Scooter: G-U-I-L-T-Y

[Frank]

@Shayna

You honestly want to make such a sucker bet? [

According to a juror, there was such [URL=Juror: Libby is guilty, but he was fall guy - CNN.com]discussion](Juror: Libby is guilty, but he was fall guy - CNN.com):

"It was said a number of times, ‘What are we doing with this guy here? Where’s [Karl] Rove … where are these other guys?’

“We’re not saying we didn’t think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but it seemed like … he was the fall guy.”

Collins said the jury believed Libby was “tasked by the vice president to go and talk to reporters.”

[guizot]

@Former "Washington Post" Guy Collins

"It was said a number of times, ‘What are we doing with this guy here? Where’s [Karl] Rove … where are these other guys?’

“We’re not saying we didn’t think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but it seemed like … he was the fall guy.”

[Libby was] “tasked by the vice president to go and talk to reporters.”

Considering that the jury itself (at least according to this one account, which is in the first person plural) I wonder why the prosecution is letting the whole thing stay at this level. “Fall guy”? That’s Watergate all over again.

[Shayna]

@Frank

According to a juror, there was such discussion:

Why would you define the discussion you quoted as “lot more than the evidence before them?” Did you hear all the evidence? Do you know that Karl Rove or “this guy here” or “these other guys” the jurors were referring to weren’t introduced in some fashion as part of the evidence regarding what Libby knew, when he knew it and who he heard it from? Basically, your quoted section does nothing to either contradict my post or support the contention made by BJMoose, that “a lot more than the evidence” was discussed.

[Hamlet]

@Gadarene

I have confidence that this judge left the least possible room for a finding of reversible error. Although we’ll see, of course.

I couldn’t agree more. In case you have a few hours to blow, here is a memorandum he and his clerk prepared regarding his evidentiary rulings made during the trial. It seems pretty straightforward, and I don’t see a whole lot of wriggle room for an appeal. I’d be very surprised if it got overturned on appeal.

The one thing that bugs me about the case is the talking points coming from the right about the trial. The idea that, because no one was charged, that means Plame wasn’t covert or classified, which means there was no underlying crime to investigate. Or that, because there was no underlying crime, the lies couldn’t be material at all. Or that, since Armitage was the first leaker, there was no reason to continue to investigate. Or that it was all a huge political hanging.

I gotta quit listening to idiots.

[BrainGlutton]

@Hamlet

I gotta quit listening to idiots.

No, no. Unfortunately, it is very important to know what they are thinking.

[Fear_Itself]

@Frank

Given Bush’s tremendous sense of loyalty to his minions, and the fact that Libby is taking one for the team, I view it as at least 75% probable that he gets one.

I think those betting on a pardon should settle what happens if Libby wins on appeal. Under the current terms, if you bet that Bush pardons Libby, then Libby wins on appeal, you lose because Bush didn’t pardon Libby.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Hamlet

I gotta quit listening to idiots.

Can’t. They’re in charge.

[Frank]

@Shayna

Why would you define the discussion you quoted as “lot more than the evidence before them?” Did you hear all the evidence? Do you know that Karl Rove or “this guy here” or “these other guys” the jurors were referring to weren’t introduced in some fashion as part of the evidence regarding what Libby knew, when he knew it and who he heard it from? Basically, your quoted section does nothing to either contradict my post or support the contention made by BJMoose, that “a lot more than the evidence” was discussed.

I would conclude that they were wondering why Rove, et al, were not on trial, which had nothing to do with the evidence against Libby.

[Tastes_of_Chocolate]

@Fear Itself

I think those betting on a pardon should settle what happens if Libby wins on appeal. Under the current terms, if you bet that Bush pardons Libby, then Libby wins on appeal, you lose because Bush didn’t pardon Libby.

What’s an average length of time for a case like this to go through first, a request for a retrial, and second, the entire appeal process? If Libby waits to try to win on appeal, he risks losing the window for get a pardon from Bush. To me, the logical time for a pardon is between November 4th, 2008 (election day) and January 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day).

[Gadarene]

What’s an average length of time for a case like this to go through first, a request for a retrial

Request for a retrial will be decided by sentencing on June 5th. I presume.

[Billdo]

@Tastes of Chocolate

What’s an average length of time for a case like this to go through first, a request for a retrial, and second, the entire appeal process? If Libby waits to try to win on appeal, he risks losing the window for get a pardon from Bush. To me, the logical time for a pardon is between November 4th, 2008 (election day) and January 20, 2009 (Inauguration Day).

Someone can be pardoned at any time in the process. A final conviction is not a prerequisite.

An example is President Ford’s blanket pardon of Nixon “for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9,1974”

[ChockFullOfHeadyGoodness]

Another condition you potential wagerers should consider is… what happens if the Republicans retain the White House in 2008? W wouldn’t necessarily issue the pardon, leaving it to his successor similar to the way Bush Sr., not Reagan, issued the Iran-Contra scandal pardons.

If I were betting, I’d stick a buttload of conditions to cover all possibilities, something like “If Libby’s conviction is still standing on November 5, 2008, and the GOP loses control of the White House in the November 2008 election, and Libby hasn’t pulled a Ken Lay and died on us (I almost lost a “W will pardon Lay” bet on this oversight, but we agreed to drop the bet), then W will issue a pardon before leaving office noon January 20, 2009.”

But I’m not betting.

[Captain_Lance_Murdoch]

The White House is refusing to comment on the possibilty of a pardon. They aren’t saying he won’t get one. I’m sure they will keep it that way. As long as he’s twisting in the wind he will be motivated to keep his mouth shut about Rove and Cheney’s roles in the leak. They will keep that pardon carrot dangling in front of him always.

After the election is over, if Libby has remained loyal to Bush by keeping the truth under wraps he may well get his get out of jail free card. The political damage from the pardon would be slight. Bush can’t run again. Cheney will never be on another ballot. There won’t be another election until November 2010 anyway. Furthermore, Bush claims he doesn’t care about his legacy and the pardon would be kind of small campared to the hit historians are likey to give him anyway over the war, wiretaps, rendition, etc…

[Fear_Itself]

If he does get a pardon, it is going to make all his supporters, who are pleading his innocence, look like fools. To accept a pardon is to confess your guilt. And that is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of the Supreme Court. In 1915, in Burdick v. United States, the court issued the following as part of the opinion:

This brings us to the differences between legislative immunity and a pardon. They are substantial. **The latter carries an imputation of guilt; acceptance a confession of it. ** The former has no such imputation or confession. It is tantamount to the silence of the witness. It is noncommittal. It is the unobtrusive act of the law given protection against a sinister use of his testimony, not like a pardon, requiring him to confess his guilt in order to avoid a conviction of it.

Gerald Ford carried that in his pocket until the day he died:

“I still carry it around in my pocket, that statement,” Ford said. “I’ve got it in my wallet here because anytime anybody challenges me, I pull it out. I’ve got it here someplace.” He searched around in his wallet, and handed me a folded, dog-eared piece of paper. It was a portion of the Burdick decision.

I began to read aloud. "Most important, the justices found that a pardon ‘carries an imputation of guilt, acceptance, a confession of it.’ " Ford seized on the last phrase and repeated it: " ‘Acceptance, a confession of it.’ " See, Nixon had confessed, he said. “That was always very reassuring to me.”

[Frank]

Can one refuse a pardon?

Serious question. The ability to issue a pardon is, in most cases, entirely up to the executive. In the case of a presidential pardon, appears to be subject to no limits. I don’t see where the pardonee’s wishes enter in at all.

Can someone put the context of the cited case into laymen’s terms for me?

[Gfactor]

@Frank

Can one refuse a pardon?

Serious question. The ability to issue a pardon is, in most cases, entirely up to the executive. In the case of a presidential pardon, appears to be subject to no limits. I don’t see where the pardonee’s wishes enter in at all.

Can someone put the context of the cited case into laymen’s terms for me?

Yes. In Burdick, President Wilson granted a witness, Burdick, a pardon in attempt to force him to testify. Burdick said his testimony might incriminate him. The President granted him a pardon which, if effective, would moot the objection. Burdick refused to testify anyway and rejected the pardon. The court held him in contempt for defying its order to testify. The Supreme Court reversed his contempt conviction:

Granting, then, that the pardon was legally issued and was sufficient for immunity, it was Burdick’s right to refuse it, as we have seen; and it, therefore, not becoming effective, his right under the Constitution to decline to testify remained to be asserted; and the reasons for his action were personal.

The reasoning for permitting the rejection is quoted in Fear Itself’s post.

[DoctorJ]

According to Think Progress, Newsweek is saying that Libby may not qualify for a pardon:

Newsweek reports that Scooter Libby “does not qualify to even be considered for a presidential pardon under Justice Department guidelines,” which in part “require a petitioner to wait a period of at least five years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever is later) before filing a pardon application.” President Bush can easily waive the rules, but up until now he “seems to have followed those guidelines religiously.”

Bettors should probably take this into consideration.

[Frank]

@Gfactor

Yes. In Burdick, President Wilson granted a witness, Burdick, a pardon in attempt to force him to testify. Burdick said his testimony might incriminate him. The President granted him a pardon which, if effective, would moot the objection. Burdick refused to testify anyway and rejected the pardon. The court held him in contempt for defying its order to testify. The Supreme Court reversed his contempt conviction:

The reasoning for permitting the rejection is quoted in Fear Itself’s post.

Ah, well hell, that’s an interesting tidbit. I had no idea that one could reject a pardon.

Possibly non-answerable: did Burdick ever get convicted of the crime(s) he was pardoned for?

[Gfactor]

@Frank

Possibly non-answerable: did Burdick ever get convicted of the crime(s) he was pardoned for?

It’s not clear that he committed any crime:

Burdick was the city editor of the New York Tribune. When called before a federal grand jury, he refused to answer questions con- cerning his sources of information for certain articles in the paper, claiming that his answers might tend to incriminate him. In an effort to compel his testimony, the United States attorney obtained a full and unconditional pardon from President Wilson for Burdick for “all offenses against the United States which he . . . has committed or may have committed, or taken part in, in connection with the securing, writing about, or assisting in the publication of the information so incorporated in the aforementioned article, . . . thereby absolving him from the consequences of every such criminal act.” When Burdick declined to accept the pardon and again refused to testify, the district court found him in contempt of court.

Steiner, REMISSION OF GUILT OR REMOVAL OF PUNISHMENT? THE EFFECTS OF A PRESIDENTIAL PARDON, 46 Emory L.J. 959 (1997)

Burdick wrote a series of articles on customs fraud. He was protecting his sources. See, *The Right of a Newsman to Refrain from Divulging the Sources of His Information *, 36 Virginia L. Rev. 61 (1950)

[DoctorJ]

I don’t know how the rules compare between state and federal pardons, but here in Kentucky, Governor and power tool Ernie Fletcher essentially issued a blanket pardon for anyone who had anything to do with his merit hiring scandal, including any charges that hadn’t yet been filed.