Mr. Fitzgerald: Incarcerate Libby Now!

[H2O Man]

Prosecutor Wants Libby Imprisoned Now

By MATT APUZZO - Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON --Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald urged a federal judge Tuesday not to delay former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's 2 1/2-year prison sentence in the CIA leak case. Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, has argued that he has a good chance of winning an appeal and should be allowed to remain free until that challenge has run its course.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, who sentenced Libby to prison for lying to authorities and obstructing the investigation into the 2003 leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, has said he sees no reason to grant Libby's request.

A delay in Libby's sentence would give President Bush more time to consider pardon requests from Libby's supporters, who say the loyal aide was caught up in a political investigation and does not deserve prison time.

Fitzgerald, in court documents filed Tuesday, said an appeals court is unlikely to overturn Libby's conviction because the evidence against him was so overwhelming. ....


http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/254/story/58792.html

[H2O Man]

1. 5 Myths About Scooter and the Slammer

By Carol D. Leonnig
Sunday, June 10, 2007; Page B03

Judge Reggie B. Walton, who sentenced I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to 30 months in prison last week for lying to federal investigators about his role in the leak of a CIA officer's identity, received 373 pages of letters about the high-profile convict whose fate he had to decide. Many argued for leniency on behalf of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, whom former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld called a "dedicated public servant" and "strong family man." But some less famous writers were outraged about the example Libby set; one letter from "An Angry Citizen" demanded the longest prison term possible.

Around here, I'm the one who gets both kinds of letters. While covering this case for The Washington Post from the beginning of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation in December 2003, I've received a steady stream of mail, most of it fuming -- some because the writers think a tireless patriot is being persecuted by a runaway prosecutor, others because they think a ruthless traitor is getting off easy after jeopardizing national security.

In fact, neither caricature is fair -- let alone accurate. But even now, four years after Valerie Plame's name hit the papers, the public still has some startling misconceptions about this fascinating, thorny case .....

More at:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802478.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[spanone]

2. k & r

[blogslut]

3. When does the Judge decide?

Is there a date for that?

[H2O Man]

4. Thursday

of this week:


By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 11, 2007; Page A15

A dozen of the country's most respected constitutional scholars have leapt to I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's aid, asking a federal judge if they could try to convince him about critical legal questions that favor letting Libby remain free while he appeals his conviction in the Valerie Plame leak case.

Within hours of Friday's filing from the scholars, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton wrote back. In the teeny-tiny print of a footnote, he said he was delighted to know that such a distinguished group was available to help argue on behalf of criminal defendants on "close questions" of the law.

Walton promised he'd ring them up very soon when -- instead of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff facing the threat of the slammer -- there might be poor defendants who need big legal minds to avoid incarceration.

Walton sentenced Libby last week to 30 months in prison and will hold a hearing on Thursday to consider whether Libby can remain free while his case is appealed. ...


more at:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/10/AR2007061000990.html?hpid=sec-politics

[WiseButAngrySara]

45. "Something wicked this way comes..." Here's hoping. ...n/t

[mod mom]

56. "there might be poor defendants who need big legal minds to avoid incarceration.

seems like the good judge gets it!

Wonder what media frenzy event will top the news when the decision is released. Could there be another "brooks brothers riot" in the waiting?

[madokie]

5. Right on Mr. Fitz

lets force the hand of the puppet master where he has to pardon him now rather than hide behind time.
the pardon thats sure to come will be another nail in the coffin of the bush* cartel. give'em enough time and most people will forget all about liar libby which IMO would be a big mistake. In earlier times he would have already been swinging from a limb

[H2O Man]

6. Yep.

The right-wing machine continues to crank out their lies, though, in an attempt to confuse the issues. Here is one example:

Scrutiny
By Roger Aronoff
Jun 11, 2007

It is understandable that many in the conservative media have called for President Bush to pardon Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, because of his conviction in the so-called CIA leak case. Libby should never have been put on trial; indeed, new evidence suggests that his alleged target, former CIA analyst Valerie Plame, is the one who should be investigated for allegedly lying under oath before Congress about her role in this affair.

Plame’s backers in the agency would have great reason to fear such a probe. It might shed light on who in the CIA was actively trying to sabotage the Bush Administration’s Iraq policy¯and who may be continuing to do so today.

AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid and I have detailed in a series of columns how in fact this case should never have been brought, and that exoneration, not a pardon, would better serve Libby, history and justice. The underlying theory about the Bush administration seeking retaliation against Joseph Wilson for writing a column in the New York Times accusing the Bush Administration of “twisting” evidence to justify going to war against Iraq was false, and it was Wilson who played fast and loose with the truth. And it is well known that it was Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, not anyone from the White House, nor a supporter of going to war in Iraq, who told Robert Novak and Bob Woodward that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, worked for the CIA and had recommended her husband for the trip to Niger. ....

more at:


http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_272613982.shtml

[madokie]

9. sickening isn't it

pretty much not a factual statement being made there, funny how that works, huh

[H2O Man]

12. Yep.

June 11, 2007
CIA, Plame, Libby - resolution ahead?
Clarice Feldman

.....Here are some other questions for whoever cares:

(1) Why did the CIA approve Waxman's statement that Plame was "covert" knowing full well that the agency's definition is not the statutory (Intelligence Identity Protection Act) definition?

(2) Why has the agency 's general counsel been unable to respond to Congressman Hoekstra's request for an opinion as whether Plame was covered by the IIPA?

(3) If she wasn't, what possibly could have been in the still classified referral letter to the Department of Justice which should have established that she was?

(4) Was Plame's status even classified information? The agency has said that is was, but as JOM commentor cathyf notes:
"the CIA doesn't actually claim that Plame's status was ever classified under EO 13292. According to Waxman, they claimed classification under EO12958. Which, of course, was no longer in force after Mar 25, 2003." ....

more at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/06/post_47.html


They want to create more confusion, rather than focus on the facts.

[madokie]

15. facts only trips them up

but as citizens of a once great nation we do need to get a handle on our political process and our so-called leaders, they're killing us.

[AwakeAtLast]

13. Whoever wrote this is has no idea what they are talking about

I think investigating Plame would be the LAST thing this administration would want. On second thought, let's see if we can make that happen! :D

edit: missing word

[H2O Man]

14. Right.

Let the Wilsons' civil case move forward, and let's have both sides put their cards on the table.

[mod mom]

60. The same Roger Aronoff who co-wrote "Media On Trial in Libby Case":

Media On Trial In Libby Case

February 5, 2007
By Roger Aronoff and Cliff Kincaid

-snip

In order to understand how the media have bungled coverage of this case from the start, and how they are distorting the ongoing trial, it is critical to grasp that it was Wilson who was found guilty in the court of public opinion for not telling the truth about why he went to Africa and what he found. A Senate Intelligence Committee report confirmed that key elements of his public story, as reflected in his Times op-ed and book, The Politics of Truth, were false. What’s more, the committee found evidence that Plame had suggested and recommended her husband for the Africa trip. The CIA’s role in this whole affair remains murky, even at this late date.


Having covered the opening arguments in the trial, Fitzgerald comes across in an aggressive manner, apparently convinced that he caught Libby in a lie. But it is also the case that this is all that he has to show for more than two years of work. So he has to look like he really has something to offer the jury, in order to justify all of the taxpayer money that he has spent.

-snip
Not only did it turn out that Plame had been behind the trip, Wilson, in contrast to his stated findings in his New York Times op-ed, had actually uncovered evidence of Saddam Hussein’s interest in acquiring uranium from Africa. This is exactly what President Bush had charged in his State of the Union address, citing the British government as his source, not Wilson

It is important to understand this background when analyzing how various news outlets, especially MSNBC, have completed distorted the facts of this case. Their obvious agenda is to go beyond Libby and attempt to discredit Cheney, a solid conservative who has been a strong advocate of the Bush Doctrine of striking America’s enemies before they attack us. Cheney is under savage attack by the media, even to this day, because he still defends the Iraq War.


-snip
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=3763&PHPSESSID=e025aa1a97c40ad171183338102f0e04

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

101. National Ledger or Nation Alledger?

:think:

[rodeodance]

7. its not up to Fritz

[H2O Man]

8. Judge Walton

has certainly listened closely to Mr. Fitzgerald, and has shown a great deal of respect for his opinion.

In other news, the necroconservatives are upset, because they know that President Bush does not plan to pardon the convicted felon, Scooter Libby:


The Weekly Standard: Bush Ducks Libby Sentence
Tuesday, June 12, 2007

By Bill Kristol

Three months ago, after Scooter Libby was convicted of perjury and false statements, we argued that pardoning Libby was in President Bush's interest and in the country's interest. And we suggested that if the president did intend to pardon Libby, there was no reason to wait.

The president waited. He explained he was "pretty much going to stay out of it" until the case had run its course. Now we are near the end of the course, with a sentence of 30 months in prison and a $250,000 fine, and the judge's stated inclination not even to let Libby stay out of prison pending his appeal. ....

For now, Bush seems inclined to duck. Bush spokeswoman Dana Perino, noting that an appeals process was underway (and ignoring the indication by the judge that he might imprison Libby despite his pending appeal), said that "the president has not intervened so far in any other criminal matter and he is going to decline to do so now." She also emphasized that "the president said that he felt terrible for the family, especially his wife and his kids."

Whatever the intention, this touch is a bit chilling.

Bush doesn't seem to have much sympathy for Libby himself — he was just hired help, and hired help sometimes gets thrown overboard. Normally, though, staff who get thrown overboard simply lose their government job. They don't go to jail. Nor, incidentally, has the president said that he feels terrible for what the Wall Street Journal correctly called "the cowardice and incompetence of his administration" — an administration whose CIA leaked its referral of the Valerie Plame matter and whose Justice Department panicked and appointed a special prosecutor, all of which has finally brought us to the present pass. ....

more at:


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280634,00.html

[WiseButAngrySara]

46. NECROconservatives !! Perfect fit for Neo-Cons .. DEATH. ....n/t

[Me.]

49. They Keep Bringing Up Sandy Berger. Here's The Difference Between The Two

Sandy Berger pleaded guilty. Made a deal with that plea that held no jail time. There was no protracted defense shenanigans or trial. He owned up. I Liar Libby should be such a man. He could have made a deal too, the door was certainly open. But he chose to lie and protect the criminals he works for as well as himself. These neo-cons have very selective memories and arguments.

[H2O Man]

76. In the morning,

I often flip from MSNBC to the Weather Channel, thus having Fox on for a few seconds. This morning, sure enough, Steve D from the Fox Mourning Show made yet another Sandy Berger joke.

[Me.]

78. In Addition, Though It Doesn't Need To Be Said

Berger didn't disclose the identity of a covert agent, nor did he put our national security at risk.

[jazzjunkysue]

71. "an administration whose CIA leaked its referral of the Valerie Plame"

Fox is going out of it's way to avoid calling a spade a spade. This statement could be read that the CIA outed an agent, or that it outed the scandal or that it outed the coverup.

If nothing else, the Fox editors are cowards.

But the overall tone of this is clearly mutiny.

So, even Fox has a limit to how much it will swallow, apparently.

[Lerkfish]

10. I confess I first read this as "incinerate libby". how embarrassing

:rofl:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. you know what, so did I

must be my ageing eyes

anyone for barbecue?

[Me.]

16. Can't Resist Nattering On About This

cause the Libby defenders just won't shut up. Last night David Frum said that * could order a respite for the Liar. Meaning he could order that Libby stay out of jail until the appeals process is ended. Oh the twists, turns and contortions. This case won't be overturned on appeal and they know it. Libby did nothing to 'save' himself. He sat there like a stick. No remorse, no regrets, no defense. A pathetic display of arrogance.

So why the hubbub really? Is it because the I Liar is a symbol for everything they've done wrong and stood for? If he's wrong and jail worthy, then they are too?

The very thing they counted on * for in the past, his contrariness and stubbornness is coming back to bite them in their civil liberties. A * spokesperson said yesterday that he won't interfere until the appeals process has ended. Why do they think he will change his mind?

[H2O Man]

18. Ha!

Yep, they are outrageous. I guess perjury and obstruction of justice are republican values these days.

[Me.]

19. So For How Long Will They Keep Picking Up The Tab

once he has acquired his prison stripes? Do they have to keep shelling out for 2 1/2 years to insure that he won't open his yap?

[H2O Man]

20. I think that

in the immediate future, they are planning to file an "emergency" appeal when Judge Walton rules against allowing Libby to remain free on bail. They will also step up their media disinformation campaign, including the attempts to blame Valerie plame for the scandal, and to try to make it appear that there is wide support for a pardon.

We should be organizing an effort to counter them.

[Catherine Vincent]

17. Way to go, Fitzgerald!

Incarcerate this filth right f'ing now!!

That'll teach you for throwing sand in my eyes, Scooter!




:bounce:

[Patsy Stone]

21. FDL Link to story and filing:

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/06/12/team-fitz-legalpalooza-filing-part-i/

I'm looking forward to a good read.

[Me.]

22. Lovely

Thanks, you always seem to come up with the goods.

[Patsy Stone]

23. Actually, I don't see a link to the filing here

but I'm still looking. :)

[Patsy Stone]

26. Here is the 43 page filing -- dated June 12th:

http://www.netrootsmass.net/extras/TiredFed/Fitz_Response_Release_on_Appeal

[H2O Man]

28. Thank you.

I have not read it yet, but am under the impression that Mr. Fitzgerald's team is making a statement both to judge Walton, and in anticipation of the "emergency appeal' that Team Libby has prepared to file to keep Scooter from being incarcerated this summer.

Now to that filing!

[Patsy Stone]

30. A day without a legal brief to read

is like night. :) Enjoy. I'm off to buy a sandwich and read the filing myself.

I'm still waiting to see what Team Libby believes is the "substantial" reason required for the case to be overturned on appeal. If the only thing they have is the Dirty Dozen's assertion about Fitz's legal standing, that's going to be a big waste of Barbara's money.

Looking forward to your opinions on this, as well as those of the great minds in these threads.

[H2O Man]

33. Footnote #4

on page 6 is hilarious: " ... It is a strangesort of logic that infers that the likelihood of reversal increases with the thoroughness of a written opinion (Judge Walton's thorough rejection of a Team Libby position that Mr. Fitzgerald lack the authority to try Scooter)."

[H2O Man]

34. page 13!

Mr. Fitzgerald nails them on the Scalia dissent in Morrison!

[H2O Man]

35. And the legal scholars'

amicus curiae brief on pages 13-14 (footnote #11).

[Patsy Stone]

80. That footnote alone

was worth the price of admission. "...it is incongruous to suggest that a district court of appeals could view an argument for a change in the law as a substantial issue."

BWAHAHAHAHAH!

[H2O Man]

81. It is an

outstanding document. It is one of the very best of the entire case.

[Patsy Stone]

100. Yes.

Too many words are bad. It shows weakness and doubt, and makes us read too much. That makes the defense cranky, Your Honor.

[mod mom]

61. I always enjoy their snark along side their informative writings! Thanks for posting.

Not to mention the jazz accompaniment!

[antigop]

24. What do we know about the appeals court? Any possibility they would overturn?

I don't know about the makeup of the appeals court. Are there any extreme right-wing "activists" on that court that could possibly overturn Libby's conviction?

Any info would be appreciated.

Thanks to all for the info provided in this thread.

[Decruiter]

25. H20, you are a scholar and a hero. You are the best. Thank you

so much for being here, contributing so much to educate us all.\\

At least you are a personal favorite of ours at DU.

Thank you again.

[fooj]

27. Yes. Thank you, H20 Man!

Much admiration and respect. :hi: You are a consummate teacher.

[H2O Man]

29. Thanks to you two, as well.

Glad to be a part of the DU Plame Scandal team.

[Decruiter]

31. Are we ever going to make a difference?

Mr. D already quit a long time ago, I keep hoping.

Not in our lifetime? Maybe the next?

[H2O Man]

32. One of the two

people who worked from 1992 to 2003 to get the USA to invade and occupy Iraq is going to court on Thursday, in a hearing that will help determine if he is incarcerated -- soon -- for his role in exposing Valerie Plame and destroying an intelligence network that was working to actually make the world a safer place.

The Wilsons' civil case may advance the amount of information the public has about the actual OVP/WHIG/OSP operation against Wilson, Plame, and a part of the CIA and State department.

The weak link right now is congress. Though we have a democratic majority, the majority of the democrats in the House and Senate have a disturbing lack of spine. I think that the grass roots is in a position to change that.

[Decruiter]

40. Thanks for your response. Living as we do in the heart of the beast, well,

at best it gets hard to believe there is any way at all that any GrassRoot group is going to make it happen, much less have anyone listen or just care.

Dallas is really a not nice place to be living in now.

Hope is hard to find.

[malaise]

36. H2O Man I'm betting

Scooter becomes seriously ill come July 4th weeekend.

[H2O Man]

37. I think that

after reading Mr. Fitzgerald's new filing, Scooter is already feeling a bit sick to his stomach.

[malaise]

50. Fingers and toes crossed

I hope he is sent to prison but I'm not holding my breath. I was more certain that he would be found guilty, thanks to your fabulous imformative posts.

[calimary]

109. I hope you're correct, H2O Man! I wish him MANY a sleepless night.

Him, cheney, bush, everybody. EVERYBODY.

How 'bout we send him to Gitmo, 'eh?

And thank you, again, H2O Man, for your valuable analysis and perspective. Always helps me. Especially since I'm looking at some of these briefs and getting hopelessly lost.

:yourock:

[firefox_fan]

38. He's already gonna run free when Chimpy pardons him..

[Horse with no Name]

39. Ahh the rule of law

Only applies to the working man...if you listen to the Neocon backwash.
The ones that inflict injury upon the Republic are above the law.

[Spazito]

41. Fitzgerald/Bonamici's response totally eviscerates the Libby defense

motion for release pending appeal and, also, the amici , point by point, footnote by footnote, quote by quote, imo. It makes for fascinating, not to mention, at times, humorous reading. Ms. Bonamici definitely has a way with words even when proffered in legal terms.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this response, all 43 pages!

Love this footnote (11), page 13/14 in terms of addressing the amicus curiae brief. She gives it all the attention it deserves and not without a touch of snark, one example being "With respect to the legal issues confronting this Court, the amici add little for the Court’s
consideration." Says it all, imo!

"This Court granted leave to a group of constitutional law 11 scholars to file an amicus curiae
brief. Amici’s brief notes calls by some academics for the Supreme Court to revisit the question
presented in Morrison and overrule that case. A.C. Br. at 1. To the extent that the amici or the
defendant ask this Court to judge the substantiality of the Appointments Clause issue with respect
to whether the issue is “ripe for reconsideration” by the Supreme Court, it is incongruous to suggest
that a district court or court of appeals could view an argument for a change in the law as a
substantial issue. Furthermore, it is important to note that under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b), “hat may
be substantial and likely to result in reversal in terms of invoking the mandatory appellate
jurisdiction of a court of appeals may well be insubstantial and unlikely to warrant the Supreme
Court’s plenary review when one seeks to invoke the discretionary certiorari jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court.” Stern, Gressman, Shapiro & Geller, Supreme Court Practice 762-63 (8th Ed.
2002). See Julian v. United States, 463 U.S. 1308 (1983)(Rehnquist, C.J.)(“At a minimum, a bail
applicant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that four justices are likely to vote to grant
certiorari.”). Thus, it is very difficult to establish that a question is “substantial” to the Supreme
Court. With respect to the legal issues confronting this Court, the amici add little for the Court’s
consideration. The amici insist that Edmond “sets forth a generally applicable test of inferior-officer
status.” A.C. Br. at 4. As this Court has observed, the Supreme Court did not supplant Morrison
and this Court likely would have reached the same result under Edmond. The amici also attempt to
distinguish Morrison from the case at bar. A.C. Br. at 3. First, the amici state that the Special
Counsel’s office was not created by Congress. This ignores that the Attorney General, acting
pursuant to statute, delegated authority to a Department of Justice attorney holding the statutory
office of United States Attorney, subject to revocation at will. Second, the amici state that unlike
the Independent Counsel law, no statute requires the Special Counsel to follow Department policies.
As this Court concluded, as a member of the Department, the Special Counsel was obligated to
follow such policies to the extent possible. Third, amici argue that the Special Counsel was able to
expand his jurisdiction, and was therefore not sufficiently limited. This Court properly found that
was not the case. Having made attempts to distinguish Morrison in favor of the defendant’s
argument, the amici attempt to discount the fact that strengthens the government’s argument under
Morrison: unlike the Independent Counsel, the Special Counsel is removable at will. A.C Br. at 5-6.
The gist of amici’s argument is that removability alone is not sufficient. That ignores this Court’s
analysis of the other limitations on the Special Counsel, Justice Scalia’s dissent in Morrison stating
that removal at will of the Independent Counsel would have changed the outcome, and the Edmond
court’s conclusion that removal is “a powerful tool for control.” Thus, the amici have not
established that there is a substantial question as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)."

Edited to correct punctuation errors.

[Me.]

43. Hoist By Their Own Petard, Again

The very fact that so many USAs have been fired makes the very point they are trying to make irrelevant,

[Spazito]

44. It continues to astound me as to how poor, weak the Libby defense

briefs are given the high-priced, high profile team he has working on these. Add to that the amici brief, written by various "legal experts", which is also incredibly weak, even pathetic in it's lack of substance and I just shake my head.

I must say, though, as weak as I see the defense briefs to be, after reading the government's (Fitzgerald's et al) response I realize they are even more lacking in substance than I first thought.

A side note, I was chuckling to myself when I read Bonamici's response and her gift for appropriate snark and couldn't help betting that Judge Walton, given his own talent for footnote snark, would have appreciated that talent when seeing it practiced by others, lol.

[Me.]

47. That's Been My Take All Along. This Is The Best They Can Do?

Given their high flying reps, I am sorely disappointed in their performance so far. I tried to give them a pass during the trial, thinking the Liar might be tying their hands. But their briefs have almost been amateurish. The reasoning is far from sound. And what about Wells insisting on reading letters out loud to the judge even after Walton indicated he had already read them? With their Libby deserves a pardon tantrum all his defenders remind me of adolescents who have heard the word no for the first time.

[TahitiNut]

48. It seems abundantly clear that the audience Team Libby is addressing is not

... Judge Walton or the legal community, but instead is the 'base' of the right wing in a baldly partisan propagandistic ploy. Since they can neither argue the law nor the facts, they merely feed the rabble in their base - grist for the feeding frenzy of the abjectly ignorant. Decidedly blind(ered) partisanship is a fundamental corruption of our democratic processes, permitting the hijacking of the governance of a nation against that nation's essential interests. It seems we've learned absolutely nothing from Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia - both the foremost exemplars of Party-Above-People in the 20th century.

[Spazito]

53. I don't disagree with your comments except to, possibly quibble

the "Party-Above-People" point. I believe it was more a "Protect-Cheney- Above- All-Else" exemplar.I believe those paying into the Libby defense fund are paying to protect Cheney and that is done, in their eyes, at this point at least, by defending Libby yet that very defense has been hamstrung because of the key goal of defending Cheney.


All in all, it has been and continues to be fascinating to watch given all the other agendas inherent in the adjudication of this case.

[H2O Man]

54. I agree fully.

They aren't going to win on appeal. The lawyers have to try. But the support group is looking for a pardon.

[H2O Man]

51. I expected more.

One of the "hired guns" on Team Libby was there to concentrate entirely on the issues for appeal. I had thought that they would have something a little stronger than they do ..... but Mr. Fitzgerald simply outdid them on everything.

I am under the impression that the necroconservatives realize that there is really very little to base an appeal on. Hence, their focus has become a lobbying effort to try to secure a pardon. They are familiar enough with the case and the issues involved to know that they have an almost "zero" chance of winning an appeal.

[Spazito]

55. I do believe the defense team has always been "hamstrung" by the

overarching goal of protecting Cheney while defending their client. I suspect had the protection of Cheney not been inherent in all they did, their defense of Libby might well have been more vigorous and substantive both in their arguments in court and their briefs.

[Binka]

67. Scooter Knew This From The Get Go IMHO

Irving realized right away that his defense team was going to be severely hampered from rigorously defending him when their number one priority was to protect and insulate Big Dick. I could see it in his face from the very first day. He has the look of an ex-husband when he realizes the Lexus and the plasma TV are in the lake.:evilgrin:

edit:typo

[Spazito]

68. LOL, Binka, love your analogy, it is perfect!

He did, indeed, have that look when he wasn't posing for the camera.

[jazzjunkysue]

73. Right. I'm sure they were not allowed to follow anything that would

help most defendants, because we all know the real defendants are Darth Cheney and the chimp.

[Morgana LaFey]

74. BINGO!

but Mr. Fitzgerald simply outdid them on everything.

Much more the reason for the lack of weight on the part of the motion than a lack of talent on the Libby&Friends side. We've known all along that Fitz is methodical and thorough. VERY thorough, obviously.

[Joe Chi Minh]

62. But you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, can you?

[Spazito]

63. True but I have seen briefs that, at the very least, try to make

the sow's ear appear a little more silky in texture, lol.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

69. In reply to both of the above....

The actual phrase, emblazoned on my memory by a bunch of farmboy uncles, is "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's scrotum".

And the comparison was made, in the mists of farmboy history because, indeed, a sow's scrotum CAN be described as rather silky in texture.

However, point(s) taken.

[Spazito]

70. ROFL! I have nothing to add to that, it is a perfect "summation"!

:rofl:

[H2O Man]

77. Well,

I guess if the Team Libby filings begin to refer to I. Lewis "Scrotum" Libby, we'll know why.

[Me.]

83. I Don't Think That'll Happen

As far as I can tell he doesn't have any.

[H2O Man]

84. Strange days

for Scooter. He must know that he is going to be incarcerated for a period of time, very soon. as bad as things may have seemed to him in the past 18 months, they are about to get a lot worse. It has to take a toll on him.

[bleever]

85. I was pondering Scooter's personal fate today, and felt sorry

for the strain someone in his position must feel. It must be awful.

Then I remembered that he is the only architect of the war to pay any personal price whatsoever, when hundreds of thousands of innocent people, American and Iraqi, have died or lost family in this geopolitical experiment of the neocons.

My personal sympathy, as a human, must extend equally (at least) to all those people, and so Scooter's trouble disappears into a vast ocean of sorrows.

And if Scooter has more allegiance to Dick Cheney than to his own children, who can save him from himself?

[Missy Vixen]

86. Beautiful

>And if Scooter has more allegiance to Dick Cheney than to his own children, who can save him from himself?<

Wait till his children are old enough to understand that Dad would rather protect his buddies than do the right thing, not to mention spending the next two years or so with them.

Julie

[Me.]

88. It's Almost Enough To Make you feel Sorry For him

:sarcasm:

Maybe, like Paris, he'll rediscover his self respect in the pokey. I wonder what he thinks about at night? The harm he's done? Do spectres of the dead haunt him?

[bleever]

89. I fear the answer to your question is "No".

I think an essential element of the neocon worldview is that in geopolitics, deaths are inevitable, and are a commodity. As a commodity, they are to be apportioned in a way best suited to advancing one's own agenda. He still believes in the agenda, and thus has no qualms that the laws of death and destruction were bent to the service of the neocon vision.

I.e.: shit happens, even to "innocent" people, so make sure that the shit that happens is happening as part of your plan and not someone else's.


It's not John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism, but to the neocons, the fact that there are "bad people" in the world is proof that peace, love, and understanding are for suckers.

[H2O Man]

91. Right.

I think he is beginning to understand the idea of what it means to be alone. A person will have feelings that they can't fully express to those who have not experienced them. It's a feeling of being alone even in a crowd, and isolated even among your family and closest friends. In the bible, this is described in the poetic terms of "going to the desert."

It's a shame that he participated in the criminal acts that cause him to be a convicted felon. And it will be a further shame if he becomes as hard as flint in order to try to survive this. It would be better if he came back a true human being. But that seems unlikely.

[bleever]

96. The difference between words and real intention:

Scooter's invocation to Judy Miller to "come back to work...and life" sounded like the call you mention to return to being a true human being, and yet as you say, it seems unlikely that he will observe this dictum under present circumstances.

[Me.]

92. Let's Be Clear, As Condi Would Say

Collateral damage, to advance their views, is fine with them, as long as it's someone else's life. They're not ones for picking up the tab.

[bleever]

95. If only

Condi, as the highest-ranking African-American woman in U.S. history, had your clarity.

There's another shame.

And that is exactly the razor edge on which Truth, and the redemption of a soul, depends.

"Collateral damage" means "on the side", like the cole slaw you might not eat, or the sprig of parsley, or a wedge of lemon.

When human lives are equated with garnishes and accidents, there is a spiritual price to be paid.

[Patsy Stone]

103. Terrible, terrible, terrible.

And this response kicked so much ass, the defense may not have realized how much ass they had to be kicked. It's like the whole thing was a series of "Well, here's another place you screwed up; and here's another.

If the defense was better, I would have said they knew what they were doing with their motion. But I hold out little hope that's the case.

[bleever]

105. Unless, as suggested, the incompetence was irrelevant

to the real intent of inflaming the base, and fanning the flames by crying "It's just not FAIR!" so loudly that they go so far as to expect the Court to determine that it might be overruled on the basis of a future change to that stupidheaded law.

[Patsy Stone]

107. At this point, there can be no doubt

that the defense was all for show. That point agreed to, they really could have put on a better show. I mean I got up, I got dressed, and what? I left the theater humming nothing. They, my friend, are the stupidheads here.

Their performances were even panned by the prosecution for spending so much time cross-examining Russert that they neutered one of their own arguments for release during appeal. That's downright embarrassing.

I'm going to bed. I'm going to dream of Libby going to jail. Without passing Go.

[H2O Man]

110. In defense of the defense:

Scooter had felt pressure in the summer of 2003. Wilson bugged him. Cheney and Scooter believed that there were two groups within the CIA (along with one in State) that had joined together to discredit the OVP/WHIG/OSP by exposing the lie popularly known as the "16 words." Together, the two decided to do damage to that group by attacking Wilson, and by exposing Plame.

When guys like Armitage, Rove, and Fleischer weren't getting the needed response, Cheney and Libby decided to have Scooter do what was later called Libby's "black op." The Novak article was published after Scooter had started with Miller, and he continued to try to add fuel to the fire.

When David Corn wrote about the possible violation, it caught Libby's attention, but did not overly concern him. When the Agency made the referral to Justice, he became nervous. He came up with his "cover story," the outright lie about Russert. Libby was sure that there had been too much "chatter" in DC, and that reporters would never reveal their sources to the FBI.

The problem was that history sometimes puts the right people in the right spot. FBI investigator Jack Eckenrode did not play the role the OVP/WHIG/OSP wanted. Though there is evidence that suggests that Ashcroft stood in the way to the extent he could, history was on the move. Libby had told his lies about Russert and others, and Rove had told his lies. And the investigators knew they lied.

In December 2003, Ashcroft stepped aside, and James Comey appointed Mr. Fitzgerald. Together, Eckenrode and Fitzgerald decided on a route to take to prosecute the case.

Rove was able to change his lies to half-truths, and perhaps provided other information that kept him from being prosecuted. But Libby stuck with his lies to a point of no return. The defense attorneys had no real options: Libby could accept a deal (and this almost happened), or he could go to trial and face sure conviction.

Now the Libby supporters are outraged, because poor Scooter was so busy saving this country from terrorists (and playing touch football with orphans, and writing his novel), that he couldn't come up with a better cover story. And they want him to be pardoned, because he wasn't able to create a better quality of lie.

Not only was Scooter a real treat for Team Libby, but the support group must be a delight.

[bleever]

115. So it's a "quality of lie" issue.

And if I correctly, the phrase "16 words" was originally used by the White House to minimize the controversy by reducing it to a big fuss made over just 16 words in an hour-long State of the Union speech.

[Patsy Stone]

119. Again with the word count!

Too many, too few, just enough. A new standard in jurisprudence and government responsibility: the Goldilocks standard.

These were probably the guys who made sure their 1500-word papers had exactly 1500 words.

[Patsy Stone]

120. True

the lies no longer looked so good when the liars had to say them out loud, in public, with everyone watching. That being the case, they were still supposedly the best the supporters could buy, and IMO, they were ripped off. As I said to Spazito below, there wasn't even a catchy phrase to take away.

I imagine those support group meetings resemble a reverse AA meeting, culminating in a drunken weave down a cobblestone street.

[PRETZEL]

42. I just took a quick scan at Fitz's brief in response,

and maybe I just read it too quickly but did it sounded like to me that one of the reasons Scooter didn't get off was because it should have been prosecuted by Ken Starr under a statute that has expired.

I know that's not correct but I just had to chuckle at that thought.

[Alcibiades]

52. OK all you lawyer types

Here's a question I've posted before in re pardons that has not been satisfactorily answered. The bush administration has put a very restrictive set of rules regarding who is eligible to petition for pardon, including:

"Sec. 1.2 Eligibility for filing petition for pardon.

No petition for pardon should be filed until the expiration of a waiting period of at least five years after the date of the release of the petitioner from confinement or, in case no prison sentence was imposed, until the expiration of a period of at least five years after the date of the conviction of the petitioner. Generally, no petition should be submitted by a person who is on probation, parole, or supervised release."

This being the case, Libby is ineligible for pardon by this president, and will be for so long as he's in office. It's my understanding that Bush has followed these guidelines in every case since taking office, but I could be wrong.

The question is, if Bush ignores his own law-like guidelines in considering a petition for pardon for Libby, wouldn't it open this administration up to litigation from every petitioner whose petition was denied on the basis of sec. 1.2? Just asking (I hope so--this would be a pretty strong reason not to pardon Libby.)

[Spazito]

58. One thing I learned with regard to contracts, legal language is

the difference between "should" and "shall", one is definitive the other is less so. I note the word "should" is used rather than "shall" in the following:

"No petition for pardon should be filed until ..."

and used here again along with another less than definitive word "Generally":

"Generally, no petition should be submitted..."

These are "weasel words", used to allow exceptions to the very rules being stipulated.

Here is the definition of 'should':


Definitions of 'should' (shʊd) - 4 definitions - The American Heritage® Dictionary

should (aux.v.) Used to express obligation or duty: You should send her a note.
should (aux.v.) Used to express probability or expectation: They should arrive at noon.
should (aux.v.) Used to express conditionality or contingency: If she should fall, then so would I.

Here is the definition of 'shall':


Definitions of 'shall' (shăl) - 2 definitions - The American Heritage® Dictionary

shall (aux.v.) Used before a verb in the infinitive to show:Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow.
shall (aux.v.) To be able to.

http://www.ask.com/web?q=dictionary%3A+should&qsrc=8

[Me.]

59. It Might

Not a lawyer, don't even play one. But I don't see your scenario having any real viability and is probably not a consideration for them if for no other reason than, they don't care what other people think, and damn the consequences. If they did, we wouldn't still be in Iraq. Also, to get to *, it would have to get by Gonzo first and I don't see that happening. Also, * is not compelled to follow DOJ guidelines. It's a can if he wants to situation and often a convenient excuse for not giving a pardon. Clinton pardoned Rich and I don't believe he did any jail time in Switzerland where he was hanging out.

[Alcibiades]

99. Right

Constitutionally, the power to pardon is absolute, these guidelines are self-imposed. As I understand it, these are Bush's rules (spurred, perhaps in part by the whole Rich fiasco), so Clinton wasn't bound by them (they are regs written by the DoJ). The question is, however, does the 14th Amendment give clemency petitioners grounds to take legal action, on the basis that Bush has followed these guidelines in every instance but Libby's?

[Me.]

102. I Don't Think So

I think, and may be wrong, that precedents such as the one you are referring to, would only apply to the judicial branch and doesn't affect the executive, where the power to pardon or not is absolute.

[H2O Man]

111. Right.

Convicted criminals do not enjoy entitlements.

[H2O Man]

82. The president

has the option of going by the guidelines, or not. They are not laws or regulations, just guidelines.

[bleever]

87. Cap Weinberger was indicted in 1992 and promptly pardoned

by Poppy Bush after he lost his reelection bid.

[Alcibiades]

98. As I understand it

these guidelines are new with the Bush administration, probably in place so that the DoJ and Bush won't have to bother with petitions for clemency.

[bleever]

104. So by breaking their own rules, they open themselves up

to complaints from those whose petitions were denied under those standards.

But the ability of people so aggrieved to seek any judicial redress is pretty much zero, isn't it?

I'm beginning to think that the motto of this junta is: You Can't Prove Nothin'.

[H2O Man]

112. I do think that

the DoJ is aware that there is no cause, if one looks to their guidelines, to pardon Libby. And I'm sure that the DoJ isn't looking for any new controversies right now. What we are witnessing is a group of OVP/WHIG/OSP folks who are demanding that Scooter get special treatment. They are telling Bush that as his only true supporters (besides his mom), he needs to listen to them, ignore the guidelines, and insult the system of justice by pardoning Libby.

It's worth noting that they made a significant "surge" in their effort to get Libby pardoned in December, when they felt Bush might be angry enough by the election loses and the Baker-Hamilton group's questioning his policies in Iraq, to try to show he was in full control. But Bush refused to grant the holiday pardon.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

57. OMFG!!! AS USUAL, these arrogant buttheads arguments are so tenuous as to be characterized,...

,...TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!

Scooter has NO BASIS for appeal, whatsoever. That judge was so damned cautious, as was the prosecutor, that,...well, geez,...if only EVERY U.S. citizen was treated with such kid-gloves.

No. Scooter should go straight to prison, this minute. If he doesn't, it'll certainly be a 'politically-oriented' decision,...HAS TO BE!!!

EW!!!!

[Joe Chi Minh]

64. I don't know who wrote the the sentence I quote below, though I've tried

search again and again. And I could be mistaken.

"What is unclear is whether Libby knew she was a covert CIA agent at the time he discussed her with reporters -- a key point in determining whether this was an illegal leak."

However, if my memory serves me correctly, former public prosecutor, Elizabeth de la Vega, stated in an article she wrote, quoted in a post on here, that ignorance in this particular matter could not be adduced as a defence.

[MGKrebs]

65. It's not like her entire existence was a secret.

She was (and is) a real person with a car and credit cards and dietary needs. Just mentioning her name would not have been an issue, but mentioning her as a CIA employee IS an issue, and supposedly the only way anyone would know about that employment was through a classified channel.

[Me.]

66. Myth #3

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/08/AR2007060802478_pf.html

[jazzjunkysue]

72. Smart move: Force the judge's hand. I like it.

If Fitz took off the pressure it would be easier to let the liar slide.

This hands the judge the ball with everyone watching.

Smooth move. :popcorn:

[H2O Man]

79. Mr. Fitzgerald does

a wonderful job of making his point by quoting Judge Walton.

[Coexist]

75. Me, too, Fitz. Me too.

[AtomicKitten]

90. I agree with Fitz.

If Libby does no jail time, it will be a travesty.

[Ilsa]

93. Mr. Fitzgerald: Incinerate Libby Now! nt

[Major Hogwash]

94. Libby's team put on the worst defense I've ever seen, so they will lose their appeal.

So, Libby should start serving his term in prison as soon as possible because the sonovabitch was found guilty and there is no way - NO WAY - an appeal will overturn his conviction.

Period.

[Rex]

97. I Scooter 'Ass To Jail' Libby

as he will be known, scooter on scumbag! Jailtime!

[Patsy Stone]

106. Three things:

The bit about Fleischer/Pincus now has me thinking that the reason Fitz let that go on (Remember we were wondering why he let that pass?), was to use it in exactly this way. "We even proved your assumption for you that memory can be faulty, and it still didn't help you."

In addition to the point by point evisceration of a crappy defense, I enjoyed the little barb about Cheney having been an excellent way to bring in any matter they wanted regarding Scooter's busy day. But, again, as with Scooter, they chose to not call him.

Lastly (tee hee):

"The defendant’s baseless claim that the exclusion of the Statement violated his Constitutional
rights fails to turn this routine evidentiary issue into a substantial question.

"The Court’s decision not to admit evidence it found irrelevant and unduly prejudicial did not in any
way deprive the defendant of his rights to due process, to present a defense, and to remain silent." (p.31)

H2O Man, you're right. This was one of the best.

ed: because I can't count.

[LibertyorDeath]

108. LOL for a sec I thought it said Incinerate......

Enough said....

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

113. Team Libby replies to Fitzgerald brief:

Hat tip to TiredFed at FDL...

Libby Reply

The crew at FDL is parsing this document as we speak - have at it, gang!

[H2O Man]

114. Thanks.

Just printed it -- a paper jammed, and it took a few minutes to get things back on track -- now off to read it!

[Spazito]

116. Interestingly, this response to the Government response brings

in a whole new supposition wrt Fitzgerald's authority re CIPA responses/decisions. That tells me they realized, after reading the government response to their previous brief, how pathetic their claim regarding Fitzgerald's appointment, etc, was so they attempt to bolster their original argument.

It is interesting, whereas the tone in the government's briefs is respectful to the court, the Libby defense briefs are much less so, much more arrogant in their references to both the court, the jurors and the government.

[Patsy Stone]

117. And this is my biggest issue.

They had a lousy defense, and they played it badly on top of everything else.

Take OJ, for example. (No, really, take him.) That was a crappy defense, played to the hilt, complete with razzle dazzle and a catch phrase ("If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.") and it worked. Who among us believes that a third party was to blame in that crime? Yet, here he is, living in Kendall.

All we get from this bunch of bozos is histrionics ("Please give Scooter back to me!"), long-winded, disrespectful writings, and bad, bad arguments.

Not to mention, they have a real issue with word count. :)

ed: gram.

[La_Fourmi_Rouge]

118. They used alot of words! That oughta count for something!

I'm certain that Judge Walton will take word count into consideration. Team Libby obviously had to find all those words and string them together, right?

So there you go!

[Spazito]

121. LOL, even on their "word count" obsession they are contradictory

given they infer in their original brief that Judge Walton and the government/Fitzgerald were too wordy(they really mean too much detail making it hard for them to argue against, imo) while they submit a response brief that is, in a word, WORDY but without the requisite detail, roflmao!

[Patsy Stone]

122. :)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1094151&mesg_id=1104436

[antigop]

123. Have you all read Mary Matalin's fundraising letter?

http://www.talkleft.com/LibbyTrial/matalinplea.pdf

[antigop]

124. Libby wants what Martha Stewart got

http://165.1.76.240/dynamic/stories/C/CIA_LEAK_TRIAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2007-06-13-10-32-37

>>
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby wants what Martha Stewart got. The former White House aide, who faces 2 1/2 years in prison for perjury and obstruction, cited the domestic celebrity in court documents Wednesday as part of his bid to put his sentence on hold.
>>

[Spazito]

125. LOL, seeing as Ms. Matalin was THERE, I wonder why she

wasn't called as an expert defense witness???

"I was there as Scooter had dozens of meetings and conversations - working 12-16 hour days - starting at 6:00 a.m., 52 weeks a year on vital life and death problems."

All I can add to that is......

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Oh, I do have one more thing to add, Ms. Matalin would be the perfect person to write one of those bodice-ripping, faux historical romance novels, she already has the histrionics down pat!

[antigop]

126. I thought you would enjoy it....................n/t

[Spazito]

127. I did, for sure! It was like reading an advance copy of the latest

Harlequin romance novel complete with overblown, cheesy rhetoric, am still laughing! Thanks for posting, it lightened my day, lol.

[dogday]

128. Here is a visual image of your thread

Do not pass go, Do not collect 200 dollars, Go directly to jail..... :hi: