appearance of omerta in the government?
Legal, certainly. Appropriate, certainly not. So I guess at least part of the genesis of my anger is inappropriateness. Not to mention all the appearances of the things that shouldn’t appear I listed above.
There’s that, and the sense that members of the
SopranosBush administration can thumb their noses at the justice system and the American people and get away with it.Jake
I’m still waiting for one of the trademark tantrum. Although when I saw this post had passed the 100 comments mark I did think ScoutMaster D had returned. Alas.
A funny thing: Redhawk’s spelling is a lot worse today. Could s/he be a collective effort of some sort?
The Other Steve
Exactly how can it be purely political, considering the sentence was given by a Bush appointed Judge? And as been noted numerously, it’s consistent with other instances of perjury.
Can you explain that to us?
The Other Steve
I’ve been looking at motorscooters lately. Kymco, Honda, Aprilia, etc. They have interesting names like Grand Vista, Reflex, Scarabeo and so on.
I’m disappointed that nobody makes a Scooter Libby though.
I think it’d be a top seller!
Redhawk
Pat Fitzgerald decided early on that he wanted K. Rove to be indicted. His many conversations with K. Rove and his lawyer point to this. Unable to ensnare multiple officials (e.g., K. Rove), he had no choice but to justify this huge, expensive investigation by going full force after L.Libby and some of his erroneous statements. P. Fitzgerald went full-bore on Libby’s sentencing, asking for an excessive (my opinion, perhaps not the legal one) sentence. Libby became the legal punching bag for an angry prosecutor unable to indict any other officials. Politics 101.
Hey Jake–what did I misspell? Care to show me?
chopper
hey, i can’t find anything in the constitution that says lying to the country to attack iraq is illegal. so why are people up in arms over it?
come on, just because something isn’t technically illegal doesn’t mean its perfectly moral for a politician to do. the dude commuted the sentence of a guy who perjured himself and obstructed justice in order to cover for the white house. people consider that an abuse of power and a major conflict of interest, legal or not.
or do you think a president abusing power is perfectly fine as long as its technically legal?
Dreggas
1.) The pardon, because let’s face it Libby has to pay a fine and do probation it’s really just a pardon kinda like paying a fine is still amnesty, was legal, no one said it wasn’t. However it is also shady and not in any way appropriate. It was done without consultation with the DOJ and was not done through normal procedures giving the appearance that it was a foregone conclusion.
2.) As has been pointed out time and again on this thread WRT the Rita case it was fine for him to serve the federally mandated 30+ months for perjury but in the case of libby it was “excessive”.
3.) If you have nothing to lie about you don’t lie knowing there could be consequences, hell even children know that. However it’s obvious that Libby knew there’d be no consequences or he would not have lied.
Fledermaus
It’s called oversight. Get used to it.
Cain
Redhawk,
We’re not upset. Its business as usual for this administration. George has shown us that he’s got different rules for himself and his cronies and for the rest of us. His job is to execute the law of this nation fairly and evenly. That’s the job of the executive branch. However, when the president declares Libby’s prison stay is excessive then decides that the proper time to spend in prison is 0 days then the president is saying that
a) federal guidelines for sentencing is too harsh
b) the sentencing should not include any jail time
This is what he came up with after his so called deliberations and how he thought long and hard about it. 0 days for perjury. Libby pays the fine and can now sit around and wait for the appeals process since he hasn’t exhausted that yet. When that fails, Bush is almost certain to pardon him since he hasn’t ruled that out. Again, nothing illegal about it. The president though is definitely talking through both sides of his mouth. He’s saying he respects the jury and the verdict but doesn’t agree with the sentence but if Libby doesn’t make his appeal he’s probably not going to respect the verdict either. I’ll put money on it.
There was a case tried earlier by the Supreme Court which upheld the federal sentencing guidelines. Only difference was that the guy wasn’t someone who worked directly with/for the white house.
So what we have is someone who uses his executive privilege to keep one of his own out of jail while the rest of us have no recourse under current guidelines but to suck it up and take 30 months in the federal pen. He’s also given a way for defense attorneys to argue in court that sentencing for perjurers should only be 0 days because the president thinks so. So the rule of law is now out swinging in the breeze.
Finally, Libby never even asked for clemency or commuting of the sentence. To commute a sentence, you actually have to be serving time. In addition, the president decided to jump libby to the top of the list of people who asked for clemency. So what does this series of action represent to you?
Think about it and get back to us. If you get caught perjuring yourself, its 30 months in jail for you buddy no matter what the federal crime is. We can whine about how harsh it is but none of us is going to have President sympathetic. If he was, he should commute the sentence of everyone who perjured themselves from 30 months to 0 days.
Jake
Wow. Thanks uh_clem. Alarming, but enlightening.
I wonder if the White House will try to use that as an excuse for The President. Can’t you just see Tony Snow gravely informing the Press Gaggle that the President is a life long victim of Kruger-Dunning syndrome, and that expecting him to lead effectively would be like expecting a FDR to run a marathon. Fox News etc would pick it up and scream The Democrats Hate Disabled People!
I wish I thought I was being silly…
uh_clem
You still haven’t informed yourself about federal sentencing guidelines, have you?
Walton imposed the minimum jail term. Fitzgerald asked for more (closer to the middle range of the guidelines), but that’s not exactly unusual for a prosecutor.
Please do some homework so you don’t come off so mis-informed. Or is spreading self-serving mis-information the point of the exercise?
That’s utter nonsense. If Fitz wanted to indict Rove for perjury, he could have done so early on – Rove lied to investigators just like Libby did, the difference is that Rove eventually corrected his testimony. Instead of indicting him, Fitz invited Rove back to the grand jury to give him a chance to correct the erroneous testimony. It took four or five trips, but eventually Fitz was satisfied that Rove was telling the truth. Presumably Libby could have done the same thing, but refused.
Your paranoid fantasies about a rogue prosecutor out to get Rove are just that – fantasies. (Yes, there are many many people who are out to get Rove, but Fitz wasn’t one of them.)
RSA
Redhawk writes:
But Redhawk also writes:
Why in the world would anyone think that Scooter Libby is a more honest and forthright citizen than Patrick Fitzgerald, who above is being accused of having some extra-legal agenda or obsession? It boggles the mind. Let’s think about how much damage Fitzgerald might have done to the Bush administration if he’d been more of a Ken Starr.
mrmobi
Why, Redhawk, are you so exercised about hearings into the Libby pardon? This is nothing new. After Clinton’s pardons, Party of Torture members were all a-tizzy and outraged and… nothing happened. From Center for American Progress:
While nothing came of these investigations, you should note, Redhawk, that President Clinton waived executive privilege and allowed his aides to testify. President Bush should be as forthcoming, and allow his aides to testify, but that won’t happen, will it? I mean, we’re at war, aren’t we? Be afraid, be very afraid, the guys who can’t ignite gasoline are coming to get you.
It’s good to be the king.
For the record, I don’t think you are Darrell. I can smell a Nazi from thousands of miles away.
Andrew
Spoof spoof spoofery!
Tim F.
That pretty much gets to the heart of why I cannot consider Redhawk a serious person. Clearly our friend is far too principled to speculate about the motivations of someone else (Libby), except when he feels like it (Fitzgerald).
Trusting the good word of a convicted perjurer is silly enough, in fact it’s so silly that by itself it makes it impossible for me to take Redhawk seriously. But violating his own principles to smear the prosecutor really puts Redhawk on a whole new plane of hackdom.
***
In fact, I think that this exhange shows why those of you who want to draw Redhawk-Darrell analogies are so far off the mark. Darrell was an asshole but if you ignored the personal insults he often had an interesting, or at least logically consistent point to make. He almost always buried a logical fallacy or three somewhere in his argument but if you stripped away the vituperation, at least it was an argument.
Redhawk does the exact opposite of Darrell – he avoids vituperation but he also lacks the ability to see the ridiculousness of his own point. Darrell had the good sense to avoid laying his arguments out explicitly, Redhawk seems practically eager to do it. It’s the difference between a board warrior and an amateur visiting from RedState or Hot Air.
Bruce Moomaw
Now that Redhawk has decided to emulate Monty Python’s Black Knight, let me quote Yglesias’ latest very neat summation:
“Bottom-line, I think it’s rock solid that Bush abused his power, and until someone can offer a plausible account of what kind of non-criminal conduct Libby is helping to cover-up, I’m not going to be too upset if people assume that what’s being covered-up was, in fact, a crime. The fact that Bush is actively and openly participating in the cover-up (and there’s no serious doubt that something is being covered-up) naturally whets one’s suspicions. Bush and Cheney are, however, clearly entitled to a legal presumption of innocence.”
And, as he points out, even if Libby was just committing perjury to cover up non-criminal “embarrassing conduct” by his bosses, how the hell does that justify not punishing him for committing perjury?
The Other Steve
Why do you keep pushing this conspiracy theory?
There’s no evidence to support a claim that Fitzgerald was looking to indict anybody. He was charged with investigating the incident, and he started asking questions. Libby gave different answers than everybody else, and after talking to people Libby talked to, it was clear that Libby lied. That’s why we are where we are.
The theory that everybody is involved in some giant plot against conservatives and the Republican party, especially people appointed by Republicans, as if they were secret moles hidden within the party since childhood, is lunacy.
Go pander your conspiracy theories over at Powerline… they lap that shit up.
Jake
If Redhawk is at least trying to be serious (not the same as someone to be taken seriously) I think it shows how difficult life must be for the hardcore president supporter. Life is no longer so clear cut. It is, to quote the president “Hard.”
It’s hard to know who is friend and who is foe when Republicans like Fitzgerald and Walton rein in other Republicans. Two years ago, if you tried to tell me supporters of the president would be accusing other Republicans of concocting some scheme to “get” Karl Rove, I’d laugh. We’d all laugh. But now it looks like a big game of “Bunker Mentality” is on and the number of people who can be trusted will shrink every day.
Andrew
Redhawk is just someone practicing their Broderisms. Perhaps they’re angling for a WaPo editorial position.
John Bode
What if someone lies on the stand to protect a murderer? Is it still “white-collar, nonviolent, and technical?” Should a person who perjurs himself to protect a murderer only get 6 months in prison?
The Other Steve
Paranoia can be such a powerful weapon…
Redhawk
Hey Tim F.–come back when you can forment a coherent and cogent argument. Please. Should I just pretend you’re smart, analytical, and reasoned just because you blog here and throw bombs?
I have no direct evidence that P. Fitzgerald was out to hang K. Rove; I cannot, as I’m not privy to his mind. But the indirect evidence (multiple interviews, multiple grand jury appearances, etc.) shows he was clearly trying to widen the number of the indicted to justify such an expansive and time-consuming investigation.
For those of you still crying about “obstruction of justice”, are you telling me that P. Fitzgerald was still investigating this? Can you supply a link that shows that the investigation was ongoing? If L. Libby had not been commuted (his sentence), was P. Fitzgerald–or any Congressman–going to sit more grand juries? I think not (and yes, I’m aware of Wilson’s civil suit).
Jake
And fascinating. In a 10-car pile up sort of way.
tBone
Formenting a Coherent and Cogent Argument, by Redhawk:
1. Libby lied under oath.
2. But we shouldn’t question his honesty.
3. Fitzgerald is fair game, though.
4. A 30-month sentence, despite being the minimum allowed by law, was a purely political move.
5. You should all quit claiming that Bush did something illegal here, even though none of you have actually claimed that.
Order today and you’ll receive a FREE roll of Formenting a Coherent and Cogent Argument Word-of-the-Day toilet paper!
Rome Again
Uh, excuse me, when someone is investigating something, they INVESTIGATE it, they do not overlook things. What about Ken Starr’s investigation? Talk about a fruitless effort, yet, he was a rabid dog, and you know what? That’s okay, because Clinton was NEVER convicted.
So, tell me, do you think Ken Starr also went too far? I’ll bet you don’t.
The Other Steve
Then it appears you are nothing more than a conspiracy kook.
By your own standards, apparently. Interesting, that.
Tim F.
Redhawk, I take it as high praise when a guy who demands that we trust a perjurer criticizes my argument. You insist, despite any evidence at all, to know the inner workings of one man’s mind while attacking other people (in your view) committing the exact same sin. You propose to radically rewrite the sentencing guidelines for perjury, lying to investigators and obstruction of justice without appearing to understand that that is what you are doing.
In short, to point out your arguments is to rebut them. Until you come to terms with the transparent silliness of blindly, unquestioningly trusting a convicted perjurer I see no practical gain in batting around pleasantries with you. It is clearly not worth the effort.
Redhawk
Shorter Tim F.–until you see things exactly like we do, I dare not engage. So I must take your default position that since L. Libby provided some misstatements to P. Fitzgerald, he can never be trusted to speak the truth again. Facing jail time, he would never come clean, right?
I am not stupid enough to ignore the chance that if he knew ahead of time he would be pardoned, that he may have refused to speak if there was more to the Plame story. I do not believe he knew about an a priori pardon, and therefore would have told P. Fitzgerald everything–if there was something to tell.
Magic 8-Ball
Magic 8-Ball says: You betya
Bombadil
Redhawk is Darrell.
RSA
Redhawk makes a good deal out of the behavior of the prosecution in the Libby case, but of course the unusual behavior of the defense team has no suggestive value at all:
Hmm, I wonder what might possibly have triggered an abrupt shift in the defense strategy? Surely not a quid pro quo; Libby is an honorable man. Of course Libby might not have known that he would be pardoned, but he’d have been comatose to have been unaware of the strong possibility.
rachel
To sum up: Redhawk is a ninny.