The Evansville Courier Press has an article entitled Scooter Libby that is rather remarkable. It stands for the proposition that Scooter Libby, convicted of two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to federal prosecutors, received too harsh a sentence when the judge sentenced him to 30 months in jail and a $250,000 fine. Just to provide a bit of perspective, by my not at all expert calculations, this is about the same sentence as one might receive for possessing about 40 pounds of marijuana.
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was charged with investigating the circumstances leading to Robert “Douchebag of Liberty” Novak’s outing of undercover CIA operative, Valerie Plame. In the course of his investigation, Libby apparently lied to him repeatedly, thereby hindering an effective investigation.
With respect to this investigation, the Evansville Courier Press makes the rather startling assertion “it was known from the outset that no crime had occurred and who the leakers were.” Known by whom? When? Editor & Publisher has a nice run down of the White House Press Secretary’s statements on the matter:
9/29/03 – White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan says that Karl Rove wasn’t involved. And yet, as it turns out, he was. McClellan says, “I’ve made it very clear, [Rove] was not involved, that there’s no truth to the suggestion that he was.”
10/7/03 – McClellan says he spoke to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove, and Elliott Abrams and they were not involved in leaking Plame’s identity.
10/10/03 – McClellan reports that he spoke with Libby, Rove, and Abrams about the Plame leak and those individuals “assured me that they were not involved in this.”
After that, the White House clammed up and claimed they wouldn’t comment on an “ongoing investigation.” So for the Courier Journal to claim that “it was known at the outset” who the leakers were is preposterous.
The editorial goes on to say:
Much about special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation is still not public, including why Libby felt compelled to lie. Was it to protect his boss, as administration critics suspect, or simply an overzealous defense of the White House rationale for going to war, as his defenders insist?
Protect his boss from what? The Courier Press has assured us that “it was known from the outset that no crime occurred.”
The Courier Press ends with this eyebrow raiser:
A pardon issued on the eve of Libby’s scheduled arrival at federal prison would be seen for what it is — hypocrisy and favoritism.
But Bush’s standing is so low that a pardon couldn’t do him much more damage, and it seems little enough to do for a loyal aide who is one of the dwindling few who still believe in this White House.
“Go on, George. Give him the pardon. Sure, it’s wrong, but what have you got to lose?”
The comments after the article were fun to read. I’d almost forgotten names like Wen Ho Lee, Henry Cisneros and Johnny Huang–and of course Vince Foster. “But Clinton did some stuff!!!” is the refrain over there. Really, it all pales in comparison to Cain killing Abel, so probably we shouldn’t ever prosecute anyone for anything. Or something like that.
I love the left-wing hysteria over Scooter Libby and Valerie Plame/Wilson, whatever her name is this week.
Reality is:
1) She wasn’t undercover, and hadn’t been for quite some time (NOC’s don’t typically get into “Who’s Who” entries, nor do they list their home addresses as the U.S. Embassy while undercover).
2) Do we really think that Wilson had no agenda for his trip?
3) Correct me if I’m wrong (which is always possible) but don’t the British still stand by their yellowcake report?
4) Let’s compare and contrast two events here:
a) Robert Novak writes a column mentioning that a known CIA desk analyst (and wife of a liberal activist) strongly recommended her husband for a sensitive intelligence mission that gave him a perfect agenda to further their own political agenda.
b) Former National Security Adviser blatantly and knowingly steals highly secret documents that likely show his former boss was criminally negligent in refusing to pursue any policies to combat growing Islamofacist threat. Former adviser then destroys highly sensitive documents, thereby eliminating any potential investigations into subject.
I submit that scenario B was much more dangerous to our national security, yet liberals will continue to sweep under the rug any misdeeds by their beloved “Slick Willie”.
You guys care so much that Libby lied about something that wasn’t even a crime, yet remain silent when Berger covers up a likely significant breach of national security.
Nice to know where your priorities lie.
i love the scribe’s little “reality checks” because they’re divorced from actual reality to the point that they often contain blatant falsehoods asserted as fact. (i’m still giggling over his claim that chinatown doesn’t exist anymore.)
case in point: the CIA has admitted that plame was covert at the time her name was leaked.
She was so “covert” that she was in Wilson’s “Who’s Who” entry? Or, was she covert when she listed the U.S. Embassy in Athens as her official residence?
Feel free to point out my blatant falsehoods (which I notice you didn’t do). Go ahead, I’ll wait… Also, I’ll wait for you to point out where I stated specifically that “chinatown doesn’t exist anymore”. Feel free to point to an actual quote where I stated exactly that, in that context. I’ll wait for that one as well…
BTW, didn’t Plame/Wilson perjure herself when she stated that she didn’t recommend her husband for this trip, despite the fact the very memo she wrote stated that she had?
Oops…
So Novak/Libby/Cheney/Rove (whomever you guys are blaming this week) outing a “sorta” undercover operator is a huge scandal, but Berger stealing and destroying top-secret docs relating to Slick Willie’s “handling” of Islamic terrorism is cool with you?
plame was covert. it’s settled fact. the CIA has acknowledged as much. rail against it as much as you like, but it won’t change reality.
so that’s blatant falsehood #1.
as for where you claimed chinatown doesn’t exist, it was right here:
i tried to rebut this hilarious assertion at the time, but doug’s blog ate my comment. so that’s two more blatant falsehoods: one where you made the claim, and one where you tried to deny making it.