I can't believe that Bush did it. I think this is a dispicable act on the part of the president.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
From what I've heard, the man hasn't done anything illegal. Why should he go to jail, then?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Um... he was CONVICTED of doing something illegal, hence the sentence.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I don't mind the special circumstances surrounding Libby's sentence. I do wish that this would open up a public discussion about partial justice, with an eye towards treating every inmate in the Prison system and held in Guantanamo with the same amount of care and concern as a friend of the President.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
This is gonna tick off the Judiciary at a time when Congress is thinking of taking a bunch of issues about the White House to court.
Don't know if it was a good move.
AJ
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
By "good" you mean "politically expedient," I suppose.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't think it was despicable, but I am against it in a fairly big way, at least as the pardon/commuting power is used now.
If we want to turn the executive pardon power into a real method of applying discretion with an eye toward smoothing some of the harsh decisions of our criminal justice system, I might (OK, would) quibble with this particular exercise of the pardoning power but would not condemn the concept too harshly.
However, we don't have that. We have a pardon system that is aggressively NOT used in such a manner. There are probably a couple hundred cases more deserving of special executive review (maybe not a pardon or commutation, but consideration for one or both). So I think this sucks.
I, too, wish this would open up a public discussion about our justice system - one that underlies the necessity for executive review of certain cases.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
yeah... "good" probably wasn't the right word in the moral sense of it all.
I've been reading more, and I guess since Bush was under such intense pressure to actually pardon the slimeball, it isn't as bad as it could have been. We've known for quite a while now that Bush has loyalists and syncophants surrounding him rather than actual advisors and I guess this is just another demonstration of the fact.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Dag, I understand your point, and am willing to commute "dispicable" to "this sucks".
Would you consider this commutation a moral act?
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It depends on what Bush's real reasons for commuting the sentence were. If they were "good" reasons I wouldn't consider the act immoral, even if I think the factual findings underlying those reasons are in error. If they're based on who Libby is, then I think it immoral. If it's both, I don't know what I think.
I'm skeptical they were good reasons, but I don't know for sure.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I saw this on CNN too, and figured there'd be a thread about it pretty quick. Could someone (read as: Dagonee?) explain the practical difference between pardoning him and commuting his sentence? Does commuting mean he is still considered guilty (with possibility of appeal) but just not serving the punishment?
--Enigmatic
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Man, I must be cynical. I just assumed that no one seriously expected Libby to serve time.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Well, he isn't Paris Hilton...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
From memory, so minor errors possible, in approximate order of the "power" of the act:
Amnesty removes all legal remembrance of an offense - it's as if it never happened.
Pardon forgives a crime - it removes all legal burdens associated with it, but does not make it as if it never happened. The Supreme Court has held that accepting a pardon includes admitting guilt (something Libby has never done, by the way).
Commuting reduces the term of imprisonment (even eliminating it) without removing other legal burdens of the conviction. It's more often used to end a sentence already being served early.
Respite means delaying a sentence without reducing it.
Remissions of fines means forgiving some or all of a fine.
Essentially, the President is empowered to remove all or some of the effects of any federal conviction.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Interesting. Thanks!
--Enigmatic
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I'm not sure how this helps the President at all. Consider this: for a little while now, there's been a movement to secure pardons for two border patrol agents. I really don't know enough about that case to take a position on it, but their supporters can't be too happy today. I'm not sure that'll matter, though, because he's been losing friends on that issue all year and he's not up for election anyway.
quote:The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.
I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.
...
If he really wanted to let the appeals process run he could have granted respite.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Man, I must be cynical. I just assumed that no one seriously expected Libby to serve time.
Here I thought I was cynical by thinking he would serve a few months and then be pardoned.
I think granting a respite would have been proper for the reasons President Bush explained. But he didn't so it isn't.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Man, I must be cynical. I just assumed that no one seriously expected Libby to serve time.
I also expected this would happen- which doesn't blunt its effect in the slightest.
Cronyism trumps ethics once again. And America's moral standing takes yet another hit to the groin.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm not sure how this helps the President at all.
Cheney demanded it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It responds to the demands of many of his supporters, and aggravates (for the most part) only the people who were already against him.
And add me to the cynical list. I never expected him to spend an hour behind bars. Now it's only a guessing game to see which award Libby will be given.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Do you think the commution was held until after 6 so that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report couldn't talk about it tonight?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:It read: "We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that prerogative. "We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as 'excessive.' The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.
"Although the President’s decision eliminates Mr. Libby’s sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process.”
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Oh, I can guarantee you they'll cover it tomorrow. If they had wanted to blunt coverage of it (of any sort, real news or fake news), the Bush Administration would have announced the commution on Friday.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
He still has a $250,000 fine to pay, 4 years on parole, and a black mark on his permanent record, so its still not amnesty, but.......
Most of those pushing for the President to do this are the same ones arguing about the wrongness of "Amnesty" for illegal aliens, even though the "amnesty" that was in the last immigration bill still consisted of hefty fees/fines to pay and a lot longer parole time.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm extremely displeased by this. It makes me about as angry as the original get-out-jail-free that Paris Hilton received (later revoked).
This county has among the highest (if not the highest) incarceration rates per capita in the world. Not just the Western World...the entire world.
We send people to jail for all sorts of things, all the time. And, if we believe the prosecutor in this case, Libby got a sentence that was pretty much on par with what others in that situation have received.
George W. Bush continues to act in ways that convince me he will be judged as among the worst Presidents in our history. I consider him the worst in my lifetime.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, I'm convinced. I haven't been prepared to rate him as 'scumbag' at all, but this was done out there right in the open, so he's gone from 'incompetent and questionable' to 'scumbag' in my book.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Also from Bush's statement:
quote:I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.
I have to say, that's some slick spin language, there. Bush states that the prison sentence is "excessive" (rather than "unnecessary" or "unjustified"). He then says that he's commuting "the portion of" the sentence that required 30 months of prison time, suggesting the false implication that Libby's sentence includes additional prison time beyond the 30 months, which he would still have to serve. It's an underhanded attack on the jury for overzealousness, and allows Bush retain a modicum of impartiality in the public eye, while underscoring the Administration's "Sure, Libby was convicted, but the punishment is just excessive!" talking point. Pretty sneaky, all in all.
Not that I really think it'll help in this case... I suspect that no amount of spin will assauge the folks who find this commutation repugnant, and those who didn't care about the issue in the first place will continue not to care.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Dagonee, is it possible to commute a sentence as in partially reduce it? Say, from thirty months to fifteen?
I totally reject the "respect the jury's verdict" spin. What a crock. "I respect the jury's verdict, finding him guilty of perjury...I just think the penalty for such a crime should be a near-meaningless fine."
The likely-disbarrment doesn't count, and nor does the probation, in my opinion. Total slaps on the wrist on the probation side, and the disbarrment isn't a matter for this sentence.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
This is horrible. The blatant corruption is disgusting.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I had a lovely post all set up for this, but the battery on my laptop is dead, and the power cord is loose, so one shimmy in the wrong direction and it shuts down. If only batteries weren’t so ridiculously expensive for this thing…
Anyway, the point I made before was, what doe Bush really have to lose? Well first of all, did anyone really expect Bush to let this go based on a matter of the ‘right thing to do?’ He could have let the appeals process go through, but frankly, unless things ended his way, I don’t think anyone really expected him to let the decision stand, he was just hoping the courts would remove him from the decision entirely by doing it for him. But that didn’t work so duh, Bush likes to get his way, so he does it.
The only thing that generally stops politicians from doing stuff like that these days is what it will cost them in political currency, and Bush doesn’t have any left in the bank. Unless he nukes Oklahoma or something equally disastrous, I don’t think he’ll really let dissatisfaction stop him from doing much of anything for the next year. And really what does he have to lose? His job approval rating is less than 30%, and regardless of what he does now, Republicans in Congress and gubernatorial races in 2008 are going to get smoked en masse. I’m willing to wager Republicans lose two or three governorships, four or five Senate seats, and 10-15 House seats. Low opinion of the party combined with bad luck on the timing of which seats are up for reelection strongly favors a Democratic net gain.
The country is fed up with the government, both Bush and Congress have horrible approval ratings, but as much as the people think that the Democrats are screwing up, opinion polls show overwhelmingly that they think things would be even worse if the Republicans were in control again, and that’s a slap in the face. Politically he has nothing to lose because he’s already a lame duck. His legislation can’t get any traction, even when the majority part in Congress agrees with him! His administration is in its death throes. As far as he is concerned, he might as well do what he wants now, when there really isn’t a risk for political fallout. The numbers for him can’t really get any worse, and it’s not like he has a ton of pull to get any major legislation through before the election heats up in February. The only thing he could really risk is dragging down his party with him, and I think he’s already shown he’s a bad national leader and horrible party leader, what more damage can this do to them?
I guess I’m really just not surprised, and I think the outrage will fall on deaf ears.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Dagonee, is it possible to commute a sentence as in partially reduce it? Say, from thirty months to fifteen?
Well, a death sentence can be commuted to life in prison. So I'd guess (just an uneducated guess) that it could...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, is it possible to commute a sentence as in partially reduce it? Say, from thirty months to fifteen?
Yes - commutation can be total or partial. It can also be conditional, but I'm not sure exactly how that works.
quote:I totally reject the "respect the jury's verdict" spin. What a crock. "I respect the jury's verdict, finding him guilty of perjury...I just think the penalty for such a crime should be a near-meaningless fine."
The likely-disbarrment doesn't count, and nor does the probation, in my opinion. Total slaps on the wrist on the probation side, and the disbarrment isn't a matter for this sentence.
I don't think the jury was disrespected so much as the judge. The current sentence of probation and fine is well within what might be expected for this offense within the guidelines. Had the current sentence been given by the judge, there'd be no real case for calling it a weak sentence given existing law.
The sentencing guidelines propose ranges, and when the ranges are low enough, house arrest and probation are considered acceptable for all or part of the range. So the verdict could (and likely would have with a different judge - this guy is known as a tough on crime kind of guy) resulted in a sentence closer to this one than the 30 month prison sentence.
However, we have judges for a reason - they hear all the evidence and take it into account at trial. Bush wasn't at the trial and has an obvious conflict of interest over the most important factor that distinguishes the judge's sentence from the new one: the seriousness of the lie and the affect it had on the investigation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm curious (though I have no way of knwoing either way) if this action was as much about fear aout what Mr. Libby would say should he actually go to prison as it was about loyalty.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It doesn't make much sense on the fear angle. If Libby was going to talk, wouldn't they have offered him a plea deal attached to testimony on the Administration BEFORE he was to be sent to jail? Once he's in jail, I can't imagine what he would have to say. Either that or they offered him a plea deal and he turned it down, knowing that Bush would commute the sentence, which I would far more underhanded, as it strikes me as a bribe in exchange for silence.
Besides, he has years now to write the inevitable book that will come out of this whole experience, so we'll find out what really happened eventually. Either that or more whitewashing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I can imagine where Libby's loyalty might stretch to a conviction but not to serving actual time.
But, again, no way to really know. Until he gets a books deal.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I must be cynical. I just assumed that no one seriously expected Libby to serve time.
I call that 'realism' not 'cynicism.'
Everyone actually expected the Pres. to pardon Libby.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I don't see why Libby should face a tougher sentence than Sandy Berger did. Also, why is nothing being done to Armitage?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For one, Berger got a plea deal. For another, I'm amused at that particular talking point. Are conservatives really going to start saying that convicted felons should all measure their sentences against Sandy Berger?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Nope, we could use Clinton too. He lied to a grand jury but that doesn't matter. No comments about Armitage?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*sigh* The sad thing about this conversation you want to have, DK, is that a) I can tell that you're not actually invested in it, and are just parroting talking points; b) you don't know enough about the cases to actually defend your assertions; and c) going with a "but the other guy did it!" defense is kind of weak, anyway.
If you really want me to explain why I think Armitage and Clinton (and Berger) got -- and deserved -- different treatment, fine. But what I suspect is that you're just grabbing at the first defense that fits your worldview, so I'd be wasting my breath.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I am relieved. I don't want our government to be in the business of having political prisoners.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Qaz, Do you have any reason to believe that the workings of the justice system went awry here, or is that just a partisan talking point? If the former, I'd appreciate it if you could share your information. I'd be at least as upset about someone being wrongly convicted of perjury and obstructing justice due to gross injustice as I would someone in Mr. Libby's position knowingly lying to prosecutors in order to severely damage their ability to find out the truth, which is what seems to have happened with the information I have.
---
I'm one of the people who thinks it's likely that Scooter Libby's memory and integrity got a lot better at the prospect of going to jail and that he informed people in the White House of that fact (something along the lines of "Remember our deal. If I didn't beat the charges, you make sure I don't do time.").
I am not at all suprised by this. I'm a little suprised that some people are.
[ July 03, 2007, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Oh, Tom, you are so wonderfully condescending and patronizing to the point of being obnoxious. A) you can't tell that because I'm not although it is a great defense for you to use. I can't be making a valid point because this is just a 'talking point' and is therefore not valid because the almighty and all-knowing TomDavidson said so. B) The case was about who leaked the name to Novak and that was Armitage. He admitted it but was never even questioned. How can any serious investigation into who leaked her name not include Armitage? Are you seriously saying that Armitage did not need to be questioned? On second thought, nevermind. I think I have had enough of your smug and arrogant posting for one day. So please save your breath.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's not that your point is inherently invalid because it's a talking point. It's that I don't for a minute believe that you or any of the thousands of Freepers having the same conversation across the entire Internet actually care about this point.
It's worth noting that your reference to Clinton undermines your mention of Armitage. While "the case" was indeed about whether the government conspired to cover up the Plame leak (although NOT about finding out WHO leaked her name), Libby's own conviction was for perjury related to the cover-up; the leak itself may not have ever been prosecutable. In the same way, Clinton's own perjury judgement was obtained in a case that was "about" whether or not he sexually harassed Paula Jones.
You can legitimately complain that this, like Clinton's dealie, was a fishing expedition. But is that the point you want to be making?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What the heck's a 'Freeper?'
Can you get one at a pet store? Is it safe for children under 6?
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
The justice system went awry in that the prosecutor was investigating something when he already knew who did it; he knew it was not a crime; and he successfully prosecuted someone for misremembering the precise order in which he made some statements which were irrelevant to any actual criminal investigation. Libby's words did not damage the investigator's ability to get at the truth because the investigator knew the truth when he started the investigation and has admitted it.
Freepers are people who hang out at Free Republic. They do not bite but they are hard to keep on a leash.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Qaz, That seems like a very inaccurate summation of what occurred to me. It was established that Richard Armitage was one of the people who leaked Plame's identity and possibly the first person to do so. However, other White House officials, Karl Rove, for example, also leaked the name, seemingly independent of Richard Armitage.
The investigation found things that suggested that the Vice-President's office may have been handling the information improperly/coordinating the potentially intentional release of this information. However, their ability to investigate this fully was severely hampered by the fact that Scotter Libby made blatantly false statements.
Now, I don't know the ins and outs of the investigation or trial, but a jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Scoot Libby knowingly made false statements under oath and with the intent to interfere with a federal investigation.
I've got to tell you, even if the original matter was settled (which, according to the investigators, it was not), this is still something I believe that high government officials should have the full weight of the law brought against them for.
I think perjury and intentional obstruction of justice, especially in the case of potential government abuse which damaged America's intelligence assets, are serious matters. Perhaps you disagree.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They do not bite but they are hard to keep on a leash.
That would be a generous way to put it. In keeping with this analogy, it would be more accurate to say that they enjoy peeing on things.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
So how have I exactly peed on you TomDavidson?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: It was established that Richard Armitage was one of the people who leaked Plame's identity
Are you suggesting that Fitzgerald's investigation established this?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Uhhh...sort of. As I understand it, Richard Armitage came forth himself and was included in the investigation.
edit: I don't know if they had established it prior to him coming forward.
---
edit 2: I was puzzled by why you asked that. So I went back to your earlier postings, in one of which you said:
quote:He admitted it but was never even questioned. How can any serious investigation into who leaked her name not include Armitage? Are you seriously saying that Armitage did not need to be questioned?
I don't know where you got the idea that Richard Armitage was not questioned by Fitzgerald. He was questioned, extensively, and testified 3 times in front of the grand jury.
[ July 03, 2007, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Bush should have granted a full pardon. All Libby did was misremember his conversations with reporters. Reporters whose testimony was also inconsistent.
Some critics are acting as if this was the first pardon or commutaion that a president had ever made. Clinton even pardoned his own brother's cociane convictions.
It sickened me today to read Mrs Clintons criticism of this. What a hypocrit. Her husband lied to a grant jury and got away without a criminal record. If there are two politicians that should stay quiet on the importance of perjury it's the Clintons.
Also this investigation should not have lasted more than a day. Plame was not covered by the law prohibting the disclosure of undercover agents. If she had been Armitage would be facing charges, since he's the one who relived the identity of one of the people who played a role in sending Wilson to Niger. That no law had been broken was clear before the investigation began. In essence the investigation was what they call a perjury hunt: asking enough people enough questions until somebody trips-up. The longer the hunt lasted the better for Fitzgerald, who could continue to relish the power that came with the special prosecuter appointment.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I am amazed at how confident people seem to be basing their defense of Scooter Libby on obvious falsehoods.
quote:All Libby did was misremember his conversations with reporters.
Even by the information readily available to us (let alone that presented to the jury), this is not true. He claimed that after learning of this information (which had to be established from external sources, as he denied learning of it then), he forgot it until told by...was it Bob Novak, one of the reporters, anyway. However, during the time where he claimed he had forgotten it, there were records of him informing other people of this information.
quote:Plame was not covered by the law prohibting the disclosure of undercover agents. If she had been Armitage would be facing charges, since he's the one who relived the identity of one of the people who played a role in sending Wilson to Niger.
That's also blatantly false. The statutes that were in play in the investigation (and which were discussed at great length) do not make it illegal in all cases where classified information is disclosed. There are several qualifications on this. If I recall correctly, among them are the person needs to have known that it was classified and knowningly disclosed it. Armitage was cleared because it appeared that he did not know that Valerie Plame working for the CIA was classified information.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It sickened me today to read Mrs Clintons criticism of this. What a hypocrit. Her husband lied to a grant jury and got away without a criminal record. If there are two politicians that should stay quiet on the importance of perjury it's the Clintons.
I think Bill Clinton did something very wrong by committing perjury.
However, I've got two issues here.
1) For some reason, you seem to be blaming Hillary Clinton for something Bill Clinton did. I'm not sure how you justify this. Did she commit perjury at some point?
2) Lying, under oath, about a personal affair is, to me, a matter of far less gravity than lying about matters of national security and potential goverment abuse. I think you'd have to have a seriously messed up sense of proportion to think differently.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Lying, under oath, about a personal affair is, to me, a matter of far less gravity than lying about matters of national security and potential goverment abuse. I think you'd have to have a seriously messed up sense of proportion to think differently.
Do you have a ranked list of subject matter that is less or more important not to lie about on the stand? Just for future reference.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure I understand your point, Geoff. Could you explain what you are getting at?
Posted by the doctor (Member # 6789) on :
Bill Clinton received some punishment for his perjury. He wasn't charged with obstruction of justice (as Libby was), although he probably could have been given his admission later that he deliberately tried to mislead.
Ultimately, while I think it may be a mistake to compare the two cases (Clinton and Libby) I do think that perjury is a serious crime and deserves to punished no matter who commits it -- even the President.
Clinton wasn't JUST lying about sex -- he was lying to save himself from several serious charges and he ended up paying $850,000 in civil damages in one of the related suits after he was convicted of perjury.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I'm not sure I understand your point, Geoff. Could you explain what you are getting at?
You're saying that people are messed-up if they disagree with you about the relative severity of the untruths in question. I was asking if you have a broad set of standards a person can apply to lies given on the stand, such that they can arrive at correct opinions on the matter.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm still not seeing why you think that is relevant. Is it just some sort of shot at me or does it have some reflection on what is being discussed? If so, could you explain?
edit: Or, maybe you are disagreeing with my valuing there? Do you think that lying about matters of national security and potential government abuse aren't a more serious matter than lying about a personal affair?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
No need to be so suspicious I don't have any grand plot to get you to say anything incriminating
I just was taken aback by the fact that you're willing to characterize people who disagree with you about this issue so negatively, and it made me want to ask if you had a clear standard that you think all non-messed-up people should be applying to this issue across the board, and if it's something you can provide to them. Or if this is just a judgment call you're making on the spot, determining not only that you are right, but that people who disagree with you have something seriously wrong with them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What are you talking about?
I'm not getting where saying that people who find someone's private affair at least as important as matters of national security and government abuse have, in my opinion, some pretty screwed up priorities suggests that I would have some sort of master list of all issues or that me providing such a list would be at all relevant to anything that was said.
I haven't been able to extract a sensical meaning to what you are saying that doesn't look like a rather bizarre attack.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
Plame's position at the CIA was not covered by any law. She was not an agent working in a foreign country undercover, her employment at the CIA was not classified and was not protected by any law. Period. There was never any serious question about it. If she had been, Fitzgerald would have stopped at Armetage and he would have charged him. It is clear that Fitsgerald knew from the beginning that Armetage was the first to make the disclosure.
MrSquicky, your characterization of Libby's testimony proves my point. Libby misremembered who he had talked to, when he had talked to them, and what they had discussed. Libby had nothing to hide. If Libby had first consulted with Woodward's and Miller's memories, he still would not have presented any self incriminating evidence. Libby's prosecution served only one purpose: he need one conviction to help Fitzgerald justify all the time and tax payer money he had wasted on his investigation.
I'm not blaming Hillary for what Bill did, I'm accusing her of being a hypocrit for her change of heart on the seriousness of perjury before a grand jury.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What the heck's a 'Freeper?'
Can you get one at a pet store? Is it safe for children under 6?
^- The most important questions asked so far in this thread.
I'm sorry that I share the same nickname as Mr. Libby. I think, out of respect to all of us who don't lie under oath--and those of us who don't lie at all-- he should change his name to Remoulade.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Plame's position at the CIA was not covered by any law. She was not an agent working in a foreign country undercover, her employment at the CIA was not classified and was not protected by any law.
I'm not sure where you are getting this legal opinion from, but it seems to differ from that of the CIA and the legal experts working on this case. Could you present support for this position?
As I already covered, Armitage could not be prosecuted under the relevant laws because he did not fit the particulars of the statute. It does not appear that he knew that her CIA employment was classified, which is a necessary element in him being charged with a crime.
Likewise already covered, the potential for wrong doing (and thus the investigation) was broader than the first person to divulge this to a non-cleared person. There were serious issues as to whether White House officials did knowingly disclose classified information, which were not precluded by Richard Armitage likely being the first person to do so.
---
Perhaps my summary of that particular inconsistency in Libby's testimony was unclear. As I understand it, he claimed, initially, to have found out about Valerie Plame's status as working for the CIA from a reporter a little after Richard Armitage told. However, they were able to establish that he was told about it significantly earlier than that. He responded that he must have forgotten, because, in his recollection, he found out from the reporter. However, they were able to demonstrate that after being told about it, but prior to any reporters being able to tell him, he was telling people about Plame and her CIA status.
---
Do you have any indication that Hillary Clinton didn't regard perjury before a grand jury as serious?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you have any reason to believe that the workings of the justice system went awry here, or is that just a partisan talking point?
I think it went a little bit awry, but not so awry as to warrant executive intervention - which is (at least as practiced today) an extraordinary remedy for awryness.
To be more specific, I think Libby's sentence was too harsh (based on what I know) when compared to similar sentences for similar offenses. But it was too harsh by a little bit only, and not inherently unjust. We appoint judges to make these decisions, and the reasons for going against that decision were insufficient to justify commuting the sentence.
For the record, the guy who stuffed the classified documents into his clothing got off way too light. But that has NOTHING to do with whether Libby did.
quote:All Libby did was misremember his conversations with reporters.
We don't know that. We do know that a jury found that he did not just misremember his conversations with a reporter, but that he intended to hinder the investigation.
I wish people who didn't attend the entire trial would stop asserting this as a fact. Intent and knowing untruths were elements of the crime and the jury would not have convicted had they thought he merely misremembered.
I disagree with the characterization of Clinton's lie as being about a personal affair. It was about a coordinated attempt to deny someone recompense for a pretty serious civil complaint. Like Libby, the underlying "offense" (in Clinton's case, sexual harassment) was ultimately not proved, but it was still aimed at thwarting an investigation of an attempt to circumvent the justice system.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I disagree with the characterization of Clinton's lie as being about a personal affair. It was about a coordinated attempt to deny someone recompense for a pretty serious civil complaint. Like Libby, the underlying "offense" (in Clinton's case, sexual harassment) was ultimately not proved, but it was still aimed at thwarting an investigation of an attempt to circumvent the justice system.
I wasn't speaking to the larger context, but rather the specific content of the lie. I think, as noted, any instance where people perjure themselves is very bad. However, I'm asserting that the matter here is more grave than in the Clinton perjury, because of the issues of national security and potential government abuse.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't know if its been in a linked article, but apparently Bush did not consult with the Justice Department at all (or the special prosecutor in particular) over the commutation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mig, DarkKnight, you two are a pair of party hacks. I voted for the man twice, and I have no respect for your dogged loyalty.
Is that going to be the stance of the conservative base on this? That lawbreaking is OK if other convicts managed to get off?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I'm not blaming Hillary for what Bill did, I'm accusing her of being a hypocrit for her change of heart on the seriousness of perjury before a grand jury.
In what world do you live in where a first lady is supposed to publicly come out against her President husband in any case against him? She was supposed to what, have a press conference and denounce him, and then move out of the West Wing the next day?
She was going to lose in the eyes of Republicans, I think no matter what she did. If she stands by her husband then she's weak and abides perjury and betrayal, but if she had left him she'd have Bible thumpers all over her for abandoning her marriage. Given a lose/lose situation, I think she tried to do the more honorable thing and make her marriage work.
I think it's a pretty low blow to try and muzzle her for something her husband did. If that were the case, Laura Bush should shut her mouth before the very few times she deigns to speak in public. Heck, she probably should anyway since she sounds like a detatched unsympathetic fool. But if that's the new standard then sure, let it ring forth throughout the land that according to Republicans, spouses are now responsible for the crimes of their significant others.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Heck, she probably should anyway since she sounds like a detatched unsympathetic fool.
For the whole post in general, but this line in specific, Lyr, what possible purpose did you think this served?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:We do know that a jury found that he did not just misremember his conversations with a reporter, but that he intended to hinder the investigation.
That's the point at issue. It's not as if the jury didn't take into account Libby's unique circumstance. They found him guilty of obstructing justice. Now if we are going to be casual about secondary crimes like aiding and abetting, obstructing justice, and accessory after the fact, then we are going to have to take a serious look at the evidence gathering process and prosecution of a great many people in jail. Libby's sentence has serious ramifications for every Prosecutor and Investigator who relies on witness testimony to build their cases. If we neuter those crimes, then I think it hamstrings the Justice department in a meaningful way.
____
As an aside, there is a great scene from Joseph Heller's "Good as Gold," where some insider brags about all the favors he is owed in Washington for every time he has lied under oath.
[ July 03, 2007, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I wasn't speaking to the larger context, but rather the specific content of the lie. I think, as noted, any instance where people perjure themselves is very bad. However, I'm asserting that the matter here is more grave than in the Clinton perjury, because of the issues of national security and potential government abuse.
Fair enough. I even agree Clinton's lie wasn't as bad, but mainly on the national security front.
The underlying issue with Clinton was one of governmental abuse as well, though, both as governor and as President. It was abuse of a single individual and a breach of trust with a public employee, although not one that affected government as a whole.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, thinking about it, I'd agree with that assessment. There was definitely a matter of abuse of power in the Clinton situation.
Random tought, is there a potential difference in seriousness between instances of personal abuses of power, which I would classify Clinton's unacceptible sexual relationship with a junior subordinate, and a governmental abuse, such as may have happened here.
The second feels worse/more important to me, but I'm not entirely sure why.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Plame's position at the CIA was not covered by any law. She was not an agent working in a foreign country undercover, her employment at the CIA was not classified and was not protected by any law. Period. There was never any serious question about it.
The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it illegal to knowingly out someone of Plame's status at the time. She alternated between official cover and NOC, either of which are inarguably classified status.
As is patently typical for you, you have no idea what you are talking about. The investigation was only sidelined because of the 'knowingly' part, not because it magically turned out that Valerie Plame's position was something that you could spill the beans about without repercussion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Random tought, is there a potential difference in seriousness between instances of personal abuses of power, which I would classify Clinton's unacceptible sexual relationship with a junior subordinate, and a governmental abuse, such as may have happened here.
The second feels worse/more important to me, but I'm not entirely sure why.
It feels worse to me as well. (Quick quibble: the underlying allegation at issue in the civil case was one of forced sexual contact - the Monica situation was evidence to be used in the Paula Jones proceedings - not merely one of an inappropriate sexual relationship.)
Both amount to a misuse of government power. The Libby situation, however, involved the government attempting to persuade us - the bosses - of something. It was aimed at governance as a whole, not just letting someone in power get away with something he otherwise couldn't.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I didn't post my knee-jerk reaction to this news. Having thought it over a bit more, I think I would have been totally fine with Bush giving Libby a respite of the jailtime until after his appeals were exhausted - basically saying "I think the appeals will overturn this so I don't think he should serve jailtime before the appeal." I'm far from a fan of most of Bush's policies, but that's a use of executive that seems pretty reasonable.
I don't think I'm a fan of Presidential pardons in general, regardless of the party, as they tend to be used. Maybe there are other cases where a pardon is being used as an actual oversight function, but it just seems like all the cases that we hear about are situations where a President pardons his friends on the way out of office or uses pardons as political currency.
Of course, if we're talking about things I dislike in general, "politicians" is also on that list.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Let's run down the list. I think:
Ford should not have pardoned Nixon. I understand the reasoning at the time -- national reconciliation -- but I think a president being put on trial for his crimes would have sent a message to other politicians that use the same techniques. Cheney, I'm looking at you...
Bush Sr. should not have pardoned Weinberger and Co for the Iran-Contra manueverings, or Armand Hammer (which Reagan had resisted doing).
Clinton should not have pardoned Marc Rich.
Bush should not have commuted Scooter Libby. A respite would be tolerable, to keep him out of prison while the appeal continues, but not this or a pardon.
[ July 04, 2007, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Chris, in all honesty, that's probably too short of a list. For all the "famous" bad pardons, there are a dozen ones almost as bad that don't get the name recognition.
Frankly, I'd be okay with removing this particular power from the executive branch altogether.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Frankly, I'd be okay with removing this particular power from the executive branch altogether.
No, it's a wonderful power. How else can he make fall guys so obedient to defending his cadre if he can't assure them ahead of time that they won't spend a day in jail for obfuscating an investigation?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Yes, Tom, but you think the executive branch eats babies. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Heck, she probably should anyway since she sounds like a detatched unsympathetic fool.
For the whole post in general, but this line in specific, Lyr, what possible purpose did you think this served?
What a minute, posts have to have points now?
I was refuting Mig's gibberish about Hillary. Sure I got carried away, but I still think it had purpose.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Yes, Tom, but you think the executive branch eats babies.
That's only because it does. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That's only if Mr. Romney gets elected.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Anyone want to bet that if OSC refers to the Libby issue at all, it'll be to excuse Bush and bash Democrats for some hypocricy-that-or-other?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure if he'll excuse Dubya-though I wouldn't be surprised-but I would be surprised if he didn't take the opportunity to lambast Democrats.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
My take on this is not as fanatical as I've read here.
1) Mr. Libby is not evil incarnate. Even the most ant-Bush people should agree with that, since there can be only one Evil Incarnated at a time and they have others to fill that roll. Mr. Libby is a politician who was trying to do what he thought was best. Whether he thought it was best for his country, his party, or his friends I don not know, but he was just trying to do what was best.
2) He lied. He committed perjury to a grand jury. I have no idea if he was under orders to do so, but I doubt it, since those would have been stupid orders. More likely he was just trying to avoid being caught up in a big mess, and save his associates/party from being caught up in a big mess, so he took the quick way out and lied.
You can argue that he didn't lie, but that he just mis-remembered. You can argue that about every perjury case ever brought. The evidence seems clear to me that it was not a "mis-remembering" it was spin applied in the spin-free zone of the justice system.
3) What he did was illegal, and a fair and legal court of law found him guilty. If there was anything unfair or not legal about the trial, it will be resolved by the ongoing appeals process.
4) What President Bush did was legal. He has the right and the responsibility to pardon, commute, and exonerate those whom the system have to harshly treated.
5) What President Bush did was, I believe (this is all just what I believe) a promise fulfilled. The only reason I can think that he commuted the sentence now, and not earlier or later, was because he (or Mr. Cheney) promised Mr. Libby that, due to his loyalty and past service, Mr. Libby would never spend a day in jail. Despite the political turmoil this act would cause, President Bush stood by this promise.
President Bush is a man who respects the virtue of loyalty, perhaps to a fault.
6)Unfortunately, to fulfill this personal promise, President Bush went back on at least two public positions he's held in the past. Do we call those public promises? No, they were apparently just spin. They were A) The President will not intervene in any ongoing case until all appeals have been finished, and B) Any person in any way associated with leaking Valerie Blame's status to the media will be fired and face the full extent of the law.
7) Any attempt to tie this commutation with those done by earlier presidents (Clinton, Ford, Bush Senior, Washington, Lincoln, Truman, any) is just a red herring to divert the conversation. You can not claim that robbing a gas station should go unpunished because someone else got away with robbing a bank.
8)Finally, Mr. Libby is not getting away scott free. He still has a hefty fine to pay and parole to endure.
Hey, I said this before. Isn't a fine and parole just two of the many requirements that were in the Immigration bill? Conservatives called that "Amnesty". Should we then call this "Amnesty" as well?
President Bush may have found a way to work around congress yet again. Why doesn't he commute the sentences of all illegal immigrants to a fine and parole and those other requirements in the immigration bill that got defeated.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why doesn't he commute the sentences of all illegal immigrants to a fine and parole and those other requirements in the immigration bill that got defeated.
Because deportation isn't a criminal punishment or even technically a penalty - it's a remedy for illegal presence.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
"Is that going to be the stance of the conservative base on this? That lawbreaking is OK if other convicts managed to get off?" The punishment was excessive considering he was never found guilty of what the original investigation was about. He was only found guilty of mis-remembering dates which he may or may not have done under orders from someone else. I have noticed not many people want to even discuss Armitage not being questioned. What are you thoughts about not questioning Armitage when he admitted he was the leaker. I mean if you want to indict someone on something, shouldn't Armitage at least be brought in? I'm not against the hefty fine for Libby, I am against the jail sentence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What are you thoughts about not questioning Armitage when he admitted he was the leaker.
Because the investigation wasn't actually about who the leaker was. It was about the circumstances of the leak and the subsequent federal response.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: have noticed not many people want to even discuss Armitage not being questioned. What are you thoughts about not questioning Armitage when he admitted he was the leaker.
That it is a transparent falsehood, and already noted as such in a post that you seem to have ignored, along with the other posts dealing with your blatantly false statements in this thread.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:8)Finally, Mr. Libby is not getting away scott free. He still has a hefty fine to pay and parole to endure.
Does anyone actually think that Scooter Libby is going to be the one paying this fine?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The punishment was excessive considering he was never found guilty of what the original investigation was about.
That's not the criteria we use for process-affecting crimes. In fact, that standard has been explicitly rejected by courts and legislatures time after time. If that's the standard we want to use, it requires passing a new law.
On the issue of whether Armitage was questioned:
quote:But Armitage, who said he testified about his actions to a grand jury three times, was not charged for making the disclosure, a circumstance he attributes to his candor in speaking with investigators about his action. He turned over his computers and never even hired an attorney, Armitage said, because "I did not need an attorney to tell me to tell the truth."
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Because the investigation wasn't actually about who the leaker was. It was about the circumstances of the leak and the subsequent federal response.
You are making it sound like this was a purely political attack to bring down members of government and was not about investigating the actually leak of her name? Please note I am not saying this is true. I am saying that Libby should not have been the only one indicted.
quote: Armitage was cleared because it appeared that he did not know that Valerie Plame working for the CIA was classified information.
From the article: "Former Deputy Secretary of State Armitage has acknowledged recently that he was the one who revealed Plame's job at the CIA to syndicated columnist Robert Novak and Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, but Armitage said it was inadvertent. Novak disputes Armitage's claim that he revealed Plame to him in an offhand remark during their conversation on July 8, 2003. Novak wrote that Armitage “did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests.” “He made clear that he considered it especially suited for my column,” the writer said. Novak added, “He told me unequivocally that Ms. Wilson had worked in the C.I.A.'s Counterproliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband's mission.” Armitage is expected to be a witness in the Libby case. Early in the inquiry, Armitage told authorities he was Novak's source. Armitage said Fitzgerald asked him to not to say that publicly. Fitzgerald then pressed on with the investigation, questioning White House aides. Among them was top Bush adviser Karl Rove, who appeared five times before a grand jury before being cleared of wrongdoing this summer."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Where does that say he knew her name was classified, DK? In fact, it seems Novak's statements support Armitage's claim that he thought it was OK to release her name.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
DK, I'm not sure I understand why you think what you quoted is relevant.
Do you think it establishes that Richard Armitage knew that the information was classified? It does not appear to do so to me.
Also, that section makes it clear that Richard Armitage was questioned by the investigation. Were you unaware of this or was your as yet unacknowledged falsehood deliberate?
---
edit: I was aware of this before (Armitage saying that it was an inadvertent slip and Novak saying that is was clearly information that he wanted to impart. If the latter is true, it sounds to me very likely that Richard Armitage was directed (most likely by the Vice-President or Karl Rove) to get this information out there, which was one of the main foci of the Fitzgerald investigation, but one which they were ultimately unable to prove - in part, according to Fitzgerald, because of Scooter Libby's perjury.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: in part, according to Fitzgerald, because of Scooter Libby's perjury.
Despite thinking commuting the sentence was wrong, I'm not convinced Fitzgerald's view makes sense. If he was able to prove Libby's perjury and falsehoods, then he knew the truth. It's feasible to suspect that Libby got away with other lies, but I don't think there's evidence that the behavior Libby was convicted of ultimately stopped the investigation (even thought it did hinder that investigation).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I have no idea the inside of the investigation. There are a lot of things that don't add up (the perjury and the dispute over Armitage's behavior being two of them).
I don't see a point in Libby deliberately perjuring himself without their being something to hide. I agree that what they could actually prove he was lying about/provide clear contradictory evidence to doesn't appear to be insurmontable, but I think it is much more likely that Fitzgerald's statements are either about things they nkow/suspect he lied about, but cannot prove, or about the current statements that fit in in a way that I don't understand than that there was nothing more to be found.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think it is much more likely that Fitzgerald's statements are either about things they nkow/suspect he lied about, but cannot prove, or about the current statements that fit in in a way that I don't understand than that there was nothing more to be found.
I suspect it's the former. There's a theory of sentencing called "real offense sentencing" which allows sentence to be increased based on behavior not proved at trial. The federal guidelines are based on this (to the extent that someone convicted of selling 10-500 grams of cocaine had his sentence increased based on the amount of cocaine involved being over 500 grams) and it is greatly in vogue amongst a set of federal judges and prosecutors, with a surprising mix of liberal and conservative backers. The concept has been at issue in some of the most interesting cases concerning the substantive definition of what a crime is to come out SCOTUS in recent years, in which Scalia was a swing vote between a bloc of Thomas, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Souter and a bloc of Rehnquist, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Breyer.
I don't know specifics on either Fitzgerald's or the judge's opinion on this, but I suspect both subscribe to the theory. I have a fundamental problem with certain aspects of real offense sentencing, and it's my suspicion that this was involved that makes me think the sentence was a little too harsh on a comparative basis. (See previous caveats about this not supporting commuting the sentence.)
It's also possible that the actual lies Libby was convicted of prevented the investigation from tracking back to Cheney; I just haven't seen any coherent explanation of how that would be so.
Again, a prosecutor, grand jury, jury, judge, and probation officer all had input into the ultimate disposition of the sentence. Further, the legislature specifically allows conviction even when no underlying crime was committed at all. The vague descriptions of Libby's "innocence" don't amount to a hill of beans in light of this, absent some serious allegation that evidence was tampered with or wrongfully excluded. So I'm comfortable accepting a slightly harsh sentence with the knowledge that I don't (and can't) have all the facts those other entities did.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Lyr, As you noted, the only people that the public seems to dislike or mistrust more than the Democrats right now are the Republicans. To me, your post is an example of the style of why this is.
For what appeared to me to be no reason, you jumped right down into the mud with them. You didn't, in my eyes, refute what was being said so much as lower yourself to - maybe not their level, but close.
I'm not so sure about the Democrats making the electoral gains that you are, because no one seems as good at screwing up having the high ground as they are.
If they do win, it looks like it's only going to come on the Republican's egregious badness, not through merit of their own. Maybe that's okay with you, but I'd suggest aiming higher.
[ July 05, 2007, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I curious as to what comparison you are using for this as a harsh sentence. I'm not at all well versed in the punishments generally applied (and also lean towards treating betrayal of their position by high government officials as potential capital crime), so I don't have the appropriate information here. However, the nubmers being quoted is that 3 out of 4 people convicted of obstruction in federal court serve hail time and that this jail time averages a little over 5 years.
Is this information misapplied/overly simplified here?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:For what appeared to me to be no reason, you jumped right down into the mud with them. You didn't, in my eyes, refute what was being said so much as lower yourself to - maybe not their level, but close.
That was mud? You're pretty generous in your labeling.
On a scale of say, Ann Coulter to Mother Theresa, Coulter being 10 and MT being 1, I'd say I was at a four or five. If you're only talking about my observations on Laura Bush, well, frankly I think they are justified. She rarely speaks in public, and she does I think she comes off like she's hypnotized, and is either detatched from reality or just plain doesn't care. And considering what Republicans have to say about Hillary, I don't think I was off at all on my observations about their reactions to her actions in the 90's. So where exactly in there did I go for the Republicans' jugular?
As for the Democratic gains, I think you're half right. Half of the reason they are doing so well is the utterly inept governance of the Republicans, but I honestly think that despite their ability to put on a good public face, the Democrats DO have good ideas. They've been unsuccessful at getting them made into law, or in really getting the people to understand them though. I think their problem is PR and communication rather than bad legislation, whereas I think the Republicans are fantastically excellent at PR, but are horrible at legislating. Sadly it took this long for people to see through the smoke and mirrors.
But I still think my guesses for Democratic gains are going to be near the mark. Democrats are outraising Republicans by tens of millions in Congressional races, Senate races, and by leaps and bounds in the Presidential races. Sadly money can often be translated into a victory, but more than that, fundraising especially for Democrats is a sign of approval. Since we generally have a harder time coming up with the money, since Big Business isn't really our best friend, the fact that we're coming up with so much money is a sign of the energy in the country for Democrats. This is the first time in history Democrats have done this well at fundraising, especially compared to Repbublicans, and I think that's a big statement on potential gains. Plus, Republicans have a lot more seats to defend than Democrats, and a lot of them are in vulnerable states. Combine that with a lackluster field of Republican candidates, none of whom really inspire Republicans, and many of whom I think will force a lot of die hard Republicans to actually stay home, and I think you're going to have low voter turnout this year for Republicans.
Another factor is the equalizing force in the 2006 midterms of Democratic get out the vote efforts. Republicans are famous for their armies of volunteers, phone banks, and drivers to take little old ladies to the voting booths. And until now, Democrats have lagged far behind in these efforts, while Republicans have gotten high tech. But that has changed, and many credit that effort to some of the big gains for Democrats in 2006. Nullifying traditional Republican advantages, combined with general disapproval of the party, bad luck on the timing of seats up for election, and dissatisfaction with the GOP candidates I think will be a perfect opportunity for well funded, well backed Democratic candidates to make some big gains. Not as big as the 2006 Midterms probably, but still big.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I curious as to what comparison you are using for this as a harsh sentence. I'm not at all well versed in the punishments generally applied (and also lean towards treating betrayal of their position by high government officials as potential capital crime), so I don't have the appropriate information here. However, the nubmers being quoted is that 3 out of 4 people convicted of obstruction in federal court serve hail time and that this jail time averages a little over 5 years.
Is this information misapplied/overly simplified here?
The 3 out of 4 seems roughly right; the jail time averages don't include those who receive no jail time. So the average prison time for all convictions is at most .75 * 5 years, and this doesn't take into account prior criminal history or other factors. Also, 18 USC 1503 includes threats and intimidation of witnesses as well as actual violence against witnesses or court personnel, which I expect receives a harsher punishment than this form of obstruction.
One thing to keep in mind is that the sentences for the 4 counts is not additive under federal sentencing guidelines. So adding up the means for each count isn't an appropriate way to find an expected total.
I may be wrong - I think I've hedged and qualified this throughout - but the averages being used on blogs from the justice statistics don't give me reason to think so unless I know what else has been taken into account.
I don't expect that to convince anyone else, of course.
My sense that this was a little too harsh is based on the judge doubling the recommendation in the sentencing report, the lack of prior criminal record, and the quotes I've seen stating that the judge took into account behavior not proved to the jury (which I have philosophical problems with).
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I had heard that the probation officers asked for 15-21 months, Fitzgerald recommended more than 30 months, and Walton went for 30.
That would be Judge Walton, the man Bush specifically appointed to be tough on criminals. Criminals that weren't in Bush's circle, anyway.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:8)Finally, Mr. Libby is not getting away scott free. He still has a hefty fine to pay and parole to endure.
Does anyone actually think that Scooter Libby is going to be the one paying this fine?
quote:Libby's friends and supporters have raised more than $5 million to cover legal fees and were continuing to raise money but Libby paid the fine himself, according to someone close to the fund who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the account are private. The cashiers check filed with the court was issued in Libby's name.
Of course, I don't know what that actually means. Money is fungible, after all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
D.C. disbarred Libby. This should surprise no one. I suspect he will be disbarred in any other jurisdictions in which he holds a license to practice.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I don't have any grand plot to get you to say anything incriminating ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)