No "Pound Me In The Ass Prison" for Scooter

The BBQ Pit
161

No.

The prosecution’s specific words tried to create an impression that Libby was an element–an important one, but certainly not the most important–of a corrupt administration, one with a cloud over it. I believe the rhetoric afterward makes it clear that was part of the jury’s decision-making process, and the prosecution’s words made it clear they thought it would help their case. No one can really know, I suppose.

Both sides made a different version of this claim.

Why do you think I have an issue with his sentence?

162

Well, maybe not Paris, but how about Martha Stewart or Lil Kim?

And I love that this “excessive” sentence was recommended by a US Atty/Special Counsel appointed under the current admin, and imposed by a Bush appointee judge.

163

Was this

intended to have any relationship to this

or was it simply a rhetorical reset of the conversation, as it were? Because if it’s supposed to be an actual response to the quoted text, my guess would be “You have an issue with his sentence because you think it’s too short?”

Which sounds weird, because you didn’t really LOOK like you were arguing that all along…

164

Translation: Any punishment for a Bush loyalist is excessive.

165

I wasn’t. I hadn’t taken issue with the length of the sentence in any way in the entire thread. Hence my question. If that was directed at me, I couldn’t see why.

166

Okay, I’ll change my answer: I think you have an issue with his sentence because you invite that inference by being okay with Shrubya commuting the prison portion out of it.

167

As Orin Kerr put it on Volokh:

168

Of course not. One perjury charge agains Libby was that he lied to a grand jury about having heard about Plame from Tim Russert. It was proved that he couldn’t have heard it from Russert which says absolutely nothing about whom he did hear it from.

That was proven perjury that couldn’t lead to a charge against anyone else.

169

I think Fitzgerald considered the chance of a pardon when he brought charges. He knew that the chance of Rove getting a pardon would be approximately 100.00%, so he might have decided not to put the country through the expense of a trial.

With Libby, he had clear perjury and obstruction and a nonzero chance that he wouldn’t be pardoned, so he went for it.

My speculation, of course, but it’s one explanation for why so few charges have been filed.

170

You’ll have to try again. I haven’t said I’m okay with the sentence being commuted, and I haven’t argued that notion at any point.

171

It was determined, even supported by Libby’s admission to the grand jury (and, I believe, the FBI), that he heard it from Cheney. This admission, in part, buttressed the charge of perjury–he himself admitted his “recollection” of hearing it from Russert was inaccurate, and the jury didn’t buy the defense’s argument that this was just a lapse of memory. Russert’s testimony in particular seemed contrary to any idea that Libby could have simply forgotten the nature of their conversation.

The jury determined that there were at least nine instances where Libby heard about Plame prior to his conversation with Russert. This particular “lie” was laid bare, ISTM, as far as the jury was concerned. There were no material issues of fact to resolve–even by Libby’s admission–except if you deem his “forgetfulness” a fact that can be conclusively established. The jury didn’t buy it. There’s no lack of cites on the web if you’re interested.

So, if you’re looking for some “truth” to have emerged that showed them the way to the top, here it is. Why wasn’t Cheny charged with anything? Because they could not support the notion that anything criminal occurred on his part. The only thing they proved, as far as the jury was concerned with this charge, was that Libby lied when he said he learned about Plame from Russert. In the process, they learned LOTS of things–the things that demonstrated to them conclusively why this must be a lie, including the multiple times Libby was exposed to this fact prior to his conversation with Russert. And that discovery did not lead to a single conviction outside of this trial. Heck, not a single charge.

172

What the fuck are you arguing? As far as I can tell all you’ve done in this thread is complain about everybody else’s positions, and complain that people are misrepresenting your position, which is what happens when you don’t actually take a recognizable position. Show your cards or quit being a whiny little bitch.

173

I hope you will excuse my but your post is entirely implausible. You calim that Fitzgerald had copius evidence that Cheney was guilty of something yet didn’t prosecute for some unstated reason. I’ll admit my search skills are not the best but I can’t find a single news organization or blog that makes this claim. With the number of enemies that Cheney has made I’ve got to believe that someoe besides you, somewhere besides SDMB there would be loud clamor over Fitzgerald’s obvious dereliction. The Washington Post recently ran a series of articles on Cheney’s activities. Nowhere in it was there any reference to the Libby trial having exposed clear evidence that Cheney should be charged with anything relative to l’affaire Plame.

Could you steer us to some blogs or other sources that show that what you claim Fitzgerald ignored has resulted in outrage among Cheney’s enemies? As far as I can find out, you seem to be alone in your claim.

174

God almighty, why is this so difficult? I claimed exactly the opposite, that if Fitzgerald had evidence to proceed, he would have–but he didn’t! Are you actually reading my posts? I said there are ample cites to show you Libby admitted he heard this from Cheney. Why hasn’t Cheney been prosecuted? Like Libby, relative to the initial investigation–HE DIDN’T DO ANYTHING CRIMINAL! That’s even if we accept the facts I offered for your consideration prima facie. Please stop arguing against positions that you’d prefer to, rather than the ones I specifically advanced! Sheesh.

175

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it? So I’m a whiny little bitch for pointing out that at no time did I take the position that person assigned to me. Okee-dokee.

My positions (as opposed to ones others would prefer to argue) are here in the thread, cites included, for anyone with at least half a brain to comprehend them. Sorry that’s beyond you. Keep trying, though, maybe you’ll catch up.

176

David Simmons, although I think we’re talking past each other, I did not intend that “half a brain” comment for you. Sorry, all riled up at the lack of honest debate from some.

177

Sorry, I got you confused with straight man for a bit. I thought this discussion was supposed to be about bashing (or defending) Bush for the commutation, and I wasn’t expecting a sidetrack that appears to be claiming not to take a position on the Bush-bash. Anyway, I give up. Why do you have an issue with the sentence?

178

I don’t know whether or not this is true and I don’t think you do either. You claim that Fitzgerald didn’t prosecute because there was no crime. That’s not what I heard him say. I heard him say that partly because of Libby’s perjury, obfuscation and obstruction he couldn’t prove a crime.

179

Guys, think this through for a minute, please.

OK, it’s a crime to violate the Intelligence Indenties Protection Act, right? Right.

Everyone agree?

This was the underlying crime that caused Fitzgerald to be appointed special prosecutor. Agreed?

Fitzgerald was appointed special prosecutor because the regular Justice Department has a conflict of interest in investigating the Administration, since they work for the president. Therefore, the special prosecutor–NOT the regular justice department or attorney general–is the one designated to bring all charges from this scandal. Agreed?

Fitzgerald investigated whether any such violation had occured, and during the course of the investigation took numerous statements from people such as Rove, Libby, Armitage, Novak, Miller, Russert, and so forth. Agreed?

During this investigation, it was determined that Novak’s source naming Plame as a CIA agent was Armitage, and that other administration officials confirmed it. But as has been often pointed out, Armitage wasn’t the only one. He wasn’t “the” source for the leak, he was just one source for the leak. And it wasn’t just leaked to Novak, it was leaked to lots of journalists, it’s just that Novak was the only one to print it. Agreed?

The various people who gave testimony gave contradictory statements. Libby was convicted of perjury because he lied to the court about his part in this scandal.

Others who took part in this scandal such as Rove, Armitage, Cheney, and so forth, were not charged with any crime, and Fitzgerald released a statement that no further charges would be forthcoming. Agreed?

Now, some arguable points. The question becomes, WHY are there no further charges? Is it because the underlying crime–that is, violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act–was criminally covered up? Except, what exactly could have been covered up? We know that several people high up in administration revealed Plame’s status to several reporters.

As I’ve asked many times, why exactly was no one charged with violating the IIPA? I’ve been told several times that no one was charged because justice was obstructed–proveably obstructed in Libby’s case (he was convicted of it, after all), and probaly obstructed in other cases, albeit non-proveably.

Except this doesn’t make sense. What facts were hidden? That Libby, Armitage, Rove et al called up reporters and told them Plame was a CIA agent, in an attempt to discredit Joe Wilson’s report? This WAS NOT HIDDEN. It was proven that Libby did this and lied about it. It was proven Rove, Armitage and Fleisher did this, although they apparently they managed to avoid making statements that could be proved perjorous.

So what other crimes should have been charged? Who violated the IIPA? Why didn’t Fitzgerald prosecute anyone for violating the IIPA? Rove and Armitage admitted to Fitzgerald that they revealed Plame’s status to various journalists, why wasn’t this admission enough to prosecute them for violating the IIPA? “Obstruction of justice” isn’t an answer, because all this information was eventually revealed. It is not “obstruction of justice” to refrain from making a confession to the prosecutor. The only thing not proven is that Cheney ordered the whole thing. But if the underlings weren’t prosecuted for revealing Plame’s status, Cheney isn’t going to be prosecuted for telling them to reveal Plame’s status. It has to have been a crime for them to reveal Plame’s status for Cheney’s role in ordering it to be a crime. If I tell you to do something that is a crime, you and I have committed a criminal conspiracy. If I tell you to do something that is not a crime, you and I have not committed a criminal conspiracy.

All this is not to say that Libby didn’t deserve his sentence. Thing is, Libby committed perjury, and perjury is a crime. Libby deserved his sentence. Bush’s pardon/commutation is not exactly surprising, but neither is it laudable. Libby isn’t a “fall guy” in the sense that he’s being punished even though he did nothing wrong. He DID do something wrong, he committed perjury! Neither is he a “fall guy” in the sense that he’s protecting the other members of the conspiracy he took part in, because other members of the conspiracy were shown to have talked to reporters about Plame, and NONE OF THEM WERE CHARGED.

However, the Fitzgerald investigation, while it resulted in no convictions for violating the IIPA, was valuable for the simple reason that it revealed that “senior administration officials” in fact DID reveal Plame’s status to reports, and kept that information secret from the public, even while the President was promising that anyone who did this would be “dealt with”. It turns out that their revelation of Plame’s status could not be shown to violate the IIPA, that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a shameful action. The fact that they kept what they had done secret from the public shows that they knew what they had done was shameful. The fact that Libby at least felt the need to lie about what he had done in court, committing perjury, shows that he knew what he had done was shameful–or at least would be seen by the public to be shameful.

And this is why they lied (in court and in public), not just because they had potentially violated the IIPA, but because they didn’t want us to know what they had done, regardless of whether they had violated the IIPA or not.

180

This is a “straw that broke the camel’s back thing”, but I’m sick of this fucking bullshit goddamn non-answer. Multiple people have told you that they can’t figure out what the fuck you’re on about. In the time it took you to type the non-answer above, you could have easily explained your position, so why not do it unless you’re being deliberately obtuse?

In summary, my position vis-a-vis your participation in this thread is a request for you to explain yourself clearly or shut the fuck up.