Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence

[GrayMatterWife]

Richard Armitage, the former Deputy Secretary of Defense, outed her in a discussion with Robert Novak. That outing, however, wasn't an illegal "leak." Being outed isn't alone illegal: pursuant to the Intelligence Identity Protection Act, federal law prohibits government officials from disclosing names of undercover operatives when the disclosing individual knew at the time of the disclosure that the person was undercover. It's pretty much undisputed that Armitage didn't know PLame was undercover (that's why he wasn't prosecuted for the outing). He got Plame's name from a memo and that memo didn't indicate that she was undercover. So while she didn't "out" herself, but no law was broken, either, in the way she was outed. That's why the US Attorney had no case regarding the purported underlying crime. If everybody in the Bush administration had just shut the heck up, and stopped worrying about what the press claimed it was (the press usually has zero understanding of anything legal, especially federal or constitutional law) and dealt with what actually had happened, they could have stopped the chaos. But at the time, they didn't know what was going on. Armitage had stepped down as Deputy Secretary about a year before and it didn't become known that he was the source of the leak until months later.

So even though their intent was to get retribution against Plame's husband for speaking truth about WMD / yellow cake in Niger, they could have legally done what they did. It's just too bad that their circus of "brilliant" legal minds such as Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales were too busy to help quiet the situation down. He still lied about it to prosecutors, which is a crime. If he was too ill-informed to know he didn't have to lie, that's too bad.

It's still all disgusting and dirty. And I have trouble swallowing indignation at "politically driven" investigations, since that seems to be the modus operandi of the RNC.

Harriet Miers is actually a really brilliant woman. She's gotten a bad rap from a lot of people who don't know her at all. They just like to call her dumb because she did not go to an East Coast law school (although she did extremely well at Southern Methodist and had an amazing private practice career). I do know her. Unfortunately, her demeanor comes off as soft-spoken in Washington, which is weird, because she's totally kick as$ in private practice. For whatever reason, she just didn't translate well in public. Would I have put her up for the Supremes? No, especially not with some of the other alternatives. But that doesn't mean she's dumb. She's extremely accomplished and really cut a path for women when women weren't welcome in the overgrown jungle of the Texas good-ol' boy lawyers.

Not sure what to say about re: the thoughts on Alberto Gonzales. There is no evidence he lied to any federal investigators about anything. He hasn't been charged. It hasn't been suggested that he be criminally charged with anything. I believe his problem isn't in regards to the Libby debacle: it's in regards to the firings of the United States Attorneys. There are allegations that he fired them for political purposes. Which, while unpalletable (but done by every administration), is not a crime.

[DCJenn]

the Gonzales debacle as far as I can tell isn't even really about the firings, which of course it totally fine- it was his myriad of answers about the firings that raised eyebrows.

I think if he had initially come out and said, 'look, they were fine lawyers but we didn't think they fit with our mindset" he would have probably been fine.

It was the backpeddling and the not being able to recall after everyone who worked for him said 1) he knew what was going on and 2) approved it. And of course claiming that lawyers who had just had glowing reviews were bad lawyers...

Jenn

[GrayMatterWife]

i didnt read thru all of this thread...and i dont pay attention to politics much...but im just wondering..and correct me if im wrong...

didnt bush and or his peeps PICK the prosecution that convicted libby? his own people and he overturned the ruling? :huh:

Short answers:

1. Mr. Fitzgerald was a "special prosecutor." Pursuant to federal law, a special prosecutor must be chosen from outside the government. Neither Bush nor the DOJ selected him.

2. The prosecution does not convict the defendant. The jury does. The jury, of course, is selected by the federal voir dire method, overseen by the trial judge, and is wholly independent of the Bush administration.

3. Bush did not overturn the ruling. That is, the jury's conviction of Libby stands, as does the nonconfinement portion of his sentence that he must serve (probation and $250K fine). Bush technically can't "overrule" the jury. What he can do is either: (1) pardon Libby (meaning that the conviction would have no legal effect), or (2) commute the sentence (that is, the conviction has a legal effect but the exact sentence has been modified). All presidents have this discretion. This is why Clinton had that big headache with Marc Rich...and this is why Ford had a headache after pardoning Nixon. Political enemies hate this power and constantly suggest that the President is "abusing" the power. However, legally, the President cannot commit abuse through pardon or commutation. This discretion is absolute.

[GrayMatterWife]

the Gonzales debacle as far as I can tell isn't even really about the firings, which of course it totally fine- it was his myriad of answers about the firings that raised eyebrows.

I think if he had initially come out and said, 'look, they were fine lawyers but we didn't think they fit with our mindset" he would have probably been fine.

It was the backpeddling and the not being able to recall after everyone who worked for him said 1) he knew what was going on and 2) approved it. And of course claiming that lawyers who had just had glowing reviews were bad lawyers...

Jenn

100% in agreement! When are people ever going to learn: most of the time, it's not the ACT that gets you in trouble...it's the lame-as$ attempts to "cover it up"! If you didn't commit a crime, suck up the tough call and just admit to what you did and why! Not like any of Gonzales's detractors were going to hate him any less...

[DCJenn]

GreyMatterWife-

It think people are much more comfortable with absolutes which is why everyone starts getting all wishy-washy during election seasons and trying to parse out their responses.

Good Lord, when will they realize that:

1) It's ok to have an opinion
2) It's OK to change your mind about that opinion
3) It's NOT ok to change your opinon based on 'the base'- conservative OR liberal.

I hate this appealing to the minority bs that we're subjected to every election.

Generally, this group, which I think is probably pretty representative of the rest of the country is pretty socially liberal (i.e. it's ok to have some kind of safety nets for our poorest and disabled and elderly citizens) and fiscally concervative (i.e. please stop this pork- and all of Congress is guilty- no matter what their leanings)

Most of us have figured out that there are grey areas to most issues and those unfortunately tend to get washed over thanks to the soundbite mentality. 24 hour news is no great thing when 23 hours of it is talking heads.

Jenn

[PrincessFiona]

24 hour news is no great thing when 23 hours of it is talking heads.

Jenn

I know...this is exactly why I don't listen to the news anymore...and remember what an addict I was a couple of years ago?

Basically (in reference to the original question)

Libby was convicted on 4 charges including 1 count of obstruction, two counts of perjury and another count of lying to the FBI. graymatterwife, what kills me about your WAHOO response is that I bet if Bill Clinton had been completely cleared that you would have been furious. After all, he lied under oath...he perjured himself.

Remember that Martha Stewart did hard time for *lying* about her financial dealings...she wasn't actually convicted of insider trading either...everyone knew she did it, but they couldn't prove it....but i digress....

How is Libby different than Clinton? I don't think Clinton should have lied either.

Libby also didn't lie about a blow job..he lied about things that he did as a part of his official responsibilities in the White House (more specifically, working for Dick Cheney).

The bottom line is that Libby was convicted of a felony....

That was punishable by up to 25 years in prison...but he only got 2.5 years...and he should have served it with dignity just like Martha did...and just like you and I would have to do since we don't have the president as our trump card to get us out of our little messes.

President Bush said that he would fire anyone who broke the law. He wants to be "tough on crime". He "welcomed" the probe into the CIA leak. Then, he didn't like it that one of his friends was convicted.

He didn't overturn the conviction...so he didn't necessarily disagree that he was guilty. He just made sure that his buddy didn't have to do time in jail.

That, in my opinion, is criminal...and it has nothing to do with my political affiliations.

[GrayMatterWife]

It think people are much more comfortable with absolutes which is why everyone starts getting all wishy-washy during election seasons and trying to parse out their responses.

Good Lord, when will they realize that:

1) It's ok to have an opinion
2) It's OK to change your mind about that opinion
3) It's NOT ok to change your opinon based on 'the base'- conservative OR liberal.

It's OK to change your mind...based on additional facts or more thought on a matter????

That just the kind of earthquake-inducing idea that will completely destablize American politics!! What will happen if our politicians cannot be safely and conveniently compartmentalized into stereotypical belief systems, for easy consumption by late night humorists? :horror:

[GrayMatterWife]

24 hour news is no great thing when 23 hours of it is talking heads.

Jenn

graymatterwife, what kills me about your WAHOO response is that I bet if Bill Clinton had been completely cleared that you would have been furious. After all, he lied under oath...he perjured himself.
.

He was cleared. He was impeached but not convicted.

And, for the record, since you've made a suggestion about what I might think, my reaction was pretty much like everyone else's: why are we embarrassing ourselves before the world on this impeachment? Impeachment is usually reserved for crimes of greater significance. Everyone knew it would go nowhere and would serve only to undermine the Office of the President.

[GrayMatterWife]

GrayMatterWife....I like you.

I love talking politics. It is so great that we live in a country where people still get fired up. In a lot of the world, people are either apathetic or (worse!) oppressed.

I'll circle back later today or tomorrow and see what other thoughts have popped up. It's so hot-button. All the talk on the news this morning. I've been having so much fun listening to it all and reading this site, etc. that I haven't gotten any work done this morning...!!

[PrincessFiona]

I'm not really a fan of Huffington, but I think this is a good article...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/swopa/why ... 54784.html



On September 30, 2003, just after the investigation into the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson began, President George Bush said:

"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is . . . If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."


We now know exactly what he meant. (And someone needs to make sure the video of Bush saying that gets in the hands of every TV network news producer -- as well as every Democratic presidential campaign.)

As the right-wing Wurlitzer cranks up to canonize the Shrub-in-Chief for commuting the sentence of poor, suffering Scooter here's a few talking points (hopefully concise enough for use with friends and family) that may help convey why Libby was the only person prosecuted in the Plame investigation -- and why Dubya's act yesterday aided and abetted Libby's obstruction of justice:

Bogus Spin #1: Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald went after Libby even after learning that Richard Armitage had been Bob Novak's "primary source" for his column outing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee.

Wrong. Armitage made his admission in early October 2003, nearly three months before Fitzgerald was appointed. So it should be clear that Fitzgerald wasn't appointed just to find out who leaked to Novak. In fact, this means that -- even with Armitage's confession in hand -- there was so much evidence of wrongdoing that a longtime GOP loyalist like John Ashcroft felt he had no choice but to recuse himself and allow the appointment of a special counsel.

Bogus Spin #2: Even so, Libby wasn't the only one who leaked about Plame.

Maybe not, but it turns out that every other Bush administration who leaked did so with information they got as a result of Libby's actions. Ari Fleischer testified during Scooter's trial that Libby told him over lunch about Plame working for the CIA, and Karl Rove reportedly told a similar story to the grand jury that indicted Libby. Meanwhile, Armitage and Bushite press flack Dan Bartlett both found out through a State Department memo that was produced in response to questions that Libby had asked a top department official about Wilson's trip to Niger. If Libby (and his boss, Dick Cheney) had been content to reply to Wilson's criticisms on their merits rather than by rattling cages in search of fodder for personal attacks, none of the other officials would ever have been able to leak about Plame.

Bogus Spin #3: The trial was just Libby's word against that of a bunch of reporters.

Although three reporters did testify, they were preceded on the stand by six different government officials who each testified to having conversations with Libby about Joe Wilson's wife before the date when Libby first claimed to have heard it from a reporter. It was these officials' testimony, more than that of the reporters, that convicted Libby.

Bogus Spin #4: Libby was convicted for having a faulty memory.

It's never mentioned in the mainstream media, but Scooter didn't just "forget" telling reporters about Joe Wilson's wife working for the CIA, and deny it when he really had told them.

No, Libby's "faulty memory" caused him not only to deny where he had learned about Plame -- a note produced in the trial showed Vice President Cheney had told him she worked in the Counterproliferation Department of the CIA (where the majority of employees are covert) -- but to invent stories saying he HAD leaked to reporters when he hadn't. He claimed to have been the first to tell Matt Cooper about Wilson's wife, thereby covering up the fact that Karl Rove had done so. And he shielded Fleischer by falsely claiming to have told the Post's Glenn Kessler as well, apparently trying to cover for the Post's October 12, 2003 report that a journalist for the Post (who turned out to be Walter Pincus) had been leaked to -- a news story that was found, with key passages underlined, in Libby's files.

Thus Libby was convicted not just of perjury but of intentionally lying in order to obstruct the investigation. And what George Bush did yesterday was intended to make sure he got away with it.

[reciprocity]

pursuant to the Intelligence Identity Protection Act, federal law prohibits government officials from disclosing names of undercover operatives when the disclosing individual knew at the time of the disclosure that the person was undercover.

Based on the record, Armitage wasn't the only disclosing source, and the IIPA isn't the only relevant statute.

But the important thing is that whether there was an "actual crime" is a smokescreen, and has no bearing on whether the Libby trial was a miscarriage of justice.

Fitzgerald did his job, a jury convicted the guy, a judge sentenced him, and then the appellate court denied his appeal. I'm as much of a legal realist as the next guy, but I find it hard to believe that there was anything legally wrong with the case fundamentally.

Even Bork et al could, at most, complain about a US Atty from the Northern District of Illinois being appointed to a "principal officer" position without Presidential approval.

But, I mean, in the end it's discretionary, so whatver.

[GrayMatterWife]

Thoughts in response in CAPS below, plus new question at bottom in regular font:

pursuant to the Intelligence Identity Protection Act, federal law prohibits government officials from disclosing names of undercover operatives when the disclosing individual knew at the time of the disclosure that the person was undercover.

Based on the record, Armitage wasn't the only disclosing source, and the IIPA isn't the only relevant statute.

HE WAS THE SOURCE OF THE ARTICLE THAT BLEW HER COVER, THOUGH. LEAKING IS IS A ONE SHOT DEAL. YOU CAN DO IT ONLY ONCE. ONCE THE SECRET'S OUT, IT'S NO LONGER A SECRET. SO ANYONE AFTER THAT WAS JUST INDISCREET, NOT LEAKING INFORMATION NOT PREVIOUS UNDISCLOSED.

THE IIPA IS THE MAIN STATUTE. THERE WAS ALSO A SUGGESTION THAT THE DISCLOSURE MAY HAVE BEEN TREASONOUS (IN VIOLATION OF THE ESPIONAGE ACT), BUT THAT IS A LOT TOUGHER TO PROVE AND GOT A LOT LESS AIRTIME DISCUSSION.

But the important thing is that whether there was an "actual crime" is a smokescreen, and has no bearing on whether the Libby trial was a miscarriage of justice.

I WOULDN'T ARGUE THAT LIBBY'S TRIAL WAS A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, ALTHOUGH I GUESS SOME PEOPLE DO. IF HE LIED, THEN BEING CONVICTED OF A CRIME RELATED TO THAT LIE IS NOT A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE--REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN PROSECUTED UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. MY POSITION IS THAT THE IMPOSITION OF HIS SENTENCE IS AN ABUSE OF JUSTICE (IN LEGAL JARGON UNDER US V. BOOKER, HIS SENTENCE IS "UNREASONABLE"). WHILE, TECHNICALLY, HIS CRIME IS PUNSHIABLE BY "UP TO 25 YEARS," UNDER THE US SENTENCING GUIDELINES, HIS ADVISORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES RANGE (BASED ON THE ALGORITHM CONGRESS SET FORTH FOR DETERMINING SENTENCES) IS WELL-BELOW THAT. IN FACT, AS THE OFFICE OF US PROBATION POINTED OUT IN THE PRESENTENCING REPORT, HE WAS RECOMMENDED FOR A NONCONFINEMENT SENTENCE. I ARGUE THAT, HAD THE JUDGE NOT BEEN COMPLETELY PISSED, THE COURT WOULD HAVE MORE PROPERLY SENTENCED LIBBY WITHIN THE RECOMMENDED RANGE.

Fitzgerald did his job, a jury convicted the guy, a judge sentenced him, and then the appellate court denied his appeal. I'm as much of a legal realist as the next guy, but I find it hard to believe that there was anything legally wrong with the case fundamentally.

I AGREE. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HIS CONVICTION, AT LEAST THAT I CAN SEE. MAYBE I WOULDN'T HAVE MADE THE SAME EVIDENCE-ADMISSIONS CALLS THAT THE JUDGE MADE, BUT THE COURT OF APPEALS FOUND NO REVERSIBLE ERROR IN THE DECISIONS. I THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE PROSECUTOR MADE THE DECISION TO PROSECUTE HIM, BUT I CAN'T ARGUE THAT THE TRIAL ITSELF IS ILLEGITIMATE. YOU LIE TO FEDERAL INVESTIGATORS AND THE FEDERAL PROSECUTOR DECIDES TO GO AFTER YOU, YOU'RE IN TROUBLE AND YOU CAN'T USE THE IRONY OF NO UNDERLYING CRIME AS A DEFENSE.

Even Bork et al could, at most, complain about a US Atty from the Northern District of Illinois being appointed to a "principal officer" position without Presidential approval.

But, I mean, in the end it's discretionary, so whatver.

PRETTY MUCH. A LOT OF DISCRETIONARY CALLS WERE MADE BY SO MANY PEOPLE HERE THAT LEAD TO THIS RESULT: A DECISION NOT TO DISCLOSE HIMSELF AS THE SOURCE EARLIER (ARMITAGE); A DECISION NOT TO TELL THE TRUTH (LIBBY), AT LEAST SO SAYS THE JURY AND WITH WHICH I DO NOT ARGUE; A DECISION TO PROSECUTE (FITZGERALD); A DECISION NOT TO ADMIT CERTAIN TESTIMONY THAT WOULD HAVE REALLY HELPED LIBBY (THE JUDGE); A DECISION TO COMMUTE (PRESIDENT). ANY SINGLE ONE OF THESE DISCRETIONARY CALLS NOT BEING MADE WOULD HAVE COMPLETELY UP-ENDED THE WHOLE THING.

Unrelated to the comments above, I learned something new today about the commutation-request process. I heard that requests generally are not entertained when the convicted individual is in the appeals process. I know that Libby has exhausted his appeals to all but the Supremes, and I heard Bush note that Libby had "exhausted all appeals" yesterday...so I wonder if this means that Libby definitely won't be appealing to the Supremes? I wouldn't if I were him...take my chips off the table and go home...

[reciprocity]

wait, it is my understanding that perjury has a base offense level of 14 under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual. Now while Booker did say that any finding of fact which elevated the offense level must be ruled upon by the jury, under a Criminal History Category I, a base offense level 14 falls well within zone D and carries a recommended sentence of 15-21 months.

Likewise, the "Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice" adjustment (+2 offense levels) was found beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury.

Maybe I'm looking at the wrong sentencing guidelines (http://www.ussc.gov/2006guid/gl2006.pdf), or interpreting them wrong. If you could cite to the guidelines you referenced, or let me know what finding of fact that elevated the offense level in the sentencing hearing was not presented to the jury, because I'm having a hard time following.

I was wondering about that myself. According to the Washington Post article, Libby IS appealing. If his sentence is upheld, would Bush then have to reissue a commutation or would the first still cover it? If it does, wouldn't Libby only be appealing the guilty conviction and the $250,000 fine at this point?

Let's see if I've got this right...Libby lied during the investigation of a CIA leak that exposed someone undercover, which was done in retalliation to the grumbling author whose report was twisted to justify the president's war. Libby was convicted by a jury for this, his sentence commuted by the president (who Libby lied for in the first place), ...

*begin Nathan Lane voice* : and everyone is OKAY with this?

:thud:

From the Washington Post, "Defense attorneys said that Libby had not sought to deceive investigators but had innocently misremembered what he knew and said about Plame,..."

misremembered - I'll have to remember that...