Powered by TypePad

« No Prophets Without Honor | Main | Valerie Plame, Telling Stories »

May 30, 2007

Comments

cathyf
But on the other hand, it is well-established that Plame's position was classified (i.e. covert in an ordinary sense), right?
Wrong. Plame's affiliation with the CIA was not classified in the ordinary sense on Feb 19, 2002. This unclassified information was disclosed, on Feb 19, 2002, to the person who wrote this memo. This unclassified information was read by Richard Armitage, who told this unclassified information to Robert Novak, who printed it in the newspaper. You can tell that it's unclassified information because the US Government treated it as unclassified information and made no affirmative actions to interfere in any way with their employees exercising their First Amendment rights to chat freely about it.
Crust

anduril:

And the obvious proof of this assertion is that Fitz did, indeed, prosecute Libby for espionage--oh, wait!

Maybe he couldn't prove intent?

As I said, it does seem to be clear that Libby (and Armitage and Rove) at a minimum leaked classified information. So the only hole I can imagine there is intent. Well I guess there's always prosecutorial discretion too but somehow that seems implausible given what a bulldog Fitz was on this case.

anduril
Leaking classified information is a crime too.

Be careful--as stated, that is overbroad and untrue. There are some felony violations for leaking classified information, but they are highly specific as to the type of information involved--they cannot be generalized as simply "classified information." And there is at least one misdemeanor violation for mishandling classified information--Sandy Burglar can tell you all about that. But, in general, the only punishments for leaking, like to a reporter, are administrative sanctions like firing, etc.

Enlightened

Hmmm. Someone sounds suspiciously like a Greenwald puppet.

Crust

Cathyf, I'm not a Plame-iac so go easy on me if I'm being dumb, but that memo is stamped "SECRET" across the top. That doesn't sound like "the US Government treated it as unclassified information" to me. Also, Armitage was first, but didn't Libby and Rove also leak this? (Maybe from the same memo I guess?)

Apollo13

It's not Fitzgerald's opinion, you dope. Fitzgerald's statement came from the CIA who declassified Plame's covert status.

Your reading comprehension sucks as does your blog.

Cycloptichorn

Crust, don't use unfair tactics like requiring facts or logic! You'll hurt her head.

Cathy, assertions that Plame was not covert are uncompelling in the light of available evidence presented by Hayden and the CIA itself.

It doesn't matter one whit if the information has been disclosed improperly in the past - classified is classified until it's officially declassified.

TXMom

"If convicted in a court of law, the appropriate sentence is, imho, somewhat greater than the 30-37 months that Fitz recommended. But, it's good enough for me.

Fitz is correct that Libby has displayed no remorse for the crime whatsoever and shows no understanding that what he did was, in fact, wrong. So there's no real reason he should expect leniency."

I wonder if you would apply your same standard to President Clinton. (I really don't wonder, I know what the answer would be, so don't bother to answer.)

Enlightened

Where is the official CIA document that Fitz cites Plame's status? I don't see it attached to the court filing -

Appalled Moderate

anduril:

If I were interested in writing a legal brief on the subject of the Espionage Act, I'd try to get it published in a law review, rather than doing it here in comments.

My comment is based on Fitz's filing as quoted by Byron York:

“Because the investigation defendant was convicted of endeavoring to obstruct focused on violations of the IIPA and the Espionage Act,” Fitzgerald continues, “the court much calculate defendant’s offense level by reference to the guidelines applicable to such violations.”

The covert/not covert question, as defined by IIPA, is not germane to Fitz's filing, as the Espionage Act's ambiguity on such matters gives him enough leeway.

That said, cathyf's point is interesting. Don't have the time for it today, alas.

cathyf
Cathyf, I'm not a Plame-iac so go easy on me if I'm being dumb, but that memo is stamped "SECRET" across the top. That doesn't sound like "the US Government treated it as unclassified information" to me.
The "SECRET/NOFORN" classification is appropriate to a memo which describes the planning of a CIA operation (who they sent, why they sent him, what he was planning to do when he got there.) There are only two kinds of CIA employees: the ones whose CIA employment is not classified at all, and the covert employees, whose CIA employment is

1) marked "TOP SECRET / CODE WORD" whenever it appears in a document; and

2) never appears in a document or is disclosed in any way unless there is a very very very good reason for the people receiving the information to need to have it.

There was no reason for the State Dept guy who wrote the memo to be told of how the CIA came to be acquainted with Wilson.

Sara

Via Tammy Bruce's blog:

Things are heating up in the Scooter Libby sentencing. The Judge today ordered "that the media and, to the extent they have position on the issue, the parties shall submit to the Court by 5:00 p.m. on May 30, 2007, their legal views regarding what right, if any, the media has to access the sentencing letters prior to the June 5, 2007 imposition of the defendant's sentence."

Jane Hamsher and Marcy Wheeler, as credentialed bloggers for Firedoglake and Daily Kos, have submitted their letter. More from Jane here and Marcy here.

My view on the letters is here.

The Judge also ordered Team Libby reply to the government's sentencing memoranda (here and here, pdf) by 5:00 p.m. on May 31, 2007.

Enlightened

Yeah - that's it. Investigate a criminal act of leaking a covert agent, identify the leaker but don't prosecute, expand the investigation to entrap someone but not the identified leaker of the covert agent, convict the entrapped alleged criminal with prejudicial testimony not related to the entrapped's alleged crime and then try and sentence the entrapped convicted criminal for the original leaking that the identified leaker committed.

Scary how a prosecutor can attempt to incarcerate someone for someone else's crime - and the left embraces it like candy to a baby.

Cycloptichorn

TxMom:
I wonder if you would apply your same standard to President Clinton. (I really don't wonder, I know what the answer would be, so don't bother to answer.)

Of course I would. If he was convicted of a crime in a court of law, and he showed no remorse, he shouldn't expect any leniency.

Why would you assume my answer would be any different?

Crust

Thanks for the explanation, cathyf.

So it sounds like who ever wrote/informed that memo screwed up. And so Armitage is off the hook since he had no way of knowing what her status was. (And presumably Libby and Rove are also off the hook for similar grounds?)

Like I said, I haven't really been paying attention to the whole Plame story. But your explanation sounds reasonable to me.

topsecretk9

What's more curious now, is why Fitzgerald failed to prosecute the leaker Armitage for not only leaking, but obstructing his investigation by withholding information about his Woodward interview - as Armitage couldn't claim ignorance with Woodward bugging him for years.

I suspect because it would have ultimately been a complete embarrassment and revealed how lame his investigation was for not investigating so he buried it.

topsecretk9

--So it sounds like who ever wrote/informed that memo screwed up. --

Wrong. Valerie, herself, was the screw up there.

TXMom

Cyclop, he did "mislead" a grand jury, did he not? However I don't want to divert the thread here from Libby.

Jane

If convicted in a court of law, the appropriate sentence is, imho, somewhat greater than the 30-37 months that Fitz recommended. But, it's good enough for me.

So in your opinion cyclops what Libby was convicted of is 30-37 months worse than what Sandy Berger was convicted of, right?

cathyf
So it sounds like who ever wrote/informed that memo screwed up.
No. It's not just that the memo should have had a different classification on it if a NOC had shown up at a meeting. It's that a real NOC would never have shown up at that particular meeting at all. Joe Wilson's resume on its own was completely sufficient as a reason why the CIA would choose to send him to Niger. The only reason that Valerie Plame would write the cable, convene the meeting, introduce Joe Wilson, and mention that she was married to him is that the government had no reason to keep her CIA affiliation secret.
Cycloptichorn

So in your opinion cyclops what Libby was convicted of is 30-37 months worse than what Sandy Berger was convicted of, right?

Um, yes?

How hard a question is that to answer?

Jane

Scary how a prosecutor can attempt to incarcerate someone for someone else's crime - and the left embraces it like candy to a baby.

That's it exactly. It's just amazing to me that the left has voluntarily given up all this country stands for, as long as it will "get george Bush". Yet they never quite get him.

Enlightened

You all should read the links Sara provided from Tammy Bruce -

In one of the sentencing memo's, I think the whole mindthink of Fitz et al is this:

Judge Tatel's concurrence re: Miller Subpoena

"Prosecuting perjury or false statements would be tantamount to PUNISHING THE LEAK."

Fitz is attempting to punish Scooter Libby for LEAKING, not perjury or false statements.

He could not charge anyone with the actual leak, so settled for a perjury trap.

It's not that he wanted Scooter Libby - he would have been happy entrapping ANYONE to punish this administration, and for all intents an purposes - validate the alleged leaking of a covert operative.


I ask again - Why do they only refer to Valerie Wilson and not to Valerie Plame, or Valerie Plame Wilson.

Robert Novak specifically stated Valerie Plame in the original "leak" column.

The prosecutor is trying to frame the leaking as happening to Valerie Wilson.

I think there needs to be clarification from CIA on Valerie PLAME's covert status. I am almost certain she used BOTH names concurrently - and I will damn well bet you Valerie PLAME was not covert - and that is who was allegedly outed.

Jane

Cyclops,

All I can say is wow. Wouldn't you be a lot happier in someplace like Venezuala?

Cycloptichorn

Jane,
All I can say is wow. Wouldn't you be a lot happier in someplace like Venezuala?

No, why?

I'm not sure why you consider lying to the FBI and a GJ to be less of a crime then stealing copies of documents. Especially given the circumstances of the crime involved in the Libby case.

Enlightened

I think this is why it is taking so long for CIA to define her status -

Valerie Wilson had different status than Valerie Plame.

I can't think of any other reason all docs pertaining to Ms. Wilson in this case do NOT address her as PLAME.

lurker9876

Does anyone have a link to Toensing's "testimony" presented but rejected by Waxman?

Thanks!

Enlightened, which "true name" was Fitz referring to, then?

lurker9876
Fitz is correct that Libby has displayed no remorse for the crime whatsoever and shows no understanding that what he did was, in fact, wrong. So there's no real reason he should expect leniency.

I think it's an invalid argument that Fitz is using. Libby showing no remorse doesn't mean that he committed...what...crimes? What crimes did Libby commit, btw?

Enlightened

Compare and contrast the addressing by the Oversight Committee - always referrred to as Valerie Plame Wilson.

Call me crazy but I think there is a specific reason the CIA and Fitz only refer to Valerie Wilson.

Sara

So in your opinion cyclops what Libby was convicted of is 30-37 months worse than what Sandy Berger was convicted of, right?

Um, yes?

How hard a question is that to answer?

Posted by: Cycloptichorn | May 30, 2007 at 06:14 PM

So stealing from the Nationaal Archives is a lesser crime than paraphrasing a conversation? So stealing CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS is a lesser crime? So leaving said classified documents under a construction trailer (as if a spy drop) is a lesser crime? So, destroying classified documents (originals no less) is a lesser crime?

You are nuts.

RichatUF

from the crust comment...

... it does seem to be clear that Libby (and Armitage and Rove) at a minimum leaked classified information...

How so? Even Plame-Wilson said that the tea-sampling that Joe undertook wasn't classified. Funny, Joe could talk about the mission with reporters in the presence of his wife but gov't officials couldn't respond to journalists who were badgering them about the mission.

From the hearing transcript:

REP. DAVIS: Okay.
On June 13th, Kristof wrote a column about the Niger uranium matter. He wrote that he was piecing the story together from two people directly involved and three others who were briefed on it. Do you know if you were one of those people he was referring to?

MS.PLAME WILSON: I can't imagine that I would be. I did not speak to him about it.

REP DAVIS: Okay. What about your husband? Would he have been one of the sources, probably?

MS. PLAME WILSON: I think he was speaking to Mr. Kristof at that point.

REP. DAVIS: Okay. Was any of that information classified, to your knowledge?

MS. PLAME WILSON: Not that I'm aware.

If we are taking her word that she was 'covert' [and it appears to me that Fitzgerald believes everything the Plame's are telling him], why can't we take her word that the Niger mission wasn't classified? And back to tradecraft-is it standard policy to have family members of 'covert' CIA operators get assigned to unclassified missions.

The Niger mission not classified->no one could 'leak classified information'

No leak->no reason to investigate

On an appeal, could the Libby team argue that the investigation was a perjury trap? Fitzgerald didn't care about the Espionage Act or IIPA, he would have hung his hat on jaywalking if he could get a few process charges.

RichatUF

Cycloptichorn

Lurker-
I think it's an invalid argument that Fitz is using. Libby showing no remorse doesn't mean that he committed...what...crimes? What crimes did Libby commit, btw?

Making False Statements, Perjury, and Obstruction of Justice.

Look, there isn't any question any longer that he committed these crimes. He's been convicted of doing so in a court of law. He is now moving to the sentencing phase of that trial, and at no point did he show any sort of awareness that what he did was wrong.

Typically that's one of the things which would prompt leniency in this case. Libby is of course well aware of the impacts of his actions; he did his job well, took one for the team. But he has shown no remorse, so there's no reason to show him any remorse.

boris

lying to the FBI and a GJ to be less of a crime then stealing copies of documents.

Stealing and destroying documents that were under investigation by the congressional 911 commision. Then lying about it.

Seems like Berger did at least everything Libby did in addition to tampering with and destroying evidence.

Libby's "lie" = what he knew and when he knew it about a fact that nobody considered classified until later. Berger apparently was covering up culpability in the 911 FUBAR.

(Beyond nuts)

RichatUF

enlightened says...

...Call me crazy but I think there is a specific reason the CIA and Fitz only refer to Valerie Wilson...

Kind of like the NBC Dance. Speaking of which, did Gregory, Mitchell, and Russert ever clarify who knew what when? Or is Gregory still duct-taped, doing soft focus stories about Russert loving puppies.

RichatUF

boris

convicted of doing so in a court of law

Since it is well known than innocent individuals are occasionally convicted, that statement is either dishonest, ignorant or both.

Enlightened

Lurker - I don't know what Fitz means by her "true name".

I think he is conveniently using only Valerie Plame for a reason. Damned if I can figure out why.

As for Fitz wanting to lengthen Scooters sentence because he shows no remorse? Scooter says and believes he is NOT GUILTY. So I guess Fitz wants to change the definition of remorse. I guess it should now mean you feel bad for believing you didn't do something bad.

topsecretk9

More Fitzy

At the conclusion of this entirely pointless testimony, Ron Safer, counsel for Mark Kipnis, elicited the admission from IRS Agent Schindler that, although she would have been willing and qualified to examine whether the disputed payments were illegal, the prosecution chose not to ask her to. So we were left with an IRS agent supporting a hypothesis her own agency does not share.

Man -- his office is a frame up job.

Recall, there have been a few other recent Fitzy cases gone awry (not including Cowles and they goof up of handing classified to the defense in the charities)

Enlightened

convicted of doing so in a court of law

Since it is well known than innocent individuals are occasionally convicted, that statement is either dishonest, ignorant or both.

Posted by: boris | May 30, 2007 at 06:37 PM

Now now Boris. Don't hurt them like that.

Cycloptichorn

Well, let's be accurate, Sara.

So stealing from the Nationaal Archives is a lesser crime than paraphrasing a conversation?

No, but it's less of a crime than Obstruction of Justice, Making False Statements and Perjury. Yaknow, the things Libby was actually convicted of doing by the jury.

Add in the fact that it was related to the intentional outing of a covert US agent - and yeah, it's worse. A lot worse. Libby didn't just get a few dates mixed up. He invented lies in order to protect people higher in the chain then himself. He very conveniently 'forgot' every single detail that worked against him, and just as conveniently 'remembered' things which didn't happen. That's the ObJustice charge, as you know.

Take it up with the DoJ when it comes to the other case - I didn't hand down Berger's sentence.

Arguing this is pointless anyways - he's already been convicted. Therefore, he is guilty, by definition, of doing the things that the prosecution claimed him to have done.

anduril

TSK9, don't say that Fitz's investigation was "lame": it was very narrowly targeted and he did indeed "get" one of his targets.

cathyf: you're right that a NOC wouldn't be showing up at such a meeting.

Appalled: you don't know what you're talking about--go read the Espionage Act. Besides, Fitz isn't asking to use the EA guidelines, he wants to use the IIPA ones. He submits a Summary re the IIPA status of Plame for that very reason and claims that it was clear from the start she was covered. He doesn't say that it was clear from the start that there was an EA violation--that was pure envelope pushing.

Enlightenment, you have a point. Punishing for leaking per se--that is, not for a leak that violated the IIPA but for "classified information" pure and simple--would have required use of the Espionage Act to get to a criminal violation: a totally hopeless stretch, if you read the Act. Not to use the EA would have left them with administrative sanctions only, at best, but probably nothing because Libby could show a legitimate use for the information. Remember, information is classified to prevent its use, just to prevent misuse. Your point about Plame/Wilson is interesting, too. If Val was ever a NOC, it was when her name was Plame. By the time she became Wilson those days were long gone and she was a commuting desk jockey who traveled under true name and official cover.

lurker9876

Thanks, enlightened.

The fact that Libby showed no remorse could be that he knew he is innocent of all charges but that his odds against an unfair jury were so bad that he knew he would be convicted.

Libby's years of experience in the court system probably also told him to be remorse. Unfortunately, Fitz decided to take advantage of it for the wrong reasons.

I suppose Fitz was trying to use Plame to up the framed Libby's sentence.

Also, don't forget that Libby kept telling the Grand Jury that he needs his notes with him in order to answer the questions more accurately. They wouldn't let him have access to his notes. But they did allow others access to their notes, didn't they?

Cycloptichorn

Since it is well known than innocent individuals are occasionally convicted, that statement is either dishonest, ignorant or both.

It is neither. We have one standard for officially judging guilt in this country, and that's the Rule of Law.

I can understand that you look to deny this when things go your way, but by any measure, Libby did commit the crimes that he was accused of. It's disingenuous to argue any differently.

You may not believe that they were crimes; that's a nice opinion you have there. But the law itself disagrees with you, and it won't keep Libby out of jail.

Enlightened

Hmmm, I wonder if you will be so sure of your Rule of Law when Valerie Plame is convicted of Perjury.

boris

by any measure, Libby did commit the crimes that he was accused of

You may not believe what Libby says he actually knew the week of July 7 2003, but without a mind reader or perfect lie detector, which you don't have, you are claiming to have knowledge that does not exist.

In other words, delusional.

JM Hanes

TM:

"Isn't it actually worse - you can be sentenced for the crime the *prosecution* thought they were investigating, even if you had no idea what you might be obstructing, if anything."

Well, I suppose it could get worse, but that's not really what Fitz is arguing. He goes to great length to establish that Libby had reason to believe that the IIPA & Espionage Act were in play. On p. 7 of the Sentencing Calculations he states:

The grand jury transcript introduced in evidence at trial conclusively established that, prior to testifying before the grand jury, defendant was not only informed of the general nature of the grand jury's inquiry, but was explicitly informed that the grand jury was investigating possible violations of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, 50 U.S.C.§ 421 (disclosure of the identity of covert intelligence personnel); or the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. § 793 (improper disclosure of national defense information),[6] among other statutes. At trial, the defense conceded that the grand jury was investigating the IIPA, and offered in evidence information regarding the statute. There can be no doubt that all of this evidence is more than sufficient to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the FBI and the grand jury were investigating violations of the IIPA and the Espionage Act, and that defendant knew it when he spoke with investigators and testified before the grand jury.
The "bolstering" of that preponderance even spills over into his footnotes, and as usual, Fitzgerald's footnotes are worth considerable attention. In footnote #4, p.5, with regard to the "Unclassified Summary" he states:
A copy of this document was disclosed to the defense in discovery on June 9, 2006.
Up to that point in time then, long after Libby's grand jury testimony, it would seem that Libby was not actually in a position to know whether the IIPA might or might not apply to anyone's revelation that Plame was a CIA working girl. Libby's beliefs, as opposed to actual knowledge, in this regard have always been central to Fitzgerald's entire theory of the crime That's why he has had to be so inordinately careful not to expose potential charges to scrutiny or challenge.

Footnote #3, p.5 makes this point:

The PSR notes that the Probation Office "could not locate a reference in these proceedings establishing Ms. Plame as a 'covert' agent." PSR at 32. As this Court is aware, evidence establishing Ms. Wilson's actual status as a covert agent whose employment at the CIA was classified at the time of the leaks was excluded from the trial on the ground that it was not relevant to the question of whether the defendant made false statements or endeavored to obstruct justice. Defendant sought the exclusion of such evidence on the ground that it would be unfairly prejudicial.
I'd be inclined to check the specifics of what Defendant sought to exclude, but such quibbles pale in comoparison to the question of how anything deemed irrelevant to trial & conviction could possibly become sufficiently relevant to double the recommended sentence.

I would also suggest that if Fitz doth suddenly protest too much on the legitimacy of an IIPA investigation at this late point in time, perhaps it serves to obscure the utter dearth (á la Footnote #6, p.7) of "evidence presented at trial bolsters the conclusion that defendant had" the Espionage Act "firmly in mind when he committed the offenses of conviction." Fitzgerald simply applies the Espionage-related guidelines by assertion.

Sara

Cyclop -- have you ever done any research at the Archives? I have many times and my experience has been that they are very careful about their document collections. I've been searched thoroughly both on entry and exit from the building, I've had to sign away my first born (figuratively) in order to gain access to some records and I double guarantee you that if I had been caught smuggling out documents or microfilm or microfiche, my ass would have been grass. Shoot, one time I had the biggest hand gun I've ever seen pointed directly between my eyes because the metal in my knee set off the security alarm.

The same people who have set up Libby and let Armitage slide are the ones who formed a circle of protection around Berger and let him off with a slap on the wrist.

RichatUF

lurker9876...

...Also, don't forget that Libby kept telling the Grand Jury that he needs his notes with him in order to answer the questions more accurately. They wouldn't let him have access to his notes. But they did allow others access to their notes, didn't they?...

Or that the FBI lost their notes and he was still convicted on the "lieing to the FBI" charges. I don't recall, was Bond present for the interview in which the notes were lost or was that the Russert phone call?

I'm still trying to figure out what the 'lie' Libby told. He said that he spoke to Cooper, Miller, and Russert. Found the notes that he met Miller 22 or 23 June; is quoted by name in the "War on Wilson?" article; and said he spoke by phone to Tim "I did not name her" Russert on July 10?

Curious, the Novak article was published on 14 July-well after Wilson was blabbing to the press, and even after Wilson penned his own column in the New York Times. Why is the Novak column the magic date here, when the first Kristof column May 6(?) 2003 is the beginning of the story?

RichatUF

Cycloptichorn

You may not believe what Libby says he actually knew the week of July 7 2003, but without a mind reader or perfect lie detector, which you don't have, you are claiming to have knowledge that does not exist.

In other words, delusional.

Libby isn't in trouble so much for not remembering things that did happen, but for remembering things that didn't. Or for telling someone on Tues. what he later claimed he learned on Thursday... not a compelling case to make in front of a jury.

His faulty memory does not equal a free pass to commit crime, sorry.

Insults are no substitute for a well-reasoned argument, unfortunately.

Cycloptichorn


The same people who have set up Libby and let Armitage slide are the ones who formed a circle of protection around Berger and let him off with a slap on the wrist. <.i>

Are they the same people who planned 9/11 from within our government, faked the moon landings and shot JFK? :)

Conspiracy theories are fun, but they have little validity in the absence of any actual proof - which I doubt you have.

Enlightened

How do you suppose the leftwing nutball losers square this:

Plame Employment link above

Page 3, para 4 (Paraphrased)

October 2005 at their own discretion, the CIA determined that PUBLIC INTEREST in the alleged crime, outweighed the DAMAGE TO NATIONAL SECURITY.


With this:

Same link above

page 6, para 2 (Paraphrased)

Question one - How did such a serious breach of National Security occur? (no serious breach see CIA doc above)

Question three - How can we prevent these violations of National Security in the future? (no serious breach see CIA doc)

And of course there was no trial for any National Security Breach.

So why again was there a Oversight Hearing? And why did Valerie Plame Wilson lie under oath whilst answering questions about a No Damage, Public Interest alleged but not prosecuted crime?


lurker9876

RichatUF, I've been trying to figure out exactly what lies Libby committed, too. Almost all reporters have been discredited. FBI notes were lost.

His faulty memory does not equal a free pass to commit crime, sorry.

Exactly what crime did he commit? What intent of the crime, if committed, did Libby have? What motive and opportunity of a crime, if committed, did Libby have?

In this case, I disagree that Libby's faulty memory equating a free pass to an unfair trial by biased jury. Especially with missing FBI notes and lack of crime definition.

Exactly what did Libby obstruct?

What insults are you talking about? There are none.

Cycloptichorn

Naturally, saying that the 'public interest' outweighs the damage done to national security doesn't mean there wasn't a serious national security breach; it only means that there is a serious need for the public to know about this.

I can understand why you might be upset that the CIA came to this decision, but that does not change their right to have done so, nor does it provide dispositive evidence about the case in question in any way.

RichatUF

fixed

cy says...
...for telling someone on Tues. what he later claimed he learned on Thursday...

Oh please, If I told the FBI I called up the office Tuesday but it was really Thursday and they then turn around and charge me with obstruction and perjury and play hide-the-ball that they were investigating securities fraud: I wouldn't be a damn bit 'remorseful'-I would be very scared at what is happening to the rule-of-law.

RichatUF

MikeS

My own feeble recollection is that David Corn and Joe Wilson made accusations against the White House. They said Valerie had nothing to do with sending Joe to Niger so her name should never have come up when journalist were frantically trying to find out who sent him. Corn and Wilson also claimed that Valerie’s name was mentioned for the purpose of punishing Joe because he wrote an opinion piece, and that in any event mentioning her name was a crime because she was a secret agent.

We now know that there was no crime committed regarding the release of Plame’s CIA status, because the people who admitted doing it were never even charged with a crime. We also know that the correct answer to the question every journalist (except Tim Russert) was asking is that Valerie Plame recommended Joe for his Niger mission.

lurker9876

But they are not telling us anything if that's what you mean that the American Public must know the details? So far, we've not seen any evidence. So far, we've seen inconsistencies in Plame's stories. Et al.

So why use these unproven and lack of evidence to justify Libby a longer sentence.

It'll be interesting to see what the Defense team says.

Cycloptichorn

Lurker,
Exactly what crime did he commit? What intent of the crime, if committed, did Libby have? What motive and opportunity of a crime, if committed, did Libby have?

He Obstructed Justice, Made False Statements and committed Perjury.

His motive was to protect himself and others from being prosecuted for the intentional outing of a CIA agent, in retaliation for Wilson's actions. He had every reason to lie.

Exactly what did Libby obstruct?

Justice, and the investigation into who in the WH knew about Plame, what they knew, who they TOLD to do something about it. By which of course we mean Cheney. This is obvious to any observer.

What insults are you talking about? There are none.

Boris' penchant for referring to my position as 'delusional.'

topsecretk9

Hmmm, I wonder if you will be so sure of your Rule of Law when Valerie Plame is convicted of Perjury.

I dunno, I wouldn't count on this - Dems will NOT want Miz Covertiness to be called under these circumstances ...

I did suggest him

to

I honestly don't remember

to

2 people the CIA can not locate brought about Joe's trip

and if called her lawyers will do everything in their power to keep the muzzle on.

This is a case of "silence is golden" ::wink:: because she is damn no matter which way.

lurker9876
He Obstructed Justice, Made False Statements and committed Perjury.

His motive was to protect himself and others from being prosecuted for the intentional outing of a CIA agent, in retaliation for Wilson's actions. He had every reason to lie.

Based on what crime?

No, his lies were not intentional. He tried his best to remember to the best of his memory. And he told the GJ many times.

topsecretk9

Special prosecutor to be named to get to the bottom of her myriad of stories regarding the pre-Plame leaking herself CIA shenanigans?

Seems like a good idea to me.

Cycloptichorn

Rich,
I wouldn't be a damn bit 'remorseful'-I would be very scared at what is happening to the rule-of-law.

I'm sure that would be a fun conversation to have with your cellmate, as your fear would have little to do with the law being practiced as it currently is.

It isn't as if Libby's defense didn't bring up every point you've brought up - they just failed to convince the jury that their client was telling the truth. I suspect that the refusal to put him on the stand was a big blow to his credibility, though with a prosecutor like Fitz I don't blame them.

You are blaming the wrong folks here. If you really think Libby is innocent (though I can't imagine that anyone really does think this) you should be pissed at Jeffress and Wells for failing to do their job.

lurker9876
Justice, and the investigation into who in the WH knew about Plame, what they knew, who they TOLD to do something about it. By which of course we mean Cheney. This is obvious to any observer.

No. If that is the case, then Fitz would have charged more people. He has found nothing so far. Cheney just asked Libby to find out what was going on. Cheney did not ask CIA to send Joe Wilson to Nigeria or Africa or whatever. It was Valerie Plame that recommended Joe Wilson for the so-called trip.

RichatUF

lurker...

Exactly what crime did he commit?

He Obstructed Justice, Made False Statements and committed Perjury.

He obstructed fitzjustice, made unfitz statements, and uncommitted fitzjury.

His motive was to protect himself and others from being prosecuted for the intentional outing of a CIA agent, in retaliation for Wilson's actions. He had every reason to lie.

His unmotive was to not protect himself and no other for the unintentional non-outing of a CIA non agent in unrealiation for the Plame's unactions. Libby didn't need to lie, he could have resigned and plead the fifth.

RichatUF

Cycloptichorn

Lurker,
Based on what crime?


Based upon the IIPA. Back at the time, they didn't know whether anyone would be charged with it or not. Motive.

No, his lies were not intentional. He tried his best to remember to the best of his memory. And he told the GJ many times.

This is an assertion which is unsupported by fact or logic. It's a nice belief for you to have. The jury did not share your belief, and it's rather unfortunate (for Libby) that their word counts for significantly more than yours.


lurker9876
It isn't as if Libby's defense didn't bring up every point you've brought up - they just failed to convince the jury that their client was telling the truth. I suspect that the refusal to put him on the stand was a big blow to his credibility, though with a prosecutor like Fitz I don't blame them.

They did not have a chance against a very biased jury. They managed to convince the discredibility of the reporters. If the trial was held outside DC, perhaps Libby would get a fair trial by jury but not in DC.

Putting Libby on the stand in front of a very biased jury would not help either.

Enlightened

Naturally, saying that the 'public interest' outweighs the damage done to national security doesn't mean there wasn't a serious national security breach; it only means that there is a serious need for the public to know about this.


There was no National Security breach - serious or otherwise. If you can prove there was - please do so.

lurker9876
Based upon the IIPA. Back at the time, they didn't know whether anyone would be charged with it or not. Motive.

What? Libby wasn't charged with leaking Plame's status. No one was charged with leaking her status. IIPA was irrelevant according to Fitz until late last week. So still no crime.

Exactly what did Libby lie?

Exactly what was Libby's motive to lie when he did his best to remember things?

lurker9876
This is an assertion which is unsupported by fact or logic. It's a nice belief for you to have. The jury did not share your belief, and it's rather unfortunate (for Libby) that their word counts for significantly more than yours.

Oh, you don't consider the GJ testimony played 8 hours during the trial not a fact to Libby's comments that he was doing the best to remember things without his notes?

It's in there.

Maybeex

Maybe he couldn't prove intent?

As I said, it does seem to be clear that Libby (and Armitage and Rove) at a minimum leaked classified information.

My guess is that he couldn't prove they had knowledge that it was classified information.
The people that gave out information about Plame without revealing its classification status were all at the CIA.

If even one of the CIA employees that admitted to discussing Plame (including Plame herself) had also testified that they had said her status was classified, this would be a very different discussion.

The "no remorse" thing is one of the great catch-22s of our criminal justice system. I can understand why prosecutors like to use it, but I am not fond.

JM Hanes

Cycloptic:

"Fitz is correct that Libby has displayed no remorse for the crime whatsoever and shows no understanding that what he did was, in fact, wrong. So there's no real reason he should expect leniency."

I can see how you might enjoy the Catch 22 here, assuming you're even aware of it. Are you, in fact, aware of it?

BTW, since you apparently have trouble distinguishing between one argument and another here, none of my concerns have ever been predicated on Libby being innocent, nor have I ever asserted that he was either innocent or guilty.

RichatUF

cy (why am I even bothering)...

...It isn't as if Libby's defense didn't bring up every point you've brought up - they just failed to convince the jury that their client was telling the truth...

Please:

The judge allowed Fitzgerald to introduce into evidence "not for their truth value, but for Libby's state of mind" news articles sourced probably back to the Wilson's and no one could prove that Libby read. The judge let stand the FBI charges when the FBI lost notes and the notes they turned over were sloppy. The judge let stand, after he ruled that the subject of Plame's 'status' was not an issue at trial, Fitzgerald's closing, in which Mr. Eliott Ness with a Law Degree, brought up Plame's status "and that girl on the beach."

For a member of the "reality-based" your faith is touching.

RichatUF

Cycloptichorn

Lurker,

Based upon the IIPA. Back at the time, they didn't know whether anyone would be charged with it or not. Motive.

What? Libby wasn't charged with leaking Plame's status. No one was charged with leaking her status. IIPA was irrelevant according to Fitz until late last week. So still no crime.

At the time Libby did the lying, NOONE had been charged with anything yet. The investigation was just beginning. It wasn't irrelevant to those who knew they had done something wrong, or at the very least suspected they might have. Lying under these circumstances, even if you aren't sure exactly what you will be charged with, is a crime.


Exactly what did Libby lie?

He lied about how he learned Plame's name, he lied about his conversations with Cheney about it, he lied about who he spoke to in the media about it, he lied about the timeline of events. Too many lies.

Exactly what was Libby's motive to lie when he did his best to remember things?

He lied for two reasons:

1, to protect himself, and if that couldn't happen, then

2, to protect Cheney. Once again, this is self-evident if you've bothered to study the case at all.

Libby's comments that he was 'doing his best to remember' are immaterial to this discussion, as there is no proof that this is actually true. You see, he was lying there as well.

Claims that he couldn't have gotten a fair trial in front of a DC jury are the last resort of a failed argument. Really.

Jane

I didn't hand down Berger's sentence.

Yet you think his crime is 37 times less serious than Libby's.

More evidence of why they call them moonbats.

Sara

This is an assertion which is unsupported by fact or logic.

8 hours of first hand Libby testimony seems like fact and logic. Did you listen to Libby's testimony or are you just going on someone's talking points?

Cycloptichorn

JM -

I can see how you might enjoy the Catch 22 here, assuming you're even aware of it. Are you, in fact, aware of it?

Oh yes, I'm aware of the catch-22 nature of the situation.

My point is that a man who is convicted of a crime, who does not show remorse for that crime, should not expect leniency when the sentencing comes about. So there's no reason Libby shouldn't have the book thrown at him by the judge.

I thought that Fitz' recommendation was quite mild, actually...

Jane:
Yet you think his crime is 37 times less serious than Libby's.

More evidence of why they call them moonbats.

Yes, I do think that's true. I haven't seen any evidence that Berger's actions were part of a coordinated plan to out a Covert agent as part of a political retaliation. Until I do, I will consider Libby's actions to be far more heinous.

Insults are not necessary when you have a strong argument, but I'm sure I don't need to tell you that.

Enlightened

"Based on what crime?"

Scooter Libby testified inaccurately before a grand jury and to FBI agents about an alleged crime that turned out not to be a crime, and the FBI lost it's notes and the GJ was convened after the leaker had told authorities he leaked.

So basically the New Rule of Law is - it is OK for a Special Prosecutor to convene a Grand Jury to hear testimony about a alleged crime that they already knew who the culprit was, and told said culprit to remain mum. That culprit does not get charged, but the SP can proceed with the GJ to entrap another, apparently the unofficial personal target of the SP, then proceed to indict the other for crimes not pertaining to the reason for convening the GJ, and then as luck would have it, get a biased jury to convict and then issue sentencing memos referring to the original alleged but never proven crime.

Sweet. That's the kind of Rule of Law everyone wants.


topsecretk9

Man...I went and re-read Wilson's careful propaganda in light of Valerie's memo BEFORE Cheney asked the so-called question AND her cable's all around government and including to the Niger Embassy- recall that Owen's Kirkpatrick responded to Valerie's cable with "it warrants another hard look" -- doesn't quite square does it?

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Man...if there is any truth to Seymour H's article -- the forgeries were the job of the VIPpers and Valerie's little reference to "last go around" and the "IC is STILL wondering" and the shear desperation of her trying to get government people involved and on board, I'm starting to think Wilson's trip was to debunk the forgeries - only to save their own and their partner VIP's asses for having put them there

Place that "last go around" and "still wondering" with

“The documents were just what Administration hawks had been waiting for. The second former official, Vincent Cannistraro, who served as chief of counter-terrorism operations and analysis, told me that copies of the Burba documents were given to the American Embassy, which passed them on to the C.I.A.’s chief of station in Rome, who forwarded them to Washington. Months later, he said, he telephoned a contact at C.I.A. headquarters and was told that “the jury was still out on this”—that is, on the authenticity of the documents.”

And, again in the Libby trial were learned that the CIA was sitting on copies all that time.

Maid Marion noted:

Read that last sentence again. Doesn’t it sound as though Cannistraro was keeping tabs on the whereabouts of the documents and status of the hoax from at least the moment they were handed over to the American Embassy? It seems to me Hersh was using Cannistraro’s comment to confirm the claim made by his “former senior-level CIA official” source.

Why did Cannistraro even know about them? He retired in 1991!

lurker9876

Thank you, RichatUF, good point.

Jane, I like your post.

CY, really, you're making up stuff. Typical moonbat.

No, it's not the last resort of a failed argument. It's a fact.

At the time Libby did the lying, NOONE had been charged with anything yet. The investigation was just beginning. It wasn't irrelevant to those who knew they had done something wrong, or at the very least suspected they might have. Lying under these circumstances, even if you aren't sure exactly what you will be charged with, is a crime.

Fitz told his team to go home and he had no plans to charge anyone. So no one will be charged with it. Fitz says his investigation is on hold pending new information and the appeals process. So the investigation is NOT beginning. It's close to the end.

As for lying...only if you have intent...becomes a crime. Libby did not have intent.

Cycloptichorn

Lady Sara -

This is an assertion which is unsupported by fact or logic.

8 hours of first hand Libby testimony seems like fact and logic. Did you listen to Libby's testimony or are you just going on someone's talking points?

Libby was lying during his testimony. He was convicted of it just a few months ago. Claims that he was telling the truth when he said 'I'm remembering this to the best of my ability' are not dispositive evidence that he actually was doing so, but could just as easily have been lies.

This is my point: you don't know whether he was telling the truth or not during his GJ testimony. There were a plethora of people who claimed that he was seriously wrong, in ways that just so happened to protect himself and his boss from the investigation into the outing of Plame.

I don't really need 'talking points' to deal with this sort of thing; this is pretty basic logic, lol

lurker9876
He lied for two reasons:

1, to protect himself, and if that couldn't happen, then

2, to protect Cheney. Once again, this is self-evident if you've bothered to study the case at all.

Libby's comments that he was 'doing his best to remember' are immaterial to this discussion, as there is no proof that this is actually true. You see, he was lying there as well.

Why would Libby protect Cheney when Cheney did absolutely nothing wrong? Cheney just asked a question the day after Valerie Plame's email of suggesting Joe Wilson for this so-called trip.

Doesn't make sense. Typical of unprovent onspiracy theories.

manys

I think it's apparent that this issue would not even be resolved with a Supreme Court decision.

lurker9876
Libby's comments that he was 'doing his best to remember' are immaterial to this discussion, as there is no proof that this is actually true. You see, he was lying there as well.

No, it doesn't mean that Libby was lying at all. This is typical human behavior of many, thousands, millions of us worldwide. We all do our best to remember things. Remember how poorly witnesses remember after some time, even a week later.

Other Tom

Cycloptetc.--I am quite surprised to see you arguing that Fitzgerald is making assertions in the course of the sentencing proceeding in order to counter the arguments of various righties. That's not his job, and in fact it is way out of bounds. Even the zaniest assertions of righties, lefties and you-name-its are not before the court in these proceedings.

Nor is it appropriate, so far as I am aware (I am still seeking info from someone with more experience in criminal trial proceedings), for him to put forth unsworn, un-crossed "evidence" of an element of a crime which he assiduously avoided pleading in the indictment, and which he specifically declined to prosecute. If you've been paying attention, you'll recall that defense counsel made specific pre-trial discovery requests for all information bearing upon Plame's status, and Fitzgerald successfully argued that because the status was not relevant to any crime charged in the indictment, he did not have to produce it. Thus, he withheld from the defense, on gournds of relevance, information he now contends is indeed relevant to the issue of sentencing. Even more offensive (to me) is the notion that he can put this information, unsworn, before the court without the defense having any opportunity to cross-examine.

I would bet dollars to donuts that if this procedure were followed against a defendant in Guantanamo you'd be crying like a stuck pig. But then I have no doubt you see Libby as a far greater threat to the Republic, and thus entitled to far less protection under the law.

Cycloptichorn

Lurker,
Fitz told his team to go home and he had no plans to charge anyone. So no one will be charged with it. Fitz says his investigation is on hold pending new information and the appeals process. So the investigation is NOT beginning. It's close to the end.

You are getting your timelines mixed up.

Fitz has ended the investigation NOW, but Libby didn't know that YEARS AGO when he did the lying. He wasn't convicted for lying in court during the last year or so, but for lying three years ago. Noone knew who was going to get charged for what, if anything, AT THE TIME. That = motive to lie. Which is how this whole conversational thread got started.


Why would Libby protect Cheney when Cheney did absolutely nothing wrong?

This is either an assumption or an assertion depending on how you phrase it; but it is non-factual either way, as it relies upon the unproven premise - ESPECIALLY at that time - that Cheney did nothing wrong.

I mean, it's a nice opinion for you to have, but nothing more.

The invariable question: 'why didn't Fitz charge Cheney then?'

And the logical answer: 'you do understand what Obstruction of Justice means, don't you?'

Sara

I think we have come full circle and are back to how Libby could be protecting Cheney for outing Plame when DOD and DOS had both submitted reports with questions and Val had done her recommending before Cheney knew anything.

This is Martha Stewart all over again. Charges filed because she said "not guilty" and the DOJ said "guilty" therefore we can charge her for lying to investigators for saying "not guilty."

Enlightened

"you don't know whether he was telling the truth or not during his GJ testimony."

Neither do you you moron.

But Scooter Libby was indicted anyway.

You just keep pushing your Josh Marshall talking points.

Sooner or later the logic of stupidity dance stops.

lurker9876

*onspiracy* == conspiracy...but everyone could figure it out!

I think it's apparent that this issue would not even be resolved with a Supreme Court decision.

Exactly. Which means that Fitz lacked strong evidence beyond reasonable doubt, with the lack of crime definition, without proving intent, motive, opportunity. You are probably right that the Supreme Court would have serious problems with this case. I also think that the Appeals court would have similar problems.

JM Hanes

Cycloptic:

You clearly don't understand the Catch 22 here at all. It would, of course, be legal suicide for Libby to express remorse for the crime in question when his case is headed for appeal.

Cycloptichorn

Other Tom,

That's not his job, and in fact it is way out of bounds.

I must admit I don't know the true reason why Fitz did this; I can only surmise that he intended to remind Judge Walton that the situation was a grave one, in response to the plethora of letters he must have rec'd from prominent righties - who are too embarassed to have them publicly available, which is pretty funny to me.

I have no special knowledge as to whether this is legal, illegal, or what. I merely hazarded a guess as to why.

Jane

Yes, I do think that's true. I haven't seen any evidence that Berger's actions were part of a coordinated plan to out a Covert agent as part of a political retaliation.

Really? So you discount Clinton's role, right, because he's got such a reputation for honesty?

You did not of course see any evidence of Libby being part of a coodinated plan to out a covert agent as part of a political retaliation either, at least if you were watching the same trial I was. But we know how you moonbats live on fantasy.

So I guess this means when Hillary gets convicted (and you know she will) it will be fine and dandy with you to give her the death penalty. Turnabout being fair play and all that.

I'm telling ya Cy, Hugo Chavez runs your kind of regime.

lurker9876
Why would Libby protect Cheney when Cheney did absolutely nothing wrong?

This is either an assumption or an assertion depending on how you phrase it; but it is non-factual either way, as it relies upon the unproven premise - ESPECIALLY at that time - that Cheney did nothing wrong.

Cheney has been charged with nothing. Fitz has found nothing against Cheney. So Libby was not lying to protect Cheney.

And the logical answer: 'you do understand what Obstruction of Justice means, don't you?'

Since Fitz already knew that Armitage was the original leaker (but Plame was already outed before Armitage), there was no need to investigate futher at that point, especially since he found nothing that Armitage did to damage Plame's status. It was Armitage that obstructed the justice.

Libby did nothing to obstruct the justice.

JM Hanes

Other Tom:

"Cycloptetc.--I am quite surprised to see you arguing that Fitzgerald is making assertions in the course of the sentencing proceeding in order to counter the arguments of various righties."

Especially when the "Unclassified Summary" was attached to his Sentencing Calculations, and not to the Sentencing Memorandum, where Fitz addresses the arguments submitted by Libby supporters.

lurker9876
Yes, I do think that's true. I haven't seen any evidence that Berger's actions were part of a coordinated plan to out a Covert agent as part of a political retaliation.

I would think that Berger's actions were far more serious than whatever crime Libby did not commit.

Cycloptichorn

I suppose that it is a definite boon to my side of the argument, that no matter what sort of logical twists and turns Libby supporters wish to resort to, he's still guilty and will remain so.

Jane, I fully support you saying whatever it is you need to say in order to make yourself feel better about this situation. I'm comfortable knowing that both the facts, and the outcome of the trial, are solidly on my side. It is immaterial to me if you wish to insult me.

JM Hanes,

You clearly don't understand the Catch 22 here at all. It would, of course, be legal suicide for Libby to express remorse for the crime in question when his case is headed for appeal.

I DO understand the Catch-22. You see, leniency is usually reserved for those who are repentant. If Libby wants to rest his chances on an appeal - which will not be heard/successful, by the way, you can count on it - that's cool with me and there's nothing wrong with that. But he shouldn't expect anything less then the full sentence to be handed down.

Lurker,
Libby did nothing to obstruct the justice.

That's a nice opinion that you have there. If only the jury had seen it the same way. As I said earlier, you should be taking this up with Wells and Jeffress.

topsecretk9
— and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington.

And the Agency's sloppy job last go around -- the premise of Hersh's article is the Vipper's put them out there knowing the Administration would ask about them and then an experienced analyst was supposed to lay out why this couldn't be true and embarrass the administration into submission...but also recall

Mr. Tenet's account of all this gives the reader no idea of the substance of our critique, which was that the CIA's analysts were suppressing information. They were not showing policy makers reports that justified concern about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. Mr. Tenet does tell us that the CIA briefed Mr. Cheney on Iraq and al Qaeda in September 2002 and that the "briefing was a disaster" because "Libby and the vice president arrived with such detailed knowledge on people, sources, and timelines that the senior CIA analytic manager doing the briefing that day simply could not compete." He implies that there was improper bullying but then adds: "We weren't ready for this discussion."


---

Oh, and many of you will get a kick out of this from way back (hopefully Walton pulls up the trial transcript)


"We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly and intentionally outed a covert agent," Mr. Fitzgerald contentedly confirmed.

Jane

OT,

I don't know the answer to your question, but I think it is dirty pool and indicative of Fitz entire performance in this case, and frankly in a lot of cases. And I will tell you I have witnessed that kind of trend in recent years in state Courts, with lawyers who don't really care about ethics and fair play. It's worse than any other time in my career. I've tried a few big cases and I can count on one hand when the opposing counsel was unethical. These days it seems more the norm than the exception. My own theory is that Clinton paved the way for this sort of situational ethics in law becoming common place. (It's okay to lie under oath if it is about sex) That was my beef with him all along, and the timing seems right. What is even more appalling is that Fitz is not even questioned by the left, making it clear that ethics just don't matter to them. If Walton doesn't hand him his hat, I'll be really bummed.

lurker9876
"We have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly and intentionally outed a covert agent," Mr. Fitzgerald contentedly confirmed.

I doubt that Walton will pull the trial transcript.

So...the more facts we surface, the more CY's comfortable side with facts and outcome is weakening. Either CY does not understand all of the facts or refuses to recognize the facts.

I also think Walton will ignore those letters anyway.

I believe that the defense team has plenty of appeals points. Fortunately, the appeals court is made up of mostly conservative and non-activist judges.

topsecretk9

**I would bet dollars to donuts that if this procedure were followed against a defendant in Guantanamo you'd be crying like a stuck pig. **

That's for sure. Perhaps Libby should just be sentenced to Harry Potter readings and then the left can be finally happy a neo-con hawk is being tortured for his crime.

Maybeex


I DO understand the Catch-22. You see, leniency is usually reserved for those who are repentant. If Libby wants to rest his chances on an appeal - which will not be heard/successful, by the way, you can count on it - that's cool with me and there's nothing wrong with that. But he shouldn't expect anything less then the full sentence to be handed down.

That's the argument a prosecutor would make. One would hope the judge would take more into consideration. That's what he's there for, after all.

Enlightened

Leniency is usually reserved for those who are repentant.

Go.Back.To.The.Mothership.

Sara

Uh oh, TSK9, Harry Potter on the ropes **ducking**

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame