Libby's Appeal Bond

Jeralyn Merritt explains the background to Libby's attempt for an appeal bond.  And since she was never happy with the ruling denying Libby a memory expert, she thinks he has a useful appeal there.

Comments

[clarice]

I think the appointment issue is even stronger.

[Jane]

I simply have no expectation that anyone is going to do the right thing in this case.

[anduril]

The Libby legal process farce has confirmed my disdain for a system that rewards manipulation by clever and unscrupulous sophists.

I will say I'm seeing more and more of that out there these days and it really surprises me. Perhaps its an attempt to keep clients in a more competitive atmosphere, but I'm seeing big guys from big firms pull a lot of stuff I would never imagine that they would do a mere 5 years ago.

It really makes me want to retire.

Posted by: Jane | June 06, 2007 at 02:00 PM

This may be the fruit of all this critical legal theory and game theory of justice nonsense that they've all been fed on at law school. When I went through it was just starting. It's easy for people without a firm grounding in ethics to latch onto that stuff for selfish motives--career, advancement, money, etc. Very, very sad day.

[anduril]

And speaking of ethics...

Powerline posted this:

Nice work, if you can get it

Vinod Gupta is the head of InfoUSA, a database company. Under Gupta's leadership, the company has showered money on Bill and Hillary Clinton. In fact, as Ronald Kessler at NewsMax notes, Gupta caused InfoUSA to pay former president Clinton $2.1 million in "consulting fees" since he left the White House, with another $1.2 million promised. Gupta reportedly has also spent roughly $1 million of company funds to provide corporate jet flights for the Clintons.

The company now faces a shareholder lawsuit alleging that Gupta is appropriating company funds for personal use and his political pet projects. According to the Weekly Standard's Scrapbook, one of Gupta's pet personnel projects is a yacht staffed by an all female crew. No wonder Gupta and Bill Clinton get along so well.

Now, Kessler reports that InfoUSA has placed Speaker Pelosi's son, Paul Pelosi Jr., on its payroll even though he has no experience in the company's main business activities. According to Kessler's report, Paul Pelosi has been brought on board (the company, not the yacht as far as we know) as a Senior Vice President. His salary is $180,000. The hiring occurred a few weeks after Nancy Pelosi became House Speaker.

Even as he holds this position with Gupta's company, Paul Pelosi continues another full-time job, as a home loan officer at Countrywide Home Loans in San Mateo, California. Although InfoUSA is based in Omaha, Pelosi says he reports to a small InfoUSA office in San Mateo.

[anduril]

And speaking of ethics...

Powerline posted this:

Nice work, if you can get it

Vinod Gupta is the head of InfoUSA, a database company. Under Gupta's leadership, the company has showered money on Bill and Hillary Clinton. In fact, as Ronald Kessler at NewsMax notes, Gupta caused InfoUSA to pay former president Clinton $2.1 million in "consulting fees" since he left the White House, with another $1.2 million promised. Gupta reportedly has also spent roughly $1 million of company funds to provide corporate jet flights for the Clintons.

The company now faces a shareholder lawsuit alleging that Gupta is appropriating company funds for personal use and his political pet projects. According to the Weekly Standard's Scrapbook, one of Gupta's pet personnel projects is a yacht staffed by an all female crew. No wonder Gupta and Bill Clinton get along so well.

Now, Kessler reports that InfoUSA has placed Speaker Pelosi's son, Paul Pelosi Jr., on its payroll even though he has no experience in the company's main business activities. According to Kessler's report, Paul Pelosi has been brought on board (the company, not the yacht as far as we know) as a Senior Vice President. His salary is $180,000. The hiring occurred a few weeks after Nancy Pelosi became House Speaker.

Even as he holds this position with Gupta's company, Paul Pelosi continues another full-time job, as a home loan officer at Countrywide Home Loans in San Mateo, California. Although InfoUSA is based in Omaha, Pelosi says he reports to a small InfoUSA office in San Mateo.

[anduril]

typepad is frustrating. it gets hung up, then when i hit post again, it gives me two. i mean, i sat there for ages waiting for it to get unhung. maybe i should've hit reload.

[Jane]

PUK linked to that yesterday. I was not the least bit surprised.

I'm starting to think there is no emphasis on ethics anywhere - for me that was always whole thing.

[anduril]

third try at verification and they finally gave me one i could read. :-(

[JM Hanes]

Cross posting my last comment from the previous thread.

Jane:

I don't fault trial courts for passing the constitutional buck, as long as the buck stops somewhere. Unfortunately, you can only push for adjudication of constitutional issues when they're attached to a specific case; if lower court policy is to operate as if no constitutional impediments exist, then I believe it's doubly incumbent on higher courts to entertain those constitutional challenges which do arise. This really doesn't strike me as a matter of judicial activism, but of judicial responsibility.

While I don't think winning an appeal is a slam dunk, I do believe the decision to entertain Libby's appeal ought to be. Even with regard to the ethical breaches that bother you, the problem, as TeamLibby pointed out, was that there was virtually nowhere to lodge a timely complaint. All of the issues which really trouble me have constitutional components, and if the leaps here are huge, it's because the abuses are huge. How many times, for example, have you ever heard a judge fault the defense for not initiating discovery in their sentencing documents?

Legal opinion may well differ, but as a citizen I believe that if the appeals court declines the hear Libby's case, the travesty of justice here will have come full circle.

[anduril]

Although the federal justice system has a wonderful reputation, my brother agrees with me (so that's two lifetimes of exposure, although he had more than I did) that the degree of corruption, from petty to not so petty, is very discouraging. Investigative agencies used to be more independent and often served to balance out overzealous prosecutors, but Congress places more and more control in the hands of judges (FISA is a perfect example--it's not an adversarial process, it strictly involves the executive's national security/commander in chief powers) and prosecutors. As we saw in this case, the FBI just went along--no independent input that was visible, and some shocking incompetence to boot.

[anduril]

Dittoes, JMH. I found Walton's remarks at sentencing to be outrageous, in your face, and utterly unwarranted. It was like Wonderland, if you step back a bit and try to put it in perspective.

[Jeff Dobbs]

So, the link has been given in the other thread to Powerline's
Every lawyer has them post about Wolfowitz' letter that recounts Libby helping Armitage.

Powerline credits David Frum

The rest of the story...

It was Polly that pointed out that Wolfowitz letter and the Armitage angle on JOM yesterday. When I saw that David Frum had a short post on his blog asking what Armitage was thinking today, I sent him the quote.

He posted it. Powerline got it from him.

I wish Frum would have said "commenter Polly on Just One Minute" instead of "a reader draws my attention".

But I didn't ask that he do so and don't even know if Polly would want that, but she broke the story.

[DEMO]

Libby and Libby

"Government officials are always getting in trouble, but even the names of and the charges for these two sound the same. On Jan. 30, 1974, G. Gordon Liddy was convicted of obstruction of justice, burglary, and conspiracy related to the Watergate break-in."

"On March 6, I. Lewis Libby was found guilty of obstruction of justice in a case involving a classified CIA operative. Scooter Libby also was convicted of two counts of perjury and one count of making false statements to federal prosecutors."

[Jeff Dobbs]

Huh, this thought just popped in my head.

Put Jeralyn and Andy McCarthy together to discuss this case from a legal perspective.

They both have some level of conflict between their legal experience and what would seem to be their natural (political) views towards Libby.

Jeralyn a defense attorney politically left and McCarthy a former prosecutor politically right.

[DEMO]

From what I read on Firedoglake Walton seemed annoyed at Well’s attempt to read the letters in support of Libby. I get the feeling the letters may have backfired in the sentencing phase. Also, it was odd the Vice President didn’t submit a letter in support of Libby. It’s as if Cheney’s is defensive, secretive and cold. I guess there is a cloud hanging over the VP.

[Vail Beach]

I cannot imagine any federal judge in a criminal case would preside over a trial and then turn around at the end and admit that the defendant has an issue that could prevail on appeal. I don't care how low the standard is, if there is a conviction the judge is always going to say the evidence was overwhelming and that all of his/her rulings were not only correct, but profoundly correct.

The appellate court will decide Mr. Libby's bail fate. The fact that Walton let Libby stay out pending his lawyer filing a motion for bail probably means Libby will continue to be free while the appellate court considers his request for bail. The outcome of that process is not easy to predict.

But what Walton will do is completely predictable. Anyone in suspense about that should shift to speculating on the Sopranos or Harry Potter.

[Rick Ballard]

"This may be the fruit of all this critical legal theory and game theory of justice nonsense that they've all been fed on at law school."

Could be. Of course, it may be just another emanation from the shade of that same penumbra that's been hanging around for coming on fifty years now. The Warren court was a true marvel of sophistry and law school students for the past twenty-five years are products of an educational system that teaches that distinguishing hay from horseshit regarding ehthics and morals is simply a matter of individual preference guided by personal prejudice. The outcome wasn't unpredicted.

There otter be a law.......

[Jeff Dobbs]

The rest of the rest of the story...

Since it now seems certain that my emails yesterday to K-Lo will be treated just like the other 2,351 that I've sent her, I would like to reproduce them here. Copy and paste them as written. Only changes I made were to take out my email address and to cut out the actual Wolfowitz quote to save baby pixels.

The rest of the rest of the story...

From: [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 1:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Thank you for supporting Libby!!!

Thank you for the editorial from NRO. And thank you to linking to Clarice Feldman's article.

Have you seen this?

[Quote from Wolfowitz letter here]

Yes. Libby had previously done Armitage a personal favor. And we see what kind of thanks he got in return.

(oh, if you somehow decide to put any of this on the Corner, be sure and say how much I love Clarice!!!)

______________________________________________
From: [REDACTED]
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:43 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Thank you for supporting Libby!!!

Can you just help me express my love for Clarice on the Corner?

Pretty please?

If I keep bugging you, does it increase my chances? How quickly do you put beligerent emailers on your spam blocker?

[topsecretk9]

"troublesome lawmakers with specious indictments."

HAH!

Senior leadership aides cautioned that a quick resignation under pressure could set a dangerous precedent, suggesting that a politicized Justice Department could target troublesome lawmakers with specious indictments. Jefferson spokeswoman Remi Braden-Cooper said that neither the congressman nor his staff had been contacted by the speaker's office.

But other Democratic aides said there was nothing specious about a 16-count indictment, complete with the lurid details of $90,000 in cash bundled in Jefferson's freezer. For Democrats, the vision of Jefferson moving about the Capitol for months would be a nightmare as they push to complete final ethics and lobbying changes....

...But last June, many members of the caucus were incensed when the Democratic Caucus voted to remove Jefferson from the Ways and Means Committee, where he had a hand in tax, trade and health-care policy. Federal investigators were closing in on Jefferson, with guilty pleas from his business associates and word of cash found bundled in his freezer.

The black caucus accused Pelosi of a racially tinged double standard. As she was moving against Jefferson, she allowed Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.), who is white, to remain on the Appropriations Committee despite dealing with his own federal investigation. Mollohan, now chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the departments of Commerce and Justice, did recuse himself in issues involving federal law enforcement.

[alcibiades]

Also, it was odd the Vice President didn’t submit a letter in support of Libby.

I don't think it is odd at all, given the politics of this judge and the fact that he was royally pissed off that Cheney didn't appear and that he appears to believe that there's some there there vis-a-vis Cheney. It would have had no positive effect of him at all.

I'd be very sure if it wasn't offered and refused from a strategic POV.

[alcibiades]

Oops, that was supposed to read: I'd be very surprised if it wasn't offered and refused from a strategic POV.

[clarice]

H & R I LOVE YOU, too...Cheney didn't write a letter of support because (a) it wouldn't have meant anything to Walton except an attempt to improperly effect his decision and (b) in moonbatlandia (i.e. Fitz' office and fdl and kosania) it would be taken as proof that Libby lied to protect him.

Do I have to spell out everything ?

[Cecil Turner]

it wouldn't have meant anything to Walton except an attempt to improperly effect his decision

Concur. I also believe it would've been improper. The Executive should stay away from that sort of thing . . .

[Jeff Dobbs]

Clarice:
Do I have to spell out everything ?

Judge: Your next word is "everything".

Contestant: Everything. Can I have the definition, please?

Judge: Everything: all that exists.

Contestant: Everything. Can you use it in a sentence?

Judge: "Do I have to spell out everything?"

Contestant: Everything. e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g. Everything.

Judge: That is correct.

[clarice]

I know to a certainty that you were the class scamp, H & R and certainly represent an intriguing role model to your innocent sweet children.

[PeterUK.]

Reggie Walton's career is going to bear watching from now on.

[Jeff Dobbs]

Well, JOM is apparently going to elect him president (see other thread for details)

[DEMO]

Former Norton aide to plead guilty in Abramoff case

"Italia Federici, a one-time political aide to former Interior Secretary Gale Norton, has agreed to plead guilty to tax evasion and obstruction of Congress as part of the investigation into the lobbying activities of Jack Abramoff."

T

[Jeff Dobbs]

Those sweet kids will be home in another hour or so after a week's absence.

As will mrs hit and run, who if you presented the adjective innocent as describing our kids, after a 7 hour drive, would probably laugh quite uncontrollably.

[DEMO]

Pelosi Has Been on a Roll

[PeterUK.]

Pelosi's son has been on a payroll,at InfoUSA.

[lurker9876]

Reggie Walton's career is going to bear watching from now on.

Since Sampson wanted to fire Fitzgerald but did not, hopefully, that's a sign that Fitzgerald's career will bear watching from now on.

And I hope that this will be the case.

[Maybeex]

"Italia Federici, a one-time political aide to former Interior Secretary Gale Norton, has agreed to plead guilty to tax evasion and obstruction of Congress as part of the investigation into the lobbying activities of Jack Abramoff."

Not Italia Federici! How dare you impugn the name of Italia around here? We love her. We talk about her all the time. Oh- and Jack Abramoff is a hero to this blog. I'll bet TM bans you for this post.

[lurker9876]

I know that Walton will not agree to Libby's bond request tomorrow. Walton wants to put Libby behind the bars. Either he thought his crimes were so serious enough and based on Libby being an accessory after the fact or he wants to force Bush into pardoning Libby.

I also feel that Libby's team knew how Walton would rule on tomorrow's request because they wanted to file it as soon as possible so that they can get OUT of the Walton Kangaroo court and move on to the Appellate court.

What demographics make up the Appellate court?

[Other Tom]

"On Jan. 30, 1974, G. Gordon Liddy was convicted of obstruction of justice, burglary, and conspiracy related to the Watergate break-in.

"On March 6, I. Lewis Libby was found guilty of obstruction of justice in a case involving a classified CIA operative. Scooter Libby also was convicted of two counts of perjury and one count of making false statements to federal prosecutors."

Who can spot the difference? If you said, "In Liddy's case, the burglary actually occurred, and people were prosecuted and convicted for it," you can go to at least the middle of the class.

[maryrose]

Other Tom:
I saw Liddy on Hardball and he actually said he {Gordon} did something wrong and was punished for it. He presented the case for pardon and insisted that it was a memory discrepancy between Russert and Libby. Also said real leaker was Armitage. Matthews again insisted that Libby was one of the leakers.

[cathyf]

From what I read on Firedoglake Walton seemed annoyed at Well’s attempt to read the letters in support of Libby. I get the feeling the letters may have backfired in the sentencing phase.

I'd be a little cautious of building on the foundation of emptywheel's not-a-transcript, because it is, well, not a transcript. It is full of snark and contains paraphrase as well. How much of the not-a-transcript is emptywheel's snark and how much is Walton's? We won't know until we see a real transcript.

[Jane]

I think it is fascinating that Judge Walton would be visibly "annoyed" by information that was amassed to advise him in his sentencing decision.

[JM Hanes]

lurker:

"I also feel that Libby's team knew how Walton would rule on tomorrow's request because they wanted to file it as soon as possible so that they can get OUT of the Walton Kangaroo court and move on to the Appellate court."

Good grief, take a deep breath lurker. You've been flinging around all kinds of accusations lately. In this instance, TeamLibby was clearly concerned about running up against the deadline for filing their Notice of Appeal, if Fitzgerald were allowed to dally.

[JM Hanes]

Actually, I think emptywheel has been pretty good about bracketting her editorial asides, and I think it's probably pretty safe to assume that Walton did, in fact, say "I have read all those letters," after Wells finished off his first excerpt.

[DubiousD]

"third try at verification and they finally gave me one i could read. :-("

anduril, next time Typekey freezes on you, try opening the same thread again in a second browser window while the first window is still loading. If the second window displays your new post, then obviously it went through.

[Maybeex]

I think it is fascinating that Judge Walton would be visibly "annoyed" by information that was amassed to advise him in his sentencing decision.

Yes, I too find it fascinating.
I believe it was Fitzgerald that had brought up 'station in life' and abuse of government funds by impeding the investigation. Why would Libby's lawyers be out of place to argue that Libby had used his station in life for good?
Walton had read the letters but the public had not, and many were agitating to make them public before the trial.
But Libby's lawyers reading them at trial? Why, that is just ANNOYING.

[Other Tom]

Anybody here know anything about federal criminal appellate practice?

Here are two questions I have, about which I could only guess at some answers:

1) What is the legal test for whether a stay of execution of the sentence (here, reporting to prison) should be granted pending appeal?

2) At what point can the defendant seek, and if successful get, relief from the appellate court on the denial of such a stay? In particular, if next week Walton denies Libby's request to remain free, can Libby get the D.C. Circuit to rule on that decision before he is due to report?

One of my profs used to say, "We can argue about it, or we can look it up." It seems to me that looking it up would be the proper course here, but I am a very lazy man in my retirement, and of course have already been drinking heavily, which is not conducive to good legal research.

[lurker9876]

Hi, JMHanes, I thought it was Fitz that was willing for ten days for the bond to be filed. The TeamLibby wanted to file with the Appellate Court next Monday so wanted to file the bond request before Monday. So they agreed on tomorrow.

[anduril]

anduril, next time Typekey freezes on you, try opening the same thread again in a second browser window while the first window is still loading. If the second window displays your new post, then obviously it went through.

Posted by: DubiousD | June 06, 2007 at 09:42 PM

excellent idea, but since i use firefox i'll just open a new tab.

[Sara]

OT, isn't Clarice an appeals attorney? She has been pretty quiet the last couple of days. Clarice, are you hard at work on Libby's appeal?

[JM Hanes]

Other Tom:

Jeralyn has some info about your #1 at the link in Tom's original post.

lurker:

Libby will not be filing anything with the Appellate Court next Monday. Defense will file their memorandum in support of bail pending appeal with Walton on Thursday (tomorrow I presume), Fitz is to file his response on Tuesday, Defense will reply within 24 hours, and Judge Walton will hear the matter in court next Thursday.

I suspect this DC Court page may not include the particular "demographics" you were asking about on the other thread, but you will find basic bios of the Apellate judges.

[DEMO]

My guess is when Libby goes to jail in the near future Bush isn't going to be pardoning him any time soon. Too embarrassing to have to answer all those uncomfortable questions Bush has been evading. Too bad for Libby. He'll have to sit in jail till his sentence is almost up before receiving his get out of jail card. Loyalty does have a cost.

[Sara]

Bush can pardon Libby any time he wants and not answer any questions, if he doesn't wish to. There is a pardon process, but the President does not have to go that route since he has absolute power where the pardon is concerned. All it requires is someone to type up the document and for him to sign it and it is done deal, the questions or questioners be damned. He should do it now and, in my opinion, with fanfare.

[lurker9876]

Why don't any of us type up the form and submit it to him? Can we find a senator to endorse it?

[DEMO]

If Bush pardon Libby now he would be breaking his promise that pardon-seekers wait five years after conviction or release from prison, whichever is later, before applying. Too embarrassing to make an exception for a wrong-doer who worked directly for you. I actually hopes Bush pardons Libby now. It will be a big exclamation point on this administration regard for the rule of law. Pardon Libby now.

[Other Tom]

"I actually hopes Bush pardons Libby now."

Me, I actually hopes he does too.

(Where do we get these dopes?)

[DEMO]

If Bush pardon's Libby now there will be animmediate upside. It would bring the scandal into the Oval Office. It would make it forever clear that Libby lied and obstructed justice in order to shield Bush and Cheney from their role in an even bigger crime. A pardon would just seal the deal in exposing the larger criminal enterprise.

Is there a way to bait the White House into granting a pardon?

Pardon Libby Now!

[RichatUF]

Here is another issue. I think i was laughed at here when I mentioned it before.

Since Woodward testified and produced the Armitage tape (the June 11 leak), why couldn't the defense argue that it was improper to exclude Mitchell [with the NBC incantations] and her work product re: her July 6 Meet the Press appearence with Joe Wilson. During the Russert testimony, Russert said that he read the NYT Wilson editorial on the advance wire and MTP is the Russert baby...[all the caveats about not calling a witness only to impeach that witness aside] The argument would be that Mitchell testimony and notes-> Russert impeachment, not Mitchell "I was drunk"->Mitchell impeachment. [Or is this issue closed because the defense argued it pretty poorly from what I remember]

I'm still ticked about Tim "I did not name her" Russert.

Also re: Cooper [I'm a bit foggy on this point] Didn't Fitz object when Libby's lawyers raised Cooper's other sources, or am I thinking that was only an issue with Miller...

RichatUF

[Rick Ballard]

"Where do we get these dopes?"

It's strictly a management problem. QC is falling down on the job and accepting Sorobots again.

BETTER TROLLS!!

[DEMO]

It was Cheney in the Naval Observatory with a candlestick.

[Rick Ballard]

Rich,

You asked if Mrs. Munchie attended the EPIC conference with her dope - I've never heard that she did. She did attend his tryout in front of the Democrat Senate Steering Committee. At least partially on Agency time, too. The CIA has special regs that go beyond the Hatch Act stuff and I've wondered if she didn't cross the line by schmoozing with the DemSens.

It would help if the CIA would actually publish the regs 'cause I can't find them. Mention of them, sure, but not the actual regs.

[DEMO]

More trolls. Too much merriment to go around for one troll.

[clarice]

Generally speaking the Ct of Appeals is very sophisticated and moderately conservative. But who knows what the panel will be? There are exceptions--i.e. Tatel.

I am still wondering why they have not yet acted on the Dow Jones suit to release the still redacted portions of the Fiz affidavit and the opinion in the Miller case.

[RichatUF]

Rick...

...She did attend his tryout in front of the Democrat Senate Steering Committee. At least partially on Agency time, too...

My favorite was the "Nation: Truthteller of the Year Award" [so kafkaesque, so orwellian, so fitzmas] in which she attended. I threw out the EPIC because there were some other CIA personnel identified as speakers (oops former):

the program

Judith Yaphe and Marc Garlasco: take a good look, that was a random sampling of our IC leading up to the Iraq War.

RichatUF

[Other Tom]

"It would make it forever clear that Libby lied and obstructed justice in order to shield Bush and Cheney from their role in an even bigger crime. A pardon would just seal the deal in exposing the larger criminal enterprise."

No question about it. Remember how the Marc Rich pardon made if forever clear that Denise was giving Bill a lot of leg, and that the entire Clinton White House was involved in Rich's fraudulent schemes? Oh, how fondly I remember Bill having to respond to all those embarrassing questions.

And remember the drug dealer pardon? As we all knew, the Clintons were intimately involved in all manner of illegal drug distribution schemes, and the pardon just put the final nail in the coffin. And I'll never forget how they squirmed trying to explain that one!

(I'm going to ask again: where do we get these dopes?)

[RichatUF]

Rick...

...It would help if the CIA would actually publish the regs 'cause I can't find them. Mention of them, sure, but not the actual regs...

But then they would lose there covertiness. Think of them as being fitzassified

RichatUF

[boris]

(I'm going to ask again: where do we get these dopes?)

Under bridges mostly. Soros lures them out with jelly beans that taste exacly likd diaper poo.

[clarice]

Geralsco has been thoroughly discredited and is a total Sorosbot.
Judith Yaphe is something else again. I heard her speak at a symposium and she is a very knowledgeable,professional analyst.

[Other Tom]

"Under bridges mostly." Well, if so, let's roust 'em out and put 'em in proper irons. If I recall my legal studies correctly, the law forbids both rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges.

[clarice]

Only in Paris, OT..See In the Matter of Anatole France.

[Sara]

This post by the Anchoress should be a MUST READ. Fantastic!

Part II: Bush Betrayal & the Nation’s Soul

[RichatUF]

clarice...

Judith Yaphe...

you know. I found this pretty good article from early 2001

I am going to suspend my previous comment until I look at her work more closely.

graf:

If the United States declares red lines and then ignores violations by Baghdad, it encourages Saddam to act more aggressively toward Iraqis and his neighbors. Several suggestions for the new administration seem appropriate.

• Do not declare red lines unless you mean to defend them.

• Do not declare as your objective those goals impossible to accomplish
(such as claiming military operations are intended to eliminate all WMD
stocks and facilities). [seems some weren't listening]

• Do not arm or support an opposition that is not a credible threat to Saddam.[Armitage made sure this wasn't a problem, don't even try to create a credible opposition]

• Do not link ending sanctions to regime change; this could pull Iraqis toward
Saddam rather than turn them away from him.
[oops]

• Decide now what kind of successor is acceptable and be prepared to follow
through as events unfold. This assumes that policymakers must decide how important it is to U.S. interests and regional stability to keep Iraq stable rather than see it slip into chaos or civil war.
[seems the chaos and civil war faction won this one]

RichatUF

[Sara]

This is also interesting:

10 Most Notorious Presidential Pardons

[Elliott]

The rest of the rest of the story...

From: [REDACTED]

The Grand Jury transcript:

Witness: That's correct, sir. I learned one of Hit and Run's email addresses because of my authorized, need to know access to [redacted]...

Fitzgerald: Reference to [redacted] will be stricken from the record.

Witness: I'm sorry. So, I did learn about it through official channels, but it was never marked as classified and it was common knowledge that many journalists were aware of it.

Larry King Live transcript:

Bob Woodward: Well, we know, Larry, that the CIA did a damage assessment and found that this leak was far, far more damaging to national security than the Plame leak. It severely compromised the CIA's effectiveness and hampered its ability to focus on dangerous and imminent threats. I have it on good authority that when H&R's email address was leaked, his inbox was inundated with emails from CIA employees, most quite lengthy and sent during working hours, criticizing him for his support of Scooter Libby.

[Sara]

If Bush pardon Libby now he would be breaking his promise that pardon-seekers wait five years after conviction or release from prison, whichever is later, before applying.

Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the president "Power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." A reprieve reduces the severity of a punishment without removing the guilt of the person reprieved. A pardon removes both punishment and guilt.

As judicially interpreted, the president's power to grant reprieves and pardons is absolute. Individual reprieves and pardons cannot be blocked by Congress or the courts.

What you are talking about is the recommendation for pardon process that falls to the Justice Dept. Pardon Attorneys. Bush didn't have anything to do with that process, it was established before he took office. It is a process whereby a citizen can apply for a pardon and there are restrictions and time periods attached as guidelines. But ... the president is not obliged to follow, or even consider the recommendations of the Pardon Attorney. Remember his power is absolute in this area, except for impeachment.

[kim]

"Reggie Walton's career is going to bear watching from now on."

As a US citizen I look forward to a vigorous defense of Judge Walton by his peers (ignoring Silberman and perhaps Tatel), PeterUK. I also, as a US citizen, would entirely disagree with your rather jaded assensment of this case.

I'd prefer, for a mere public moment, that the spotlight of public scrutiny be shined on you, PeterUK.

[Jane]

Oh dear. PUK, we'll protect you, never fear!

[Rocco]

Kristof mentions Glen Rangwala in his first "Missing In Action" article and Rangwala was also a speaker at EPIC.

[Jeff Dobbs]

From Eliott, quoting Bob Woodward on Larry King:
I have it on good authority that when H&R's email address was leaked, his inbox was inundated with emails from CIA employees, most quite lengthy and sent during working hours, criticizing him for his support of Scooter Libby.

Eliott, you have no idea. Right now they are trying to stop me from publishing my book.

Who are "they", you ask?

I don't know exactly, but "they" scare the hell outta me.

After being sick for 8 days now, I'm concerned that it's not a bug I got from my kids...

[Jeff Dobbs]

Roy Blunt, minority whip...

Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) suggested Tuesday that President Bush should pardon Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney who was sentenced to 30 months in prison Tuesday for lying to a grand jury in the probe of who leaked the identity of former covert CIA operative Valerie Plame.

"I think the verdict is outrageous," Blunt told reporters.

The second-ranking Republican in the House never directly called on Bush to pardon Libby. But asked directly whether or not the president should, Blunt responded,"This has gone on long enough."

[PeterUK.]

Kim,
"As a US citizen I look forward to a vigorous defense of Judge Walton by his peers (ignoring Silberman and perhaps Tatel), PeterUK. I also, as a US citizen, would entirely disagree with your rather jaded assensment of this case."

Who gives a flying fuck my dear? Remember some five fingered banjo players are also US citizen,as are numerous islamists.

"I'd prefer, for a mere public moment, that the spotlight of public scrutiny be shined on you, PeterUK".

Look kid,I am not going on Celebrity Big Brother to satisfy your prurient interest.

[Jane]

Not to worry kim, they let Paris out of jail late last night. You can be confident that justice has once again been done.

[Other Tom]

This article by Susan Estrich on the Libby trial and sentence is a must-read, particularly for Kim, who can learn the views of a jaded liberal democrat:

http://www.creators.com/opinion/susan-estrich.html

Estrich echoes many of the views published here in recent months. I'll always harbor a special respect for Democrats Bob Beckel, James Carville and Estrich for recognizing exactly what took place here, and for understanding the harm it does to our body politic.

[boris]

Estrich link

[Sue]

OT,

Ms. Estrich echoes what I've been saying all along. Had Fitzgerald been using these same tactics against a democrat, the left would have gone bananas on him.

[Other Tom]

One money quote from Estrich:

"There is something troubling about prosecutors using perjury and obstruction of justice to turn into criminals people who haven't committed any other crime. Instead of using the grand jury as a tool for investigating other criminal activity, it becomes the forum for creating criminal conduct. The role of the FBI and federal prosecutors becomes one of creating criminals instead of catching them. Technically, I know, it's not entrapment, but it's still different than the usual business of tracking down those who have violated the law and punishing them for their bad acts. The investigation doesn't solve the crime; it creates it."

Very gratifying to see this former editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review recognize that Libby "hadn't committed any other crime," a fact that some of our trolls seem to have trouble coming to grips with.

[Other Tom]

Thanks for providing the link, Boris. I still don't know how to do that, even though some kind souls have tried patiently to explain it to me.

[Rick Ballard]

H & R,

Far be it from me to encourage cynicism but Blunt (and the Rep contenders) may be promoting an action which they know they'll never have to defend. Fred made a declaration and the herd followed - I can't say that Fred knows that the President has made it known that no pardon is in the offing but the herd's slow response allows me to speculate that they know.

I'd sure like to be wrong about it but I believe that the President is going to uphold the sanctity of mendacious and meretricious politically driven investigations by unscrupulous investigators and ethically suspect prosecutors. Susan Estrich has a nice short piece giving Dems a bit of advice concerning being so cheerful about a positive result dependent upon having a lying Javert cracking the whip in the persecutors office.

I sure hope that West Wing employees study the outcome of the matter carefully. Monica Goodling made the correct and proper choice regarding cooperation with political hacks. She will never have to worry about taking the stand and testifying while watching for signals from her attorney, as Cathie Martin did.

Of course, Martin still holds an important job consonant with her ineptitude and ability to appear unsullied.

Appearance is the most important thing in the world dontchaknow. Why, the appearance of compassion can carry one for nigh onto six years or better.

[Jeff Dobbs]

Rick:
Far be it from me to encourage cynicism but Blunt (and the Rep contenders) may be promoting an action which they know they'll never have to defend.

Oh I totally agree. I'll take what I can get out of it, another voice, even if cynical and opportunistic, in support of Libby.

But I won't be deluded into thinking Blunt is standing on grand principle. If he is, and I am wrong, then I am wrong and pleased and humbled.

[Other Tom]

I like the idea floated by a guy in today's WaPo--a career prosecutor, I think--that Bush should commute the sentence to something along the lines ow what Berger got. That would moot the issue of Libby remaining free pending appeal, would allow the appeal to go forward, and would allow Bush to pardon Libby after the 2008 election. This would serve the loftiest possible goal, viz., it would infuriate Bush's critics even further, while turning the debate into a question of who did more harm to the country, Berger or Libby. That's a debate I would welcome.

[boris]

I like that idea too OT.

[Sue]

OT,

I like the idea of commuting his sentence. Bush just might go for that. I doubt he will pardon Libby though. I just don't think he will ever do that. Maybe Cheney can get him to commute it to the fine. Along with the loss of his law license, that should be punishment aplenty for outing poor Val.

[Other Tom]

Except that he didn't out poor Val (Armitage did), and he wasn't prosecuted for outing poor Val. That's Estrich's whole point.

[Sue]

OT,

I was being sarcastic. Sorry if that didn't come across in my post.

[Other Tom]

Sorry, Sue--I should have known, but am enjoying an unusually bad hangover this morning. The freshly-poured Bloody should take care of that in short order.

[Jane]

I like the idea floated by a guy in today's WaPo--a career prosecutor, I think--that Bush should commute the sentence to something along the lines ow what Berger got. That would moot the issue of Libby remaining free pending appeal, would allow the appeal to go forward, and would allow Bush to pardon Libby after the 2008 election. This would serve the loftiest possible goal, viz., it would infuriate Bush's critics even further, while turning the debate into a question of who did more harm to the country, Berger or Libby. That's a debate I would welcome.

I really really really like this -

[Jeff Dobbs]

Jonah says "to make McCarthy mad".

Bah! This is for Other Tom!

Sometimes It's Just Fun to Make Andy McCarthy Mad [Jonah Goldberg]

From AFP:

PORT OF SPAIN: The four suspects in an alleged terror plot to bomb a New York airport were set up in an elaborate plan by the US Republican party to retain hold of the White House, the daughter of an arrested suspect claimed on Tuesday.

Huda Ibrahiim, daughter of Amir Kareem Ibrahiim, one of four men accused of plotting acts of terrorism against the United States, said US justice officials had engaged in entrapment in breaking up the alleged plot.

[PeterUK.]

H&R,
Doesn't take the opposition long to pick up the the talking points of the Loyal Opposition.

[PeterUK.]

Is it not possible that Mr Libby,a noted lawyer himself,does not want a pardon,but rather his day in court?

[PeterUK.]

The Estrich piece does not go far enough,the question is not "How would we like it it if the tactic was used on our friends?",but how often has this method been used to railroad innocent people? Those without the resources to fight a long and bitter court case,whose only option was to plea bargain,how many have been railroaded?
I should imagine the American police have the same pressures to "get a result" as those in the UK,and there have been some horrendous miscarriages of justice here,even unto the death sentence.
If the West is to occupy the much vaunted "moral high ground" in these dangerous times,when actions reverberate beyond national borders,is it not imperative that the Justice System is examined dispassionately and without partisan rancour?

[Other Tom]

PeterUK, I think it is eminently possible that Libby wants to be heard on appeal. I believe it's the case that, should the judgment be reversed, in addition to avoiding the loss of his license to practice, he would be entitled to reimbursement of his attorney's fees by the taxpayer. Part of the immense appeal of commuting his sentence to a fine and probation is that he could avoid prison while the appeal was heard.

I think the idea of commuting the sentence--very pointedly--to the same as Berger's is so simple, so elegant and so just that it seems almost certain that Bush won't do it. God knows what that guy is thinking these days.

[PeterUK.]

Good idea,send the President a petition,there seem to be not a few lawyers of all political stripes concered about this.

[PeterUK.]

Off Topic D Day seen through the eyes of the present day MSM

[anduril]

Toensing has an excellent commentary re Pardon v. Commutation--link at RealClearPolitics.

In forwarding it some friends, as well as the Estrich article, I offered these comments:

-------------------------------

I support pardon and disagree wholeheartedly with commutation. Commutation has nothing to recommend it to an innocent man, and especially one in public life--he remains a felon. Prominent attorneys suggesting commutation might consider how they would feel in those circumstances. Here is what Victoria Toensing says at USAToday. Note, certain conservatives do not have their facts straight in all respects, as Toensing's reference to Fleischer makes very clear. Nor do they seem at all troubled by the refusal of the judge to allow 1) memory expert testimony or 2) discovery as to Plame's status--despite Fitzgerald's repeated unethical statements regarding her status. For those who are actually knowledgeable about this case, the facts go far beyond the ordinary.

------------------------------

My disagreement with this fine article [Estrich] is that I believe there are convincing indications that 1) Libby's memory was mistaken but he did not lie, 2) that several witnesses for the prosecution, especially Russert, actually did lie, and that 3) those several jurors who stated that they thought Libby was a fall guy in a bigger conspiracy were influenced by Fitzgerald's unethical statements regarding Plame.