The Never-ending Plame Matter (was The Libby Trial)

[solicitr]

I think punishing Plame (and Wilson) was a very big motive. Where Wilson really drew the ire of Cheney & Co was not in his report itself, but in his very public NYT Op-Ed (midlevel government types just don't do that sort of thing and expect no consequences). I may not remember the timeline correctly, but I seem to recall that by the time Novak's column appeared, the Niger yellowcake memo we got from the Italians via the Brits had already been exposed as a fake.

Still this doesn't negate the overall theme, "Oh what tangled webs we weave when once we practice to deceive." There was no need to cobble up a Rove-approved marketing scheme to sell an invasion of Iraq; all it earned the Bushies was a series of huge headaches.

[baby tuckoo]

Yes, the NYT op-ed appeared some time (a month?) before Novak's. And Wilson had been speaking of the yellowcake sham to well-placed friends for a good while before that.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As expected, Judge Walton refused to delay Libby's sentence. Barring an emergency stay by the Court of Appeals (highly unlikely) or a presidential pardon, he will be reporting to prison within a matter of weeks.

Judge Walton (a Bush appointee, by the way) reporting receiving "angry, harassing, mean-spirited" letters and phone calls in the past week, including some "wishing bad things on [him] and [his] family."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Two small bits of information.

The Court of Appeals refused to grant Libby's request to delay his jail sentence.

And then President Bush commuted the jail sentence, leaving in place the $250,000 fine and two years probation. Neither of which will mean a thing, really (Libby has raised huge amounts of money for his legal defense from conservative sources, and the probation will just be going through the steps).

What a message this sends!

[Cerin]

I didn't really understand when people were saying the pardon was such a difficult decision for the President. Conservatives have condemned everything -- the investigation, the trial, the verdict, the sentence -- as a miscarriage of justice, so I don't really know that it sends that clear of a message. They aren't saying they don't care about law and order, they're saying there was no real crime. And I don't think people will care that much.

eta: Unfortunately.

[nerdanel]

And then President Bush commuted the jail sentence, leaving in place the $250,000 fine and two years probation. Neither of which will mean a thing, really (Libby has raised huge amounts of money for his legal defense from conservative sources, and the probation will just be going through the steps).

What a message this sends!

Perjury really isn't a big deal, doesn't deserve a jail sentence, and doesn't really interfere with our justice system or anything. Obstruction of justice also doesn't really interfere with our justice system or anything. Got it.

Here is the text of Bush's statement.

The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit today rejected Lewis Libby’s request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.

I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby’s appeals have been exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.

From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name, I made it clear to the White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.

After the investigation was under way, the Justice Department appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as a Special Counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified, professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.

This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.

Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first place.

Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the circumstances surrounding this case.

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.

I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.

My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby’s case is an appropriate exercise of this power.

[baby tuckoo]

I expected this, as did many.


The impact of this pardon on his "legacy" is fairly irrelevant at this point, but immediate public reaction will be interesting. I look forward to justifications from the tame pundits, the same ones who felt Clinton should be impeached for lying about an issue of no public impact at all.


I'm certainly not ashamed to be an American. We've done far worse domestic dirt than this legal wrangle, and we've unleashed the equivalent of Iraq several times. I reckon we'll do it again, and that's why on Wednesday the Fourth I will fall something short of being completely proud.


I wonder how proud a person should be about the accident of his/her birth. It's not so different from how you should feel about yourself in general. Ashamed, perhaps, of what you did yesterday, or last week, but proud of what you've accomplished.


My immediate family is fairly lame in a lot of ways, but I'm not ashamed. That doesn't mean we should be a model for others, or that I should strut for my serendipidous association with them.




So says Jon Carroll of the S.F. Chronicle:

I saw the 2008 race for the Democratic nomination start in Feb. 2007, and I thought: Anyone who survives this process is, by definition, not someone I want to vote for. If you have to pathologically watch what you say for almost two years, how do you know what you even think anymore? And yet, I'll vote, because distinctions are important.

[Inanna]

This is sickening. I didn't expect it, I really didn't.

Some days am proud of being an Indian, only when I see that *this* would not happen in India. So what if we have other kinds of crap.

[narya]

Perjury really isn't a big deal, doesn't deserve a jail sentence, and doesn't really interfere with our justice system or anything. Obstruction of justice also doesn't really interfere with our justice system or anything. Got it.

I thought it was grounds for impeachment. Oh, wait. That just applies to Democrats.

[elfshadow]

It just boggles my mind that normal people can go to jail for months if charged with possession of marijuana, yet Libby compromises a CIA investigation by being involved in the leak of an agent's identity and gets his sentence commuted by his buddy the President. Of course, it's okay to hold a suspected "terrorist" for four years and not give them a trial, but don't you dare try to send one of the BA's allies to jail for being convicted of perjury.

[Jnyusa]

If I were Libby, I would have thought ten times before crossing the CIA in that particular manner. Let's see how long he lasts on the outside.

[halplm]

You are all such hypocrites. Clinton Perjered himself just as much as Libby, although he did it to avoid political fallout, although the investigation was totally politically motivated. Libby perjered himself hiding nothing, in an equally politically motivated investigation where NO CRIME was commited.

Do all of you think Clinton should be in jail for 2 and a half years?

Politics should not drive criminal investigation or prosecution. How many millions of dollars are wasted on this crap?

[Cerin]

There was a crime committed here, halplm. An undercover CIA agent was exposed in an attempt to squash examination and criticism of the Vice-President's war policy.

Libby lied and attempted to obstruct that investigation. That was his crime.

Clinton lied when asked questions about an illicit sexual affair. Golly gee, I wonder which one is more important?

[halplm]

The leak was not a crime. The "perjury" was not obstructing any investigation. The investigation was looking at something that was not a crime.

It's not a matter of what's important. All of you are up in arms becuase it's SO BAD what Libby did, but he did nothing that your poster boy did, if he even did that.

Look at the facts in both cases. No crimes were commited anywhere, except wasting a whole lot of money that could be better used.

[Cerin]

The leak was not a crime. The "perjury" was not obstructing any investigation. The investigation was looking at something that was not a crime.

The leak was a crime, there was an investigation into it, Libby obstructed that investigation with his lies.

[Inanna]

How can it be not a crime to expose your own agents?? Good signal THAT's sending out!

[halplm]

The leak was not a crime. The agent was not covert. Are you telling me, this investigation uncovered who leaked the name, and there were not criminal charges brought against that person?

We know who leaked the name! It was Richard Armitage and Karl Rove. They have not been prosecuted criminally because the leak was NOT criminal.

All of you have been blinded by rage and hatred and you can't see how utterly rediculous this whole thing is.


But you're moving away from my initial post. So he's guilty. So he commited the absolutely heinous crime of perjery that throws our whole justice system out the window. So he deserves 30 months in jail... ok, is that the "normal" sentence for perjery in an investigation where no crime was commited?

Ok, So, Clinton did the same thing. Does he deserve 30 months in jail?

I don't think so, and I know no one here does. So why is it so hard to admit this is all about taking down one of the people in this administration, justifying the completely bogus politically motivated investigation, and then yelling that Bush is evil for not making the guy go to jail when he doesn't deserve it.

If anything, all this shows is that while Bush is a complete dunce in most everything, he's still doing thigns simply for the reason he thinks they are right. He gains nothing and loses plenty by commuting this sentence.

[Cerin]

The agent was not covert.

The agent was covert. The CIA has said the agent was covert.

The leak was not a crime.

There was a federal investigation into whether crimes were committed in the leak. That could not finally be determined because Libby successfully obstructed the investigation with his lies. It is a crime to commit perjury and obstruct a federal investigation. Those are the crimes for which Libby was convicted.

The investigation was not politically motivated. Fitzgerald is a Republican. The President vowed that anyone connected with the leak from his White House would be held accountable.

You really think it is a laughing matter that people connected with Valerie Plame overseas were murdered when her covert status was divulged?

As for Bush losing much and gaining nothing, he gains Libby's silence. He loses nothing; the few supporters he has left demanded that he keep Libby out of jail, so he keeps their support.

[halplm]

Look, if you actually believe Libby obstructed Justice, then you haven't followed what has happened.

What could possibly be criminal about the leak more serious... than the leak. Except the leak itself was not a crime. If it was, it doesn't matter WHAT Libby did to obstruct anything, we'd have slam dunk prosecutions of the people that actually leaked the name! They've admited to it!

Again, all of that is irrelevant. I should have known it was pointless to try and get anyone here to acknowledge their own hypocracy.

Fine, you can all live in your morally superior fantasy worlds, and think all Democrats are saints, and all Republicans are evil, and keep telling each other the same lies over and over until you believe they're all fact because you never hear another point of view.

There are two simple points of view that cannot be reconciled in my mind with all the uproar from Liberals on this:

1. Libby committed perjury, anything less than the full punishment he has been given is an affront to our justice system.

2. Clinton commited perjury, but it was just about sex, and no crimes ever involve sex... no lives or reputations are ruined, he shouldn't be punished at all.

And of course, lets not even consider all the pardons Clinton handed down as he left office... no, no murderers, or terrorists, or any serious crimes pardoned there... I'm sure they were all nice people.

[Cerin]

Look, if you actually believe Libby obstructed Justice, then you haven't followed what has happened.

Obstruction of justice refers to his obstruction of a federal investigation. He lied under oath, thus obstructing Fitgerald's attempts to get at the truth about the malicious leaking of the status of a CIA covert operative, itself an attempt to stifle examination of the bogus intelligence surrounding the bogus decision to invade Iraq. If people had not all been so fearful because of the ruthless intimidation tactics of this administration, this catastrophic policy might have been avoided. It is not a matter comparable to Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions.