Powered by TypePad

« Libby Appeal Denied | Main | Al Gore III And His Prius »

July 03, 2007



Because the sentence, including supervised release, was an imposition of Judge Walton's making; and now he wonder's if the statute he relied on in applying supervised release has been rendered inapplicable by executive action.

He doesn't want to apply a penalty that he can't by law apply.

For some reason I don't have that much faith in Walton. I think he is trying to get his way with Libby. Besides, commuting a sentence simply means we pretend it has been served, and now he is off to the parole phase.


-- As I recall, Clinton's testimony about his conduct with others was required by statute, --

I qualified the nature of the lies that were immaterial to the outcome of the case, because if there had been lies about damages, the court may have found liability. But under the fact pattern of the case, there were no damages, so Clinton's lies were immaterial to the outcome of the underlying case.

Just as Libby's lies were immaterial to the outcome of an IIPA violation case because there was no IIPA violation: Clinton's lies were immaterial to the outcome of Jones's civil case claiming damages because there were no damages.

Rick Ballard

"He doesn't want to apply a penalty that he can't by law apply."

And he doesn't have any problem at all making himself out to be a bigger vindictive ass than he already has.

And he really, really, really hopes that this will force the President to pardon - thereby saving his sorry ass interpretive legal dances from being booted through the goalposts by either the Applets or the Supremes.

Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki

chch16, please provide a factual explanation of how Libby saying he was told about Plame by Russert has anything to do with Iraq.

Haven't been around in awhile. I assume Poppy is the new JOM house masochist.


-- now he is off to the parole phase --

Walton has doubts that he can impose supervised release. The sentence had no "parole" provision, and I don't think Walton can go back and adjust the sentence to add parole.

I think he (Walton) wants to relieve BOP of any obligation for contact with Libby, but he wants to do so under the law.


Walton has doubts that he can impose supervised release.

Did you read that somewhere cboldt or is that what you assume? I trust your legal opinion on criminal matters more than mine, but I really doubt this is Walton's motive based on what we have seen so far.

Rick Ballard

BoP is incapable of making an administrative decision on its own?

C'mon Cboldt - this is a final vindictive swing by a someone who hasn't acted with impartial indifference for some time in this matter.


-- Did you read that somewhere cboldt or is that what you assume? --

See the Order from Walton up above (SunnyDay posted it). He recites the law about supervised release, and (correctly) notes that imposing supervised release is, by a literal reading of the statute, predicated on being released.

A different statute, not the supervised release one, permits the judge to impose parole. The judge did not impose parole, and he can't go back and add it.

I don't know that his motive is any more or less that wanting to follow the law. You are free to impute whatever motive you care to.


BOP's administrative decision is to continue with the supervised release. Walton isn't sure that his order to impose supervised release is legal.


Other Tom:

The Conyers hearings oughta be a laff riot. Can you imagine what the Repubs will be able to dredge up, just to refresh the public recollection about clemencies and pardons of the past? I'll bet Hillary is delighted to learn of all this...

I often get taken in by this same logic, only to be re-aquainted with the true Republican spirit of bipartisanship. (No offense intended, OT.) Something tells me the majority is banking on the liklihood that the minority members will meekly let Conyers & Co. have their sound-bites, fearing that anything they say defending Bush will be a negative for them in '08. As to what actually happens, I'd bet on the Dem calculation before I'd bet on Republicans actually fighting. And besides, look at the composition of the House Judiciary Committee. The minority side isn't exactly packed with telegenic personalities. Even if they actually landed a punch or two, the average voter probably wouldn't ever hear about it unless the MSM decides to tilt to Obama. (Now that would be interesting.)


Poking around EPIC a bit I found this page by Traprock and an article in particular by Charles Jenks titled, "EPIC's Explanation of endthewar.org's demise"

The National Network to End the War Against Iraq grew out of a series of National Organizers Conferences on Iraq that EPIC initiated with the support of other national organizations. At the Second National Organizers Conference in Denver, Colorado, conference participants came together to form the network in February 2001.

This conference in Denver consisted of 50 or so of the most left leaning activist organizations in the world. Groups like Veterans for Peace, Voices and Int'l Socialist Org as well as leaders from EPIC were making plans to stop the war.

The date of this conference was mid Feb 2001, well before the Intelligence Community received their Original Niger Reporting on Oct 15 2001 and 7 months before 9/11. Yet note this reference to uranium in the minutes, "We need to link uranium as a way to link the sanctions with other movements." Now I think they were concerned with depleted uranium from bombing but I still find it odd that a man married to a double secret CIA agent would make a guest appearance two years later and in his bio, describe himself as "married to the former Valerie Plame." Why the need to mention your wife as "the former", why not just "married to his wife Valerie"

Also note the reference to Conyers and another reference to let Colin Powell know what they were planning.


I'm new to this site, but isn't there a rule about waisting way too much bandwidth, especially with useless and pointless drivel? I had to speed scroll though more than half of it!


"fearing that anything they say defending Bush will be a negative for them in '08."

Indeed. Who wants to begin counting how many times GOP candidates will be asked about their position on the 'Rule of Law'?


As I recall Starr was drawn into the Monica matter only because someone on BJ's behalf tried to get her to sign a fake affidavit. Seems a great deal more serious than was it Russert or some other clown who was yappping about it?


Indeed. Who wants to begin counting how many times GOP candidates will be asked about their position on the 'Rule of Law'?

oh puhlease Cleo

perhaps you missed this:

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to what is clearly a politically motivated and totally senseless resolution. We are a Nation of laws, and if any matter is abundantly clear by our Constitution, it is that the President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency. Is there any Member that does not understand that? Every President has the sole and unitary power to grant clemency…Now the reason that he has the power to grant clemency is that it is that the President is uniquely positioned to consider the law and the facts that apply in each request for clemency.”

Conyers, speaking against a resolution condeming Clinton for pardoning terrorists.

Conyers yesterday:

"In light of yesterday's announcement by the President that he was commuting the prison sentence for Scooter Libby, it is imperative that Congress look into presidential authority to grant clemency, and how such power may be abused," John Conyers said. "Taken to its extreme, the use of such authority could completely circumvent the law enforcement process and prevent credible efforts to investigate wrongdoing in the executive branch."


-- someone on BJ's behalf tried to get her to sign a fake affidavit. Seems a great deal more serious than was it Russert or some other clown who was yappping about it? --

That too would be immaterial to the outcome of the Jones civil case. The notions of "more" and "less" serious need not be applied to reach the conclusion that the action is immaterial to the outcome of the case.


To be sure, an American President has an absolute power to pardon. But that does not relieve him of the obligation to defend any and every decision to intervene in the criminal justice system. Indeed, this President's rare use of the pardoning power makes it all the more important for him to reveal his reasoning.


Can you imagine Conyers replying to his Clinton era quote on live TV

"ummm yeah, that was different, Clinton was pardoning terrorists"


Martyrdom on the NHS by Iowahawk


Amazing that the troll cannot understand that Mr Libby HAS been and IS being punished,he is on parole,has been fine $250,000 and his legal career is in the toilet,he has FELON attached to his name for ever.
It is obvious that the leftoids,who incidentally cower before crazed tribesmen,are keen to burn Scooter Libby on the village green,perhaps they should examine their humanity.


windandsea: do you have a link for the Conyers quote from the Clinton years as I'd like it for my own blog? I've attributed it to you thus far, unless you'd like me to take it down.


If chch16 had one whit of consideration he/she would minimize each entry by referring to a personal blog that contained the remarks in depth instead of hijacking TM's bandwidth.

I'd write a routine to present each thread sanitized of chch16's posts, but, frankly, chch16 is not worth the effort.

History will recall this generation for its inability to recognize logical fallacies and laugh at those to obtuse to care what occupies the mind. Sad but true, those who produce such thoughts are condemned to think them.

No. Chch16 is either ignorant or malicious. My guess is the latter.


The irony is that chch16 would like to wear "Banned from JOM" as a badge of honor, but TM is too smart to oblige.




I found both quotes at The Corner yesterday but their link to the older one was not working.

I think there was just a fantasy that Libby, after sitting in prison a few days, would suddenly spill the "truth"-- that Cheney and Bush had ordered the destruction of Valerie Plame's--the woman they knew to be an important, IIPA covered, CIA operative.
I think that you are right, but it is the most bizarre fantasy. The president could never violate the IIPA by definition; the VP could not do it after March 25, 2003. The president has always had absolute authority to declassify anything, under any circumstances, classified by any agency with no notice or procedure required. (The head of each particular agency has that authority over any information classified by the particular agency.)

If Bush or Cheney declassified Plame's identity, then it is in no way shape or form a crime. Prosecutors are allowed to grant plea bargains -- to give one criminal lenience in order to get that criminal's testimony in another criminal matter. Where in our legal system does it say that prosecutors can give a criminal lenience in order to get the criminal to say something which is embarassing to someone who is innocent of any law-breaking?


"If chch16 had one whit of consideration he/she"

chch16 has all the manners of an un-housetrained polecat.

Rick Ballard


Do you recall idiot sferris claiming a plentitude of means to avoid banning? There is some small likelihood that the current idiot is the old idiot in a new dress - attempting to prove its claim.

At some point ISP providers are going to have to come up with some sort of a "permanently banned" designation that can be shared and enforced. Or perhaps Typhus-pad will come up with a fix that doesn't involve blacking out entire regions.

Other Tom

Clinton got hit with $90K in sanctions for civil contempt by the federal judge in the Jones case. The basis for the contempt was the submission of an affidavit from Lewinsky that Bennett later informed the judge was false. I don't believe the question of its materiality to the outcome of the case was ever a factor in the judge's analysis. Discovery in a civil case is not limited to matters that are material or admissible at trial--anything that could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence is a legitimate subject of inquiry.

Other Tom

Global warming made him do it:

"LAGUNA NIGUEL, California - Al Gore's son was pulled over for speeding on a California freeway early Wednesday and arrested on suspicion of possessing marijuana and prescription drugs, authorities said. Al Gore III, 24, was driving a blue Toyota Prius about 100 mph south on the San Diego Freeway when he was pulled over by sheriff's deputies who said they smelled marijuana, said Sheriff's Department spokesman Jim Amormino."


-- I don't believe the question of its materiality to the outcome of the case was ever a factor in the judge's analysis. --

It probably wasn't, but the absence of materiality to the outcome of the underlying IIPA case is occasionally fronted as a reason for rejecting the investigation and/or prosecution of Libby. I see the Clinton and Libby cases as providing close parallels to decide the propriety of a "no underlying offense, therefore absence of materiality" rule of law.

I agree with all of the other statements you made, that discovery isn't limited, that Clinton was hit with sanctions for filing a false affidavit, etc.

Rick Ballard

"Where in our legal system does it say that prosecutors can give a criminal lenience in order to get the criminal to say something which is embarassing to someone who is innocent of any law-breaking?"


It's codified in the chapter establishing the office of Special Counsel. Comey wrote it and Frankenfitz has the only copy extant but it obviously exists - Walton uses it extensively in his "legal reasoning".



Conyers Sept 9, 1999 quote, "from the Congressional Record"

Pal2Pal (Sara)

Extraneus, after looking at your link for the House Judiciary Committee, I recognized hardly any names, and then there was my own Congressman Darrell Issa. He can be a bear in the china shop and had a driving influence in the recall of Gov. Davis and the subsequent special election that brought us the Governator. I think an email from a constituent is in order.


thanks cbolt...I needed an official link to send a few people


Quoting Sid Blumenthal is more than a little ironic in this case, being as
he co-edited a obscure little tome,(I found it in a small public library in Hialeah. called "Government by GunPlay" with Phillip Agee. It argued in almost a pre-Kosian, MoveOn way, the idea that John, Robert
& Martin, were killed by their government; and that was the dark secret behind Watergate. This is an argument, that has been taken up by Salon's David Talbot,despite Bugliosi's War & Peace size
debunking; recently. and indirectly supported by Time Magazine, this
week That was the contention of many of the contributors like Hillary's high school Methodist inspiration, SDS man Carl
Oglesby, who argued that the assasinations,
Vietnam, & Watergate, were the result of
a conflict between Southern & Western Cowboys and Eastern Yankees. (Red vs Blue
30 years ago)Also there was Jeff Gerth, the
future Clinton scourge at the Post, insinuating that Nixon was the Mob's President, Jeff Cohen, future FAIR chief took up the impossibility of James Earl Ray, well you get the idea. But Agee is the
most interesting of them all.

Yes the original CIA,. . .KGB/DGI agent, who through the likes of his publication
CounterSpy (which copied the work of an
East German researcher, Mader)and the CovertAction Information Bulletin, outed
every CIA agent; including Plame baiter
Vincent Cannistraro (Jidda, S. Arabia, 1975)
who would later become the most resolute defender of the Mujahadeen after fouling up with the Contra 'assasination Manual' Gust Avrokotos; the CIA's partner with Charlie
Wilson on the Afghan arms pipeline (Athens, 1975) and of course his boss Richard Welch, who would be murdered by the S. American guerilla emulating Nov 17th group(previously Lima, 1974)which provoke the IIPA, which CAP Vp Morton Halperin opposed;
along with Chuch Schumer. Of course after 1979, this Naming names part of the CAQ fell to the German publication "Geheim' which seems to have done this till
2004; no matter how ludicrous their identification was.


@ch what's drival to you isn't drival to about 60% of the country as regards Libby right now, and 80% of the country as regards getting Bush to resign.


Mah boy. Let's be real.

I have spent a lot of my precious time making arguments in the past week. For a good while, and still I got the equivalant and sometimes in very anemic, non articulate prose "piss on you you psychotic scumbag" and when I look those words up with my very limited education and vocabulary, I'm sure I'll want to thank each and every Bush and scootie fan boy and girl.

I have carefully made arguments --if you don't think so ck out any thread that Maguire started by dicussing Libby in the past week.

However, in the last post, the issue of Russert was raised in the vein by Mr. Poppy or Ms. Poppy that Russert lied and Scootie was a saint always telling the truth, except when his memory lapsed because he was standing between me and "terrrrrrrrrisssssssts."

There have been several bandwidth comments--I honestly think the people making them are disingenuous since they often post long winded articles and quotes and they do it promiscously.

But in consideration of bandwidth, and because Ms. Wheeler made my points perfectly, and the other link did as well I contexted them.

I can tell you this. If you make a particular point (and you have not yet except to criticize my using two links) to illustrate how badly Scootie broke the law and to criticize the Russert song and dance that the base does on the Libby trial, I'd be delighted to respond to you with original thought.

Psstt--I'm not the only one here to use a link they like. Open your eyes--let them hit your retina in the middle.

Sara--funny you mention Darrall Issa. I've watched him in the House Oversight Commmitee since Tom Davis lost the gavel, and second to the totally obnoxious Davis who exerted absolutely no oversight in the last 6 years, Issa has been the most obstructive in tyring to continually block any meaningful questions to the witness and uses his time to always prop up the witness and reenforce their lies.

Peter a lecture on manners coming from you as consistently rude as you've been is like a lecture on virginity from Paris Hilton.


cboldt and windandsea: Thanks for the link.


cboldt, but it suggests that there was actually a crime to investigate, doesn't it? Further Starr begged to be relieved of investigating that issue and did so only when ordered to by the three judge panel overseeing him.

It's a matter of degree and judgement.


My simple little mind understood the Prez to say that everything in Libby's sentence stood, except he doesn't go to jail.

So, J Walton IMO, should pretend Libby is getting out of prison on a specific date (however, Libby did not actually go to jail, we're just pretending). And Libby should report to whoever is in charge of his parile/spuervised release and truck on with his appeals case.

But, I, as a simple minded citizen and not a lawyer, kind of suspect that Walton is pissed and wants to point out that the Prez does not understand the law or judges and what they do (and really should have minded his own business).

I have this vague thing floating in the back of my brain that's making me think that Fitzfong has something else up his sneaky sleeve. Also this eerie feeling that someone is behind a curtain pulling the strings. I'm looking for my Haldol.

I would be more respectful of Fitz's and Walton's positions, but ...


chacha go away nobody wants you here.


and don't type an answer, because I'm getting back in my swimming pool right now.


-- but it suggests that there was actually a crime to investigate, doesn't it? --

No, it doesn't. The false statement in Clinton's case didn't cover up any crime, nor did his false affidavit, nor did his suborning of perjury. Neither did the questions put to Clinton suggest there was actually a "crime" to investigate -- it was Jones who said she'd been damaged, and it turned out her claim was, as far as the trial court was concerned, without merit because she had no legally recognizable damages.

-- kind of suspect that Walton is pissed and wants to point out that the Prez does not understand the law --

Walton may be embarrassed that he overlooked the details in the CIPA law and admitted Fitzgerald's signature. He doesn't want to be called out for overlooking the supervised release law on top of that. All he's seeking is clarification between two conflicting "laws," one a creature of Congress, the other the commutation order.

Libby should have argued the letter of the law on this anyway, even if Walton hadn't picked up on it.

Pal2Pal (Sara)

So how much time will Al Gore's son do? My bet, none. I drive I-5 south of Laguna all the time and I take this type of driving behavior very seriously since it puts my life and the lives of my loved ones at risk. And this idiot is a multiple repeat offender. Yet in Libby, we have Judge Walton acting like Libby is as dangerous as a child molester, who if the present day trend continues, would only get a slap on the wrist and sent home to molest again. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would think Libby needed "supervised" release. Does Walton think he is a member of a domestic terror cell or something and ready to orchestrate a coup? And now Walton wants to get in a pissing match with the President? How dumb is that? Walton is not operating under the law, this is purely personal with him and he is using the law as cover. My money on this one is with the President.

Al Gore’s Son Busted On Drug Charges In O.C.

(CBS) CHICAGO Al Gore’s son was in jail on suspicion of possessing marijuana and prescription drugs after he was pulled over for allegedly driving a hybrid vehicle 100 mph on an Orange County freeway, a sheriff’s spokesman said.

Al Gore III, 24, of Los Angeles, was allegedly driving a blue Toyota Prius on the southbound San Diego (5) Freeway about 100 mph about 2:15 a.m. when a sheriff’s deputy stopped him at the Crown Valley Parkway exit, said Orange County sheriff’s spokesman Jim Amormino.

The deputy allegedly smelled marijuana and a search of the vehicle turned up less than an ounce of suspected pot, along with prescription drugs including Valium, Xanax, Vicodin and Adderall, which is used to treat attention deficit disorder, Amormino said.

Gore was arrested on suspicion of drug possession and booked into the Inmate Reception Center in Santa Ana on $20,000 bail.

The Prius was towed away and stored.

He was charged with marijuana possession in Maryland in 2003 after police stopped the car he was driving for not having its headlights on. In February 2004 he entered a substance abuse program as part of a plea agreement.

Gore was ticketed for reckless driving by North Carolina police in August 2000 for allegedly driving 94 mph, and in September 2002, military police arrested him on suspicion of drunk driving near a military base in Virginia…

In April 1989, he nearly died in a car accident in Maryland.


Sunny Day,

That's what I thought too. I think it is inappropriate for Walton to re-inject himself in the process.


Sounds like Al Gore the third has a death wish.

Pal2Pal (Sara)

This is interesting from Talk Left:

Lawyer Howard Keiffer, who runs the excellent BOP Watch List-Serv, to which scores of criminal defense lawyers subscribe, has the response printed below.

Shorter version: The day Libby was booked is counted as a day in custody. He served (got credit) for his one day in prison and therefore can be put on two years of supervised release.


This, IMHO, is a very simple issue. Supervised Release, by statute, follows a term of imprisonment. Probation is only applicable when the sentence does not include imprisonment. Libby, contrary to various media reports, never got (and doesn't now have) Probation.

Libby was originally summonsed into Court (not arrested), but was still booked by the Marshals - probably immediately after entering his plea of not guilty. This is when (contrary to media reports) he was assigned his "prison number."

Libby, just like virtually every other defendant, receives one day of jail credit for that booking. Accordingly, since Bush commuted the sentence (of imprisonment) and stated that it would expire immediately, the statute is served - his Supervised Release follows the expiration of his sentence - one day (after commutation).

Consequently, this should be a no-brainer for Judge Walton - and all the sentencing pundits who have raised this issue. Technically, Libby must report to Probation within 72 hours of his "release" from incarceration - because of the commutation, that would mean by COB Thursday. His Supervised Release started today - July 3, 2007.


That sounds more like it to me Sara.



Interesting refs.

Happy Fourth. I may have to scout up some Comanche Indians as Code Talkers to see if they can help me interpret what looks a little like a cross between T.S. Eliot's "Prufrock" and Lawrence Ferlinghetti with a little Alen Ginsberg marinated with Emily Dickinson. I'm trying to attain the "willing supsension of disbelief that constitutes poetic faith. (S.T> Coleridge) BIOGRAPHIA LITERARIA (1817)

@ lil ole Sara--LOL your reporting of Al Gore's son stopped 5 and 7 years ago informs the political discussion how? Sure hope he drives without drugs don't you? You lol don't think it's an issue if Gore jumps in do you? I could tell you stories of 2 twins who don't really work at a real job, who are driven home smashed from Georgetown and Chelsea Piers bars their daddy's friends own, who have also been busted numerous times with fake IDs, drunk, etc.( could the Bush Twins be terrrissssts? is that what they want the fake IDs for?) and one who was cavorting naked (no clothes on anything bouncing around) in an Argentina hotel.

Aren't you glad that the Gore son did not die? There are enough tragedies in the world.

Meanwhile in Taliban controlled Southern Afghanistan in the Panjwai district, where ("ah heps mah friends when convicted Bushie") has allowed the Taliban to take over, 6 Canadian soldiers were blown up by an IED this morning.

70 foreign troops have been killed in Afghanistan this year. It has never been bloodier there since 2001 when Bush hoisted the megaphone and said how fast we would control Afghanistan.

Canada will put whether forces are kept there to a vote soon. The U.S. has no vote on whether forces are kept where.

Thank you for that stimulating article that enriches my July 4. Happy 4th Sara.

Pal2Pal (Sara)

And Walton knows this or should know it. With Walton, what he knows seems to be doubtful. This is all about Walton's unnatural hatred of Libby. Who knows why, but for whatever reason it runs deep, is visceral, and he has no place on the bench with these deep-seated bigotries.

Pal2Pal (Sara)

chch stop stalking me. It is creepy.


I disagree that it's a no-brainer that the one day automatic credit provided by booking is the same as being released under the statute.

It may be, and maybe not. The one day credit is a nullity of the defendant is found not guilty, and serving a prison term can't even start until a guilty plea or finding.

The statute says "release from imprisonment," and Libby deserves the opportunity to argue that he's not been imprisoned.

If I was him, I'd go for it. Being under Supervised Release sucks.


"chacha go away nobody wants you here."

Amen to that!

Pal2Pal (Sara)

I'm glad Gore's son didn't kill someone else with his irresponsible and illegal behavior.



That law on reporting to probation is in effect but it is not controlling in Libby. Ya see mah girl, lil ole Libby never done no jail time so he does not have that reporting requirement. His jail time was commutted, which is why I think Mr. Maguire headed this thread "Enjoy the Commute."

You should be thorougly enjoying it and the way Bush has pissed on the law for his friend and to cover the discovery of he and Cheney planning the leaks.

You're referring to good ole 28CFR 2.68 that controls supervised release.

Walton chose to take up this issue next week, rather than wait to see if the main appeal now ongoing could resolve that if Scooter's conviction were overturned and the case were reverse or remanded.

See Sara, it done be hard to get somewhere from where you ain't never been no ways. This could be a law of physics. Let me know.


Why Sara so am I. We have about 4000 dead and the number growing exponentially in Iraq--there becaus of a lot of ilegal behavior.


Sara replying to your loopy comments and they never stop, is not lol stalking. I seriously doubt if you'll ever have to worry that someone is.


In this case, cboldt serving a prison term cannot start as long as Bush is in the oval office. Libby is under pretrial supervision right now, but if I were Wells, I'd argue to have that lifted if they don't do it voluntarily.

AYK pretrial has requirements including monitoring by ankle bracelet, and reporting by phone, etc. depending on who and where is doing the "supervision."

Since it's clear there is a President who is not going to allow Scootie to do time to pretect his own ass, there is no need for pretrial or lol supervised released when you can't be released from where you ain't been held.

Pal2Pal (Sara)

chch do you ever pay any attention? That comes from YOUR SIDE at Talk Left, Jeralyn Merritt's site. Take it up with them.

Pal2Pal (Sara)

cboldt: Supervised release is the way Counties or in this case the Feds make money. Yes it sucks. They break in to your home any time they feel like, have the right to tear it up and search wherever they want. My d-i-l had a DUI with supervised release. She and my son were living at home with us at the time and they broke in, searched the house, found two prescriptions that were mine, pain killers from a surgery I'd had 3 weeks earlier, and charged her with having controlled substances in her possession, even though they were in my private medicine cabinet. They also charged her with firearms possession because I have two antique rifles inherited from my great grandfather in a display case. And my husband won a door prize at a political event that consisted of a basket of things like jars of caviar and pate and a bottle of wine. This was sitting on his workbench in the garage still wrapped in colored cellophane, so covered with dust, it was obvious it had been there for a very long time, yet they charged her with possession of alcohol. Her probation was revoked, she was forced to pay thousands more in fines and more attorney's fees. It is a money scheme. Plus both my husband and I had to take time off work to go to court and swear the offending items were ours. Later I was told, but never verified, that they had no right to search the whole house and should have limited themselves to her bedroom and perhaps the common areas such as the kitchen. Searching my bedroom and closets, dresser drawers, bathroom cabinet were supposedly out of bounds, but it didn't stop them from doing it. When I questioned them at the time, I was told to shut up or I would be arrested for interfering.

Believe me, they find reasons to harass constantly. And the more willing you appear to fight these types of tactics, the more they harass.



I really really don't have time to read every one of the hundreds and hundreds of left or right blogs.

I have to pick like everyone else, and Mr. Maguire's commentary is always high quality and well reasoned whether you agree with him or not.

I am sorry if I missed something on Jeralyn's blog.

Before there was the web, and RSS, and blogs, it was difficult to keep up with newspapers that were available on the street.

Pal2Pal (Sara)

You didn't have to go read her blog, I gave you both a clickable link to the original source and cited that it came from Jeralyn's "Talk Left" site. You just wanted an excuse to spew more of your insults toward me because you are an ignorant, childish, small-minded person who is consumed by hatred. I mean, come on, getting your news from Keith O., that's just dumb, dumb, dumb.



You have presciently, precisely and perceptively so captured me. I did not see your link. Who could possibly read all the comments anywhere. I just close my eyes and spin the mouse scroll button.

I think Keither O. is very good. I liked him when he was doing sports, and I suppose for you it would be someone like him with the opposite point of view.

However since we're in apathetic lazy America, MSNBC fills time with wall to wall prison life commentary, which I guess is why Scootie is glued to that station today, or do you think some festive picnic with his money raising foundation who is paying his fine, and giving him millions even though he has millions.

I sure bet all the people rotting in the BOP concrete walls are happy for Scootie.

I just saw your comment on probation and reacted. Even when trial is over, in the federal system they remain in pretrial supervision until they report. It is unfair to them because they are serving time, confined to home, often cannot go out either at all or but for a couple hours, and sometimes only to doctor appointments, etc. like Uncle Junior.

I don't recall slinging many insults your way lately, but lol it tickles me that men with 40+ your old bodies and 4 year old brains would keep slinging insults. A lot of people disagree with the ideas of the Republican base, certainly not all of them, and there sure are differences of opinion within the Republican and Democratic parties now, and they usually become more defined as the country heads into an election.



The statute says "release from imprisonment," and Libby deserves the opportunity to argue that he's not been imprisoned.

If I was him, I'd go for it. Being under Supervised Release sucks.

While Libby would undoubtedly prefer not to be forced to endure supervised release, If the defense intends to make such an argument, I suggest they send out invitations to the "Wells, Jeffress, Robbins Roast—The Hon. Reggie Walton presiding."

My decidedly less than bold prediction is that the defense will submit that the Department of Probation is proceeding appropriately. If Walton is truly determined to find that supervised release cannot be imposed, I don't think he'll let defense opposition get in the way.


Probation Office not "Department of Probation."


I think Walton is disposed to dispense with the probation given the logic now. He certainly could have gone without scheduling the hearing and I presume it would have continued unless Wells and Robbins had been planning to try to D/C it.


I agree with you. I read your post on the probation harassment. I'm sorry that happened. Their behavior is driven partly by money, and partly by arrogance and the need to encroach on someone's life so that they don't have to think about their own.

In the federal system, the probation case law is so vague, and varies so much from circuit to circuit, and there is so much of it, it's hard to keep track of every opinion.

There is a high rate of revocation for very petty inappropriate reasons as well. Many of the POs are poorly suited to be doing those jobs, or any other.

Believe me, they can be backed up and frightened like most abusive feds, but it isn't particularly easy. Once you spank 'em bad in front of a judge though, they tend to be neutralized.

Another tactic that often keeps them at bay is to have the client video or audio tape them any time they do a visit, and make a motion to video or audio tape them if they call the client in to their office. It can result in them communicating in writing from then on, and not showing up for the meeting they scheduled purely to intimidate the client.

You can detail their abusive behavior which often would not take place if the judge were watching them in the motion.


-- My decidedly less than bold prediction is that the defense will submit that the [Probation Office] is proceeding appropriately --

If both sides in this case agree on interpretation of the law, then Walton's role as judge becomes easy.

He's not making the law at this point, he's just trying to "follow orders," where the plain language of the statute (he's bound, as a judge, to comply with statute) says one thing, and by his uninformed read, the commutation order doesn't fit in the legislated framework.

He's been second guessed on his failure to apply the CIPA statute, and in his shoes, I'd ask the parties to express their position on this aspect of sentencing law too.

"Law is a lawyer driven process." I don't fault Walton for inviting argument on both sides, and I don't see the order to be briefed as an attempt to "go harsh" against Libby as a matter of retaliation or pique in light of the total commutation of the prison sentence.

Ultimately, sentencing is an executive prerogative, and I'm sure he'll abide by a clear expression from President Bush as to what sentence should be imposed.


Chch16, I know you've bought into the whole concept that somehow Libby could 'spill the beans' on Cheney and Bush, but all the facts say that is complete and utter BS.

Even Fitz has stated publicly that he is basically wrapping up and closing shop and has no other issues to pursue.

He wasn't trying to squeeze Libby, Libby was his big fish and he pulled out every sleezy manuever to convict him.

Heck, even a juror came out and said they hoped Bush would pardon him.

There is no there, there chch16, regardless of how FDL and MSNBC tries to spin it.

Fitz knew he had no great conspiracy and the investigation was over before he was appointed. he used a few bad recollections
to spin a ridiculous tale bought into by the likes of you.

Cecil Turner

It probably wasn't, but the absence of materiality to the outcome of the underlying IIPA case is occasionally fronted as a reason for rejecting the investigation and/or prosecution of Libby.

I think the more pertinent complaint is that Fitz obviously was not investigating the underlying IIPA case. Witness his failure to discover the initial leak from Armitage to Woodward (and the subsequent persons Woodward told), and his apparent uninterest in whether Wilson or Plame leaked earlier still.

His construct of Libby as being "the first official to disclose this information outside the government to a reporter" was patently false, and indicative of someone who was looking for information to verify his biased narrative. The bottom line is that Fitz investigated only Libby's involvement, and studiously avoided any information that would tend to invalidate the preconceived result of his "investigation." It's also obvious he was only interested in possible charges against Libby or Rove from the outset, and immunized or ignored those who actually leaked from classified sources.

I have a very hard time with supposed civil libertarians who don't see a problem with this case. Giving a prosecutor a charter to prosecute only one person, sans supervision, is an obvious invitation to abuse of power. We got rid of the independent counsel statute for a reason. Replacing it with an even less accountable process is hardly an improvement. And if we're going to draw parallels with Clinton's impeachment, we ought probably to allow that Libby got far worse punishment for a far less demonstrable set of falsehoods.


chch16 plagerism watch:

From the FDA to the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), U.S. regulators are determined to enforce a monopoly market of pharmaceuticals...
This comment

From this article scroll down to item #13

How's it going working in the crooksandliars basement?


I totally disagree with you Poppy and so do most people. Fitz did not know what he needed to know when he started, and he was blocked from investigating it by Libby.

I know that is the tired refrain from the base. The base never wants to admit that Cheney and Bush ordered those leaks because they were enraged that Wilson exposed no WMD pure and simple.

There is no "ridiculous tale" despite your pure tired echos of the conservative commentariat and their continued tapestry of lies.

Several polls now have Americans disagreeing with Bush to the tune of 60% and that will grow. It is not simply "my tale."

Libby facilitated a security breach that Bush and Cheney engineered to protect their lies to get into Iraq and hemorrhage billioins, kill thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

The base is going to continue to yammer what it yammers, but as Mr. Maguire says, the Republicans aren't looking like winners in the elections. The troops will be withdrawn, and Iraq and the other countries who sit their with their thumbs in their asses is going to have to work things out.

I'm truly sorry for many good Iraqi people and their children and families who are innocent bystanders and went from Hussein to this hell that Bush has made their now.

Few people here talk about the 2 million displaced Iraqis including hundreds of women forced into prostitution in Syria to feed themselves and their children, but they are real.

As to the probation, it seems obvious to me it has to end, and I don't think any party involved will want to continue it.

Whether Fitz is wrapping up, and I do believe I read as much media as you do on this, or not, the answers have yet to be provided in this case and the tired old argument that Plame was not covert is a lie as well and a pathetic one at that. The CIA has put in writing that she was covert,and Fitz has filed motions with the Court that she was and I know the base attributes that to revenge.

I understand the base will say anything forever to try to prove that Libby is as pure as the driven snow, but they know that he's a criminal who has gotten away with a lot.

This was mean spirited revenge at its worst, and it was detected.

Cecil Turner

. . . because they were enraged that Wilson exposed no WMD pure and simple.

Oh please. Wilson:

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him.
    Wilson's actual points:
  • The VP's office asked a question about Nigerien uranium, so I was sent to check it out;
  • I reported back it was groundless;
  • they must've gotten my report so they knew it was groundless;
  • thus referencing it in the SOTU was "twisting" intelligence.
    All are false:
  • the decision to send Wilson was initiated before the VP's question;
  • his report was inconclusive;
  • OVP never saw it (except for the part that actually supported the Nigerien uranium claim);
  • and the SOTU intelligence wasn't based on that report anyway, but separate British intelligence.
Wilson can't lie in bed straight. The rest of your nonsense is similarly counterfactual, but I can't be bothered.


chch16, ohh what utter BS. I see you couldn't even put together a coherent thought on how Libby was in any way connected to Cheney or bush ordering the outing of Plame. I knew you couldn't do it, because ya got nothing but hyperbole'.

As for the death and destruction in Iraq, my simple question to you is WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN?

Bill Clinton killed far, far more Iraqis then Bush could even dream of killing. Have you not read a single UN report on the devestation done by the US policy of starving the Iraqi people? Of denying them medicine? Denying them the materaisl and tools needed to rebuild and maintain their infrastructure? Did you miss all the Clinton years wehn between 2-3 MILLION IRAQIS DIED BECAUSE OF THE CLINTON AND THE DEMOCRATS POLICY.

Even when Madeline Albright was asked was it worth it for us to have killed 600,000 Iraqi children by 1995, she stated flatly that she thought that price was worth paying.

Have you ever read a Bin Laden Fatwa? His whole reason for calling a Jihad against the west was because of the death and destruction Clinton brought to Iraq.

You sure have a lot to learn chch16, You were fat dumb and happy during the Clinton years because he was quietly starving and killing the Iraqi people, you didn't have to watch it on television.

The biggest difference between Bush and Clinton was Clinton killed the inniocent and propped up the guity, Bush has tried to save the innocent and bring the guilty to justice.


chch16 says-

...those leaks because they were enraged that Wilson exposed no WMD pure and simple...

I suppose Wilson's nose isn't all that finely tuned.

DOE removes radiologicals from Iraq


Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced in Washington on Tuesday that DOE and the Defense Department removed 1.77 metric tons of low-enriched uranium and about 1,000 highly radioactive sources from a former nuclear research facility in Iraq.

Poppy I don't have the time to sit at my computer on July 4 and argue with you all day and all night.

I'll have to be content with reading your junk every once in a while.

Anyone who knows federal law knows that Libby's sentence was right in the epicenter of average for purgery and obstruction, and perhaps light considering the purjery and obstruction was to protect the two highest office holders in the country who committed crimes as traitors.

Federal defenders I've talked with and law professors in the last 2 days plan to make scores of "Libby motions" since the President says the "system" is too harsh. What really happened is obvious.

Rita who was the subject of a case decided last week was a public servant with much more service than Libby,and he got 33 months.

The DOJ took a tough stance in Rita, and Gonzales has said he wants tougher sentencing guidelines. The DOJ in several administrations has pushed for what many feel are Draconian guidelines. Rita's perjury was about a possible violation of a machine gun registration law.

You don't have a fucking clue what I was during Clinton years. Keep the fat dumb happy descriptions confined to yourself.

I guess the bandwidth hogging charges don't apply to a JOMer who is a rubber stamp for Bush in your case.

Your aspersions that I work for anyone are totally fucking stupid.

I don't have to work for any blog, and wouldn't. I sure wouldn't do it for free either. You are just jacking yourself off with your delusions there,but that's nothing new for you.

All I've seen from you is the tired old usual song and dance from the base's basement.

Bush did not try to bring guilty to justice. He's cut his freind lose from jail to save his own ass pure and simple. I doubt it will work.

Instead of attacking me, just stick to your disingenuous arguments.

I don't have to put together thoughts on how Cheney and Bush sought to out Plame. There isn't a fucking cockroach in this country who doesn't have them down, and I did it before your pathetic ass showed up here.

You're veering into delusion now, but again every time I see this kind of stupidity I understand perfectly why Tom Maguire is betting on the Dems to win in 2008.

We didn't kill Iraqi children. A big component of any hatred of Bin Ladin or anyone else is the current occupation of Iraq. It's mentioned in every fucking video they make.

Turner don't be bothered you putz.


Poppy I don't have the time to sit at my computer on July 4 and argue with you all day and all night.

Hard to believe given the sheer amount of space you take up - to say absolutely nothing.

You really need to get over yourself.


--...those leaks because they were enraged that Wilson exposed no WMD pure and simple...

link please. I am unaware that Wilson exposed Saddam had no chemical or biological weapons...link please.


So, does anyone else think that poppy is chch's sock puppet? (Or maybe the other way around...)


chch, are you aware that posting entire columns is not fair use but theft of other people copywritten work. Word is that Fitz is on your trail of your criminal theft. IF TM gets a complaint from any of the people you are stealing from he will have to ban you. Fortunately it has became apparant those column were wrong on the facts about RITA and the reccomendations of the sentencing divisions and can be viewed as worthless because of the erroneous reasoning. Beware


Interesting link from your 245pm post, Sara. Forward it to His Honor and problem solved. lol


As an occasional visitor, I'll just comment that it would be perfectly acceptable to impose a size limit on visitor posts.

It would also be acceptable to impose a size limit particularly on chichi, who has yet to learn the arts of summary and argument.

Just my two cents, of course...

Ger Horgan

Most of the comments here are waffle. I bet your guys appaluded Ken Starr
"Bush's commutation of Libby's 30-month prison sentence for four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice was as politically necessary to hold his remaining hardcore base for the rest of his 18 months in office as it was politically damaging to his legacy and to the possibility of a Republican succession. It was also essential in order to sustain Libby's cover-up protecting Cheney and perhaps Bush himself"
Enoigh said

The comments to this entry are closed.