On the Libby Decision & the Left’s Silly Mantras
While Bruce and I have very different styles — and manner of blogging — we tend to agree on most political issues. I have to take issue with him with on the president’s decision to commute the jail sentence of Scooter Libby. I’m not sure it was a “half-measure” as Bruce puts it. Given the circumstances of the case, with the prosecutor bringing up stuff in the sentencing phase that wasn’t offered at trial, with the trial judge imposing a sentence in excess of that recommended by the probation office, I think the president did the right thing.
I may have more to say on this later, but am busy with school at present. So for now, I’ll just say that I pretty much think that Paul Mirengoff got it right in his Powerline post on the topic. He links a solid piece by William Otis from the Washington Post (which I ***highly*** recommend). Otis demonstrates that “There is a legal principle at stake in this case greater than either Libby or the politics of the moment.”
In reviewing some of the comments in the moderation queue, I am amused at the left’s frenzy over the president’s decision. Even though he did not please the right, he managed (yet again) to infuriate the left. And many of those on the left see a conspiracy where there is none.
Mrs. Clinton’s comments show how much she buys into the left’s histrionics. Or maybe she knows better and is just doing this to win their support. For her comments are based less on the facts of the situation than the left-wing line on the case:
This (the Libby decision) was clearly an effort to protect the White House. … There isn’t any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent.
Um, how was this done to protect the White House? And where’s the evidence that Libby was carrying out the Vice President’s wishes when he made the statements for which he was convicted?
Had I not studied psychology, I might be befuddled why she, like so many on the left, seems to think that this Administration has tried, in her words, to stifle dissent. (They seem to be projecting something onto his.) As the very comments to Bruce’s post show (many of which I approved even though they were held up by our spam filter), many have offered very robust criticism of the president’s decision. No one is trying to stifle their voices. And such criticism, what she calls “dissent,” has persisted uninterrupted, at increasing numbers of outlets, throughout the president’s term in office.
All that Scooter Libby attempted to do, in a very ham-handed way, was to discredit a dishonest critics of the Administration. He was not even convicted of those clumnsy efforts, but of lying to investigators about them. And Joe Wilson, the man whose deceptions about the Administration’s record set this whole process in motion, could not be convicted because he lied to the media and not to a federal grand jury.
Yet, even as that dishonest man’s man audience has shrunk, he continues to remain free to spout his nonsense, while Mr. Libby (even after the commutation of his jail sentence) still facts several severe penalties, including probation and a hefty fine.
Mr. Wilson may long have been discredited, but neither he nor his supporters have been silenced.
It’s a sad commentary on the left that they continue to repeat their mantra that this case is an example of the Administration attempting to stifle dissent. There are examples too numerous to mention which prove the opposite, including their very criticism of this decision.
- B. Daniel Blatt (GayPatriotWest@aol.com)
76 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Scooter Libby is guilty of perjury. Does he not have to do the time because he is a friend of Bush and Cheney? Point in any direction you like, attempt to deflect as much as you possibly can, but the glaring, obvious matter here is that Scooter Libby is guilty of perjury and Bush just let him off. The law doesn’t matter if you are the king’s friend.
Paris Hilton did more time than Scooter Libby. This is a disgrace.
But it is also beautiful. Because it shows that those who call themselves conservatives are often just plain old partisan hacks. Absolutely beautiful. Rove wanted a realignment–he got it…in the opposite direction.
Comment by sean — July 3, 2007 @ 8:02 pm - July 3, 2007
Libby should have been pardoned. First, there was no crime committed: Plame was not covert (so no violation). Second, Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was the day he opened his investigation. If the point was to indentify the leaker (Richard Armitage), he should have wound it up then. Why was Armitage never charged?
This was a political hit job – using the criminal justice system to hit at political opponents. This is dangerous regardless of whether a Republican or Democrat is in the crosshairs.
While he’s at it, Bush should issue a pardon to Judith Miller (New York Times reporter) who spent 85 days in jail.
Comment by Robert — July 3, 2007 @ 8:39 pm - July 3, 2007
Umm Paris Hilton did more time than President Clinton or Sandy Burglar.
Problem I have with lefitsts is you can’t take em seriously. You can’t have a debate with people who just hate for hates sake. I’m sure President Bush has made mistakes in 6 years like other leaders. But if he says the sky is blue today, the nutts on the far left say…”no it’s dark and the sky is black, he’s a liar.” Their daily drumbeat of all things Republican are corrupt and illigal has started to fall on deaf ears. Except in the MSM leftist media. How else do you explain the Democrat Congress with an approval rating in the teens? I for one would like to debate a leftist on some of the policies of our government, but how do you when they characterize all things as illegal, corrupt and self emgrandizing. And they protray all their leaders as only having the best intentions of the lower classes. That from the likes of Kerry, Edwards, Moore, Gore, Pelosi. Sorry it doesn’t add up.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 3, 2007 @ 8:46 pm - July 3, 2007
“Um, how was this done to protect the White House?”
By commuting the sentence and not pardoning the offense, Libby maintains his 5th Amendment right and cannot be compelled to testify. As such, he is not the magic witness that the Dems can try to use to prove any wrongdoing.
“He was not even convicted of those clumnsy [sic] efforts, but of lying to investigators about them… Mr. Libby (even after the commutation of his jail sentence) still facts several severe penalties, including probation and a hefty fine.”
Yes, because, you see, that’s what’s supposed to happen. You lie to federal investigators, you’re supposed to go to jail. How is this a bad thing? Isn’t that what we thought should have happened to Clinton?
Comment by torrentprime — July 3, 2007 @ 8:50 pm - July 3, 2007
gene, Robert: Nothing in what you posted explains why perjurers shouldn’t do the time their crimes call for. Put another way, if the discovery of Armitage had it all sewn up, then why did Libby lie? And if he did commit perjury, and got caught, and got that proved in a court by a jury of his peers, why shouldn’t he go to jail? Because you think Democrats are mean? That’s your opinion and that’s great and all, but it’s enough to commute a sentence?
Comment by torrentprime — July 3, 2007 @ 8:59 pm - July 3, 2007
#5:
Surely, torrentprime, you don’t expect the koolaid drinkers to actually admit that they favor special treatment for Republickan lawbreakers? For, in essence, that is exactly what they support.
And thank you for making the point about Libby not getting a pardon in order to ensure that he can’t be forced to testify about what he knows about the lawbreaking conducted by his bosses.
I have been an agnostic on impeachment but recent events have forced me to conclude that it must go forward with Cheney. Use the proceedings to expose the degree of lawlessness and corruption of these thugs.
Comment by Ian S — July 3, 2007 @ 9:43 pm - July 3, 2007
So, the same people who want to shut down talk radio with the Fairness Doctrine (or some other form of regulation) are whining about the Bush Administration “stifling dissent?”
Comment by Yeah, Right — July 3, 2007 @ 9:59 pm - July 3, 2007
Not really. Most of the time I’d agree that criminals should do the time. But when you have a prosecuter gone amuck who protects the witness? The Duke rape case is awfully similar. When you go before a grand jury and try to recall events from 2 years ago. And try not to say, I don’t know, I don’t remember, I don’t recall, you get flimsey charges of perjury. I just don’t think it is fair. The gal from the Justice Dept refusing to testify to Congress about the Attorney firings is the shape of things to come. I wondered at the time when Administration figures were supenoed, why they didn’t just declare their 5th amendment privliges to protect themselves from fishing expeditions. Getting tripped up on technicalities by a Democrat Congress run amoke. This wouldn’t be good for the counrty but what do you do when you are a public servant, just trying to do your job. And the big shots have a vendetta going on.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 3, 2007 @ 10:14 pm - July 3, 2007
To make it simple, at least for me to follow….say Libby got caught in a lie when he said Russert first told him about Plame, when it was actually Novak a day earlier, proven by his notes. (I know the details aren’t right, but follow me here) Libby told a lie right? So he should go to jail for 30 months even though Armitage first blew her cover a week before? Yet Sandy Burger took classified docs, stuffed some in his shoe, destroyed others and he gets not jail time, just a fine. Now say they are all Republicans or all Democrats, this just isn’t fair. It stinks. One thing that has this very conservative man troubled…what if the Duke boys wern’t from well to do families and what if Libby wasn’t well connected? These people had ways to defend themselves and extricate themselves from prison time. How many good people going thru life get caught in these prosecuter traps?
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 3, 2007 @ 10:22 pm - July 3, 2007
Just goes to show that if a minion falls on his sword for you, then he’s done his job and it’s better to leave it alone.
PS – How much you wanna bet that Mr. Libby gets assistance in paying the $250,000 fine?
Comment by Kevin — July 3, 2007 @ 11:00 pm - July 3, 2007
“How much you wanna bet that Mr. Libby gets assistance in paying the $250,000 fine?”
You mean, Kev, like the Clinton Legal Defense Fund to assist then-President Clinton on SUBSTANTIATED charges of lying under oath and high crimes and misdemeanors? He was the only president in US history who set up his own legal defense fund.
Pot, meet kettle.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 3, 2007 @ 11:05 pm - July 3, 2007
The phrase “stifle dissent” is ripe for cross-examination.
For one thing, when Molly Ivins died, Bush said (via a White House press statement) that he “respected her convictions, her passionate belief in the power of words, and her ability to turn a phrase…. Her quick wit and commitment to her beliefs will be missed.” (As quoted in her NY Times obit.)
Comment by Jeremayakovka — July 3, 2007 @ 11:38 pm - July 3, 2007
If one were prone to hyperbole, one might say that this commutation is another instance of the White House protecting itself. I think, as pointed out by Mr. Blatt, that this cannot be the case. It seems to me that there are two ways of looking at this: either it is an instance of cronyism or it is an example of spectacularly bad executive policy.
President Bush has used his powers of executive clemency extremely sparingly and mostly in a symbolic capacity. To now use this power in such a glaring and high profile fashion is to invite cynical skepticism. I suppose one might say that the sentence given to Libby was excessive but this administration has zealously enforced the federal sentencing guidelines under which Libby was penalized. One might, as some have done here, appeal to another example, such as that of Sandy Berger, as a way of drawing equivalence but this is nothing more than a diversion. Nor do excuses revolving around a supposedly overzealous prosecutor impress me, given that the prosecutor in this case was appointed by Bush himself and therefore unlikely to be a political partisan.
If one is to observe the principal of Occam’s razor and apply it to this situation, it appears obvious that the only reason that Libby got a commutation of his sentence was due to his connection to the president. This is extremely troubling as it reveals a commander in chief who only shows mercy to his friends and not towards the rest of the people he governs.
Comment by Eric — July 3, 2007 @ 11:40 pm - July 3, 2007
Libby will absolutely get a full pardon before Bush leaves office. By only commuting the sentence at this time, Bush can still use the phony “I won’t comment during an ongoing appeals process” to avoid addressing any question about his own Administration’s involvement. Thus, the commutation works to his advantage.
But Bush will pardon Libby before he leaves office. I’d bet money on it.
Comment by Chase — July 3, 2007 @ 11:46 pm - July 3, 2007
#9:
His defense fund has already raised twenty times that amount.
#8: Why don’t you just fess up and admit you believe Republickans are above the law and should get special treatment when they break the law. It’s one set of rules for the GOP and another for the rest of us. Certainly an appropriate meme for 2008.
Comment by Ian S — July 3, 2007 @ 11:55 pm - July 3, 2007
Wow, just look at the attacks on the president. And these ones are tame than those to Bruce’s post.
Torrentprime in #4 somehow believes in this notion, often repeated, I understand on left-wing blogs, that somehow a prosecutor will offer to dismiss the charges against Libby if he testifies against the President (or Vice President). But, the problem with that argument is that Fitzgerald has said he won’t be investigating any further.
I have some serious issues with pardoning Libby, but I also wonder why the judge excluded an expert witness on memory. But, that’s a case for the appeals court to address.
It’s too bad all too many on the left are so consumed with Bush-hatred that they continue to invent conspiracy theories where there are none.
And I don’t see the cronyism that Eric attempts to find and wonder at what executive policy was so spectacularly bad. If it were cronyism, the president would have commuted more of the sentence.
I just think it’s amazing that the judge demanded that Libby go to jail while the appeal was pending.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 4, 2007 @ 1:53 am - July 4, 2007
#16:
It’s only amazing, Dan, if you believe that the GOP elite are above the law that the rest of us have to abide by. I think you should give serious thought to the nature of the judges and the prosecutor involved in this case. All are conservative Repubs. Libby’s sentence was exactly what you or I or this guy would get for perjury and obstruction of justice convictions. And, it is not customary to remain free while your appeal goes through – only if the courts believe you have a good chance at overturning your conviction. The conservative judges involved apparently believed Libby’s appeal was unlikely to succeed. It’s a good thing Scooter isn’t a Democrat like this guy. He’d have been taken into custody immediately. Like I said: one set of rules for Repubs and one for the rest of us.
Comment by Ian S — July 4, 2007 @ 2:28 am - July 4, 2007
Help me out here. I missed the part where Fitz-fong found the administration to be involved in anything at all. What alternate reality do you reside in?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 4, 2007 @ 2:33 am - July 4, 2007
Crud! I didn’t close my blockquote on the first comment.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 4, 2007 @ 2:34 am - July 4, 2007
But you don’t abide by the law, Ian.
For instance, you’ve never insisted that Bill Clinton be jailed for his perjury and deliberate obstruction of justice.
You’ve never insisted that the Clinton aides, such as Vernon Jordan, who perjured themselves and obstructed the investigation into Clinton’s own perjury and obstruction of justice, be jailed.
Indeed, you’ve never insisted that Sandy Berger be jailed for willfully stealing and destroying classified documents.
Indeed, if anything, the commutation brings Libby’s sentence into line, yet still harsher, with what Berger got for ACTUALLY disclosing, compromising, stealing, and destroying classified material — and then lying to prosecutors and obstructing justice about his doing it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 4, 2007 @ 2:35 am - July 4, 2007
Oh, and don’t forget our other favorite examples of Dems not following their own rules.
– Nancy Pelosi screaming that anyone who commits campaign finance fraud should not only resign from leadership, but resign from Congress — committing campaign finance fraud.
– Dems like Ian screaming about the “rule of law” and “necessity of enforcement” — but clapping and applauding for this.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 4, 2007 @ 2:41 am - July 4, 2007
Some amazing stuff:
1. Libs here and elsewhere pretending to condemn Clinton and company after years of staunch “to the death” defense. Give me a freakin’ break.
2. Since when do the people who defend Kerry, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Burglar, Frank, What’s-his-name who actually fcuked pages, Clinton, Clinton, Jefferson, Trafficant, Trafficant’s hair, Condit etc.etc.etc. gives a rotten sh*t about the rule of law????
3. Since when do the liberals give a royal damn about the CIA???? Italy outed 26 CIA agents and attempted to try them in abstentia. I think (if I recall correctly) Spain tried to do the same. Where are you on that one, dipshits?
Or do they not count because they didn’t lie to Congress about Bush? Ian once proclaimed that lying to Congress was a crime. I replied that we should see Valerie Wilson frogmarched in handcuffs any day now. He chose not to reply.
Look, facts are facts no matter how much you sh*t brained KOSsaks spin.
*There was no investigation because Fitzfong, appointed by Comey NOT BUSH, knew from DAY ONE that Dick Armitage was the “leaker” of a pencil pushing file clerk.
*Therfore, there was no investigation to lie to or obstruct. Fitz-fong was actually witch hunting for Chucky Schumer and padding his expense account along the way. There was no way in HELL he was going to come out on the first day and proclaim that there’s nothing to investigate.
*Libby evidently had trouble recalling years old conversations with drive-by media types, who themselves had trouble recalling their conversations as well.
*Libby’s defense was denied the right to produce expert witnesses on the matter.
*If there was a crime in “leaking” the name of a pencil pushing file clerk, Dick Armitage would have been charged. He wasn’t, so obviously, no crime was comitted.
*Given that, there’s no reason to assume that the White House (Bush, Cheney, Rove) had anything to do with it. It certainly doesn’t appear that Libby was a patsy for anybody.
*If there *were* a crime, the question would be who instructed Armitage, not Libby. Again, since there’s no prosecution of Armitage, obviously there’s no crime.
*Further, we all know that the NYT and Sandy Burglar are far more guilty of compromising our national security than Scooter Libby or George W. Bush could ever hope to (if they were so inclined). But the NYT gets to hide behind the First Ammendment and Burglar gets to claim that he was “sloppy”. What did BJ do to cover Burglar’s ass?
*As for holding “juries of our peers” to be the final arbiters, that means we’d have to respect the decision of the Scottsboro Boys jury, the first Byron De La Beckwith jury, the U.S. v Cecil Price et al. jury, the first Menendez brothers jury etc.
Long story short, it’s done with and there’s not a damn thing the liberals can do or spin about it. Libby’s not going to jail and neither is anybody in the White House. Valerie and Joe Wilson are full of absolute shit, as are the liberals who desperately support them. End of story.
Get over it.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 4, 2007 @ 6:23 am - July 4, 2007
TGC, I love you, man.
Comment by V the K — July 4, 2007 @ 8:56 am - July 4, 2007
11 – Uh, yeah. I thinkthe point is politicians, regardless of party, have the access to funds and donors to pay off these fines when they’re judged against them. To bad that’s not illegal – again for anyone regardless of party, thank you very much.
Comment by Kevin — July 4, 2007 @ 9:10 am - July 4, 2007
#20:
Apparently you don’t understand the difference between someone like Libby who was tried and convicted and someone like Clinton who was tried and acquitted. Was Vernon Jordan even tried for anything? As for Sandy Berger, yes he’s a Democrat and so obviously deserving of being drawn and quartered, at least in your warped world view.
Comment by Ian S — July 4, 2007 @ 11:24 am - July 4, 2007
Wow, amazing to see the law-and-order conservatives spin the facts in order to protect a man convicted of perjury.
Was Bill Clinton convicted of perjury?
Are you aware that Fitzgerald has said repeatedly that Scooter Libby’s perjury obstructed the investigation of the Vice President’s office? So the “crime” you say is missing from Fitzgerald’s prosecution is not necessarily because it did not exist, but because Libby foiled its exposure. You do remember that Cheney was originally to testify and then Libby’s defense agreed not to call him, right?
Are you aware that every player of significance here is a Republican appointee?
Are you aware that 2.5 years imprisonment is not the maximum for Libby’s offense? I suppose you are also aware that Republicans are responsible for an increase in this and other sentences for various crimes.
You make an allegation that Joe Wilson has lied and been discredited. Care to furnish the proof? This fictional charge has been debunked countless times.
Do you really not understand that by attacking Joe Wilson’s argument in the NYT through false claims of nepotism, in the process of which you expose a covert CIA agent, is an effort to squelch dissent? You are aware that Judith Miller went to jail protecting Scooter Libby, right? And I suppose you are also aware that Richard Armitage’s admission that he disclosed Valerie Plame’s identity to Robert Novak does not “cancel out” Libby’s leak to Miller. Since the investigation was to see who ordered the leak, it makes very good sense to prosecute the person who went out of his way to protect investigation of the VP.
The man was tried, convicted and sentenced. Republicans were in charge.
[Um, what does this comment have to do with the post to which it's attached? Joe Wilson has been discredited. See the Senate Intelligence Commitee Report. Seems you get your news only from left-wing blogs -- Ed.]
Comment by Califgraphic — July 4, 2007 @ 11:26 am - July 4, 2007
#22:
Hardly. Bush’s big middle finger to the justice system is going to be followed by stonewalling on subpoenas – another challenge to our Constitutional system. At that point, impeachment – likely of Cheney – will be on the table (it already is in HR 333 but support for it will accelerate.) The resulting public airing of Bush/Cheney’s filthy laundry will cause the electorate to fill with disgust for the GOP with obvious consequences in November 2008.
Comment by Ian S — July 4, 2007 @ 11:34 am - July 4, 2007
Statistics Prove That Convicted Felons Are Overwhelmingly Democrat.
Comment by Just Putting This Out There — July 4, 2007 @ 12:13 pm - July 4, 2007
Apparently you don’t understand the difference between someone like Libby who was tried and convicted and someone like Clinton who was tried and acquitted.
Of course, what is left out of that remark is that Clinton’s “jury” was, by nearly half, people who were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars out of his campaign funds to vote the right direction.
They’re called, “Democrat Senators”.
As I pointed out, when he had to go in front of a judge who he couldn’t legally pay, he WAS found guilty.
Bush’s big middle finger to the justice system is going to be followed by stonewalling on subpoenas – another challenge to our Constitutional system.
Puhleez. Just because YOU forgot the Clintons running screaming to the courts insisting that the President was immune from any investigation whatsoever while in office doesn’t mean the rest of us have.
What this is all about, Ian, is your party’s need for revenge; like immature children, you can’t admit that your President, your current Presidential candidate, and their staffs lied under oath, shredded confidential information, obstructed justice, and did innumerable other things — and move on from it. Instead, you have to protect Clinton’s “legacy” by attacking and trying to tear down Bush.
Go ahead and start your shrieking. I wonder how the American public will receive it when the press starts digging through precedents — and all of Billary’s “I don’t recall”, “I can’t remember”, “I have no idea how those precise records ended up in my pants/socks/home closet”, and so forth.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 4, 2007 @ 12:17 pm - July 4, 2007
So I’ve just read all the latest news. Basically, Bush can’t even make a mistake correctly. He commutes the sentence, but says the $250k fine should stand. Now he says that he may still do a pardon. Now initially, Bush was fully behind justice being served; but now that ain’t happening does it mean there’s someone else in the VP/Prez office who should have justice served upn then?
What a mental midget Bush is. He should have just gone for the gold right of the gate. Glad to see Libby will get the justice he deserves; much the mentally handicapped who’ve been exectued in Texas.
Comment by Kevin — July 4, 2007 @ 12:32 pm - July 4, 2007
We’ve already listed all the current Democrats who are walking around instead of being in jail. From Di Fi to Harry Reid to William Jefferson, Conyers, Murtha, et all. hehe
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 4, 2007 @ 12:36 pm - July 4, 2007
#26:
Not of perjury. Nor of obstruction of justice. Not of a felony. Indeed not of any criminality at all. Scooter, of course, is a convicted criminal who was found guilty of committing several serious felonies. But because he one was on the Repub elite, he got his not-just-get-out-of-jail-free-but-don’t-even-bother-going-in-the-first-place card from the criminals he was protecting with his obstruction of justice.
Comment by Ian S — July 4, 2007 @ 1:30 pm - July 4, 2007
Um, Ian do you have any evidence to substantiate your chage that he was protecting any criminals? If he was, why has Fitzgerald not even delivered one single indictment on the underlying offense?
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 4, 2007 @ 1:46 pm - July 4, 2007
#31: Of course, none of those Dems on your list was convicted of crimes like Scooter was. Now I realize you Bushie apparatchiks have no problem with the concept of jailing political opponents but that’s not how our system works – at least not yet. You still have to be convicted of a crime – just like Scooter was – before you get sentenced to jail.
Comment by Ian S — July 4, 2007 @ 2:17 pm - July 4, 2007
#33: So far, the evidence is circumstantial. And since Cheney/Bush are unlikely to comply with any subpoenas, that leaves the impeachment process as the only viable means of investigating and establishing the crimes committed. Fitz himself dropped numerous hints about Cheney’s criminality but knew that the appropriate means of dealing with Cheney would be the impeachment process which is the responsibility of Congress.
Comment by Ian S — July 4, 2007 @ 2:29 pm - July 4, 2007
how can we be surprised? bushco’s legacy will forever be the iraq war, his gross incompetence in running the nation. and his immorality in choosing his loyal lemmings in positions where they’re unqualified. this is just another fine example of what poor leadership he’s displayed.
george w. bush = traitor. he needs to be charged for his treasonous crimes and executed if found guilty.
Comment by rightiswrong — July 4, 2007 @ 3:56 pm - July 4, 2007
Not of perjury. Nor of obstruction of justice. Not of a felony. Indeed not of any criminality at all.
Yawn.
U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright found President Bill Clinton in civil contempt of court Monday for his “willful failure” to obey her repeated orders to testify truthfully in the Paula Jones sexual harassment lawsuit.
Wright has referred her ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court to see if any disciplinary action should be taken, CNN has learned.
“Simply put, the president’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. (Monica) Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false,” the judge wrote of Clinton’s January 17, 1998 deposition.
Knowing that, one wonders how things would have come out had Clinton had to face a REAL jury, instead of a gallery of paid leftists like Ian who were promised hundreds of thousands of dollars to find him “not guilty”.
Meanwhile, the rest of Ian’s ranting demonstrates that Mike Nifong was the norm, not an aberration among Democrats; Ian wants to charge Bush and Cheney with a crime, claim he has evidence, and then run the investigation in reverse — accuse and convict first, prove guilty later.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 4, 2007 @ 4:15 pm - July 4, 2007
#37: He was found in civil contempt. Like I said:
The Congress has every right to investigate Cheney and Bush and the best way to do that is via the impeachment process. I’d start with Cheney but I’d have no objection to practicing on Gonzo first.
Comment by Ian S — July 4, 2007 @ 4:31 pm - July 4, 2007
PEOPLE, the situation here is not difficult to decipher. The President commuted Libby’s sentence to avoid any wrath Libby might have unleashed against the Administration had he felt betrayed and gone to prison, but let the rest of the case intact so he himself could continue to use the appeals process to deflect questions about the matter. When Bush no longer needs that shield, he will then pardon Libby.
Now I obviously disagree with the President’s actions. I believe he is obstructing justice to conceal his own role. But he’ll probably get away with it.
Comment by Chase — July 4, 2007 @ 7:33 pm - July 4, 2007
How many thousands or millions of dollars will be wasted with these pointless investigations while so many children go to bed hungry or undereducated or under healthcared? How sad that in this day and age so much money can be wasted on witch hunts and so little attention is paid to the needy and poor children by the leftists.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 4, 2007 @ 9:47 pm - July 4, 2007
I wonder what the leftists think of Hillary on the same stage as a convicted criminal who has lost his law license? Shame. All the smiles and back slapping. hehe
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — July 4, 2007 @ 9:49 pm - July 4, 2007
#41:
Convicted of what exactly?
Comment by Ian S — July 4, 2007 @ 11:37 pm - July 4, 2007
Some gems to address:
Uh, yeah. Libby’s not an elected politician, so why shouldn’t he accept the donations of his friends. You’re just pissed because nobody will loan you money. Them’s the breaks.
He cut off Chucky Schumer’s balls and handed them to him. Sounds brilliant, if you ask me.
Well, Iantard, supposedly the liberals give a damn about national security and believe the fantasy that somehow the Valerie Wilson “leak” was detrimental to it. Nevermind they’ve never explained how, but I digress. As I said earlier, the NYT actually did something to compromise national security and Sandy Burglar tampered with documents, evidence in a national security investigation.
Therefore, your disinterest in Sandy Burglar leads me to conclude that neither you nor any other candy ass liberal could give a rotten damn about national security. Up to, and including Valerie Wilson. The whole thing was a game of “Gotcha” instigated by Chucky Schumer and the drive-by media whom, as it turns out, have lost. Tough titties.
O.k. So explain to me how that jibes with the Tom DeLay kerfuffle. Extra Credit: Explain to me how going through SIX grand juries to get the indictment you want is justice.
Let’s not forget that BJ is a lobbyist now with experience working for the Saudis and the most evil Dubai. He was one trying to get the Dubai Ports deal pushed through.
So now Hillary has a paid lobbyist on her staff. Is that what we call cleaning up the “culture of corruption”?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 5, 2007 @ 1:05 am - July 5, 2007
Would this be the legislation proposed by Jesse Jackson Jr. after being denied his pork for an airport that doesn’t exist? You know, the same guy who practically ran people down so he could get a photo op with Bush after the SOTU?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 5, 2007 @ 5:53 am - July 5, 2007
Comment by Will — July 5, 2007 @ 6:28 am - July 5, 2007
My dear, silly, ignorant libtard,
You have unwittingly proven that it is not Republicans, but corrupt Democrats who abhor the rule of law, and see the judicial process as just another political tool to bend to their corrupt partisan purposes.
Is there any question that Bill Clinton lied under oath? Absolutely not. Only a moron and politcal hack of monumental proportions would suggest otherwise.
1) Clinton admitted that he lied.
2) Clinton was disbarred by the US Supreme Court for his perjury.
3) Clinton was disbarred and fined $25,000 by the State of Arkansas Bar Association for his perjury.
4) The entire Supreme Court of the United States, including all the liberal lefties, boycotted Clintons State of the Union to protest his perjury.
5) Even the Congressional Democrats who defended him admitted he committed perjury and obstruction of justice.
So given the incontrovertable fact that Bill Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice, all your argument proves is that
1) corrupt Democrats were more concerned with their political power than they were holding a member of their party accountable to the laws they admit he violated, and
2) You are yourself corrupt, dishonest and a political hack of monumental proportions.
Comment by Will — July 5, 2007 @ 6:29 am - July 5, 2007
But what I really want to know is if the liberals, including Kevin, Ian, Chase etc. support full prosecution of Algore III for yet another posession of weed and posession of Valium, Xanax, Vicodin, Adderall and Soma?
Or will you circle the wagons and blame Bush/Cheney/Rove blahblahblah yakity smakity?
Footnote: Actually, if it’s a small amount, I wouldn’t blame him for having some Valium and/or Xanax. I’d always have some on hand if I were the son of the global warmism high priest. The rest is out of bounds and clearly, he’s trafficking.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 5, 2007 @ 6:30 am - July 5, 2007
I would also remind you that President Bush has not pardoned Libby, he has commuted the jail sentence, leaving in place the $250,000 fine. The fine alone is still well within sentencing guidelines.
The part I love (aside from apoplectic libtards rending their clothes and gnashing their teeth) is that the same hysterical libtards who laughably claim to be concerned for the rule of law and accountability have yet, even all these months later, to demand that Richard Armitage, the man who perpetrated the supposed crime under investigation be brought to justice.
Yet more incontestable proof that liberals are corrupt to the core and abuse and damage the justice system for their partisan political gain.
Oh and by the way, Bush didnt pardon Libby so that Libby can continue the appeals process and have this ridiculous and entirely political conviction overturned.
Comment by Will — July 5, 2007 @ 7:03 am - July 5, 2007
And who says it’s a ridiculous and political decision? None other than the excrutiatingly left-wing Alan Dershowitz:
Comment by Will — July 5, 2007 @ 7:08 am - July 5, 2007
The really obnoxious part about this is that the political class cares more about the reduction of Scooter Libby’s sentence than the real challenges our country is facing. It’s not as if we don’t have real problems with terrorism, border security, energy security, global competition, and the imminent insolvency of social security and Medicare.
But does Congress want to work on these real problems? No. They just want to hold hearings on Scooter Libby and Alberto Gonzales that serve no purpose other than embarrassing the president. While their braindead partisan shills cheer from the sidelines.
This isn’t a legislative body, this is the Court of Versailles, acting out a high school quality production of Dangerous Liaisons. They are elites playing games with other elites, not giving a damn about the future of the country or the well-being of its citizens.
The amazing part is that their approval rating is as high as it is: 14%.
Comment by V the K — July 5, 2007 @ 7:24 am - July 5, 2007
Web Reconnaissance for 07/05/2007…
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often….
Trackback by The Thunder Run — July 5, 2007 @ 10:39 am - July 5, 2007
“The amazing part is that their approval rating is as high as it is: 14%.”
No, V – what is amazing is that Bush’s approval rating is twice that of Congress’. But you will never see the MSM put it in that perspective.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 5, 2007 @ 11:21 am - July 5, 2007
#52 FYI, NBC put it in that perpective just 3 weeks ago. I would hazard a guess other MSM outlets have as well. Stop being such a nincompoop.
Comment by David — July 5, 2007 @ 4:20 pm - July 5, 2007
#53 – A nincompoop? That’s a new one.
So NBC “put it in that perspective just 3 weeks ago.” Big deal – a broken clock is right at least twice a day.
Your posting is Exhibit A in that scenario.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 5, 2007 @ 4:25 pm - July 5, 2007
#53:
Ha! That’ll be the day. Be careful, else Peetie’ll start yammering to you about his fantasies of massive hardons
BTW, I don’t know where the 14% approval rating is coming from but Congress’ lack of popularity seems due mostly to distaste for the GOP: more than half approve of the Dems while more than half disapprove of the Repubs.
Comment by Ian S — July 5, 2007 @ 6:04 pm - July 5, 2007
So much for Wonder Woman’s claim of “refusing to comment further.”
Another promise broken by a Dhimmicrat. Miracles never cease.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 5, 2007 @ 6:06 pm - July 5, 2007
Oh-oh, Massive Constitutional Scholar/Historian and All-Round Nincompoop is starting to fantasize about me again.
Comment by Ian S — July 5, 2007 @ 7:08 pm - July 5, 2007
I don’t know if “Wonder Woman” is quite fair. I mean, she was in her satin tights, fighting for her rights, and the old red white and blue.” Occasionally, WW thought for herself. Ian’s more of a trained parrot who just squawks “Democrats Good, Republicans Bad.”
Lately, it’s been less spin and more outright denial than Clay Aiken at a highway rest stop. Maybe because his beloved Democrats’ corruption, incompetence, and hypocrisy have become so blatant, not even Wonder Woman can spin them now.
Comment by V the K — July 5, 2007 @ 8:29 pm - July 5, 2007
#46:
Since he was acquitted by the Senate and never indicted for perjury or obstruction of justice by anyone else, only a dolt – or perhaps a massive nincompoop – could imagine that it’s an “incontrovertable fact that Bill Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice.”
Comment by Ian S — July 5, 2007 @ 10:25 pm - July 5, 2007
I, for one, am horrified by some of the rationals of those defending Libby. Libby was convicted, by a jury of his peers, of lying to the FBI and grand jury on several occasions in order to obfuscate an ongoing investigation. Unlike those of us on the outside, including myself, who were getting bits of information from various sources that was often framed (pun intended) to either convey Libby’s guilt (Keith Olberman) or his innocence (Just One Minute), the jury heard ALL of the evidence, and decided that Libby had committed 4 of the 5 offenses he was charged with. Maybe you could defend his innocence if this were one measly trumped-up charge, but we are looking at four counts of conviction here.
On the argument that the conviction was political, Orin Kerr, at the conservative / libertarian law blog “The Volokh Conspiracy”, simply and elegantly blows that ship out of the water. His view on the case being “purely political”:
He also had something to say about the Amitage cop-out and Alan Dershowitz’s apparent ability to read the jugde’s mind. And lets not forget that Dersh was a member of the OJ dream team. Yes, that’s a bit of a cheap shot on my part, but it also reflects a bit on Dersh’s character.
There is no “Left-Wing Conspiracy” here. Do we conservatives really want to start sounding like a bad echo of Hillary Clinton?
And while I’m ranting and mentioning Hillary, the whole “Well, Clinton did this”, or “he / she did that” meme is getting very tiresome. I have always stood firm on the point that I didn’t care that Clinton lied to me, his wife or family, or the American people. It was his lying to the Grand Jury that justified the impeachment. Had Clinton been allowed to stand in front of a real jury, as Libby had, I think the outcome would have been the same. Besides, at least Clinton had the good sense of not pardoning Susan McDougal while she was still enmeshed in the legal process.
On the “charges were never brought or proven for leaking the CIA operative’s identity” – I must remind you all that Al Capone was never convicted of murder, and Clinton was never charged with any of the shady deals involving Whitewater. It does not matter that charges for the original suspected crime were never brought, the act of deceiving the FBI or Grand Jury, as in the Martha Stewart case (erased a tape if you remember), leaves you open to these type of convictions.
Bruce, V, NDT, TGC, et. al. I love you guys and you are often a rock of sensibility offering a handhold in wishy-washy liberal choppy waters. But when, in defending Libby and the commutation, you offer up the same arguments / defenses used by the Clintonistas during the impeachment process, I have to wonder if my rock has turned out to be a huge sea turtle ready to dive or swim away. Republicans is supposed to be the party that, above all, honored and respected the law. What happened?
PS. On that last statement, Ian will surely come back with something “Nixon”
Comment by sonicfrog — July 6, 2007 @ 1:57 am - July 6, 2007
#59
So why did Jimmy Carter refer to Clinton as “Disgraceful”?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — July 6, 2007 @ 2:11 am - July 6, 2007
sonicfrog, please note that I (Dan not Bruce) wrote this post and I pretty much agree with all you have to say.
I support the commutation primarily because the president can either commute a sentence or offer a pardon. He cannot ask that a sentene be delayed until the appeals process been exhausted.
It seems that the judge excluded evidence which would have allowed the defense to bolster its case about Libby’s inability to remember. From what I’ve read, it seems the exclusion was improper
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 6, 2007 @ 3:46 am - July 6, 2007
Sonicfrog,
Actually, it’s very clear that the ruling that Libby must serve his jail sentence immediately is completely political. That ruling was highly irregular and contradicts the judicial doctrine of “irreparable harm”.
In other words, if Libby’s jail term waits until the appeals process is over, and Libby loses, there is no harm done, Libby still goes to jail and serves the full sentence.
However, if Libby is forced to serve his sentence before the appeals process has played out, and his appeal succeeds and his conviction is overturned, it is too late, Libby has already lost 30 months that he will never get back.
This is what is excessive about Libby’s sentence, its highly irregular, it contradicts existing law and legal doctrine, and there is no rational explanation for it other than the decision was political.
Comment by Will — July 6, 2007 @ 5:20 am - July 6, 2007
SF, I think my position in “defending Libby” has been pretty balanced. On the one hand, I think he could have avoided prosecution by pleading the fifth and playing dumb, a la Hillary, instead of cooperating with the investigation and falling into a perjury trap. So, I do think the sentence was too harsh. I don’t really feel sorry for him because politics is blood sport, and that’s the price you pay for getting too close to power.
But, on the other hand, I think Ramos and Compean were given much worse time for much less crime (interfering with a Mexican drug-smuggling operation is apparently a no-no under Bush) and the Bush Administration is content to let them rot. And that infuriates me
Besides, Libby has a wife and two children. Were we not constantly lectured during the immigration debate that it was wrong to tear families apart over little things like breaking the law?
I also agree with Dan that the prosecution stacked the deck, and I think Fitzgerald was especially sleazy in not letting the defense argue that there was no underlying crime at trial, but then turning around and asserting the underlying crime at sentencing. But that’s a typical sleazy turn by a prosecutor. I note that Johnny Sutton did something similar at the Ramos and Compean trial by refusing to let the defense inform the jury about the drug-smuggling activities of the poor undocumented immigrant who was just trying to get a better life in America (with 400 pounds of Tijuana Gold in his van). But lawyers are sleazy? What’cha gonna do about it? Nothing, that’s what.
Comment by V the K — July 6, 2007 @ 5:48 am - July 6, 2007
Also, if I didn’t make it clear. I don’t think the Scooter Libby thing is really a big deal in the great scheme of things. There are vastly more important issues that are being swept under the rug while the political class postures and bloviates over this non-event.
Comment by V the K — July 6, 2007 @ 7:23 am - July 6, 2007
#61:
That was for the Marc Rich pardon, I believe.
Comment by Ian S — July 6, 2007 @ 10:51 am - July 6, 2007
And now the latest – looks like Shrillary is minus a campaign financier.
Will he get prosecuted? And will Bush commute his sentence if he is found guilty?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 6, 2007 @ 12:08 pm - July 6, 2007
Various People said:
“It seems that the judge excluded evidence which would have allowed the defense to bolster its case about Libby’s inability to remember.”
“…I think Fitzgerald was especially sleazy in not letting the defense argue that there was no underlying crime at trial, but then turning around and asserting the underlying crime at sentencing…”
“Actually, it’s very clear that the ruling that Libby must serve his jail sentence immediately is completely political. That ruling was highly irregular and contradicts the judicial doctrine of “irreparable harm””
On the first point. What evidence was this? You offer no links or explaination for that assumption. The “faulty memory” defense almost always looks pathetic when trotted out by people with Libby’s career and educational background. I didn’t buy it with Ollie North or Hillary, and I don’t buy it here. Libby had PLENTY of time to recall and sort out those events in question; it’s not like they suddenly pulled him from the street and gave him a pop quiz on the matter. Libby, with the help of his lawyers, crafted the answers to the questions crafted by the FBI, and those answers were supposed to be honest and forthright. They were not. They contradicted those given by everyone else. He lied. It was proven in court. If you want to be pissed, be pissed at the lawyers who presented this weak defense. William Ottis, former federal prosecutor and special counsel for President George H.W. Bush, writes in the the article linked by Dan:
That, from a former prosecutor associated with the Bush family, sounds pretty sure to me.
As to it being “very clear that the ruling that Libby must serve his jail sentence immediately is completely political”… Bold statement – Prove it! Just because you don’t agree with the way this thing turned out, and you don’t get the reasons why it did, does not automatically make the offending results “Political”. Again I refer to Orin Kerrs Volokh piece, in which he establishes that almost all the judicial parties involved in this case are Bush appointees, and would seem to have no ax to grind.
Second point: is this truely an uncommon procedure in the course of a legal proceeding? I so far have found no evidence to back that assertion. And since the first Libby appeal was concisely denied, which certainly must have included an argument noting the procedures that took place in the sentencing phase, I suspect this accusation has no legal merit.
As for the concept of “irreparable harm”. “Irreparable Harm” is a very loose concept usually dealing with procedural issues vs personal rights or monetary considerations. I’m not sure where Irreparable Harm came into the case at hand, but if it was used by his lawyers as a rational for keeping Libby out of jail pending appeal, again, you should be pissed at his lawyers, not the judge or the prosecutor. How is Libby’s sitting in the pokey pending appeal any different than the vast majority of people who are convicted of a crime? It’s not as if most people convicted of a crime never go to jail right after the sentencing phase is done? The “Irreparable Harm” in this case was inflicted on the Bush administrations reputation by Libby’s obfuscation, and now because of it the administration looks more culpable to the accusation that they intentionally leaked Plame’s identity knowing she was covert.
Comment by sonicfrog — July 6, 2007 @ 1:21 pm - July 6, 2007
sonicfrog in #68, when I get a moment, I will find the link to the piece I read on the exclusion of the memory expert from the Libby trial. I’ve even been quite busy these past few days — and that issue is not the easiest thing to google.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — July 6, 2007 @ 1:28 pm - July 6, 2007
In #67, Massive Nincompoop really earns his name:
Really, “the latest”? Check the date on the link and you’ll see it’s from January, 2005. For the math-challenged such as yourself, that’s 2 1/2 years ago. LOL!
Comment by Ian S — July 6, 2007 @ 4:52 pm - July 6, 2007
#68: On the need for a memory expert: here’s an article on what went on when they were deciding on witnesses prior to the trial. It’s sounds like Libby’s team employed a poor advocate for the need for a memory expert and Fitz expertly dismantled her credibility. So maybe it was a screwup on the part of Libby’s legal team but after all those death row inmates with lousy legal representation that Bush executed in Texas, it would seem a bit difficult to expect a successful appeal simply because Scooter’s legal team f#cked up.
Comment by Ian S — July 6, 2007 @ 5:22 pm - July 6, 2007
#70 – Okay, Wonder Woman Know-it-All, if this story is so “stale” then explain why Rush was talking about it today.
As Paulie likes to say, “I await your detailed response.”
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 6, 2007 @ 6:06 pm - July 6, 2007
M.N. in #72:
Hmmm. Maybe because he’s as clueless as you are? Maybe he’s back on oxycontin?
Comment by Ian S — July 6, 2007 @ 8:25 pm - July 6, 2007
Ah, well. What’s really amusing is that Wonder Woman, who’s been in a complete snit all week over the reduction in Scooter Libby’s sentence, is completely okay with Hilldog having the convicted perjuror and bribe-taker Alcee Hastings as her campaign co-chair. To the Princess of Paradise Island, whatever a Democrat does is always okay and above reproach.
Comment by V the K — July 6, 2007 @ 9:57 pm - July 6, 2007
The President or Governor has the power to commute or pardon those punishments he deems excessive or unfair… that is part of their duty, that IS THE RULE OF LAW!
This is why we should ask those tough questions to those we elect to those offices before we cast our votes.
I know I don’t want a Democrat to have those powers again, especially Hillary. If she does get it, I’d bet right now that she’ll beat Bills pardon tally when she’s headed out the door with all the silverware again.
Comment by Good vs. Evil — July 7, 2007 @ 9:41 am - July 7, 2007
Wonder Woman vomits re the story about Shrillary’s former finance chair being indicted:
“Maybe because he’s [Rush] as clueless as you are? Maybe he’s back on oxycontin?”
What I’d like to know is what type of drugs you are taking in order to be so bass-ackwards? Or is it just inherent in your DNA?
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — July 8, 2007 @ 3:33 pm - July 8, 2007