Now that Scooter Libby has been convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced to 30 months for his roll in the coverup of the outing of an undercover CIA agent, what should the punishment be for the person who actually outed that agent…presuming of course the President’s ongoing investigation catches the perp?
(either Scooter is really afraid of these people to take a fall like that, or they have photos of him hanging out on the grassy knoll on November 22, 1963)
"(either Scooter is really afraid of these people to take a fall like that, or they have photos of him hanging out on the grassy knoll on November 22, 1963) "
How 'bout a Swiss bank account waiting for when he gets out in six months.
“what should the punishment be for the person who actually outed that agent.”
If Plame really was covert pursuant to the relevant statute, I think Armitage should be prosecuted for the leak, possibly along with Powell assuming he was involved.
First, I would like the NSA program leakers and the Swift financial tracking leakers prosecuted.
I would also have like to seen Berger properly prosecuted. All of the above are about as likely as my seeing the Easter bunny.
How about you, Matt?
Appeal, appeal, appeal…pardon. Little to no time served.
**what should the punishment be for the person who actually outed that agent…presuming of course the President’s ongoing investigation catches the perp? **
Who armitage? The guy who admitted to outing Plame? Apparently, no punishment as there is no indictment.
Now that Scooter Libby has been convicted by a jury of his peers and sentenced to 30 months for his roll in the coverup of the outing of an undercover CIA agent, what should the punishment be for the person who actually outed that agent…presuming of course the President’s ongoing investigation catches the perp?
(either Scooter is really afraid of these people to take a fall like that, or they have photos of him hanging out on the grassy knoll on November 22, 1963)
I thought he was convicted of Obstruction of Justice and Perjury?? When did he get charged or convicted in the coverup and outing of an ‘‘undercover’’ CIA agent?
I beg your pardon?
Did the judge allow him to remain free on bail until his appeal is heard? (The default position is not.)
My recollection from NPR’s report yesterday is that the judge indicated he was not inclined to permit Libby to remain free on bail pending appeal, but that he would hear arguments on that issue at a later date.
If the judge does not let him remain on bail, Scooter is going to do some time. Under the guidelines, he will have to do about 75% of his time before he is eligible for parol. This assumes, of course, that he does not get a pardon somewhere around December/January 2008/9.
I thought it was interesting that the judge went with the prosecutor’s recommendation (albeit the low end) rather than the pre-sentence report which recommended a bit less time.
Judges hate people who obstruct justice and usually throw the book at them.
This particular judge (so I hear) believes federal crimes do federal time.
The DOJ pardon guidelines require that Scooter X both serve his sentence and admit guilt, as well as have a certain time elapse. None of those things have happened, yet the right seems happy to advocate a pardon for a convicted felon, one convicted by a Federal prosecutor and a jury of his peers. So much for law and order. What a fucking joke.
Either these guys are completely stupid, completely crooked, or are experiencing a curious case of aggregate cognitive dissonance in their inability to comprehend that perjury and obstruction of justice are precisely the reasons why it was difficult to prosecute other cases; i.e., taking one for the team. Why is that so hard to understand?
Would they be taking this position if this was John Gotti on the stand, protecting his “organization” from RICO? That since he’s lied and muddied the waters for a murder prosecution that he and his guys should just walk? I suspect no, but apparently when your name is Scooter and you’re consigliere to Herr Cheney and partially responsible for the biggest American foreign policy fuckup in history, the rules don’t apply to you.
The DOJ pardon guidelines require that Scooter X both serve his sentence and admit guilt, as well as have a certain time elapse.
I didn’t know that. Have those guidelines been followed consistently by past administrations?
Yeah, I think Marc Rich served his sentence on the Riveria prior to his pardon.
From the WaPo yesterday, unless you’d rather go with Newsmax or Drudge (nothing personal):
If Bush were to decide to pardon Libby, he would have to short-circuit the normal process. Under Justice Department guidelines, Libby would not qualify for a pardon. The guidelines require applicants to wait at least five years after being released from prison. The review process after the submission of an application typically can take two years before a decision is made. During more than six years in office, Bush has pardoned just 113 people, nearly a modern low, and never anyone who had not yet completed his sentence. He has commuted three sentences.
As for Marc Rich, I don’t think anybody has suggested that it was the right thing to do. However, if say that pardoning a felon in exchange for campaign contributions is a couple of rungs worse than giving somebody the Ambassadorship to France in exchange for contributions (which is typical), then pardoning a political operative who gave up his body to protect yours in defense of purely political considerations has to be a lot worse. Not only do you have the pardoning of a convicted felon (and in this case one who hasn’t yet served his sentence), but one who may have in fact committed the felony in anticipation of such a quid pro quo, and on top of that you have the very obvious conflict of interest. Why is this so difficult to understand?
The DOJ pardon guidelines require that Scooter X both serve his sentence and admit guilt, as well as have a certain time elapse. None of those things have happened, yet the right seems happy to advocate a pardon for a convicted felon, one convicted by a Federal prosecutor and a jury of his peers. So much for law and order. What a fucking joke.
Either these guys are completely stupid, completely crooked, or are experiencing a curious case of aggregate cognitive dissonance in their inability to comprehend that perjury and obstruction of justice are precisely the reasons why it was difficult to prosecute other cases.
I couldn’t agree more, but I’m not surprised. These are the same folks who see nothing wrong with firing federal prosecutors for political reasons. If I hear one more person quibbling about whether the firings were legal or illegal – as if that’s the real issue – I think I’ll scream. Justice, law, due process, and the perception of fairness and objectivity – these are concepts of which I fear many in today’s administration are completely unaware. If we lose trust in our judicial system, we’re all lost.
See, you’re making the mistake that everybody believes in that oh-so-anachronistic concept of “fairness.” I suspect, and I think Dan suspects as well, that there are a lot of people out there who only believe in fairness as it applies to them, and for if the scales of fairness weigh against others, and especially in favor of them, then who’s to say what’s unfair? Or alternatively, that fairness is only determined by the outcome of the fight, and if my team can redefine fairness in my favor, well then that’s the breaks. At least that’s my take.
As for Fredo, I don’t know what part of that is most revolting. That Fredo is so obviously lying and has changed his story a number of times, under oath, is so incredible that its almost unbelievable. Then you have that twit Monica Goodling (who I admit is kinda hot), who despite allegedly having a law degree, seemed to have problems on the stand discerning the definition of the word “illegal” and seemed to think there was no problem in hiring USAs based on stated or better yet, perceived, political affiliation. And then it turned out she was only the tip of the iceberg, with potential hires at DOJ being asked questions designed to solicit the Lawrence v. Texas response.
As I’ve said before, I think when we lose trust in our judicial system, we become like these banana republics where we alternately feed their dictators or try to “bring democracy” to at the point of a gun, depending on whether they have oil or not.
there’s a WAPO oped this morning by william otis (special counsel for bush sr) saying bush could take the middle ground and commute the jail sentence, keeping in place the conviction and the fine. i’m wondering if this is legal, technically speaking. no doubt the president can grant a pardon, but can he make that a commutation instead? has this been done in the past?
to me the compelling question is how does bush handle libby considering the current state of mind of justice officials. morale among career attorneys there seems on the very low ebb, across party lines, and i’ll bet many or most of the political appointees are pissed as well. it’s clear libby lied. yes, it’s a process crime, but prosecutors take process very seriously, more seriously in the long run than the crime itself.
i’ll bet a lot of guys in justice have an eye on this one, to see to what degree bush continues to view the rule of law through the prism of expediency and loyalty. this ought to weigh on bush’s decision about what to do with libby, and what public comment to make about him.
That irritates me. He references the notion of proportionality, which is fine, but a) there are plenty of examples of criminal justice where proportionality is not observed, especially in drug possession, and I don’t see too many on the right, at least in terms of politicians, protesting this; and b) he noticeably omits in his proportionality argument that Plame’s career was effectively ended, and her efforts in the crucial area of weapons proliferation were severely damaged.
The commutation seems out there to prevent Scooter being put in jail. It’s not clear to me why financial misconduct should result in jail time, but Scooter’s blatant flouting of the legal process should result in less. I think there is a larger question of whether the President should even be in the business of pardoning people within the Executive Branch. The opportunities for conflict of interest are too abundant and at least to me, too obvious. The fact that the Iran-Contra conspirators were pardoned still irritates me, as it looks too much like a quid pro quo. I just watched All The President’s Men last night for the first time. I don’t remember the entire sequence of events that led up to Nixon’s resignation, but I’m wondering what would have happened if Nixon had promised pardons to all of his guys in exchange for them falling on their swords and covering his ass. As a country we would have been robbed of honest service and democracy, while the other side would’ve been pointing at us and telling us to shut the fuck up, we’re just a bunch of conspiracy freaks, regardless of the blatant disingenuous of their statements. It depresses me.
As for the guys in DOJ, I think based on Fredo’s antics and the apparent systematic purging of professional staff and prosecutors, I’m not sure how many guys are left that don’t view this through a partisan prism, rather than in career and competence terms.
At this point, Bush only has 29% of the country behind him, and it’s fairly clear that there is practically nothing he can do, short of legalizing abortion and converting to Islam, that would lose them. So the notion of pardoning Libby would have little real-time political impact, I suspect. The bigger impact would be on his already questionable legacy, and on current Repub candidates who need to win a general election and continue to convince the electorate that they still represent the rule of law.