Holy crap. Bush is going to let Libby skate. Rather than let the taxpayers foot the bill for a lot of expensive legal work, Bush could’ve at least just pardoned Libby right up front. I know, I know. He was hoping for a less politically embarrassing way to let Cheney’s right hand man off the hook for stonewalling the special investigation into the Plame matter.
Libby’s supporters argued that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was over-zealous in prosecuting Libby for lying to investigators when no one was charged over the actual leak of Plame’s status as a Central Intelligence Agency official.
That was sort of the point of making obstruction of justice and lying to federal investigators a crime. If folks aren’t going to tell the truth, investigators can’t uncover criminal acts. There are legitimate reasons to question whether criminalizing these sorts of acts are legitimate under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment scheme set up by our Founders. But, the likes of Bush, Cheney, and Libby are among the last of those who can complain without hypocrisy about the loss of civil liberties that favor criminal suspects.
So, to recap, Scooter Libby, chief of staff to Richard Bruce Cheney, was convicted by a jury of his peers for breaking a law duly passed by the United States Congress. George W. Bush in his infinite wisdom has commuted Libby’s sentence before he has served a day in jail. The pro-war administration mouthpiece from the New York Times, Judith Miller, will have spent more time in jail covering for Libby than Libby spends.
And, it’s not as if Bush has been overly generous with pardons for people who weren’t breaking the law on his behalf:
Bush has granted fewer pardons — 113 — than any president in the past 100 years, while denying more than 1,000 requests, said Margaret Colgate Love, the Justice Department’s pardon attorney from 1990 to 1997.
In addition, Bush has denied more than 4,000 commutation requests, and hundreds of requests for pardons and commutations are still pending, Love said.
You’ll remember that Bush, as Governor of Texas, was Captain Death Penalty. When he was Governor, he had this to say with respect to the 152 death sentences he oversaw:
I don’t believe my role [as governor] is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own, unless there are new facts or evidence of which a jury was unaware, or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair.
Of Libby’s 2 1/2 year sentence, President Bush said, “the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive.”
Message: If you do the bidding of the Bush administration, you’re above the law and untouchable.
I think John Edwards put it fairly well:
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.
Bush just did the Democratic candidates a huge favor; he might as well have put the ball on a tee for them. The Republican candidates will have a tough time reconciling this with a message of law, order, justice, and personal responsibility.
You might want to re-read the commutation order – ‘skate’ overstates the case, I think.
I disagree. The same folks who raised millions for Libby pay whatever fine was levied. His conviction does him no practical harm – he works for Republican think tanks or in political offices for the rest of his life or, perhaps Bush gives him a full pardon on his way out the door.
In any case, if Bush chose commutation over pardon as some sort of face saving distinction, I think he was foolish. Proponents of this decision will look like Gore talking about “no controlling authority” and Clinton talking about the definition of “is.” Possibly they have a legitimate point, but they are easy targets when they try to split hairs that fine.
Yes this pardon in and of itself constitutes obstruction of justice. Libby will simply take the 5th with impunity. It is really disgusting to see all of the beltway Neo-Cons and the MSM courtiers who came out in defense of Libby. Even the NYT and WAPO were on his side.
I think it was a huge mistake for Reid and Pelosi to take impeachment off the table last November. If for no other reason than the Republicans will now do all they can now to attempt to write history their way.
But I really do not see how this will hurt the Republican candidate running for President.
Well, presuming a fair-minded public (a heck of a presumption, I grant you), and a Republican candidate on record as supporting Libby’s special treatment, I think that Republican candidate will have a tough time convincing the public that he is truly in favor of law and order and against corruption and cronyism.
Did anyone expect anything different from the man who brought us Iraq,amnesty for illegal immigrants,social security reform and on and on and on.As I have stated before everyhting or idea this man has is wrong!I do not suppose a pardon will be forth coming for the two border agents wrongfully imprisoned for shooting a drug smuggler in the behind by Johnny Sutton and the Bush administration on behalf of the Mexican government.
I would agree with your assessment about the difficulty for Rep candidates.. IF the American public even paid attention. Alas, I fear our democracy has gone the way of our basic civil rights.
Doug,
I think all but very small segment of the country knows Bush lied to get us into a war with Iraq. Some Republicans even believe that the lying was somehow justified. Bush lied, Cheney Lied, Condi Rice Lied, Rove Lied, Colin Powell Lied, Mitch Daniels Lied…. Face it they all lied to bring us to war in Iraq. All Ambassador Joe Wilson did was expose that he knew that they knew they were lying. So they retaliated against his wife. But what is really disgusting is most of the Washington Elites in the MSM like the NYT, WSJ, WAPO, TNR…, the Big Think Tanks and even DLC Democrats like Lieberman, Schumer and Hillary knew they were lying or even conspired to further the lies. The really sad truth is all of these same assholes are either sympathetic to or were outright campaigning for Libby’s pardon. And to be honest because they are all a pack of liars why should Libby be the only one to take the fall. Seriously what is the point when Reid and Pelosi were told by the DLC Corporatist that they would never support a move towards impeachment. Therefore impeachment would never an issue in spite of the 2006 election.
Face it the Washington Elites in both the Republican and Democratic party believe that it is perfectly ok to lie to the American people and carry on critical government in secret or with out regard to public opinion. The DLC Democrats conspired with Bushco to approve of the “SURGE” just like the did with NAFTA 12 years earlier. The Bipartisan Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill fiasco was another prime example. As was the plot by Rahm Emmanuel, Rangel and Baucus to secretly grant Bush renewed and expanded fast track Free Trade authority. Face it the Clintonista/DLC elites have almost the exact same level of contempt for the will of the people as the Bush Republicans.
Take the time to read David Sirota’s book “Hostile Takeover”. He is about the only person willing to tell it like it is.
Therefore I think a bigger question for any Republican candidate is whether or not they are going to allow the
Neo-Con cabal to play any role in their administration.
Doug, you said “The Republican candidates will have a tough time reconciling this with a message of law, order, justice, and personal responsibility.” You’re kidding, right?
Let’s see, lying under oath..hmmmm….Does Bill Clinton ring a bell? He got to skate. Does Sandy Burglar ring a bell? He got to skate too. How about the pardon of Marc Rich?
Neither party has a lock on honesty or integrity.
LLamaJockey….In Libby’s case it’s not a pardon, it’s a commutation of sentence….just a fuzz different and it can’t be obstruction, as justice has already been meted out.
tim zank
The obstruction I was referring to was the act of commuting Libby’s pardon itself. Because now Libby has no incentive to assist further investigation or prosecution by Fitzgerald against either Rove or Cheney in return for recommendation for a lighter sentence.
In that sense Bush himself has obstructed justice. My comment was that its relevance was itself in question because Pelosi stated that impeachment investigations by the House were off the table right after the 2006 election. Even though many Americans felt impeachment may be warranted and express their wishes in the mandate of the 2006 election.
‘Neither party has a lock on honesty and integrity’. Is the Republican Party going to use that as their campaign slogan for 2008?
Lou, either side could certainly use it as a slogan. I’ve always been fascinated by peoples’ reactions to the other sides mis-deeds.
You realize of course, statistically, if you scoop up 100 democrats and 100 republicans, and 100 dentists, all three groups will have roughly the same percentage of liars, child molesters,left handers, or chocolate lovers.
People don’t stop being people after winning an election or getting a new job. Neither party (or any group) can claim to be 100% without sin.
There is something a little different about pardoning or commuting the sentence of someone high up in your administration for hiding the misdeeds (or alleged misdeeds — who knows for sure, given the stonewall) of the administration.
Clinton’s splitting hairs or, hell, even lying about a blowjob in the context of a sexual harassment lawsuit doesn’t rise to the same level (and, of course, he never pardoned himself).
I read this somewhere else, but it makes some sense. Bush may have commuted the sentence and allowed the fine and probation to stand because it will allow Libby to continue appealing his conviction and will keep him under legal jeopardy and outside the reach of Congressional and other subpoenas. If this is true (and it certainly fits), expect a pardon at about 11 a.m. on 1/20/09.
Doug, isn’t perjury just that? Perjury? Whether you are a President or plumber?
I guess I don’t see this having much political impact. The 30% or whatever that still thinks Bush is doing a good job are blind loyalists at this point, & there’s almost nothing he could do that could make them dislike him. The Republican pres. candidates are already running from Bush like he’s radioactive waste. The truly sad thing is that this administration (via the Justice Department) has been championing the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines as great stuff, & Scooter received a within-guidelines sentence, but suddenly that’s unfair as applied (only) to him evidently…
I guess, first of all, I don’t know that President Clinton committed perjury. There are more elements to that crime than simply uttering a statement that is untrue. The misrepresentation has to be material, among other things.
Secondly, there is a difference in my level of concern where the act of dishonesty is directly related to the office holder’s duties. In this case, Libby was convicted of lying to a federal investigator in the context of investigating the revelation of a CIA operative’s identity. The identity was apparently revealed in retaliation for criticism of the President and the Vice-President trumping up their evidence in support of going to war with Iraq. That evidence, as it turns out, was horribly flawed.
In short, Libby’s lies and stonewalling go to the heart of the criticial policy issue of the Bush administration – the decision to invade Iraq. So, as far as importance to the public generally and myself in particular, there is a substantial difference between perjuring one’s self on the subject of an illicit affair and perjuring one’s self on a critical issue of public policy.
I get lost and unable to reason when in one instance values and moral views are relative and in the next values and morality are from God,and absolute laws.Tack The 10 Commandments on the Courthouse wall in hopes someone in the opposition commits adultery.
Doug –
So, you don’t know if Clinton committed perjury, but you are sure that Libby did.
You may be reasoning from your conclusions, I think – I’ve seen a pretty reasonable case made that Libby may yet prevail on appeal.
Your representation of the case against Libby seems to be strictly that of the prosecution.
It seems to me to be of at least some interest that we now know who first revealed Plame’s CIA connection, and that it wasn’t Libby.
It also seems germane that no one has (or apparently will be) prosecuted for any violation of the law about such things – and that Libby’s defense was enjoined from even bringing up whether that law was violated.
It looks like the only purported crime here was a product of the investigation itself – which seems like a tail chasing exercise.
Glenn,
There will be blowback for Dubya over the Libby commutation coming from Republicans and Independents. It will be a grassroots phenomena from the same folks who fought against Comprehensive Immigration Reform. It will now make the pardons of Borderpatrolmen Ramos and Campean a huge national issue for Bush’s Republican detractors.
Why do I say this. Because I have monitored just enough Talk Radio to have heard callers threaten to make Ramos and Campean a national issue if Bush pardons/Commutes Libby. It is hard not to hear Talk Radio when you spend hours each week with an older parent who is a big fan of it.
This will especially not be a good thing for Corporatist Democrats because I believe Ramos and Campean clearly got railroaded and unjust sentences. But how can DLC Democrats like Hillary and Obama support a pardon for them without alienating the Hispanic Ethnocentric groups they have invested so much pandering?
Parker: I’m confused. Are you suggesting that obstructing justice (a crime that *can* be the product of an investigation) is not a legitimate criminal offense, at least in some instances? Is obstruction *not* a crime in your eyes if it arises as a result of lying to police and prosecutors about an active investigation, and thus could be construed as being a “product” of that investigation? Is obstruction a crime only if it occurs *before* an investigation begins? Please explain your views, if you have time. Thanks.
Just going by what the jury said. I’m a lawyer, an occupational hazard of which is not looking for truth beyond whatever a jury says it is. If the Court of Appeals overturned the verdict, I suppose I’d be open to reconsideration as well.
As for the lack of additional prosecutions, perhaps if Scooter told everything he knows, one would be forthcoming.
I don’t think there’s any reasoning with the Bush apologists on this. There is no pretzel too twisted for the knots of their logic.
It boils down to this: lying about getting a blow job is a dark, sinful stain on the White House that is indelible — the travesty that was the Clinton presidency will resonate like a thunderclap through history for generations to come.
Lying to the world to justify a preventive war and thereby causing the deaths of over three thousand of one’s own citizens and tens of thousands of foreign civilians — just another day at the office.
Doug –
Actually, we already know what Armitage did – indeed, Fitzpatrick knew it early on. I’m also somewhat troubled that Fitzpatrick kept any consideration of Plame’s covert status out of the trial, and yet felt it was germane for the sentencing.
Pila – the thing is, if the thing you are investigating didn’t happen, it seems difficult to obstruct it. And not telling the same story as a man whose written and oral accounts of the event are themselves contradictory does not seem the worst of crimes. Particularly when the prosecutor ALREADY KNOWS who first leaked the information and has done nothing to the leaker.
Me, I’m not positive whether justice has been or will be served – it just seems to me that a lot of people ARE really, really certain that they want to see Libby burn, while I seem to see reasonable questions (such as, why does he need to be imprisoned with appeals potentially pending? Flight risk? Armed rampage?) – and that in many cases the ones rooting for the fire seem to have saved up all their outrage for this particular case, and are absolutely intent on spending it there.
The outrage seems selective, and perhaps misdirected.
One thing that would interest me mightily is solid evidence of Plame’s covert status – was she or wasn’t she covert under the IPAA.
Sadly, I’m not sure this determination is even possible – apparently the only way to tell this would be to litigate, since the wording of the statute is not as clear as it could be. (If any good comes of this, addressing that problem legislatively could be a big part of it. Ambiguity in the law weakens the law.)
To sum up the ramble – why such intensity of feeling, on this person, on this topic, on this particular incident, while the drama still unfolds?
Your mileage may vary.
Yes.
Per the CIA:
Mr. Libby avoided prison for crimes far greater than mine…for which I spent time in prison. However, looking back it was the best thing that ever happened to me. As stated in the book “Serving Time – Serving Others†– Prisons are places in which real changes can occur, primarily because they are places void of most worldly distractions. I found this to be the case as today I am the founder of the Choices Foundation, a non-profit organization that promotes presentations to young people about Choices and the Consequences that follow. I won’t replicate my prison experience – I got it – but do find that sharing with others brings meaning from what was, otherwise, a difficult time. http://www.chuckgallagher.com
With his new found freedom…wonder if Mr. Libby will have gained any valuable insight? Wonder if the loss of the opportunity to learn serves any valuable purpose? Let’s hope that something good will come from this action.
Doug –
That does not address the question of whether she was ‘covert’ under the provisions of the IPAA.
The CIA doubtless considers the location of the men’s room ‘covert’ – it’s in their nature.
Also, I take it that having her drive to Langley every day for her job was not among the ‘affirmative measures’ being taken.
Parker: I’m still confused. What didn’t happen? I think it is reasonable to conclude, that Libby lied and also obstructed justice, given that his version of events didn’t match those of the witnesses at his trial. The jury came to that conclusion, also. Furthermore, The Supreme Court recently ruled that a 33-month sentence for similar charges was not excessive. Perhaps the President doesn’t have much to lose politically, and perhaps Olbermann was over the top. Libby is hardly worth this special favor, however. Why is it that people who claim to be in favor of tough punishment for criminals try to excuse the crimes of their own as not being worthy of punishment?
Also, it is not uncommon for convicted criminals to go to prison while awaiting appeal. In fact, it happens routinely no matter what the nature of the crime.
Pila –
Specifically, did anyone violate the IPAA? More generally, did anyone purposefully jeopardize the security of the United States for political gain?
No one has been, or apparently will be, charged with such an offense as a result of this investigation – and I thought that was the underlying issue.
I agree, you can conclude that Libby lied and obstructed justice – but you can also conclude that his memory of events differs from that of Tim Russert.
Certainly a jury was convinced, and that does give me pause – but some of the conduct of the prosecution keeps that from being as compelling as it might be, for me.
It also seems that much of the outrage expressed is highly selective or even misdirected – that for some Libby is just a convenient stick to bash the administration.
Ironically, the more I read about this the more Libby seems to me to be one of most sympathetic figures in the whole cast of characters – but there certainly doesn’t seem to be any kind of hero in the whole bunch.
It’s funny how charges don’t get filed because one guy is able to obstruct justice. One side here seems to want to say over and over that no other charges were filed. But the fact that one guy who may have testimony to give that might lead to some prosecutions instead lied repeatedly and obstructed justice–that fact just bounces off their heads over and over again.
Please someone tell me that no one was charged with outing the agent. I haven’t heard it for a few minutes now. And please tell me that the fact that justice was obstructed had no bearing on that. I makes me feel patriotic to hear it.
T –
Well, OK…
“No one was charged with outing the agent.”
I can’t help you with the other part – if justice was obstructed, it does indeed have a bearing on it.
I just haven’t gotten to the point where I accept that this happened, and that Libby did it, as a fact.
I think people can be wrongly convicted, and that this may have happened in this case.
Apparently this must mean that I am immune to reason, and am in all ways unrighteous. For my part, you seem strongly predisposed to assume guilt and ill intent on Libby’s part.
Sometimes it is hard to hear what is going on, over the sound of all the axes grinding…
Sheesh – you folks are thinking way too hard again. Bush is not your typical politician, he doesn’t care about public opinion or which way the wind blows. In this case he did what he felt was right. Right, wrong or indifferent he can at least make a decision. As far as saying he lied to get us into Iraq, if you recall the former Iraqi regime had several months and convoys leaving the country. This happened while the Useless Nations bantered back and forth. Who knows what was trucked out and simply wasn’t there when we arrived.
And the fact that Bush felt that commutation of a sentence was “right” only in this one isolated instance involving a member of his inner circle should lead me to what conclusion? Because the conclusion I’ve reached is that there is one set of rules for Bush and his cronies and another set of rules for lesser human beings. When did he make this decision, do you figure? Was it way back when he said he’d “take care” of anybody involved in the leak? Was it before or after the jury was empaneled? Was it before or after the judge sentenced Scooter? Or was it only once the court of appeals ruled that he would have to serve his jail time while the appeal was pending and, finally, there would be tangible consequences to Libby for his actions?
I’m predisposed to assume guilt just because a jury heard all the evidence and convicted, and a judge sentenced. What is YOUR basis for doubting it happened? You have a pretty weak hand compared to mine.
T – if you truly are a close student of the investigation and trial, your conclusions are, at the very least, arguable.
However, you come across as someone who is simply pleased by the outcome.
My own thought is that I would like to know more before I jump on the ‘Fry Libby!’ bandwagon, since there are a number of things about the process that trouble me.
My hope is that the appeals process will make things clearer to me – and my doubts at this point make me think that not sending Libby to jail is reasonable.
As a thought experiment, what would your reaction be if Libby were to be strongly exonerated by the appeals process? Do you think it is even possible?
Or do you think your knowledge of the facts is sufficient to dismiss such a possibility out of hand?
This wasn’t directed to me, but I’ll jump in anyway. Any other citizen in Libby’s position would have to serve jail time now while the appeals process worked its way out. Take, for example, the case of Georgia Thompson. Ms. Thompson was a civil servant in Wisconsin charged with illegally preferring one travel company over another for a government contract. The charge was used in the gubernatorial campaign by the Republican candidate against the Democratic candidate. Ms. Thompson was convicted and sent to jail.
So, that was about as strong an exoneration as you can get of a criminal conviction in an appeals court. In September 2006, she had been sentenced to 18 months. She was ordered released in April 2007. She had to serve her jail time.
The U.S. Attorney Steven Biskupic was one of those initially on the Justice Department’s infamous list of those who were to be considered for removal. He got off that list after Ms. Thompson’s indictment was available for political uses in the 2006 campaign. I’ll stipulate that the link between the two can’t be conclusively proven at this point.
Regardless, a citizen like Georgia Thompson has to go to jail and begin serving jail time while the Court of Appeals considers her case; even where, as here, it would conclude that the charges against her were “beyond thin” and take the extraordinary step of ordering her released immediately following oral arguments. Why is Scooter entitled to special treatment? Because he is a member of Bush’s inner circle and not one of the rabble, that’s why.
Parker– I didn’t invent the process of incarcerating convicted criminals, for partisan reasons or otherwise. It’s just always been that way. You’re convicted and sentenced, you go to jail. Win your appeal, go free. Bush/Libby/Cheney apologists act like they just discovered this situation, and are displeased about it. It boggles the mind. Again, whether I am happy or sad has no bearing on the situation. My case for him being guilty is that he was convicted in a court of law. Your case for him not being guilty is ??? If you have some good reasons for him not being guilty, don’t waste them on me. Call his defense team. Better yet, wait until 1-20-09, and it all will have never happened. In the meantime, he’s a convict, despite your misgivings about the “process”.
Funny, but everyone likes to bring up the fact that Plame/Wilson was covert, according to the CIA.
What’s even funnier to those of us who have actually lived in the real world at some point in our lives is that the CIA considers nearly EVERY employee covert. If you were to submit an inquiry regarding the covert status if the director himself, or the lowliest maintenance worker, they’d likely respond that their status was covert. What a shock that the CIA would state that about herself.
BTW Doug, did she commit perjury when she lied to Congress regarding whether or not she recommended her husband for the trip?
In this particular episode, she was so covert that she and her loser husband both freely discussed her CIA employment, he listed it in his “Who’s Who” entry, she listed the U.S. Embassy in Athens as her official address back when she was “covert”. Wow, what cover.
BTW, Clinton was found guilty of perjury, it wasn’t just assumed.
And it had nothing to do with Monica, so grow up.
What was he discussing when he “perjured” himself? According to “The Scribe”, “It had nothing to do with Monica”? Really? You’re hopeless. “Grow up”? Why, so we can become senile and develop amnesia about what Clinton’s perjury was about?
Doug –
Wouldn’t it have been better if she had not been sent to jail? I think so, based on what you say – and would assume that she rather strongly agrees. [I’d also like to see more malicious prosecutions such as you describe get squelched very, very hard.]
In any case, the fact that someone was manifestly treated unjustly does not seem to address anything in this thread, unless you are making the point that we just have to put up with hurting the occasional innocent person very badly for the greater good.
Even it that’s true (and it may be, in our imperfect world), it isn’t a joyful proposition.
BTW, is EVERY convicted defendant ALWAYS sent to jail, even if appeals are pending? I thought that was where judicial discretion could come into play – and I didn’t think Libby’s attorneys would be asking for it if it never happens.
Doug and T – were my questions simply not worth answering? Too difficult to consider? Poorly written? Ill chosen?
You never seem to answer them, in any case, though I do seem to provide a convenient springboard for you to rehash your points.
You both seem to be more interested in justifying putting the screws to Libby as rapidly as possible.
I see the case as more subject to question than you do, and have less certainty that justice is being done.
[Admin point to T, meant to be devoid of philosophical or political content: if you put in a few more paragraph breaks, it makes your postings easier to read – other posters might also want to consider this.]
My point is not to complain about Libby as some random schmuck who got luckier than other convicts and didn’t have to go to jail. There is plenty of uneven treatment in the criminal justice system (e.g., the speeder who gets pulled over versus the one who doesn’t). But, Libby is being given special treatment for no other reason than he is in Bush’s inner circle. That’s what grates the most. Bush coming out and saying that Libby deserved zero jail time because his sentence was “excessive” is just insulting to the intelligence of anyone who has passing knowledge of Bush’s history of clemency as President and Governor.
It’s unfortunate that Republicans vs. Democrats politics has entered the fray in the Libby case. I have to admit I haven’t followed this case very closely and am confused about how we got from Richard Armitage to Scooter Libby. Apparently Armitage was the original leaker, but if Libby obstructed justice it would seem an analagous crime to what George W. has denied others commutations or pardons for. That does seem to make George W. a hypocrite. If George W. or others who think Libby is the scapegoat then why not go after Armitage or at least if Libby is guilty, why doesn’t a prosecutor tie the two of them in together? I agree that lying under oath is perjury in any circumstance, but I hardly would put lying about a blow job in the same category as this. That does seem to be a recurring theme, how did we get from Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky? I remember a TV commercial that aired briefly in the Louisville TV market about the time of Clinton’s impeachment. The commercial was from a dry cleaner here in Louisville. The commercial was in black with white writing on the screen. It said “Monica, we’d have cleaned that dress for you”, or something to that effect. The ad was pulled after a few days due to its controversy. I personally thought the ad was funny but understand why it got pulled. We had some of that Republican vs. Democrat bullshit today here in Kentucky also. Governor Fletcher called a special session of the legislature that convened at 4:00 p.m. this afternoon. Special legislative sessions in Kentucky cost the state about $60,000 per day. The Democrats are saying the cost doesn’t justify the benefit and could wait until next winter, while the Republicans say the session is needed. I am suspicious with Governor Fletcher being up for re-election this November and being far behind in the polls about this. I am all for anything that gets Kentucky ahead economically but am skeptical. Our illustrious incumbent governor called the session ostensibly to address the issue for bringing business to Kentucky among other things. The Kentucky House is controlled by Democrats and the Kentucky Senate is controlled by Republicans and the House voted to adjourn this afternoon. There are some rumblings that that the House can’t adjourn without the consent of the Senate and vice versa and that this may be in violation of Kentucky’s constitution and there is talk here of a constitutional crisis. We may know more tomorrow.
Parker–I answered your question as to why I think he is guilty. I didn’t pull it out of the air. There is a jury verdict that is the verdict of record at this point that says he’s guilty.
You have yet to give any basis for why you think he is not. “I just haven’t gotten to the point where I think he’s guilty” is not an argument, is it? Certainly it doesn’t *quite* rise to the level of a unanimous decision by a jury of the guy’s peers after considering the evidence.
Now you can come back and say I haven’t answered your question.
I’m also surprised that my belief in his guilt–based as it is on an actual court decision–MUST be politically motivated. But your doubts about his verdict, for which you are unable to give any reasons, are completely devoid of politics. You just think this random guy Scooter Libby got a raw deal, and it insults your sense of fairness. OK, whatever.
Um, T –
Who are you talking to?
Is it the same person who said your belief in his guilt “MUST be politically motivated”?
My point is that you seem to me to be strangely eager to see Libby punished as quickly as possible and as harshly as possible.
Your motivations are your own affair, but please accept that I accurately recognize my own perceptions (and that I realize my perception in this case may not correspond to your actual feelings).
I never asked why you think he’s guilty, and I conceded that your belief that he is guilty is certainly defensible.
Typically, my questions end with a “?” (question mark).
While you are certainly within bounds to address my other points and comments, that does not mean that you are answering my questions.
Your questions seem to hinge on whether or not an appeal will be successful. Conveniently, they ignore that there is a verdict of record here, which is guilty. And you don’t give any basis for why you think an appeal will be successful. Once again, my basis for believing him guilty is that he has been found guilty. All of your asides about how I’m excited to “see the screws put to him”, and want him punished harshly, etc., are without basis. He was sentenced within the guidelines, and actually a bit leniently at that. He’s not having any screws put to him–he’s receiving the punishment that is prescribed for the crime he chose to commit. Or at least he was, until the jail time was wiped away.
To answer your other question–I don’t think it is possible that he will be “strongly exonerated”. He might win appeal on some technicality. But I would take “strongly exonerated” to mean that a future court will find that he didn’t in fact say the things that the court transcripts say he did. In other words, a “strong” exoneration would say that Libby did not lie in the proceedings. No, I don’t think that is possible.
Parker– You also mention “axes grinding” and predispositions to finding him guilty, etc. I presumed these were references to *political* motivations on my part. Forgive me. I have not been cheated in a game of cards by the man, don’t know him socially, etc. I only know him as a politician. What other grinding axes, predispositions, etc., could you be referring to other than political? Did you think I merely dislike the name “Scooter”?
You’re right that you didn’t ask my motivations. You simply gave the opinion that I appeared too predisposed to think the guy guilty. I corrected you by stating that my opinion is based on something tangible–a verdict. And once again, your doubts about his guilt are based on ???
T –
I’ll mention two, and let the matter rest.
First, I would have liked to see the defense allowed to call Andrea Mitchell as a witness. She was on record as making a statement that could be considered exculpatory at one point, and then some time later disavowing that statement. I find it reasonable that the defense should have been allowed to explore this in court.
Second, the offense seems to be based largely on differing stories about phone calls told by Libby and Russert – recalled after a significant span of time by two men who, I expect, are constantly on the phone on a wide variety of topics. I find it reasonable that their stories could differ without either party having criminal intent. [I note, though, that the defense was also not allowed to present expert testimony on the subject of memory.]
In the second case, the jury disagreed with my impression, and certainly they spent more time on it – but in the first case, the jury never heard about it.
Sorry if I imputed an unseemly enthusiasm to you that you did not feel – I have long thought that my threshold of ‘reasonable doubt’ is higher than most folks.
Perhaps in this case it rises to the level of the unreasonable – but you can take some comfort in the fact that I am neither a judge nor a jurist.
Parker: As Doug said, convicted criminals typically do not get to wait around at home while their appeals go through the courts. While there may be some time that elapses between conviction and sentencing, and again between sentencing and actually reporting to prison, that time is not enough for appeals to be completed.
Furthermore, I hardly think that anyone who wants Libby to serve his sentence–which was within federal sentencing guidelines for the crimes of which he was convicted–is out for blood. Libby’s sentence was for 2-1/2 years, not 25 or 50.