“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.

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.

if this story is so “stale” then explain why Rush was talking about it today.

Hmmm. Maybe because he’s as clueless as you are? Maybe he’s back on oxycontin?

As Paulie likes to say, “I await your detailed response.”

Regards,
Peter H.

And now the latest – looks like Shrillary is minus a campaign financier.

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!

“It seems that the judge excluded evidence which would have allowed the defense to bolster its case about Libby’s inability to remember.”

“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:

“U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton noted that there was ample evidence that Libby intentionally lied. Jurors took care (they did not convict on all counts), and the evidence before them makes it hard to believe that Libby’s misstatements were merely a product of poor memory or confusion. The case was proved, and the conviction should not simply be wiped away.”

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.

Will he get prosecuted? And will Bush commute his sentence if he is found guilty?

Regards,
Peter H.

So why did Jimmy Carter refer to Clinton as “Disgraceful”?

That was for the Marc Rich pardon, I believe.

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.

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.

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

So why did Jimmy Carter refer to Clinton as “Disgraceful”?

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”:

I find this argument seriously bizarre. As I understand it, Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as “overwhelming” and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. And yet the claim, as I understand it, is that the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration.

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”

So given the incontrovertable fact that Bill Clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice, all your argument proves

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.”

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.