Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Backlash On Libby | Main | Who Said That? »

July 04, 2007

Comments

cboldt

ead the Links TM provided - apparently, that the kits are machine guns is disputed (that there is an underlying offense is disputed) yet Rita got slammed with jail time for lying. The indictments in Rita weren't on the matter of the efficacy of the kit as a machine gun, but Rita was charged with lying about having machine gun parts.

This reminds me of tarring Fitzgerald with the indictment of Cowles and the release of classified information in Holy Land Dallas - which was a sloppy conclusion reached without reading the record. MSM, meet blogger; blogger, meet MSM. Reader, do your own research.

That Rita was a criminal isn't disputed. The dispute in the case cited here is as to sentencing, not as to the question of whether or not Rita lied to investigators (he did - but the lie didn't affect the determination of illegal machine gun sales or the investigation in covering up money transfers), and SCOTUS determined that Rita's sentence was within guidelines for obstruction and perjury.

cboldt

ead the Links TM provided - apparently, that the kits are machine guns is disputed (that there is an underlying offense is disputed) yet Rita got slammed with jail time for lying. The indictments in Rita weren't on the matter of the efficacy of the kit as a machine gun, but Rita was charged with lying about having machine gun parts.

This reminds me of tarring Fitzgerald with the indictment of Cowles and the release of classified information in Holy Land Dallas - which was a sloppy conclusion reached without reading the record. MSM, meet blogger; blogger, meet MSM. Reader, do your own research.

That Rita was a criminal isn't disputed. The dispute in the case cited here is as to sentencing, not as to the question of whether or not Rita lied to investigators (he did - but the lie didn't affect the determination of illegal machine gun sales or the investigation in covering up money transfers), and SCOTUS determined that Rita's sentence was within guidelines for obstruction and perjury.

cboldt

More on the Rita case in the comments at
Scooter Libby Couldn't Serve Even One Day?
, in particular posts #15, 21, 27, 29, 32, 35, 42, 46, 49 and 51.

windansea

apparently, that the kits are machine guns is disputed (that there is an underlying offense is disputed)

disputed by whom? the gun nuts in that chat room below the press release?

cboldt

-- disputed by whom? the gun nuts in that chat room below the press release? --

Disputed by the defendant.

cboldt

But dispute or not, the parallel with the Libby case is to put the onus on the prosecutor to first prove there is an underlying offense.

windansea

Disputed by the defendant.

the kits in this case are imported russian machine guns that various importers cut wholes in to comply with BATF regs

don't know your knowledge of guns or machine tools but if you read these links (these guys know they are being monitored) you can see they aren't buying them for display purposes.

another factor in the Rita case is he actually switched kits after agents contacted him, so he not only lied, he tried to destroy evidence.

comparison with Libby case is weak.

link

link

Other Tom

Come on, folks--Libby worked for this president, Rita didn't. Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory were owed money by Clinton's brother-in-law Tony; Rita wasn't. Carlos Vignali and Almon Braswell each gave $200 large to Clinton's brother-in-law Hugh; Rita didn't.

Is there a pattern here?

I happen to think the pardon of Libby was more defensible than those of the Gregorys, Vignali and Braswell; others may disagree. But poor ol' Rita is gonna do the time.

cboldt

-- don't know your knowledge of guns or machine tools --

Probably equal or better than yours, but that detail isn't relevant for the case at hand. I was the "process designer" for implementing high volume production of intake and exhaust valves, power steering pumps, locking and limited slip differentials, and a variety of other precision parts used in automobiles and trucks.

I'm not a gunsmith, but I understand the technical distinction between semi and full automatic weapons, as well as the principles of firearm mechanism that are useful to delineate the distinction.

But as I started out, all that technical background is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the government proved the kits were machine guns. The government didn't prove it, and wasn't pressed to prove it.

The parallel with the Libby case is the supposed requirement for proof of an IIPA violation, in order to justify charging Libby.

chch16

No underlying crime of leaking for the millionth time was charged because Libby blocked getting information on the puppeteers Cheney and Bush who orchestrated the leak.

Apples Oranges. Libby was about the highest levels of government lying to cover up a failed war where Bush keeps mouthing the same platitudes about victory and the only victory is to get as many live bodies out intact now. There's no victory in the sense of a super bowl, and the Iraqi army is worthless, and the Iraqi parliament has done nothing meaningful yet balking at any decision.

Once again, what will happen is the troops pulled back to the Kurdish area to contain the civil war. Also the surrounding regions have done squat over nothing to contribute toward any stability in the area, and Iran is poised to take it over if they can.

It was a huge mistake not to indict Rove who was one of the orchestrators.

Rita's case did not involve a breach of national security; Libby's did. There is no doubt that Plame was a covert agent, except in the eyes of the ditzy base.

The arguments that the base has trotted out ad nauseam are that whatever they want it to be is--a little Marguerittaville In Libbyland.

Further, TM didn't compare the DOJ's harsh sentencing tough on crime stance in Rita (has he read the government's brief at the S.Ct. or DOJ sites)? Contrast this to the easier sentencing guideline newly minted attorney without lawschool or guidance from the DOJ Bush has proposed.

All over the country this weekend, defense attorneys began making what they called Libby Sentencing motions. If Bush thinks the guidelines are too hard for Libby, they're too harsh for their clients as well.

A number of Republicans who aren't glued to the base no matter how dangerous the base's and Bush's ideas are, have spoken out vigorously against Bush's giving his friend a break to protect his own ass.

It denigrates the significance of perjury prosecutions,” John S. Martin Jr., a former U.S. attorney and federal judge in New York, said of the commutation.

Habeas petitions now will base much of their arguments on the Bush proclamation that the sentencing guidelines are too harsh. Of course Bush meant, "for my friends and their crowd, because we are Patricians and we don't take showers in communal BOP stalls and piss in communal BOP urinals 40 in a room.

Hopefully this will raise the discussion people say it can invoke, on the stupidity and lack of reality in sentencing guidelines. If so, and I really doubt it, then some good would come from this.

Guidelines are made by people on the committess who have no idea what prison is like, and former prosecutors and judges who consider getting locked in a bathroom Armageddon.

Also Tony Snow as usual was blowing smoke out his ass yesterday. He said the Probation Office misnaming it the Parole Office (parole hasn't been available in the federal system since 1988) recommended what Shrub did.

Not so.

They recommended about 16-17 months, and very probably because Rove called Leonides Mecham an insufferable autocratic bastard who runs the AOC--the Administrative Office of the Courts and told him to offer a promotion to the Probation Supervisor at the D.C. district court.

Meacham is famous a few years ago for trying to follow keystrokes in the district court offices and chambers. This produced an amusing stat that federal judges' chambers were downloading 6% porn from file share sites and torrents.

Judge Kozinsky threated to launch a DOJ prosecution of Meacham, and at the 911 Judicial Conference, Meacham backed his very very large ass up--two times the size of Mike Moore's for all you Michael Moore fetishesits and that was the end of key stroke following.

The Ninth Circuit and all their far flung district courts shut down their computers for two weeks in protests. This was one story the WSJ covered as did the NYTimes and many legal blogs.

As cbolt says the S.Ct. found his guidelines acceptable for purgery, and in doing so they found Libby's guidelines--24 actual months to serve acceptable.

I don't believe Rita did a lot for clarification, and what will happen is judges will be more afraid to do departures from the guidelines downwards.

The unconcionable cutting of Libby's sentence should spark a debate for the makeover of the Draconian and often racially unfair (crack vs. powder) a case the S. Ct. will hear next term but often the Roberts court is content to define little, unless it can actually overturn a precedent without overtly saying it did.


A.L.

This is kind of weak, Tom. The point is that Libby's sentence was not excessive; it was exactly what the guidelines call for. Whether or not the circumstances in the Rita case were exactly the same as Libby's, the point is that there are defendants all over the country who have been sentenced to prison terms the same as or longer than Libby's for the same crimes. Rita was just singled out because his case happened to be decided by the Supreme Court just recently. If you object to this comparison, there are plenty other more apt comparisons to be found out there.

And the very factors Bush cited as reasons for commuting Libby's sentence (first time offender, record of public service, consideration of facts at sentencing not proven at trial) are all built into the guidelines system, which the President and his party have been the principal proponents of over the years.

This is a case of blatant preferential treatment and no reasonable person can deny that. Republicans can point to other questionable pardons by other presidents, but that doesn't make this decision right. This decision was brazenly unprincipled and hypocritical and there is no point defending it on the merits.

Jane

It seems to me the only valid comparison is between Libby and Berger.

windansea

The parallel with the Libby case is the supposed requirement for proof of an IIPA violation, in order to justify charging Libby.

many of us noted that Fitz declined to even try to prove an IIPA violation while alluding to it in his presser and concluding statements.

I haven't read the transcript for Rita case but you are assuring us that is was argued and not proved that these were indeed machine gun kits.

I am sure that's why the offender switched kits after the initial contact. :)

I haven't seen any hiding or destroying of evidence by Libby whatsoever, he waived his 5th amendment rights and signed waivers for all reporters involved...

Looks like apples and oranges to me... or limes and lemons at least.

anyway, justice is not blind nor black and white, what is "proven" in a court of law is not always just or fully illuminated by the truth.

you may not like it but our "system of law" is built upon judgement calls by prosecutors, judges, juries, appelate courts, Supreme Courts, Presidents, etc and a series of interpretations of our laws and relevant precedents by human beings capable of divine insight or a gamut of self centered greeds and/or prejudices.

it's amazing it works as well as it does

common sense usually prevails but tricky lawyers on both sides often game the system, as well as judges on up to Supremes

was Gore vs Bush 2000 resolved for you?

anyway, based on what I saw in the Libby case, I would never ever waive my rights or submit to a note taking FBI "interview" without counsel present.

You?

cboldt

-- I haven't seen any hiding or destroying of evidence by Libby whatsoever --

That fully explains your position. No need to get into underlying anything.

-- was Gore vs Bush 2000 resolved for you? --

Yep. I reviewed the SCOFLA decision and Florida statutes in detail.

-- based on what I saw in the Libby case, I would never ever waive my rights or submit to a note taking FBI "interview" without counsel present. --

You are a bigger cynic than I am then.

vnjagvet

What dfference does the Rita case make anyhow? Commutations are a matter of grace, not of law.

Whether Libby's sentence was at the high end of the guidelines is irrelevant to an exercise of presidential grace. Bellyaching is the only remedy for this action. And enough of that is going on for a substantial increase in Pepto Bismol sales.

cboldt

-- What dfference does the Rita case make anyhow? --

None. It's just another venue for opposing sides to misrepresent facts to supposed advantage. Somebody in the press brought it up as an example of a case where a convicted perjurer's jail term was upheld by SCOTUS.

The Libby case is different because Libby is special. Libby's commutation can't be rationalized with "the law" except to note the President has commutation/pardon power, and the President has the power to use his independent judgment to temper sentences handed out in the routine administration of justice.

Cecil Turner

The parallel with the Libby case is the supposed requirement for proof of an IIPA violation, in order to justify charging Libby.

The non-parallel (on that particular point) is that Fitz admitted he had no evidence Libby knew Plame was covert (and hence wasn't guilty of an IIPA violation). Subsequent testimony made that point even more stark: if she was classified, nobody knew it.

So this isn't a case of "we can't prove the underlying offense, so we'll get 'em on the obstruction charge." It's: "we know he's innocent of the underlying offense, but if we work at it we can get him on obstruction." Personally, I don't think that's a subtle distinction, nor a meaningless one.

boris

That fully explains your position.

Don't consider Libby's comprehensive state of knowledge between the Cheney note and 2nd week in July as reconstructed in September to be "evidence". YMMV.

Cooper's note that Libby added "don't know if it was even true" is what I consider evidence. His non recollection of that detail establishes taint in using that type of recollection reconstruction in this kind of case.

Miller's early notes confirming Andrea Mitchell's claim that reporters covering intelligence knew about Valerie is what I consider evidence.

Ari blabbing to multiple reporters after exposure to INR memo intel but not after supposedly hearing it from Libby is what I consider evidence.

The items I consider evidence discredit the Fitz version of the tale but directly and indirectly support the Libby version.

windansea

I am cynical times infinity but am often pleasantly surprised.

where exactly did Libby hide or destroy evidence, I missed that part.

misremembering conversations don't count, did Scooter hide or destroy physical evidence like Rita? I don't recall that even being alleged.

Other Tom

"...based on what I saw in the Libby case, I would never ever waive my rights or submit to a note taking FBI 'interview' without counsel present."

I'd have advised you to take exactly that position thirty years ago, and I haven't wavered a bit in the interim.

A.L.

So this isn't a case of "we can't prove the underlying offense, so we'll get 'em on the obstruction charge." It's: "we know he's innocent of the underlying offense, but if we work at it we can get him on obstruction." Personally, I don't think that's a subtle distinction, nor a meaningless one.

Cecil, I'm sure this is true in some alternative universe, but in this one, you're full of it. Fitzgerald has never said anything remotely like this. In fact, in his press conference announcing Libby's indictment, he repeatedly stressed that he was not able to determine whether an underlying violation occurred because Libby lied, repeatedly.

Moreover, there is circumstantial evidence that Libby at least was aware he was not supposed to be talking about Plame's CIA job. When he leaked this information to Miller, he did so on "deep background" and asked to be sourced as a "former Hill staffer." And people like Ari Fleischer, who learned about Plame from Libby, knew it was not something to be discussed on the record (which is why he never mentioned it in the various press gaggles about Wilson)

Did Libby know Plame was covert? Who knows? Certainly not you, unless you have mind-reading abilities. So this is not a situation where we know Libby is innocent of the underlying charge.

cboldt

-- where exactly did Libby hide or destroy evidence, I missed that part. --

The point I was making was that if one holds that Libby was "honest enough," the issue of underlying crime has no play.

The allegation in the indictment is that Libby hid from investigators his ability to apprise reporters that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

Walter

For those that are interested, the statements that constituted perjury by Victor Rita:

During his testimony, Mr. Rita was asked whether he had spoken with representatives of InterOrdnance after being contacted by the ATF concerning the recall of PPSH kits. He replied no. He was then asked whether the ATF had requested that he surrender his PPSH kit. He replied no. Id. The government contended that this information conflicted with telephone records and statements obtained by investigating ATF agents.

These two brief exchanges gave rise to a five-count indictment against Mr. Rita: two counts of making false declarations in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623(a), two counts of making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2),
and one count of obstructing justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. Mr. Rita argued, during a two-day jury trial, that his answers before the grand jury were sincere and responsive to the questions asked. The
jury, however, returned a verdict of guilty on all counts.

A presentence investigation report was prepared in advance of sentencing. It advised that Mr. Rita should be assigned no criminal history points, that his base
offense level should be 14, and that no aggravating characteristics were present that might warrant an upward adjustment
under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

1 A “parts kit” is a collection of components that may be assembled into
a replica – generally inoperable – of the subject firearm. J.A. 41.

(“Guidelines”). The offenses of conviction were grouped for Guidelines purposes, and the highest offense level (14) was applied. Nevertheless, the report asserted that the offense level should be increased from 14 to 20 based on a Guidelines cross-reference directing that Mr. Rita was an “accessory after the fact” to supposed violations by InterOrdnance of 22 U.S.C. § 2778(b)(2), which prohibits the import and export of
certain firearms. This six-level enhancement– imposed even though (i) the issue was neither submitted to the jury nor proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and (ii) the purported import/export violation by InterOrdnance was neither mentioned in the indictment nor raised in the jury instructions, – doubled the range of imprisonment recommended under the Guidelines, from 15 to 21 months to 33 to 41 months.

windansea


cross poaching from Patterico site, too lazy to register

You distinguish Libby on your conclusion that that Libby lied about a non-crime, yet the official record doesn’t confirm or deny an underlying crime. (I happen to think there is no underlying crime)

right, he wasn't allowed to contest it cuz Fitz declined to assert it...and gosh darn it..nobody proved it in court

Likewise in Rita, the record doesn’t confirm or deny the underlying crime. You comments are focused on details that Rita lied, not on the meeting the elements of the underlying offense.

likewise??...I don't think so...didn't you tell us upthread that this was actually contested in the Rita case? is that a big diference to how the underlying crime was completely avoided in the Libby case? as in never contested, evidence provided, ruled upon?

windansea

and never asserted as well

Cecil Turner

Cecil, I'm sure this is true in some alternative universe, but in this one, you're full of it. Fitzgerald has never said anything remotely like this.

Are you talking about my characterization of the situation or the fact Fitz admitted he had no evidence Libby knew Val was covert? If the former, no kidding. If the latter, I'd say this is more than "remotely like" that (8/27/04 Affidavit):

To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson's wife was engaged in covert work.
In fact, in his press conference announcing Libby's indictment, he repeatedly stressed that he was not able to determine whether an underlying violation occurred because Libby lied, repeatedly.

He also claimed Libby was the first leaker. Doesn't hold up under scrutiny, does it? Nor is there any obvious information Libby could provide to help clear this up, or is there?

Moreover, there is circumstantial evidence that Libby at least was aware he was not supposed to be talking about Plame's CIA job. When he leaked this information to Miller, he did so on "deep background" and asked to be sourced as a "former Hill staffer."

The "Hill Staffer" thing applied to the entire Nigerien uranium thing, where he was discussing things from the NIE that hadn't been publicly declassified. Claiming the Plame detail is the real reason ignores the simpler explanation.

Did Libby know Plame was covert? Who knows? Certainly not you, unless you have mind-reading abilities.

Oh, who told him then? The VP? How would he know? Grossman, Grenier, Schmall? All say they didn't know themselves, nor is there any indication they should. Anyone who learned from the INR memo? Nope, not in there. Absent any plausible source for the information, I'd say it's a reasonable inference he didn't.

cboldt

-- didn't you tell us upthread that this [confirming or denying the underlying crime] was actually contested in the Rita case? --

I said the record is void of that argument being raised at Rita's trial.

One of the points to my observations is that the "no proof of underlying crime" quality was present in Rita's case too - and like Rita, Libby didn't argue that at the trial.

But if one takes the position that there was no misleading, that the testimony was truthful, then the (bogus) defense of materiality need not be brought into play.

boris

The allegation in the indictment is that Libby hid from investigators his ability to apprise reporters that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.

And Mitchell's public statement indicate Russert hid from investigators his ability to apprise Libby that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Then he was surprised when he read it in Novak's column "as if for the first time".

Oh wait !!! Libby admitted he wrote a note about it right up front! Oooops. Sorry I don't credit "but I must have fogot about it" as HIDING his admittied ability to appraise reporters that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. Minimize? perhaps. Hide? No.

BobS

Wow. CheChe Guerva, the dead latino leftist post here. Cool. He's so last century, and its such a laugh when this dead guy tries to argue with people that are so much smarter than he is. Its so sad. But he's so pathetic as all he does is like post stuff from this pot head, Syd Blumenthal. And like he acts like its so GOSPEL. What a little college kid.

BobS

And then he gets so teary-eyed shrill and like cuts and pastes from Wikipedia and makes it so Founding Fathers ya know. . What a dork and a little wuss. And he like calls everyone else stupid and a moron and the dude couldn't like pass a 9th grade Geography class with no maps and math with a calculater.

Cecil Turner
. . . Nevertheless, the report asserted that the offense level should be increased from 14 to 20 based on a Guidelines cross-reference directing that Mr. Rita was an “accessory after the fact” to supposed violations by InterOrdnance of 22 U.S.C. § 2778(b)(2) . . .
This is the point that'd seem to be most applicable to the Libby case. AFAICT, the defense didn't contest it, and asked for leniency (under the guideline) based on service, infirmity, and vulnerability. And though the Supremes considered the cross-referencing, they didn't question its validity . . . possibly because they weren't asked to. Not sure they would've in Libby's case either, but it's a much better case IMHO.
windansea

I said the record is void of that argument being raised at Rita's trial.

nope..you said it was never proven, as if it had been contested in court...

the IIPA violation was never alleged, contested, or even debated in Libby so where is the parallel?

cboldt

-- nope..you said it was never proven, as if it had been contested in court --

Not that the difference matters, but I said ...

... and like Rita, Libby didn't argue that at the trial.

-- the IIPA violation was never alleged, contested, or even debated in Libby --

It was contested, but not at the trial.

-- so where is the parallel? --

The parallel I drew in my posts above (not necessarily the only reasonable parallel) is that in both cases, Rita and Libby, the trial record proper is void of the argument that the prosecution is bogus because there was no underlying offense.

BobS

Che Che...dude...let it go...Val was not covert....even Schumers boy Fitzgerald knew that until he wanted to jack up the sentence and have it for the brain dead Kos Kids jury like you at close. (My bad. You were on that jury, werent you?)I'm so amazed how STUPID you are to try and argue with people who are SO much smarter than you and anyone in your party of leftist.

BobS

Oh, my. No good, huh? If Val was not covert, then you have no trial. Then Joe lied and that makes you a....a......fool.

BobS

Che Guerva...dead guy.....youre so STUPID and you like try and argue with people who are so much smarter than you and KNOW more than you. So sad you represent the democrat base.

BobS

I can hear the cuting and pasting already. No facts Dude, unless you just use the slogans from Keith Olberman

BobS

Uh, no they havent, Che....they never have. The statute dealt with covert operatives that are ONLY...hear this again, MORON...only stationed overseased. It girl hasnt been stationed overeseased since the late 1990's ....outside that statute....at best you may be able to use the word "classified" of which NO statute covers and is why MORON no one was prosecuted for outing her.

Oh thats right. You say you are a lawyer and already know Libby was not prosecuted for outing her....since she was not outed and/or covert....MORON.

BobS

MORON...let me give you some advise.....dont try to convince people who know the truth and that you are lying like Joe, Val, and Fitz. Use you efforts to pump up your base of like minded MORONS.

BobS

Apologies for using such course language for my friends who've had to listen to the slap down of a moronic lefty. Hopefully the publisher of the page will ban his sorry ass so the intelligent exchange of ideas can continue.

BobS

It takes lots of posts to make a lie legit. Give poor che che time.
Did you hear Hillary try and explain why her husbands

BobS

pardons were just fine and Libby's clemency was scandelous?

BobS

And that the Che Che clones who work for the AP just ate it up?

BobS

Again...its take lots of typing to explain away hypocrisy. Gonna be lots of insults, ya know.

BobS

Awwww...poor Che Che needs the F-word to emphasize his point and can't handle being called MORON back.

BobS

Many mainstream Republicans disagree with the base on Libby as do the career boys and girls at DOJ.


Huh, CheChe? Mainstream Republicans are the base, MORON. And what, if anything, do career boya and girls at DOJ haveto do with this OR anything for that matter.

Here's where I have to hand it to your side though. Career DOJ-whether they be boys or girls, sexists loser- are ALL DEMS.

BobS

Apologies again to freinds and the like minded for the partisan hit job.

RalphL

"Being called stupid by the likes of you or the base robots means nothing to me "Bob S." LOL"

Then why are you here?

BobS

Agreed, RalphL. I really had been trying to ignore him and had been encouraging others to do so. I don't care what he says about me, but I enjoy what lots of folks have to say here and grew weary of him calling them names and mucking up the thread.

BobS

awwwwww......Che.....you reveal your immaturity with a sentence. You know nothing of my life or my job. If you do, that means I've gotten into your head and you've had to find out. Along with the majority of the nice people here, we pity you and your ignorance. As you seem to articulate thoughts fairly well, its sad to see you unable to convey ideas or another point of view without honesty or civility. It seems the only thing you respond to is to be bullied as you sadly are a bully. But a bully of the most cowardly way. You hide behind a keyboard.

BobS

Fell free to say or believe of me what you wish as your opinion is of no matter to me. As I've tried to explain before, your posts are most charitably rhetorical and are wasted here. You will not change anyone's mind. I recommend you use your energy in like minded internet pages. The only thing you convince anyone here of is that you are an ignoramus and have poor manners. You only succeed in filling up the bandwidth of a place where like minded people share ideas. You sadly, have demonstrated you do not belong in a place like this and deserve the course words I've used in my entries. Nevermind the opinions of others who share my opinion. You do those whom may agree with your philosophies no favor as you've conducted yourself as an absolute ass. Be gone.

Pal2Pal (Sara)

I'm here to tell you to put a gun in your mouth and suck on it.

This is completely over the top. A threat. And disgusting and pathetic. Not to mention ignorant.

birdseye

chch16: I hear Libby's ass is going to be hauled before House and Senate Judy forthwith, he will be granted limited or use immunity for his testimony, and if he does not answer questions scooty gets the cell and life style he should already have become accustomed to.

Assuming that Libby will press on with his appeals through to the Supremes if necessary, how can these committees, designed for grandstanding, compel Libby to testify? If my memory does not fail me, Fitzgerald declined to appear before the Waxman committee in May/June (?) because the case then was still ongoing. It is still ongoing for Libby and it may be some years before it is over. But you think Libby deserves jail time if refuses to testify. Are you being fair?

chch16: Mainstream Republicans aren't happy at all with what's happened to Libby, and some of them are getting behind using committees to jail him if he continues to obstruct justice and the investigation of the illegal leaking of a covert agent.

Can you explain why Fitz did not charge Armitage for leaking, if in fact you really believe the was illegal leaking of a covert agent? He leaked and went ballistic when he realized he was the "leaker" in the Novak article, didn't he? Ran to Colin Powell to confess didn't he? So why was Armitage given a pass?

Please be rationale in your response, if that's possible.

MJW

A.L: Cecil, I'm sure this is true in some alternative universe, but in this one, you're full of it. Fitzgerald has never said anything remotely like this. In fact, in his press conference announcing Libby's indictment, he repeatedly stressed that he was not able to determine whether an underlying violation occurred because Libby lied, repeatedly.

Fitz has repeatedly said that said that, and each time it was a stupid assertion. What it means is he couldn't nail Libby because Libby wouldn't confess. Libby was clearly under suspicion, so the idea that Fitz accepted everything he said as truthful, and was thus be led astray, is ludicrous. So the worst Libby could achieve by lying is the same as he would have achieved by exercising his Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify.

Pal2Pal (Sara)

The point is that Libby's sentence was not excessive; it was exactly what the guidelines call for.

The point is that the people responsible for informing the judge regarding sentencing, the probation office, recommended something between straight probation and 15 months. Walton ignored this recommendation and effectively nearly quadrupled the sentence with 30 months + 2 more years of supervised release. Then tacked on a quarter of a million dollars as an exclamation point. That certainly looks excessive when the probation office was recommending something as light as straight probation.

PeterUK.

"Did Libby know Plame was covert? Who knows? Certainly not you, unless you have mind-reading abilities. So this is not a situation where we know Libby is innocent of the underlying charge."

Nor do you,in fact nobody knows if Plame was actually covert or what her status was.The Original referal from the CIA to the DOJ has been kept secret.
Fitzgerald repeatedly made references to his original brief of leaking a covert agents identity throughout the trial,despite knowing early on in the procedure exactly who the original leaker was.
Libby was ostensibly tried for perjury and the obstruction that that perjury is alleged to have caused.There has never ever been any proof of what that obstruction might have been.I reality Mr Libby was tried as an "Enemy of the State",as a cipher for the war in Iraq and a scapegoat for the blood lust of the left.
Now lets hear it for "Cold Cash" Jefferson,what's that? Just the wind.

PeterUK.

"Mainstream Republicans aren't happy at all with what's happened to Libby,"

The Mainstream Republicans who post here are not at all what happened to Mr Libby,in fact they are incandescent with rage at the injustice of it.
Thanks for pointing that out chachi.

" and some of them are getting behind using committees to jail him if he continues to obstruct justice and the investigation of the illegal leaking of a covert agent."

I see you are one of those little Stalinists who believe on repeatedly trying a person until you get the result you want.

Now, if all that was standing between Fitzgerald and the successful discharge of his assignment was Scooter Libby,does it not indicate that Fitzgerald had a weak case or was running a piss poor investigation?

BTW Plame was CIA,what if part of her duties was bringing down Salvador Allende?
Perhaps this was one of the greatest misinformation operations of all time,the CIA persuaded the left to love it! Brilliant!

PeterUK.

"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON."

Jane

"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON."

According to the link, he didn't go down. Talk about balls of steel.

Section9

PeterUK said:

BTW Plame was CIA,what if part of her duties was bringing down Salvador Allende?
Perhaps this was one of the greatest misinformation operations of all time,the CIA persuaded the left to love it! Brilliant!

I seriously doubt that Valerie Plame, superspy and late of the cover of Vanity Fair was involved with the Allende takedown. That was back in 1973 and she would have been in grade school at the time. Rather, as an agent at Langley in the WMD Division, she would have been involved with tracking and containing threats to world peace, such as the AQ Khan Network.

Everybody knows how well that turned out.

Ah, the CIA. Another day, another Bay of Pigs....

PeterUK.

Section9
I know,but Saint Valerie voluntarily joined the Agency which did bring down Allende,and the left love her!

Jane

OT: John Edwards hair cut guy is pissed because of the lack of attribution. So now he says the pink Sapphire actually had haircuts costing $1250.00

Where is H&R? He needs to get right on this.

PeterUK.

Jane,
Perhaps his central nervous system was confused,up for virgins down for crushed nuts.
Confucius he say "Big pain hides little pain".

RogerA

Lawschool drop out and senate staffer groupie Cha Cha boy is back! How long has this ignorant doofus been polluting your thread, TM? Put a gun in your mouth and suck on it--Thats VERY freudian, you know, Cha Cha boy--you have a gun fetish do you? Perhaps a gun fetish combined with impotence? Given your diarrheaic, stream of consciousness writing style, I am thinking you must be Glen Greenwald's 8th sock puppet.

I cant wait until Bush pardons Libby completely--will drive you moonbats further nuts--although for most of you thats just a trip around the corner.

Hows that impeachment thing going, BTW?

What an moron!

RogerA

Pardoname: what A moron!

Jane

Confucius he say "Big pain hides little pain".

WEll he was on fire at the time so you have a point.

Sue

I haven't read all of the Rita links, but wouldn't the distinction between the two be that the crime that Rita could have been charged with was a proven crime and the crime Libby could have been charged with might not have been a crime? In other words, to date, there is no proof Libby could have even been charged with IIPA or the Espionage Act violations because to date no one has proven Spy Val would have even been covered.

Sue

And, one was a political witch hunt the other wasn't. If Libby had been convicted of lying about purchasing weapons, I would not be happy at Bush for commuting the sentence.

Sue

I hang my hat on no violation of the IIPA or Espionage Act on the fact that Armitage was never seriously under the gun for violating them. A cursory glance at his calendar would have revealed his early knowledge and discussion with Woodward, neither of which happened.

Other Tom

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby is not going to jail. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. The fact must be dealt with by all who claim adulthood.

Memomachine

Hmmmm.

@ cboldt

-- I haven't seen any hiding or destroying of evidence by Libby whatsoever --

That fully explains your position. No need to get into underlying anything.

Excuse me?

Are you saying that you have seen or know that Libby hide or destroy evidence?

Got proof? Or are you simply pulling things out of your ass?

Rick Ballard

Sue,

Have you tried reframing what is known into a different narrative scheme? If we drop the Corn narrative and look at what is known now as to what was known then the story comes out a little differently:

A CIA "agent" used her position to advance her husbands business interests. She also provided her husband with secret information (the "forgeries") that he used to advance himself with the Democrat opponent's campaign by using them as an explanation as to why he was reversing his "views" concerning WMD. The CIA protected (and protects to this day) a "rogue" agents injection of the agency into domestic politics using IIPA as a clumsy "cover" for illicit activities.

The price the CIA has paid is the loss of primacy within the governments intelligence directorate with the DCI no longer first among equals but there is no reason to believe that the same type of operation couldn't occur again sometime in '08. The CIA general counsel's fumbling, stumbling, obfuscatory response regarding Plame's actual status doesn't inspire much trust.

Are there additional domestic political "black ops" planned for this year and next? Someone a little higher up the food chain than Val who might need to hide under the thin cover of IIPA?

What's happening to MOM? Is there room for her next to Val under that CIA rug?

Sue

What's happening to MOM? Is there room for her next to Val under that CIA rug?

So it would seem.

It was a get Cheney scheme that Powell and Tenet were fully aware of. Whether they thought it would go past a political embarrassment is the $64,000 question.

PeterUK.

Mr Ballard,
You are being somewhat unfair on the CIA which has developed its regime toppling techniques over the last few decades,is it the Agency's fault? Now that it is infested with the liberal left ethos, it is unthinkable that it would destabilise a country like Venezuela,so who else is left on whom the CIA can practice its arcane black arts? Would you have thes hard won skills wither on the vine?

clarice

Well, I hope someone grabs and posts it. We could all have some laughs.

PeterUK.

"Fitzgerald unclassified and filed documentation from CIA @ Prettyman in the clerk's office that Plame was covert."

So the Special Prosecutor is endowed with the power to de-classify?(Note not unclassified)Perhaps he should have been given the Title of Lord Protector.

Jane

Wow, it's quite wonderful that Fitz has taken the authority to declassify stuff all on his own. It must be another one of those hidden authorities he got from Comey.

Sue

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010442.php#trackbacks>Hmmm. This should make us all warm and fuzzy.

Via the Captain:

Canada has discovered a problem in its management of radioactive devices -- the darn things keep coming up missing.
BobS

Where does this insolent child get all this babble from. Tucker Carlson's dad? A Fact? What on earth is he talking about?

I've learned not to trust any of his sources. He used Syd Blumenthal for heaven's sake. Even the Clinton's called him Grassy Knoll.

And CheChe, your line about putting a gun in the mouth and pulling sucking is benaeth contempt and shows finally what sort of individual you are.

You're personally despicable and revolting. And obviously sociopathic.

PeterUK.

"If Scooter Libby is placed on probation as a result of hearings (first is next Monday) and he is violated by a judge and probation officer he goes to jail:"

What kind of system is it where am man can be sexually assaulted by a judge and a probation officer,hasn't Mr Libby suffered enough?

RogerA

"house judy" Wow--that is just, so IN. It is! It's glen greenwald walking among us as Cha Cha boy. Better get off that computer before mommy finds you playing with it. BTW, Cha Cha boy: contempt of congress in an oxymoron--or could you explain the recent 16 percent of americans who approve of congress?

PeterUK.

"This is in a way, unchartered territory since I don't know any case law"

Good grief,an honest opinion from the retard.

Digger

Note to regular posters from perennial lurker; please don’t feed the trolls, they just crap on the carpet and leave a foul odor, if they starve for attention maybe they will just wander back over to their own swamp-in-kind. That’s about all I have to say about that.

BobS

Digger: Agreed.

PatrickR

'I would never ever waive my rights or submit to a note taking FBI "interview" without counsel present.'

Even that won't protect you. Martha Stewart had a lawyer sitting alongside her when she talked to Fed investigators. The only smart thing to do is refuse to talk AT ALL.

royf

I love the part where che says "Bush couldn't spell commute on his own".

I mean after all he fooled all those democrats into voting for a Iraqi regime change in 1998, while GWB was still Governor of Texas. He then tricked them again into voting to authorize the war against Saddam. He used the CIA and the Joos to bomb the WTC and the Pentagon on 9-11-2001. blah blah blah.

Man this crap gets old, but I'm sure the next phony media/DNC promoted scandle will be the one.

PeterUK.

Digger,
No, this one is internet herpes.

Memomachine

Hmmmm.

@ PatrickR

The only smart thing to do is refuse to talk AT ALL.

What if I talk in Klingon? Or JRR Tolkien's Elvish?

I assume if someone doesn't speak English they the federal investigators would provide a translator and wouldn't hold that lack against the interviewee.

But what if you are fluent in multiple languages? Can you choose to speak to federal investigators in a language other than English? Or is there a law that requires you to speak to federal investigators in English?

And if forced to speak in English, rather than say Klingon, can you later on appeal based on a mis-translation?

Frankly I thank God every day that I went into computer programming rather than law. It can be hell dealing with problematic computer systems but that beats law any day.

clarice

Off topic.
New York restauranters are complaining that the trans fat ban results in soggy fries and uncrispy fried chicken.

That leads Power line to remind us of these words from the great Toqueville:
[quote]Above these [citizens] an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living?

***

Subjection in small affairs manifests itself every day and makes itself felt without distinction by all citizens. It does not make them desperate, but it constantly thwarts them and brings them to renounce the use of their wills. Thus little by little, it extinguishes their spirits and enervates their souls....[/quote]

Rick Ballard

"The only smart thing to do is refuse to talk AT ALL."

I dunno - Arkansas Alzheimers works OK too. Refusal to talk at all might get you charged with obstruction under Fitzlaw. Maybe, "Boy, I'd sure like to help you guys but this is so important that I know I have to be absolutely accurate and my memory is always playing tricks on me... say, do you know where I left my car keys?, I had 'em a minute ago and now..., oh, here they are...

What was the question again?

No, really, I wanna cooperate completely 'cause I know you guys are just doing your job of protecting the public and... say, by the way, have you ever actually stopped a crime before it was committed? I mean, rather than after all the damage has been done and there are victims laying around and all...

What was the question, again?

clarice

anduril reminds me that the missing Eckenrode notes are of a pattern--the mhidden Waco notes that implicated Reno and the faked Ruby Ridge notes.

Shut up when they call and tell them why.

Snow tells Walton there's no dilemma on probation--simply treat Libby as though he'd already served his sentence and he makes fun of the Clintons:

[quote]WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House on Thursday made fun of former President Clinton and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for criticizing President Bush's decision to erase the prison sentence of former aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
"I don't know what Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it," presidential spokesman Tony Snow said.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., has scheduled hearings on Bush's commutation of Libby's 2 1/2-year sentence.

"Well, fine, knock himself out," Snow said of Conyers. "I mean, perfectly happy. And while he's at it, why doesn't he look at January 20th, 2001?"

In the closing hours of his presidency, Clinton pardoned 140 people, including fugitive financier Marc Rich.

The former president tried to draw a distinction between the pardons he granted, and Bush's decision to commute Libby's 30-month sentence in the CIA leak case. [/quote]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8Q6H5180&show_article=1

mefolkes

PUK, good catch on the "violated" stumble at 11:56. It reminds me of the story of a gay duck hunting club in Washington State. They were having a tremendous problem with trespassers. Everyone in the area knew of their unique identity and were contemptuous of them, to the point of ignoring their signs. Then the club changed the wording of the signs from "trespassers will be prosecuted" to "trespassers will be violated". Incursions ceased.

Rick Ballard

How do you know which ducks are gay and why do people form hunting clubs to go after them specifically?

Seems kinda esoteric to me.

Other Tom

Great Scott--another congressional power discovered, heretofore unknown: Congress might place Libby on probation next week!

Repeat after me: I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby will not go to jail. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever.

(Once again: by far the best part of Bush's action was the consternation it caused in certain quarters. And that consternation is the gift that just keeps on giving.)

PeterUK.

Oh really,Mr Ballard,they're the ones which go "Quacksy wacksy".

Other Tom

"Martha Stewart had a lawyer sitting alongside her when she talked to Fed investigators." True enough. But she very famously refused to allow him to prepare her for the interview, and ignored every bit of advice he gave her.

But I tend to agree that the best advice is to say nothing.

royf

"Quacksy wacksy" LOL.

You know that sounds like the same language as "Scootsie Wootsie".

Not that there is anything wrong with that......

clarice

The quality of my sketchy recall and the high test set by the Libby case make it impossible for me to help you--since you have determined that even caveats as to the fallibility of my own memory can be disregarded and my efforts to assist by giving you my best recollection can be used to fashion a perjury and obstruction charge should others more popular with D.C. juries have differing recollections.

Since I cannot honestly say my impressions of the long ago conversations on what seemed unimportant at the time are strong enough for me to testify to their accuracy under oath, I must decline to answer on the ground that I do not recall with the kind of exactitude the feds now seem to require.

Rick Ballard

"Subjection in small affairs manifests itself every day and makes itself felt without distinction by all citizens. It does not make them desperate, but it constantly thwarts them and brings them to renounce the use of their wills. Thus little by little, it extinguishes their spirits and enervates their souls...."

Clarice - isn't that Nanny Bloomberg's platform?

clarice

To a T, Rick.
And I think the Brussels template is his model.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Traffic

Wilson/Plame