Libby Sentenced: 2.5 years, $250k fine - Page 2

Well this makes me feel better. No wait, it doesn't. At all.

When Bush was "elected" in 2000, I knew he would be shitty; but he has surpassed my expectations over and over again. It's as if he's trying his hardest to become the shittiest president in history. I'll at least give him an A in effort in that regard.

And this will not change Bush's approval rating. Everyone with half a brain left him a long time ago. The 30% who still follow him are fundamentalist redneck assholes in the South and Midwest. He'd have to kill baby Jesus on national TV to lose support among them.

No he wouldn't. He could just claim Baby Jesus was attacking freedom and they'd join in. Then his approval would skyrocket and Americans would demand changes saying that a President can serve three terms.

Hey, everybody! Let's channel some rage!

First, so as to build up a nice, frothy head of righteous fury, read this editorial rejected by the L.A. Times a couple of weeks ago, in which the commutation of Libby's sentence is predicted. Find out why Bush would choose to commute rather than pardon. It's awesome!

Next -

Contact your Representative.

Contact your Senators.

(I did.)

Finally, I leave you with this quote from a report written and released by the Judiciary Committee in the wake of Watergate (via DailyKos):

"In the [Constitutional] convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised by himself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry and prevent detection." James Madison responded:

[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds [to] believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...

Madison went on to [say] contrary to his position in the Philadelphia convention, that the President could be suspended when suspected, and his powers would devolve on the Vice President, who could likewise be suspended until impeached and convicted, if he were also suspected."

Done and done.

Ditto.

PR value- really? I'm curious to see how they get that '1 billion' figure.

My point is that we may have occasional bullshit like Paris Hilton that makes the top story, but at least it isn't subsidized by taxpayers. That is, unless the color of Prince Christian's diaper leavings really does deserve to be a leading news story.

Sorry to derail, but I just had to call bullshit on your Hilton remark- your media is just as frivolous as ours.

Just fucking amazing I can see the title ten years from now "American Mafia: The Presidency of George Bush". It's not so just the damage they have already done, it's all the doors they've opened that will now never be closed.

When did we transition from a Federal Republic to an Autocratic Republic?

5 years, 10 months, 8 days ago.

They are contacted.

Done.

For the first time in my 39-year history, I too contacted my reps and told them to brand these fuckers for the thieves that they are.

What?!

These Representatives and Senators did such a bang up job standing up to the President on Iraq after this last election I'm sure they will do something on this. I'm guessing a non binding resolution saying how wrong this is and a hat asking for donations for their next campaign.

I'll just vote Obama.

Done

I'm black, and i love Obama, the man is an amazing orator. But the sad thing is you'd be wasting your vote by doing so. I don't get to vote, but I do get to vent.

I've never understood this sentiment. How is any vote a wasted vote? You only waste your vote by not voting. The assumption that he can't win so don't vote for him smacks of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Vote for who you believe best represents your interests.

Ditto as well (and I had to write a guy named Saxby).

I pretty much copied and pasted that Judiciary Committee statement.

It seemed fitting.

One more note: if you went apoplectic that Paris Hilton may have had to serve under house arrest but you're not incensed that Libby doesn't have to serve one day in prison, then you're not a very good person.

Replace asshole for "not a very good person" and I'm in agreement 100%.

He may be a bit of a firebrand, but I found Keith Olbermann's special comment from yesterday to be moving and stirring. Check it out if you'd like to see some good ol' fashioned righteous smackdown. It's all over the place today, at blogs like Crooks and Liars and Americablog.

I'd like to hear what NoahTheStud has to say about all this.

I completely agree with the last two posts.

Man, Olbermann can really knock one out of the park when he wants to.

Olbermann- "...which is the ventriloquist and which is the dummy is now irrelevant."

Quoted cause it bears repeating.

The skies are gray and the rain is pouring here on the 4th of July.....And it just seems appropriate.

You won't hear a thing from him. Or our lawerly Bush-supporting chewer colleague, or any of the other fools who put this excuse for a human being in power twice. What could they possibly say? Seriously? Either A) their vapid, paper-thin excuses/evasions will be laughed off the board, B) they are secretly fucking mortified they ever supported this heinous chimpanzee in the first place and are going to keep their heads resolutely down for the next 19 months or C) they're quietly and smugly shaking their heads at us lily-livered surrender monkeys, thinking we just don't understand how this big bad old world works.

I hope it's B, but really, if at this stage in this desperate and horrific game you are so devoid of moral and intellectual mettle that you still support this man...well, it's more than likely C.

He's winning in South Carolina and very close to the top in NH and Iowa. Plus he's beat Clinton by 10 million in the money primary this quarter. Clinton isn't a lock and if she loses the first 3 primaries the press will destroy her and elevate Obama.

The candidate the repubs fear the most is Edwards, which is why his haircut story is again at the top of the drudge report. I'd take Obama over Hillary but Hillary over anyone from the GOP.

But I'm still really holding out for President Gore.

But regardless, you shouldn't approach voting like picking a winning horse. Vote for the person who you actually think deserves it/is the least of the available evils.

I may be wrong about this, but Edwards won't be around long enough for Republicans to be all that worried about him. It would take major stumbles from both Clinton and Obama for Edwards to gain sufficient traction to get the nomination. Edwards is lagging far behind the two in fundraising and in the polls, despite having great name-recognition in his party. The only state where he appears to be at all competitive right now is Iowa. Crazier things have happened in presidential primaries, but right now it's the Clinton-Obama show.

I'm not. Of the people announced I think he deserves it and he's the least evil with Romney being the most evil.

The thought of Fred Thompson getting in this thing and picking up steam absolutely terrifies me. He's just the kind of candidate that idiots will vote for because they recognize the name. I've even seen the word "Reaganesque" used around him.

First of all I should point out that our monarchy is nothing but a nostalgic remnant of the past. The ruling hand of our society is the democratic elected government with a prime minister in charge. Just like the british system. Many ppl in my country are proud of our monarchy (personally I don't really give a shit) since it's the oldest in the world.

The money comes from the many travels the royals attend. When the Queen goes to Japan it usually means a coupple of new contracts in regards to import/export. The billion amount is probably set low.

Oh and when a new prince is born to continue an 1100 year old legacy, it is a little bigger for our country than if some rich porn model got sentenced to jail for drunk driving.

"First of all I should point out that our monarchy is nothing but a nostalgic remnant of the past."

They've got some power, through investments. The Princess stop a move by Royal Dutch Shell to outsource a ton of jobs a few years ago.

Interesting analysis from CNN regarding the Libby case: Hypocrisy abounds on all sides of Libby case.

"BABY TURNS OVER IN CRIB!!!" <-- actual translated headline of a Danish newspaper some months after birth of prince. Prime Minister dissolves government, reveals self to be 'V' lizard alien: p.15.

You sound upset that a foreigner criticized your media for focusing on banal minutiae, when clearly his media isn't much better than yours. I wonder what that's all about.

well we could throw funny headlines at eachother all day couldn't we? No he started talking about something he clearly didn't know anything about, that's what I responded to.

And please forward me to that story you "translated". It sounds pretty interesting.

"BABY STARES AT GRAPE!!!" I hear they actually got footage of that.

This is a typical example of the mainstream media's desperation to make this look like anything but what it is: a cover-up of high crimes.

None of Clinton's pardons were for people who lied to shield his acts of treason. Lying about oral sex is very different than lying to protect your boss, who ordered you to out a CIA agent's name for political relatiation upon an enemy.

So why does CNN feel the need to put all these square pegs into round holes? Easy. Rove's orders are to make this look like business as usual, like Bush's hush-commutation to keep Libby's mouth shut is matched anywhere in our history -- it isn't.

This piece is puerile GOP propaganda of the worst order.

Incidentally, here's an irony that CNN left out. CNN writes (about Clinton's pardons): "One of those pardoned was Marc Rich, who had fled the country after being indicted for tax evasion and whose wife had donated more than $1 million to Democratic causes."

Guess who was Marc Rich's attorney? Scooter Libby. ZOMG!

Edited to add: if you don't think these are talking points telegraphed straight from Rove, check out this AP story.

Bottom line is that there is a false equivalency between Clinton's perjury and Libby's. Yes, both are bad but one was a fishing expedition into someone's private life and one was a legitimate investigation on matters of national security.

I won't defend Clinton's action but to say that he should've never been in the witness stand in the first place. While his perjury was a slap in the face to the justice system, the abuse of power that allowed the witchhunt to take place is arguably worse.

Bush commuting Libby's sentence is a basic conflict of interest. Honor would demand that he recuse himself from any legal proceedings but far be it for honor to factor into the president's thinking.

This is a typical Rovian bait and switch. Inserting all these Clinton talking points into the debate so that one is expected to comment on Clinton rather than Bush is their way of framing the story as one of parity. It isn't.

This is a cover-up worse than Watergate -- obstruction of an investigation into an act of treason.

ps. Bush did not pardon Libby because doing so would allow Fitzgerald the opportunity to question him again. Commuting his sentence and leaving his conviction intact gives Libby fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination.

These guys are the most corrupt douchebags ever to occupy the oval office.

So how long untill the probation and the fine is dropped too? I mean Bush has left the door open for that so I guess during the next big crisis he'll slip that in too.

Very astute, yt. You're a credit to your political affiliation.

The Clintons inserted themselves into the debate when Hillary issued a strongly critical statement of Bush's actions in commuting the sentence. A few questions your post raises: Who committed treason and how? How does commuting Libby's sentence as opposed to letting him go to prison make it more likely we would discover this treason?

Oh, and the CNN article did mention at the very end that Libby was Rich's attorney. I'm not sure how the articles in question represent GOP propaganda. The CNN piece was analysis, ie, an opinion piece, that sharply criticized people on both sides of the political spectrum. Bush gets hit pretty hard there, as do the Republicans who led the charge to impeach Clinton and Mitt Romney. The AP story covers a legitimate newsworthy debate between the White House and the Clintons on a hot political topic. Sure, Rove or some other political operative probably had a say in the White House message. Political operatives no doubt had a hand in shaping the Clintons' statements as well. As much as the press drops the ball, I don't think CNN and the AP are just sitting around waiting for Rove to fax them their talking points for the day so they can put their articles together.

Sure, but that's not why Clinton was evoked in this. "Democrats did it too" posturing even when it's apples and oranges is a classic Rove strategy. These talking points were inevitable and are ultimately irrelevant to the situation at hand.

What Fitzgerald's investigation was closing in on before Libby "threw sand in its eyes" was Cheney's order to leak Valerie Plame's identity to the press, which both Rove and Libby cavalierly set about doing. Whatever his reasons (which is quantifyably his babyrage at Amb. Wilson for contradicting his nuclear tubes from Niger claim), setting this plot into motion is nothing short of treason.

So, what does Bush mean by "taken care of" -- the golden key to the crapper?

It doesn't make it more likely; it makes it impossible. If Libby had been forced to go to prison for covering up his master's crimes, he would quite possibly have spilled the beans. Conversely, if Bush had pardoned him, the conviction would be removed and Fitzgerald could question him anew in the ongoing investigation into the leak -- an investigation hamstrung by Libby's lies and obstruction.

I couldn't making it to the end.

But don't you think that the clear story here is this questionable commutation, which goes against Bush's record on these matters (he's evidently into heavy sentencing, even removing discretion from the judge's wheelhouse), doesn't have a clear legal interpretation -- supervised release can only be interpreted as something that occurs after a prison sentence has been completed, per Judge Walton; and involves a crime for which he is a suspect and his vice president is the prime suspect? An unfinished investigation that remains unfinished because of the defendant in question's obstruction? I mean, come on!

What does any of that have to do with Clinton? How does inserting Clinton into the story move it forward in any substantive way? It's not a legitimate analysis or debate -- it's a deliberate muddying of the waters, an anti-analysis -- it presumes that what Clinton did in any way equates with what this cabal of three has done. Lying about a sex act is a far cry from lying to protect a sitting vice president who then has your sentence commuted. It's smoke and mirrors, jonvoight's car. That's all it is.

Make no mistake: the mainstream media are basically spokespeople for Rove. You probably don't watch the Daily Show, but it often produces segments just showing the Rove-dictated talking points as repeated on each and every network word for word. That's the reality -- I didn't make this up.

Again: how is this relevant? We're at war because these people led us into war through lies and half-truths. When someone with relevant knowledge spoke up in contradiction to the White House line, the White House retaliated by releasing his wife's covert identity to the press. When Bush appointed a special prosecutor to find the leaker or leakers, that investigation went no where because Libby lied to protect the man or men who gave him his marching orders. Tried fairly in court by a conservative judge and with a more than adequate defense, he was found guilty and sentenced. Then Bush, a man who ardently believes in stiff sentences, commutes Libby's sentence because he judges it "too harsh."

What does any of that have to do with Clinton or whether he had talking points ten years ago? And it's not because Hillary commented on Libby's commutation -- she is a senator and a presidential candidate; of course she's going to comment. All of the rest did. It's irrelevant to the key story, which is this criminal conspiracy to cover up an act of treason.

Except, the fact is that the leaker of Plame's identity to Novak and Woodward was Richard Armitage. Armitage, in Novak's words, is not a "partisan gun-slinger" and apparently did not leak the name to discredit Joe Wilson, seek revenge, or make the case for war stronger.

Also, If Bush were to pardon Libby for the particular crimes for which he was charged (rather than a global pardon for any involvement he may have had in the Plame affair), Libby could still be charged criminally for new counts of perjury or new criminal charges for conspiracy or whatever Fitzgerald could discover; meaning, Libby could probably still invoke his 5th Amendment privileges on most matters. I think it's wishful thinking to say that Libby was the sole person who could have taken Cheney, Rove, and Bush down and that he would have sung like a canary the second he got to prison if only Bush hadn't commuted his sentence. We know what Libby's lies were. He was prosecuted and convicted for telling those lies. Is there anything he is still lying about for which he hasn't been charged? I don't know. Did his lies stop Fitzgerald's investigation in its tracks? I don't know that it did. Other than reading that line on Daily Kos and similar sites, I haven't seen anything to support that theory.

Look, I'm no great defender of this Administration. They have a lot to answer for, particularly with the way they took us to war in Iraq. But the fact is, an independent prosecutor has seemingly gotten to question whoever he wants and hasn't filed any charges for acts that arose directly out of the leak of Plame's name to the press. Until a crime has been found to have been committed, I have a hard time throwing around the words "treason", "traitor", and "impeachment" in connection with this case. Call it queasiness left over from the ridiculous impeachment of Clinton. Cheney, Rove, and their pals may be skating on a technicality, though.

I think David Corn summed up my thoughts on this in his article in The Nation last year about the Armitage leak:

Shenanigans. You don't get to point to an investigation that failed to produce indictments as evidence of your innocence when you (or in this case your agent and co-defendant) have been convicted of perjury and obstructing that investigation.

When it comes to the effects of Libby's perjury, the cover-up worked. If all this shit had come out at the time, there is no way in hell Bush would've gotten re-elected. That's why they lied to Fitzgerald.