Groan! Now we are going to hear about Valerie Plame's pension? Tedium, thy name is... Just One Minute - this is important stuff! The issue of whether Ms. Plame was actually a "covert agent" as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was identified as a key issue in her case by the eerily prescient James Taranto back in October 2003 when the case first made headlines. And it appears that Mr. Libby may be the victim of either CIA chicanery or malfeasance by Fitzgerald; either way, the impact of the information presented below could affect Libby's sentencing, his hopes for a successful appeal or a Presidential pardon, and the reputation of the Fitzgerald investigation. So tough it out, and on with the pension story!
One key issue from the statutory definition of "covert agent" is whether Ms. Plame met the requirement for service abroad. From Mr. Taranto:
Left unanswered is the question of when Plame has her last overseas assignment; if it was before July 1998, then by July 2003, when her identity was revealed, she would no longer have been a "covert agent" for the purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Victoria Toensing noted the same "service abroad" issue in 2005.
So, did Ms. Plame perform service abroad for the CIA after July 1998? One place to look would be her CIA personnel files - by statute (Title 50, Section 403r, "Section 403r. Special annuity computation rules for certain employees' service abroad"), CIA officers are entitled to an upward adjustment in their pension benefits for service abroad. This is from the Friday NY Times, describing Ms. Plame's legal issue with her proposed book:
The letter [from the CIA human resources are to Ms. Plame], from February 2006, was entered into the Congressional Record by Representative Jay Inslee, Democrat of Washington, in January 2007. Mr. Inslee was introducing legislation to allow Ms. Wilson to qualify for a government annuity.
The letter said that Ms. Wilson had worked for the government since Nov. 9, 1985, for a total of “20 years, 7 days,” including “six years, one month and 29 days of overseas service.”
More background and the full text of the letter are in this post.
So by law we should have guessed that Ms. Plame's service abroad was tracked in her personnel file (OK, I did guess exactly that last February), and in fact it was.
And the rest should fall into place nicely, yes? In response to questions about Ms. Plame's service abroad, CIA lawyers or Patrick Fitzgerald and his Department of Justice investigators will cite her personnel file, which presumably has been maintained in accordance with standard CIA practice. Her file will document the most recent period for which she received credit for service abroad, thereby resolving the point about her qualification as a covert agent under the IIPA, right?
Not so fast.
Patrick Fitzgerald filed documents related to Libby's sentencing last week [Sentencing memo, Sentencing calculation, Plame employment history] which resolved the issue to the satisfaction of, well, the easily satisfied - that includes Messrs. Isikoff and Hosenball of Newsweek. And was any mention made of her service abroad as tracked by the CIA personnel department under long established CIA rules? Uhh, no. The judge and the defense were offered a summary employment history which touched on her service abroad as follows (and I am quoting the Newsweek paraphrase, until I can get a copy/paste version of the government filing):
“She traveled at least seven times to more than 10 countries,” the document states. “When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity … At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson’s employment relationship with the CIA on 14 July 2003, Ms. Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.”
Huh? This is the dog declining to bark in the night - her CIA personnel file has the dates for which she received credit for service abroad, so why not mention that? Is it possible that the DoJ investigators did not have access to her file? No, per footnote 2 on page 5 of the sentencing calculations, we are assured that "The investigators were given access to Ms. Wilson's classified file". [Is it possible that national security censors struck an anodyne sentence such as "As per Title 50 Section 403r, Ms. Plame's most recent credit for service abroad occurred in 2002"? Would that really give away more than "She traveled at least seven times to more than 10 countries"? Please.]
So, both the CIA and the DoJ had access to Ms. Plame's file detailing her dates of service abroad, yet chose not to present that information to the defense. Why might they do that? A suspicious mind would wonder whether they would omit that data if it were helpful to their case, or only gloss past it if her most recent date of service abroad were say, 1997, when she was recalled to the United States (as per this Vanity Fair profile).
This is not right - our legal system has discovery rules for a reason. IF Ms. Plame's formal dates for service abroad buttress the prosecution position, that should be disclosed to the defense so that they will not waste time pursuing a false trail, or so that the prosecution can prepare arguments that the CIA formal procedures do not comport with the language and intent of the IIPA. On the other hand, if her formal dates for service abroad support the defense position, that should be disclosed so that the defense can argue that this represents the best established practice and settles the issue.
But it is simply not appropriate for Fitzgerald to unilaterally conceal this from the defense, especially when it is a reasonable guess that it was concealed because it would aid the defense.
As background, Byron York has a number of pieces describing the legal maneuvering that led to this cursory summary. The defense requested discovery on a lot of classified info including Ms. Plame's employment history and classified status; Fitzgerald insisted the case was limited to perjury and that Ms. Plame's status was not at issue; and eventually Judge Walton ordered [link] this summary as a compromise. Let's note that Judge Walton reviewed the material before endorsing the summary. Let's also note that he had a tremendous volume of material to review, so Ms. Plame's dates of service may have been overlooked (hidden in a file dump, as it were). Or, since his final rulings restricted the trial issues to perjury rather than Ms. Plame's status, Judge Walton may have believed the IIPA issue was irrelevant.
In any case, it is safe to say that Fitzgerald was not eager to present Ms. Plame's employment background - maybe an embarrassment with her dates of service was part of the reason. If so, it strikes at the heart of the prosecution's case - for example, in his affidavit to the Miller court weighing her subpoena, Fitzgerald clearly convinced Judge Tatel that his investigation was contemplating violations of the IIPA. Did Fitzgerald also explain that there were serious problems with such a prosecution, such as an issue as to whether Ms. Plame was covered by the statute? That affidavit has not yet been made public, but if the judges had ruled against Fitzgerald the case against Libby would have been much weaker.
Fitzgerald also resurrected the IIPA issue in his sentencing memorandum - the defense noted in their response that they were denied a chance to fully engage this issue in the trial phase; if that was compounded by the concealment of key information from the defense, there is a problem here.
It may be that Judge Walton will probe these issues at Libby's sentencing. Or an appeals court may take some interest in how it came to be that Fitzgerald never disclosed Ms. Plame's formal dates of service to either the court hearing the Judy Miller subpoena or to the Libby defense.
And from another direction, Rep. Peter Hoekstra has tried to get the CIA Counsel to opine on Ms. Plame's covert status. Per Robert Novak, as of April 2007 they were still mystified:
On March 21, Hoekstra again requested the CIA to define Mrs. Wilson's status. A written reply April 5 from Christopher J. Walker, the CIA's director of congressional affairs, said only that "it is taking longer than expected" to reply because of "the considerable legal complexity required for this tasking."
I have a suggestion for Mr. Hoekstra - perhaps he can ask the CIA Counsel some simpler questions, to wit, what is the last date on which Ms. Plame received credit on her pension (under Title 50, Section 403r) for service abroad, and what is the CIA definition of "service abroad" in that context. That should be easy enough for the CIA Counsel to address in this lifetime. [As protection against after-the-fact revisions, Mr. Hoekstra should also inquire as to the most recent date of service abroad reported in Ms. Plame's file as of July 2003, whether any revisions have been made since then, and the circumstances that led to those revisions.]
There may be an innocent explanation for all of this. But in light of Fitzgerald's determination to conceal Ms. Plame's employment history and in light of the fact that a "service abroad" date which should have been readily available and clearly relevant was not disclosed, some questions for Fitzgerald ought to be addressed.
Unfortunately, it is not as if Fitzgerald would never, uhh, shade his disclosures and filings - in the course of the Libby trial at least two transgressions were revealed: he had disclosed to the defense that John Dickerson of Slate may have received a Plame leak (from Ari Fleischer) but concealed the information that David Gregory of NBC News would have received the same leak at the same time. And in the course of his legal maneuvering with Tim Russert, Fitzgerald failed to inform the court that Tim Russert (who was resisting a subpoena to testify) had already given evidence to DoJ investigators.
Or for a more recent example of Fitzgerald's tactics, consider his recent sentencing memorandum. Isikoff and Hosenball make much of the fact that "Patrick Fitzgerald has finally resolved one of the most disputed issues at the core of the long-running CIA leak controversy: Valerie Plame Wilson, he asserts, was a “covert” CIA officer".
But the defense response provided a bit of clarification which Fitzgerald had overlooked, or forgotten, or something:
The summary described above was provided to the defense along with a
companion summary that defined a “covert” CIA employee as a “CIA employee whose employment is not publicly acknowledged by the CIA or the employee.”4 It is important to bear in mind that the IIPA defines “covert agent” differently.
Indeed it does.
Why was Fitzgerald dancing with the NBC stars? Who knows? Why did he overlook or conceal the information about Ms. Plame's formal dates of service abroad? Let's hope someone asks him.
UPDATE: Writing at firedoglake, Jeff Lomonaco, one of the brightest bulbs on the Plame Christmas tree, takes up the debate. I take specific issue with this:
Now, it may well be useful to consider whether the CIA's standard way of proceeding would be to include the kind of covert work abroad that Plame did in the five years before the Bush administration blew her cover in its pension calculations, though it's far from clear that this should be controlling in the interpretation of the IIPA, as Maguire seems to suggest (and I'll come back to this).
[Big Skip]
But now Tom is telling us that Valerie Plame's pension benefits track her service abroad.
Well, yes, the CIA clearly "tracks" it in the sense of monitoring it. I plainly am not arguing that the CIA handbook is dispositive on the issue, since I make the point that the defense would want an opportunity to examine and rebut the information if it went against them. However it is a sufficiently relevant data point that it should have been disclosed to the defense.
Given that these are potential capital cases, I'd say that the judges' sua sponte ruling could very well be a 'letter of the law' indicator as to how the military commissions will operate.
I'm not sure that this is much of a disaster at all.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 04, 2007 at 11:29 PM
Via Drudge
--ABCNEWS/WASH POST POLL: Dems Lose Their Edge; Congressional Approval Ratings Return to Pre-Election Levels... --
Well DUH!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 04, 2007 at 11:29 PM
From Foo Bar:
I don't think the pension information would necessarily settle the matter. It seems fairly well established that Plame's status as a CIA employee was not publicly acknowledged and that she had at least taken a few work-related trips overseas in the 5 years prior to the Novak column. Suppose she hadn't earned any pension-bumping overseas service since '97. Given that set of facts, it seems to me that a judge could rule either way regarding IIPA applicability without the ruling being completely outrageous. Maybe you think the pension definition should prevail, but I don't think a ruling that the short trips count as service abroad would be stunningly incompetent.
My official editorial position (which was more clear in an earlier post) is that neither I nor the defense will be interested in buying a pig in a poke - until I see the pension definition of service abroad and the dates produced by that definition, I have no interest in committing myself to being bound by it - I think the dates would be indicative but not dispositive, and the definition might shed light on standards, practices, and legislative intent.
However, that can't explain Fitzgerald's failure to disclose this at all.
As to a ruling counting short trips, I would like to see some brief beyond Ms. Toensing's (although she did provide an amicus brief in the Miller subpoena case on behalf of a media group, so that might be as formal an analysis as we can expect.)
So I'd be interested to hear how folks here might try to persuade a judge that's on the fence why it's in the national interest for "service abroad" to be interpreted narrowly, i.e., why the leak of the identity of an agent whose status was classified and who had only taken brief trips abroad in the past 5 years should not be prosecutable.
I see Foo Bar provides his answer, with which I more or less agree - going back to the original IIPA debate, it was clear that one issue was over-protecting the CIA and making it impossible to discuss their activities without going to jail. The Libby case would be a classic "gotcha" prosecution of exactly the type libs feared, except that the person "got" was a member of evil BushCo so its all good.
A special Inconstancy Prize goes to Sen. Hart, who voted against the IIPA in 1982 but lauded the Libby prosecution.
That said however, as I understand it, the whole point of the 5 year privoso was not the protection of the agent who had returned home, but protection of any contacts/networks being run by the agent abroad -- people who remained vulnerable overseas for an extended period after the agent's own departure.
Hmm - let me suggest a second reason. John Smith works in Athens, doing who knows what. He is reassigned to the US and replaced by Jane Doe. Two years later, it is made public that John Smith is CIA. What impact does that have on Ms. Doe, his immediate replacement - isn't it likely she is CIA as well?
How a five year rule solves that is a good question, but maybe as people rotate through it becomes harder to be sure just who is replacing whom.
But, even if everything were released tomorrow and it proved that Val really did qualify under the five year rule, you still have to get around the other provision of taking "affirmative measures" to protect her identity. Harlow's actions negate that right off the bat and Val's own actions of openly identifying herself and introducing her husband at the meeting that generated the INR memo just add to the lack of evidence of affirmative measures.
We will fight on the beaches; we will fight on the hills, and in the pubs, and anywhere brave men and true draw breath and beer (women, too!)... we will never surrender.
But yes - the "affirmative actions" clause would surely be contestable.
From SillyOptiCorn:
So it seems that there is at least some evidence that Plame had in fact worked abroad during the time period in question.
Not that this will stop people here from claiming that Hayden was lying, Waxman was lying, the CIA was lying to Hayden... anything other then accepting the fact that she was in fact considered a covert agent by any reasonable standard.
I don't see anyone claiming they are lying - the claim is that the statute has a different standard. (No, I have no idea why I bother...)
And a bit later from Silly:
If you read my post, you would see that I asserted that Hayden's statement, read by Waxman, asserted that Plame had in fact served overseas within the requisite time period.
Whether or not this resolves the question of the IIPA is up to the political bent of the viewer, I suspect;
Hmm, I also saw an assertion that we claimed they were lying; apparently that argument has been dropped, for now anyway.
From Rick B:
I maintain that Fitzjerk's actions regarding this are best understood in light of the ethics charges filed by Clarice. He must assert the IIPA claim as a ward against the charge of filing a false affidavit with Tatel.
The still-secret affidavit. I continue to believe this is yet another vulnerable point for Fitzgerald.
It would be nice if Tom could get someone to add buttons to his website that we can click on...
That is a cool idea; I will suggest it to TypePad so that the next time they crater the system they will at least be doing something useful.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | June 04, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Whoa dude! I think I detect a slightly saracatic tone in Larry's post.
I thought it was a sciatic tone - looked like I hit a nerve.
Both he and Jeff make the same argument, which amounts to saying that it would have compromised national security to include a sentence like "As per Title 50 Section 403r, Ms. Plame's most recent credit for service abroad occurred in 2002."
Somehow we are supposed to imagine that that gives away more than what was actually provided, which was that she took seven trips to ten countries (or vice versa).
Either way, pretty weak.
And isn't that an appeal to faith-Larry Johnson, super agent, above questioning
CIA officer, NBA star, and now a lawyer! Who ya gonna believe?
But to debate Larry? We tried that, Cap'n, once before, on JOM Holodeck 9. As I recall, sir, it was....very loud.
I really ought to try and find my last visit to Larry's "No Cojones". OK, it was a double play - I really should not be allowed to have that much fun.
I think I have been dropped from his Christmas card list.
Well - it is nice to see Jeff tackle this at the firedogs - the normal approach is to stonewall. But the weak response does make me think there really is no response - Fitzgerald should have disclosed this.
Hope no one minds if I don't link back to Chubby L in an UPDATE. Folks who haven't heard a moonbat barking might be amused, but why bother?
Posted by: Tom Maguire | June 04, 2007 at 11:51 PM
--We will fight on the beaches; we will fight on the hills, and in the pubs, and anywhere brave men and true draw breath and beer (women, too!)... we will never surrender.--
Whoo hooo!
(and to think Hoosier was trying to shut this time honored JOM parctice down!)
Meanwhile, I'm waiting with bated breath for OtherTom's (or is that Lance?) ALL CAPS!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 04, 2007 at 11:57 PM
parctice = practice
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 05, 2007 at 12:01 AM
Hi Guys!
TM made the big time today. Got a write up at the Lake with a link, but I come over here and see only the usual posters. That damn registration gate, keeps people out.
I must give Tom credit for this post. This argument is gaining a whole new group of fans.
Lurker, I hope this was a satirical statement cause it had me in stitches:
"Libby may have lied but he did not lie intentionally and maliciously in the criminal sense."
ROTFLMAO! One of the best ever!
Posted by: Looking_For_a_Way_out | June 05, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Mot every misstatement of fact constitutes perjury you know--Looking. Lurker may have phrased it inartfully but essentially that is a correct statement.
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 12:09 AM
JM Hanes says...
...RichatUF beat me to the first one. He may be a "slow reader and slower typer," but man, the guy can post...
Thanks. Our host and the great commentary makes this one of the best stops on the blogsphere.
clarice...
...FBI counter-terrorism agents in Florida attended a “sensitivity training” workshop yesterday conducted by a controversial Islamic lobby group...
Lawfare Read the whole thing, but the gra is from p.187
graf...
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 05, 2007 at 12:19 AM
So in surfing around I don't see many Lefties vexed by Jefferson...I think my theory of them advancing him to almost leader status must be right -- the "lake" (ie swamp) embargoed (ie oxygen staved)
and in looking at the WAPO poll it might not be a bad idea - since current leadership is waning propping up a man indicted of bribing foreign nationals seems to be a more natural and right fit for the party (if not more comfortable Democrat norm)
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 05, 2007 at 12:25 AM
The same is true of Iraq -- there were captured regular Iraqi army troops, and they were treated as POWs according to the GC, too.
Posted by: cathyf | June 05, 2007 at 12:27 AM
cathyf
And if IIRC there were many who complained it was a mistake and added to the current problems we are facing today.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 05, 2007 at 12:32 AM
Top
Via Drudge
--ABCNEWS/WASH POST POLL: Dems Lose Their Edge; Congressional Approval Ratings Return to Pre-Election Levels... --
And that is BEFORE todays news! LOL
Something about just desserts comes to mind.
Posted by: ordi | June 05, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Rick B another reference to the Ex-Im Bank from 2001...
159. On or about Feburary 13, 2001 in Washington DC at the congressional office of Defendant JEFFERSON, Defendant JEFFERSON met with the president of the Ex-Im Bank, the president of Company E, and a high-ranking Nigerian government official to promote United States government financing of portions of a proposed contract to develop a sugar factory in Jigawa State, Nigeria.
160. On or about May 1, 2001, in Washington DC, Defendant JEFFERSON caused a meeting to occur at Ex-Im Bank's offices, attended by Ex-Im Bank officials, one of Defendant JEFFERSON's congressional staff members and the president of Company E to further promote United Staes government financing of portions of a proposed contract to develop a sugar factory in Jigawa State, Nigeria
I think Rocco had some stuff above at his 8:14 comment...
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 05, 2007 at 12:38 AM
I see that Wyoming's US Senator Craig Thomas has died. Godspeed to his family.
Posted by: Maybeex | June 05, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Posted by: cathyf | June 05, 2007 at 12:40 AM
"CIA officer, NBA star, and now a lawyer." Hell, you left out NFL running back (K.C. Chiefs).
This Gitmo fiasco is bothering me a bit more, now that I have read somewhat further. I think the Dem congress, with the active cooperation of Arlen Specter, will take it as an invitation to revisit the whole scheme, with disastrous consequences. Let's hope not.
Posted by: Other Tom | June 05, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Ordi:--Something about just desserts comes to mind.--
Ah yeah - especially since Drudge is running vintage Politico on the subject:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3044.html
I think they are suddenly reinstating their age old practice of see, hear, speak no evil - ie ***democrats heart corruption***. -- it is sort of ingrained though, so...
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 05, 2007 at 12:58 AM
Just so no Congressmen sends an email to a page asking him when his birthday is, the world is safe.
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 01:02 AM
-- with the active cooperation of Arlen Specter--
People have too long waged their ire at the wrong senator's --
Specter is a menace and deserves repeated and painful email bombs.
Hugh Hewitt was wrong.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 05, 2007 at 01:04 AM
Kim doesn't post at JOM anymore (why?) but left this at ACE
hmmm...
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 05, 2007 at 01:19 AM
tsk9...
Wasn't Foley killed in Oct 2002 and he had the thankless job of coordinating USAID and other international aid effors re: the Palestinians?
Also has a date been published for when the aluminium tubes were found transiting through Jordan? I thought I saw a date of June 2002 but I can equally claim that I saw an earlier date and later date.
And about the tone and style of her "not a recommendation" recommendation of Joe Wilson memo: I've narrowed it down to 2 things and hope to get them researched this weekend.
1. the counter leaks re: the al-Shifia bombing that really put the Clinton administration on its heels, especially after 27AUG98
2. The Ahmed Hikmat Shakir affair. He was released in late Jan 2002 [interesting wasn't that about the time when Rockefeller et al went to the Middle East to say the US was going to invade Iraq]...also AI was worried
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 05, 2007 at 01:46 AM
Jiminy Rich - you are far more knowledgeable than me...but Foley - according to reports - was killed in Oct. 28, 2002 (according to reports)
Hubris only said this I think:
Wiki has this
and
and IIRC - Foley was stationed to the Emabassy and one his duties was to sign off on shipments to the emabassy.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 05, 2007 at 02:02 AM
The Los Angeles Times translated reams of documents seized after the fall of Saddam Hussein and reports that Syria ran extensive smuggling operations on behalf of the Iraqi dictator's regime, designed to undermine UN sanctions:
Arlen Specter is a Bashar lover?
And
sounds like they were tipped off...also recall that the Rock Creek dude was busted at Dulles after informing Lebanon of this's and thats.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 05, 2007 at 02:19 AM
oops-- all 02:19 AM cribbed from Captian!
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 05, 2007 at 02:27 AM
And if that Conjoncture article is right, Wilson was in Equatorial Guinea the previous month, Oct 99 promoting American companies. Nomeco is one company mentioned in the article. They're a subsidiary of CMS Energy also mentioned in the Harpers article.
Posted by: Rocco | June 04, 2007 at 08:44 PM
------
Well this is fascinating... Nomeco is a link in one of my favorite cryptic commenter "Roger" left
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 05, 2007 at 03:09 AM
OK, so the TypeKey Bitch has got me bouncing off the walls, which may be why this phrase from Rocco's Indian Ocean Newsletter whacked my funny bone:
"...National Petroleum Council, an organism charged with advising US secretary for energy Bill Richardson."
Of course they really mean agency, but "organism" has a distinctly bizarre charm of its own here, no? Especially in an advisory capacity, like a bad Sci-Fi flick. Reminds me of what a joke Richardson was as Sect. of Energy. He's morphed into everybody's pet rock since then, although he's still got a slightly organic presence. Courtesy of the current organism in charge, we presume.
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 05, 2007 at 03:11 AM
tsk9:
Sometimes I wonder if such cryptics might actually be dropping breadcrumbs disguised as, how shall I put this, non-sequential ramblings, in order to avoid detection by those who might disapprove. OTOH, sometimes I think it's more like looking for messages in the captcha window.
Posted by: JM Hanes | June 05, 2007 at 03:19 AM
JMH:
I think it's more like looking for messages in the captcha window.
Oh I'm a total believer in the captcha check messages. I keep a log of every one I get. They can be useful individually -- but together as a whole they are powerful.
Oh and one time, when I had what I felt was my funniest post ever, I went and got a personalized license plate of what was on the captcha window.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 05, 2007 at 06:55 AM
TM:
CIA officer, NBA star, and now a lawyer! Who ya gonna believe?
That's easy. Grandmama.
I thought it was a sciatic tone - looked like I hit a nerve.
Well, NBA Larry Johnson retired due to a bad back....jus sayin
Ya know, the only basketball game I went to in highschool was against Skyline High in Dallas. Larry Johnson played for them then. Yer darn right we spanked them all over the court.
I distinctly remember two things about that game. 1) Everyone chanting "SAT...SAT...SAT" because Johnson was having to go to Jr college because of his grades. And 2) Having the munchies.
Posted by: Jeff Dobbs | June 05, 2007 at 07:18 AM
H&R,
Larry playing basketball,trouble is,his gut starts jumping after the rest of him,it is still going up when he is coming down.
BTW What happened to oversight?
Posted by: PeterUK. | June 05, 2007 at 07:44 AM
1/2 hour till sentencing for libby.
Larry playing basketball,trouble is,his gut starts jumping after the rest of him,it is still going up when he is coming down
Dateline Indianapolis: Larry Bird of the Indiana Pacers announced today the free agent signing of ex-Cia officer Larry Johnson to a one year 3.4 million dollar restricted contract.
Said Bird " This signing really gives us depth at the swing position after trading Steven Jackson for Troy Murphy of the Warriors.
You just can't have enough slow white guys on your team. We are building for the future."
Johnson, a former member of the world champion Lakers is due at a 1pm press conference at the Conceco Fieldhouse.
Posted by: hoosierhoops | June 05, 2007 at 09:03 AM
Firedoglake is live-blogging the Libby sentencing. And, Walton is showing himself to be an even dimmer bulb than in the trial. He just doesn't get what the issue is.
Jeffress has repeated a claim he made during pre-trial arguments: 'Witnesses willing to come that Mr WIlson himself revealed his wife's place of employment with almost total strangers.'
Posted by: PatrickR | June 05, 2007 at 10:25 AM
FDL:"Jeffress: [continuing on IIPA] If there had been a violation of IIPA, I'm sure the govt would have charged it.
Walton: I always hear lawyers say indictment doesn't matter. The fact that someone is indicted, I tell people not to take that seriously. The fact that someone isn't found guilty, that's stronger than the fact that they weren't charged.
Jeffress: Govt has never shown that the offense was committed.
Walton: The objective behind cross-referencing as it relates to obtstruction is that it's envisioned when law enforcement officials start an investigation and they go to citizenry to find out whether an offense has been committed, it is the obligation of the citizenry to cooperate, when a person is put on notice of what the govt is investigating. I think that's what this cross-referencing provision is designed to reach. You only look at whether a legitimate investigation was taking place, it's my view the x-referencing does apply, as it relates to the obstruction. I may not reach wrt the perjury conviction, I have questions whether it would apply.
Jeffress: I would point out two things. Not a single of these cases is in DC Circuit. [Shorter Jeffress: Silberman won't buy this argument]
Walton: I'm looking at it from a social policy perpsective. If the circuit wants to take a different position, they have that prerogative. If a person can keep the ability of govt to investigate by obstructing the investigation.
Jeffress: speaking of policy, the defendant may go to prison for twice the time than the case that was being investigated.
Walton just mentioned responsibility again… (that is, why hasn't Libby taken responsibility)
Walton if you come to me in reference to very serious social offense, there's a difference. Cross-reference for obstruction does apply. We still have issue of … govt never presented any evidence that Libby knew what her status was. Either negligence or recklessness that resulted in that being disseminated to press.
"
10:10
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Walton loved Fitzgerald, and doesn't like moneyed lawyers, I think.
I just read that Libby's guys argued that Fitzgerald only pursued Russert to get Libby on perjury. I wish they would have mentioned they already had Russert's statement, before Fitzgerald went after him.
I also think the DoJ's limitations on what they can ask reporters caused Fitzgerald a lot of time and money. Imagine if he could have just asked Cooper what he and Wilson talked about. Imagine if he could have asked Dickerson and Gregory if Fleisher did tell them what he said he did. Did Ari not telling him about Pincus make him waste time and money? I bet it did. I bet it made his more suspicious of Libby.
Posted by: Maybeex | June 05, 2007 at 10:42 AM
Sounds like Libby will get jail time. You're right that Walton still doesn't get it.
What kind of responsibility is Walton referring to?
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 05, 2007 at 10:43 AM
I've missed it so far, but from the last 3 posts it doesn't sound good.
Posted by: Jane | June 05, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Responsibility for what he was convicted of. Even though he maintains he was innocent. He should fall on his face and beg forgiveness, give up Cheney and all will be right with the left side of the world.
Posted by: Sue | June 05, 2007 at 10:47 AM
And Walton has pushed Libby's defense team into a corner.
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 05, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Jane,
I'm not going back into the swamp, even for this hearing. I will rely on Clarice to do the dirty work for us. And, I agree. Walton isn't buying Libby's defense this time around either. Jail time.
Posted by: Sue | June 05, 2007 at 10:47 AM
I hate going there myself..
"10:25
[Jeffress now making arguments about the Cooper perjury charge that has absolute no basis in what we've heard from the jury so far. But he's arguing that since Jury didn't convict on the Cooper false statement the perjury upward enhancement can't apply]
Walton: what about additional efforts government had to expire.
Jeffress; not through any doing of Mr. Libby, he had waived all privileges and asked that reporters testify. The key issue is the law. Enhancements should not be applied if they had to prosecute solely the perjury charge. The need to put Russert before GJ, cannot be explained on any ground, they needed Russert to prosecute for perjury. He had told FBI what his recollection was.
Fitz: If Mr Libby had told truth in GJ, we wouldn't have gone down road of seeking testimony, It was important for GJ to sort through this fun house of mirrors. By repeating the lies in March 2004, we had to get Russert. He included statemnet that his comment to Russert was explicitly made off record. The fact that there may have been dual motives, that does not mean resources don't count.
[IMO this is not Fitz' strongest arguement]
Jeffress: It is irrational to say that Russert;s testimony was needed for any other reason than perjury.
[Govt needs to bring up Judy Miller. Jeffress has strong points on Russert and Cooper (though that is contestable on the Cooper bit), But Judy is backed up by Judge Tatel]
Fitz Libby said Russert that "all the reporters know this." If we're doing a leak investigation, that is something we had to make sure that Russert took an oath and said in fact all the reporters did know. The fact that Libby was claiming there was this widespread aspect. If we were going to trot out things that related to just the prosecution, but getting to underlying offense, when Libby is telling us that source is not only Russert, but all the reporters. We had to investigate whether there was this knowledge out there.
Jeffress: we don't disagree that if govt is investigating underlying offense. THere is no credible way to argue that Russert was interviewed to prove this investigation.
[Jeffress is taunting the govt–for some reason, Fitz doesn't want to bring up Judy, and Jeffress is going to keep hammering on Russert to force Fitz to bring up the other resources.]
Fitz: Russert being surprised when he learned of Plame, that proved that there was no information out there.
Walton: I would agree with defense, that if this is for sole purpose of pursuing perjury, three points can't be superimposed. I do think that if there is legitimate reason for seeking that information that the case law does say it is appropriate to impose additional three points. It's undeniable that Russert's testimony factored into equation whether Libby should be charged with perjury and obstruction. It could not have, based on what Libby said, adequately completed its investigation regarding conduct it was investigating without calling Russert before GJ. While Libby signed release, reality required govt to go before Chief Judge, accordingly consistent with case authority, since there was additional reason the addition 3 points would be appropriate.
10:39 10 Minute recess"
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 10:50 AM
tsk9...
Foley was stationed to the Emabassy and one his duties was to sign off on shipments to the emabassy...
I've been wondering for a while if he had the goods on another under-reported aspect of the Gulf War and the Oil-for-Food sanctions.
After the Gulf War, Kuwait expelled 400,000 Palestanians [BBC article] and it seems that, as Claudia Rosett reports, some Oil-for-Food money, allocated for the United Nations Compensation Commission, made its way to nameless Palestinians through the Palestinian Authority.
graf...
Maybe I ought to get my decoder ring from Roger...
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 05, 2007 at 10:51 AM
While Libby signed release, reality required govt to go before Chief Judge, accordingly consistent with case authority, since there was additional reason the addition 3 points would be appropriate.
Because Russert fought the subpoena, Libby is punished? I can't wait until the precedents set by this trial are used against a democrat. Holey...moley...
Posted by: Sue | June 05, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Fitz should not have started it.
It sounds like Walton wants to go max on Libby as if he's arguing for the upwards. Addition 3 points means what? upwards from 15 to 20 months?
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 05, 2007 at 10:55 AM
TS K9 posted this above:
Is this a direct quote from Wilson's book? If it is, then it is the freaking smoking gun on the government "taking affirmative actions to conceal the agent's identity." Look, they told a freakin' foreign intelligence service that Plame was a WMD intelligence employee. There is no less "covert" an employee than that. It also makes the inclusion of this in an affidavit before the court the criminal act of perjury. Who has standing to make a criminal referral? Can Libby's lawyers demand that Walton make a referral? Can they make a referral? Can Sen Bond make a referral? Heck, can I make a referral?Posted by: cathyf | June 05, 2007 at 10:56 AM
I think it was certain before the hearing began that he woulg get time. The only issue for me is whether he remains free pending appeal. I didn't read enough to know whether this was even discussed in the briefs, but so far as appears it hasn't come up in the proceedings today.
Posted by: Other Tom | June 05, 2007 at 10:57 AM
My gawd. I am still digesting what I just heard. In any coming trial, a person who wants to add punishment to a defendant can merely fight the subpoena and cost the defendant at the sentencing phase. What kind of madness has Fitz/Walton created?
Posted by: Sue | June 05, 2007 at 10:57 AM
Imagine you are the defendant--last night you didn't know whether you had to tell your family goodbye because you have no idea whether you'll be spending tonight in jail or not or for how long. PHEH
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 10:58 AM
That upwards point should only count if the person fighting testimony is a co-conspirator.
Posted by: Sue | June 05, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Having determined what the guidelines should be, I'll move to what the actual sentence should be.
Fitz: whatever sentence Your Honor imposes, needs ot make a clear statement that truth matters, when we think about how truth matters, as eloquent as SCOTUS is, your honor sees that every day, when people walk into a court room, the whole system depends on truth. If we lose truth in judicial system, then judicial system is lost. That is true in every case, but especially true in this cse. High level person,he knew he was going to be questioned, he had time to meet with an attorney, extended period of time, from October, instead of saying, you know what, I lied, he persisted in that lie. He walked into GJ, he raised his hand and lied again. When I read the sentencing letters that are quite eloquent, they describe someone who would not do such a thing. But the truth is, he did do such a thing. In a case such as that, we need to make the statement that truth matters ever so much.
[Libby looking off into wilderness. ]
Fitz: One' station in life does not matter. Many defendants are first offenders, most defendants have family. We need to make clear that the truth matters and one's station in life does not matter.
Fitz: We need to make sure we don't make a special category of person who is not liable for their behavior. That is a terrible precedent, when we talk abotu govt corruption, if he doesn't have to tell the truth, that is dangerous. I don't think we should make a decision based on the policy decisions has made. We put that out the window and say, whatever policy decision he did in good faith, but many others have sacrificed for govt, but they all have to follow the truth. I don't think it's appropriate to consider impact of prosecution on him. No doubt it has impact on him, no defendant has stood before court, no defendant has better prospects for employment, even wihtout a law license Libby has many people who wrote letters who would said he would trust him. He has better employment prospects than any other defendant, and he has means.
Fitz: I don't think he qualifies for aberrant behavior. The record here shows someone who lied in Oct, lying precisely about critical issues. Persisted in lies despite training as lawyer, has shown absolute no contrition. We're not going to recommend any sentence. I do think the sentence has to make clear and loud that truth matters and one's station in life does not.
10:57
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 11:01 AM
So what 3 points is Walton referring to?
Clarice, especially since this is an unfair trial by jury led by an ignorant judge. Walton is assuming that Libby has been proven guilty and that's all he can go by.
Looks like Libby has many ammunitions for the appeals process. Libby's team needs to learn to fight Fitz.
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 05, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Yeah.
And they could have asked Libby why Russert disagreed with his version of events in November 2003. It would have cost next to nothing.
Posted by: Maybeex | June 05, 2007 at 11:03 AM
Oh puleeze! There's no truth in Fitz's argument.
How does that argument compare to Berger's sentence????
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 05, 2007 at 11:04 AM
But Fitzgerald is smart. He's going with the station in life thing for Walton to consider against Libby. I seriously think that is Walton's personal prejudice, and Fitzgerald has picked up on it.
Posted by: Maybeex | June 05, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Yeah, maybeex, Fitz wasn't interested in the truth of whether Plame's status under the conditions IIPA was violated.
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 05, 2007 at 11:09 AM
lurker,
They are determining the sentence based on a point system. Libby gets points added for certain reasons and taken away and the end sum of points is a determining factor in his sentencing. The judge just added 3 points for Russert fighting the subpoena.
Posted by: Sue | June 05, 2007 at 11:09 AM
give up Cheney and all will be right with the left side of the world.
*****************
I think this is behind the heavy sentence too. Give up Cheney, and Fitz will ask for lighter sentence. Do not roll over, and you get it all.
Posted by: SunnyDay | June 05, 2007 at 11:10 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's hopes of avoiding prison in the CIA leak case began to dim Tuesday as a federal judge ruled he could face a longer sentence because the investigation he obstructed was so serious.
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the highest-ranking official convicted of a crime since the Iran Contra affair.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wants to put Libby in prison for up to three years because the investigation he was convicted of obstructing—the leak of a CIA operative's identity—was so serious. Libby's attorneys are seeking no jail time and argue that it's unfair to increase the sentence simply because the investigation was serious.
"No one was ever charged. Nobody ever pleaded guilty," attorney William Jeffress said. "The government did not establish the existence of an offense."
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton didn't accept that. By that reasoning, Walton said, witnesses benefit if they aggressively obstruct investigations so prosecutors can't make their case.
"I just can't buy in on that being good social policy," said Walton, who has a reputation as a tough sentencing judge. "It's one thing if you obstruct a petty larceny. It's another thing if you obstruct a murder investigation."
Walton's preliminary ruling doesn't necessarily foretell Libby's sentence. But it does make it harder for Libby's attorneys to argue for no jail time because it raises the seriousness of his offense.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's hopes of avoiding prison in the CIA leak case began to dim Tuesday as a federal judge ruled he could face a longer sentence because the investigation he obstructed was so serious.
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the highest-ranking official convicted of a crime since the Iran Contra affair.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wants to put Libby in prison for up to three years because the investigation he was convicted of obstructing—the leak of a CIA operative's identity—was so serious. Libby's attorneys are seeking no jail time and argue that it's unfair to increase the sentence simply because the investigation was serious.
"No one was ever charged. Nobody ever pleaded guilty," attorney William Jeffress said. "The government did not establish the existence of an offense."
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton didn't accept that. By that reasoning, Walton said, witnesses benefit if they aggressively obstruct investigations so prosecutors can't make their case.
"I just can't buy in on that being good social policy," said Walton, who has a reputation as a tough sentencing judge. "It's one thing if you obstruct a petty larceny. It's another thing if you obstruct a murder investigation."
Walton's preliminary ruling doesn't necessarily foretell Libby's sentence. But it does make it harder for Libby's attorneys to argue for no jail time because it raises the seriousness of his offense.
(Apuzzo AP--Breitbart)
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 11:10 AM
lurker,
I should have pointed out that the higher the number the more severe the sentencing. It is probably obvious, but I just wanted to make it clear.
Posted by: Sue | June 05, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Wells: No question from Defense that Obstruction and Perjury are serious violations [then how come your client won't say so??]. Nor do we quarrel with Fitz' statement that truth matters.
Reggie has his reflective face on.
Wells; Nor do we make any argument that because of Libby's status, he should be treated differently. It is wrong to sentence people based on their status. People should be sentenced based on their individual characteristics. But courts have made clear that although one may not be sentenced based on one's status, it is entirely appropriate for a sentencing judge to take into consideration the good works and good deeds. Be that person from a privileged background, or from the poorest background. If a person has engaged in exceptional efforts to help others, to help society, those personalized and exceptional efforts can be taken into consideration by a sentencing court. And to take into consideration such personal service, person community service. That is not in any way to give someone a break bc of his or her status, but to recognize that a person on a personal basis has lived his life in such a way that the court should give consideration to that in fashioning an appropriate sentence.
Wells; I stand before you in post-Booker era. After Booker, guidelines are not mandatory. One, but only one of the factors to consider is the sentencing range under the guidelines. After Booker, a court is no longer tied to sentencing guidelines. One might argue that the guideline range is presumptively reasonable. [Now we're back to jury nullification again, kind of] A sentencing judge cannot presume that sentencing guidelines are mandatory.
[This may not help you, Wells, Walton could ignore the guidelines upward… he sounded pretty pissed earlier…]
Wells; it is our position as expressed in sentencing memo, whether you approach Libby's sentencing, that on the record before your honor, expressed in over 160 letters submitted, it will be within your honor's discretion to give significant credit to Mr Libby for his exceptional public service to our nation. And in giving credit to Mr. Libby that would not be giving Libby a break for his status. such a consideration would be consistent with the precedent.
Wells; WRT Mr Libby's exception public service–and again, that's based on his personal deeds, not his status, there are a lot of lawyers who do SQUAT for their country, a lot of people who work in govt service, 20, 30 years, who go to work every day and do not do anything that could be described as exceptional service. [You mean like risking your life in other countries to counter proliferation?] Just as people from a particular background who do great things for their community, but also those who do nothing.
Wells; What I would like to do is read from about 6 letters. There were over 150 letters submitted.
[Hey, Ted, how come Abramoff got 262 letters and Libby only got 160?]
11:06
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Boy I can't tell you what this has done to my faith and belief in the system I've spent a lifetime involved in. And its not like I haven't seen injustice before. I just can't help but compare Libby to Berger, the left to the right, and Walton to someone who is competant..
Posted by: Jane | June 05, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Me, too, Jane..
FDL update:
Wells; I'd like to take time to present compelling case of Mr Libby's service to justify sentence of probation.
[Reggie looks unimpressed]
Wells: Admiral Joseph Lopez. Talks about Libby's contributions to first gulf war. Lopez writes, "Letter in support of Libby, I am one of two officers in history of USN to serve as enlisted man and later achieve rank of 4 start admiral. Bc of roots in rural WV and naval service at enlisted ranks, I have an appreciation of the requirements of leadership. The first few days of my working with Libby were momentous. Day before August 1990 I became senior asst to Sec Def,. Within days, the department had to prepare for war. THe first person I saw every day was Scooter Libby.
[Let's take a moment to consider what Joe Wilson was doing at this moment. Anyone remember what he was doing when Libby was working 7 days? Oh, that's right, making sure Americans got out of Iraq. ]
Wells: Libby worked 7 days a week, and equally well with civilian arm and military planners to ensure our war fighters. Libby got funding resulting in 52 billion dollars to support war effort. Throughout my tenure, Libby was senior member of team for planning and implementing defense strategy. Lopez concludes by saying Libby has made significant postiive contributions to maintain peace and stability in our world. Just one person's comment. That's just one person's comment concerning the gulf war.
Walton: I have read all those letters.
Wells: WRT Libby's contribution concerning ending Cold War.
11:11
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 11:20 AM
I do think the sentence has to make clear and loud that truth matters and one's station in life does not?™
Madness: Russert first cooporates with the FBI then makes a dog-and-pony show of his non-cooporation, and Libby gets more time. Miller fights and ends up in jail because of other sources, which Fitzgerald objects to the defense raising, and Libby gets more time. Cooper has other sources and Libby gets more time.
The government says that the status of Valerie Wilson is not an issue and the defense is not allowed to introduce any evidence in this regard, but Libby gets more time because of Val's 'status'. Fitzgerald is allowed to introduce articles "not for their truth value" that assert Valerie is a "covert agent", but Libby is not allowed to defend against the articles. And hell, Libby wasn't a source for Novak magic article [the one with the proper incantation to make Val's status 'covert'].
Its not a good day for Libby, and an even worse day for justice.
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 05, 2007 at 11:24 AM
They should be talking about how much $$ Libby gave up to work in the government. How many hours he worked with no overtime pay. That's what Walton seems to care about.
Posted by: Maybeex | June 05, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Wells: [reading from letter to talk about transition to democracy in Eastern Europe] Advocate for greater freedom and quality of life for people in former Soviet bloc. These efforts reflect his belief in the dignity of all people.
[Walton is underlining something, not looking at Wells.]
Wells: Mr Libby's former boss, Mr. Wolfowitz wrote, "When i was called back to Washington in 1989, to serve as undersec of defense, Libby assisted me on pro bono basis on planning reorg of office. Subsequently, I persuaded him to come back to govt. He made decisive contributions to our first post-coldwar defense strategy. Developed new relationships with leadership informer Warsaw block countries. Recognized Yeltsin.
Wells: January 1993 [this is not in package]. Mr Libby received award of distinguished service. Award talks about exceptional service to country. Description written without any regard to this case. Totally consistent with comments submitted to court.
[Reggie really looks impatient and pissed]
Wells: talks about extraordinary strategic vision, just the type of extraordinary public service that case law permits court to recognized and give weight. Not a sentence based on his status, but based on his deeds as an individual. There's another letter by Seth Caris that talks about Libby's extraordinary contributions to protecting country from Bioterrorism. I believe that bioweapons are one of the biggest challenges facing the US in the 21st century. Libby has done more than any other single person. Goes on wrt Project bioshield. Just two more letters.
Wells: Dr. Anthony Fauci. Director of NIAID, component of NIH. Primary responsibility for conducting biomedical research in development of countermeasures to things like anthrax attack.
[Reggie still writing on something in front of himself–hello? Anyone around here know how to read body language???]
Wells: I do not believe we would have had bioshield legislation were it not for tireless efforts of Libby. Final letter Robert Blackwill [Condi's buddy]. During years at WH, encountered no one of better analytical temperament. Sacrificed personal prerogatives and family on behalf of country. Constantly in tense situations. Never once did I see Libby's humanist values slip in this situation. Always at center of policy debates.
[Reggie has his lips pursed right now, looking into space]
Wells; IN WH, in admin, he was an island of virture and good sense. I tried to develop students like Libby.
11:23
[The things I do for you all--running to the swamp--PHEH PHEH PHEH]
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Its not a good day for Libby, and an even worse day for justice.
And the crowd roared...
Posted by: Sue | June 05, 2007 at 11:26 AM
11:23
Wells: the letters only represent a fraction of the evidence supporting Mr. Libby's character.
Wells WRT collatoral consequences suffered by Libby. This is an exceptional case, exceptional degree of media coverage, bc of that, ramifications have been different.
[And I'm sure the Wilsons enjoyed that media attention, Ted]
Wells: Mr Libby has been exposed unlike people convicted in normal case, to overwhelming public scrutiny, exposed to ridicule.
[And standing ovations from his buddies the Neocons]
Wells: The social stigma of being so publicly humiliated, should factor in. It is a type of public humiliation that the guidelines didn't contemplate. It made it seem like MR Libby was the poster child for all that has gone wrong with this terrible war. [Hey, Wells is anti-war] Burden of media coverage has fallen on his wife and children. This is exceptioal pain. This is not a regular case.
[Say, how many kids do the Wilsons have?]
Wells: In addition to his family, Libby had two loves, govt service, and practice in law. No question that he is going to lose law license. No question he is no longer going to be able to serve in govt as NSA.
[Say, what is Eliot Abrams doing right about now???]
Wells: In terms of issue of deterrence, one of factors court required to consider. No reason to incarcerate Libby for deterrence. I don't think Mr LIbby is going to go out and do something wrong. In terms of general deterrance, because of exception publicity, the message sent to all public officials, the clear message is, if you find yourself in position like LIbby, consequences are huge. [Two words: Standing ovation] A tragic fall from public grace.
[Walton leaning back in his chair looking at Wells sideways]
11:29
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Walton: I read all of those letters.
Apparently, he's not convinced in probation [3 points added] or deferral of jail time. He's already convinced by Fitz.
Wells' time is wasted.
Once Walton declared Libby's sentence, will Wells and Jeffress argue for probation or deferral of jail time while the appeals process takes place?
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 05, 2007 at 11:32 AM
OK, this is hilarious:
Wells: the letters only represent a fraction of the evidence supporting Mr. Libby's character.
Wells WRT collatoral consequences suffered by Libby. This is an exceptional case, exceptional degree of media coverage, bc of that, ramifications have been different.
[And I'm sure the Wilsons enjoyed that media attention, Ted]
That we can all agree on, I'm sure.
Posted by: Maybeex | June 05, 2007 at 11:34 AM
Well, this certainly isnt' going well for Libby so far.
Posted by: Cycloptichorn | June 05, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Maybe Bush could pardon Libby tonight and fire Fitzgerald tomorrow morning.
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 05, 2007 at 11:35 AM
11:29
Wells; I submit no need to incarcerate. Libby Public humiliation combined with exceptional public sevrice to nation, would justify court exercise not to incarcerate. To extent Your Honor requires incarcaeration, I'd ask some kind of split sentence, permit him to serve in home confinement or halfway house. Judge Urbina in sentencing Jamal, convicted of fraud gave Jamal probation.
[Walton looking up at ceiling]
Wells In fashioning sentencing, one's entire life should be taken into account, that is a factor that permits the court, should it so choose, to give credit to and depart from. Libby few short remakrs.
[lurker--after sentencing Wells will seek Libby remain free until the appeal runs its course if the judge does not sentence him to probation only]
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 11:35 AM
What will truly be amazing is if Fitz argues for immediate jail time, which is simply more proof that he is a vindictive asshole.
I tell you, it will take a lot for me personally to back off the criminialization of politics at this point. I'm feeling pretty vindictive myself.
Posted by: Jane | June 05, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Maybee,
It would be hilarious if the people she is pandering to didn't believe just that. Wilson would have loved nothing better than to remain in the shadows, millions of dollars less in his pocket, of course, and the darling of the left. If only...
Posted by: Sue | June 05, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Why are people using "justice" in association with the operation of the legal process system? Is it supposed to be connected in some manner?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 05, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Jane says...
...to back off the criminialization of politics at this point...
I've got a creeping doom feeling that it is going to get much, much worse.
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 05, 2007 at 11:41 AM
It isn't a 'criminalization.' These things have always been illegal. We're just going to start enforcing the laws on the books.
Posted by: Cycloptichorn | June 05, 2007 at 11:44 AM
Jane, you know Fitz will argue for immediate jail time, max of 30 to 37 months.
I am unconvinced that Libby did something to prevent Fitz from completing his investigation. After all, he should never have started it.
So, Jane, will this interest the American Public into feeling so vindictive that they need to do something to get Libby pardoned or something?
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 05, 2007 at 11:44 AM
I've got a creeping doom feeling that it is going to get much, much worse.
You know ever since my liberal (lawyer) friends vowed to me that it was simply fine and dandy for someone to lie under oath (if it was just about sex) I've vowed that I would never ever ever act like the left.
I wouldn't act like them at the impeachment, I wouldn't act like them when I lost an election, I wouldn't act like them when they repeatedly went after Bush, or let Berger go, or screwed Alan Foley.
AS of today, I'm willing to act like them - full tilt - and not just people like Jefferson - I want Schumer and Emmanuel, Reid and Pelosi and I want them jailed and their fortunes taken.
Posted by: Jane | June 05, 2007 at 11:45 AM
According to FDL --despite his sentencing filing--Fitz is not asking for any specific sentencing.
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 11:46 AM
This is a criminalization of politics and whatever Fitz did was illegal. Libby has done nothing illegal.
RichatUF, I'm afraid you're right that it's going to get worse.
What gets me is that the fact that Fitz should never have started the investigation is a huge waste of my tax money [and yours except cylcop's].
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 05, 2007 at 11:46 AM
I'm ready to go after him too. I want his law license.
And no Lurker, the public won't care, and if this stuff keeps going on, neither will I.
Posted by: Jane | June 05, 2007 at 11:47 AM
What gets me is that the fact that Fitz should never have started the investigation is a huge waste of my tax money [and yours except cylcop's].
Naturally, you are aware that Fitz didn't start the investigation; it was handed to him by the FBI and DoJ.
Posted by: Cycloptichorn | June 05, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Libby: Family and I appreciate considerations shown to us during this conviction. In all taht time I have recieved nothing but kindness from Court's personnel, your honor's staff, court administrators, US Marshalls, Court security officers, and probation officer. I am grateful. Now I realize fully Court must decide on punishment, I hope court will consider my whole life. Thank you your honor.
11:34
Libby, Wells, Jeffress at podium.
Walton: I have reviewed memoranda submitted by counsel. I also reviewed the sentencing memoranda themselves, articulating the respective positions. I have also reviewed the letters submitted both on behalf of Mr Libby and. I believe all of those letters have been made available and will be made available to public. Considered sentencing guidelines.
Walton: I didnt' welcome havign to sentence Libby, for any sentencing, most difficult task a person serving as a judge, particularly hard in a case involving someone based upon those who know Mr Libby compared those those viewing the situation from afar, have said about Mr. Libby and what type of person he is and the contributions he has made to society and his family. Those letters reflect the fact that Libby, despite the fact he could have remained in private practice, making much more than public servants, and took positions in govt.
[Libby looks stiff, ghost white]
Walton I don't doubt based on information that I have been privvy to that contrary to what a lot of people may not understand that Libby along with the entire intelligence community has played a central role in keeping our country safe. Unfortunately the people who do thata work don't recieve accolades in general. On one hand, I have an indivi I have to sentence, but for has done good for society.
Walton: One starts out with factors, under that statute, requires statute that is sufficent but not greater than factors set forth in provision, obviously factors I've just indicated regarding Libby's personal situation. There is the other side of the picture. I appreciate that somtimes people make mistakes. Contrary to what a lot of people have said, regarding this case and investigation, and attacks that have been made, I think are misplaced, the evidence overwhlemingly indicated Libby's culpability despite best efforts of counsel. I've watched these proceedings with a sense of sadness bc I have highest respect for govt servants. Important taht we expect and demand a lot of people who are in those situations. They have a certain high level obligation when they occupy that situation. In this situation Libby failed to meet the bar. COntrary to what he has done in his life. My take on evidnece presented, no evidence that Mr Libby knew that Ms Wilson status was, but being NSA for VP seems to me that anybody in that high level position had a unique obligation that before they said aything said anything associated iwth national security agency. Take every effort possible they woul dknow that that person was not in position taht could compromise them, others, or this nation.
11;42
When confronted, He had articles the suggestion that this was a fleeting event, that’s just not borne out by evidence ,had conversation with VP about Ms Wilson, conversations with indivs at CIA, all of those efforts are inconsistent with saying this was a passing point. Just not borne out by facts. That’s extrememly troublesome. Special obligation they don’t do anything that could cause problem.
I've got sentencing guidelines. I've got to pay attention to those. I've got to pay attention to guidelines because people need to believe there's some consistency.
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 11:48 AM
Jane, don't forget to include Feinstein, Mollohan, Menendez, and Rockefeller.
Clarice, has Fitz changed his decision since his filing?
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 05, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Rick B says...
...Why are people using "justice" in association with the operation of the legal process system...
I should have disabused myself of the notion a while ago. Was it you that made a comment about truth not being around the courthouse either?
At least Fitz (and Walton it appears) got their scalp, maybe now they can put the rest of the neo-cons in the doc.
I would have been more impressed if Walton and Fitzgerald just tossed Libby into the Potomac to see if he would float.
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 05, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Need to consider seriousness of offense. Investigation extremely serious. Conduct of Mr Libby is serious behavior. Has to be a sentence that promotes respect for law. Indivs should understand there are consequences. Obviously, punishment has to be considered. Statue does call for just punishment, In reference to deterrence, nothing in this case, based on Libby's history that would suggest that specific deterrence needs to be major concern. Considering the things he has done. No reason to believe he would commit another crime. General deterrence is important. people who occupy positions of responsibility have to appreciate taht if they step over a line, there are consequences. It causes people to lose faith in our govt. That's a major consideration.
Obviously, statute requires sentence that protects public.
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 11:51 AM
I feel nauseated. 30 months.
Posted by: SunnyDay | June 05, 2007 at 11:51 AM
"What gets me is that the fact that Fitz should never have started the investigation is a huge waste of my tax money [and yours except cylcop's].
Naturally, you are aware that Fitz didn't start the investigation; it was handed to him by the FBI and DoJ."
Whatever the semantics. The first thing that Fitz should have done is to determine whether a IIPA violation took place. If he found none, he should not have "started" [whatever you want to call it] the real investigation.
I believe DoJ knew there was nothing substantiated but pressured by the Democrats like you. It is still a major waste of my tax money and everyone else's. No more SP's.
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 05, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Jane:And no Lurker, the public won't care, and if this stuff keeps going on, neither will I.
As someone who lives in a country from which she is separated politically, I must say it is very refreshing to not know much about what is going on around me (politically). I really only have to worry about things that directly affect me. It certainly makes me appreciate the choice to just check out, even in the US.
It makes it very easy to believe there are very few problems or disputes-- I sure don't hear about many!
Posted by: Maybeex | June 05, 2007 at 11:55 AM
It causes people to lose faith in our govt.
Well, at least he got that part right. I have lost faith in our government and our judicial system. And I can't wait for some enterprising young prosecutor to use the Libby precedent to go after a liberal. I hope it is soon.
Posted by: Sue | June 05, 2007 at 11:56 AM
Obviously, statute requires sentence that protects public. I have to consider the type of sentences available, I have option of imposing sentence from probation to max, I have to consider need to avoid disparities. Creates real challenge. Bc. Obviously, one one hand, there are reasons why departure might be appropriate, On other hand, consdiering nature of offense, that conduct in my view counters against imposing a sentence that departs. In the end, my view that those factors balance themselves out, which causes me to conclude that sentence does fall and should fall within the guidelines.
I don't think high end is necessary. 30 months FIne him $200,000
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 11:56 AM
I'm stunned. And I didn't think I could be more stunned. I can hear Russert, FDL and assorted trolls cheering.
Posted by: Jane | June 05, 2007 at 11:56 AM
So 30 months was not high end?
Posted by: Maybeex | June 05, 2007 at 11:58 AM
I'm stunned too. Stunned they didn't order a public flogging, with stoning to begin immediately afterwards.
Posted by: Sue | June 05, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Walton says this...
...My take on evidnece presented, no evidence that Mr Libby knew that Ms Wilson status was, but being NSA for VP seems to me that anybody in that high level position had a unique obligation that before they said aything said anything associated iwth national security agency...
And again my point if her 'status' was not an issue at trial how is that the Judge and Fitzgerald can argue that it is now relevant. Wasn't Libby denied discovery of this very point? And a unique obligation? If the CIA didn't make it clear, how was anyone supposed to know? I want Walton impeached for this disgrace
RichatUF
Posted by: RichatUF | June 05, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Apparently he will be released pending appeal:
"Within 72 hours report to probation department and abide by supervised release.
In ref to obstruction, 30 months, To other counts, to 15 months, concurrent. Supervised release for 2 years following release from detenino.
He must provide sample of DNA, he will be required to contribute 400 hour of community service.
Short break, will proceed with bond issue"
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Obviously, statute requires sentence that protects public.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I certainly feel protected by the sentence imposed on Libby. They got a major threat to my safety. /sarcasm off
Posted by: Sue | June 05, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Right, Sue. I certainly did not feel safe from Berger's sentence.
So..no jail time for Libby pending appeal? Is that what Walton said?
Posted by: lurker9876 | June 05, 2007 at 12:05 PM
[well. maybe he won't be released pending appeal]
Back in
Mr. Libby’s status. Only issue is whether appeal would raise substantial questions of law or fact.
Wells: Our position that based on number of extensive opinions your honor could rule form bench that there are substantial issues.
Walton: I think all those opinions are correct.
Wells: WRT to appointments clause issue, tension between Larson and Edmond, this issue is clearly one that raises novel issues for which there is no controlling case law. Similarly, wrt memory expert, in your honor’s extensive opinion, your honor recognized was question of first impression. Those two issues by themselves.
Posted by: clarice | June 05, 2007 at 12:07 PM