July 2, 2007

Bush Commutes Libby Sentence (updated)

This comes on the heels of earlier news that Libby’s appeal for a sentencing stay was denied, despite the 12 amicus briefs filed on his behalf. The court’s ruling was a single paragraph.

For Bush, this gambit comes at the perfect time, though I’m not sure how helpful it will be for Republicans in the long term; the President’s decision to commute the sentence should take the spotlight off of his Immigration Reform Bill debacle, at least for the time being — but it will also turn the public conversation to political favoritism, and already, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are positioning themselves for high moral dudgeon.

And, to add to the drama, Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Biden wants an outraged public (read: progressive partisans who want to keep their lone, pitiful, dishonestly acquired scalp) to dial-up the White House and express their OUTRAGE!

Hopefully, Republican presidential candidates can figure out a way to make this a campaign issue that works to their advantage — which I think they can do, if they are able to explain to people just what Libby was convicted of, and on the basis of what, precisely, that conviction was handed down. (Tim Russert, call your office, please.)

Because until that time, we’ll hear nothing from the press but the slowly ossifying “truth” that Libby “outed” a “covert” CIA agent — even though he wasn’t even the leaker, and even though Plame was not covert in any way that made the “outing” illegal under the IIPA.

For what it’s worth, my money is on Fred Thompson. Should he (ahem) ever announce.

Bush’s full statement is here, but the gist is, via the AP:

“My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby,” Bush said in a statement. “The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.’’

The president’s action means that Libby’s conviction still stands and he is still required to pay the $250,000 fine ordered by a federal judge.

This falls short of a pardon — and I suppose there’s still a chance that Bush will grant Libby the full pardon before exiting the White House, should Libby lose his appeal on the conviction. But if the President was going to take the kind of sustained heat he’s about to get from the press and Congressional Democrats, anyway — and believe me, they’ll be falling over themselves to get in front of a camera to talk about the Republican culture of corruption — he should have just done the right thing and pardoned Libby completely.

And yes, I believe a pardon is the right move, and that commuting the sentence is just another in the most recent string of Bush compromises. On the other hand, from a pragmatic perspective, it keeps alive the possibility that Libby succeeds in his appeal, so it’s not a bad political gamble, all things considered.

The one good thing to come out of all this? Is that Joe Wilson, it’s fair to say, will be none to happy:

In a recent interview with “In The Know TV,” a public affairs television show broadcast in the DC area, Joe Wilson — the husband of former CIA undercover agent Valerie Plame — spoke out about the potential pardoning of Scooter Libby.

Wilson argued, “Considering that this is an obstruction of justice case, and considering that the prosecutor has said repeatedly that there remains a cloud over the Vice President, it seems to me that those who are arguing for pardon are in fact accessories to an ongoing crime.” He said that until the cloud over Cheney is lifted, the ultimate crime cannot be said to have been punished.

Wilson also argued that Bush should recuse himself from any involvement with the Libby scandal. “The idea that the President would not recuse himself given the superior-subordinate relationship he had with Mr. Libby — and considering that it would be the first time that you would consider a pardon in a criminal investigation that involves perhaps the Office of the President, certainly the Office of the Vice President — would be totally inappropriate,” he said.

The idea the Wilson would talk about recusal given the superior-subordinate relationship he had with his wife — who orchestrated his being sent on the “fact-finding” mission that uncovered facts opposite to those he outlined in his infamous op-ed — speaks not only to his repulsive arrogance, but also to his failure to recognize an irony so clarified that it belongs in a ramekin next to a 5 lb lobster tail.

Tell me, does anybody have standing to sue this guy for wasting tax payer dollars — and for dividing the country with his transparent attempt to swing an election by publishing material that was later revealed to be one of a string of lies for which Wilson, unlike Libby, has not been prosecuted?

****
update: Well, I predicted the media would break out the “Libby outed Plame” falsehood, but I suppose a Democratic presidential hopeful and media darling Barack Obama will have to do:

This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law. This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people’s faith in a government that puts the country’s progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years.”

[my emphasis]

Well, not that he’s likely to take advice from me, but Obama might begin this restoration of “the American people’s faith in a government that puts the country’s progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years” by, first of all, not engaging in the very behavior he claims to condemn (he calls the Administration cynical and divisive while being cynical and divisive), and second of all, not mis-characterizing the crime or person who was convicted of it: Libby did absolutely nothing to compromise our “national security.” To say the he did is an unconscionable slander, one born either of ignorance or cynical opportunism.

If Obama is looking for the leaker, Fitzgerald found him: Richard Armitage. Who, incidentally, has never been prosecuted, and who is not, so far as I can tell, being accused, essentially, of being a traitor to his country.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 5:44pm
155 comments | Trackback

Comments (155)

  1. This comes on the heels of earlier news that Libby’s appeal was denied, despite the 12 amicus briefs filed on his behalf. The court’s ruling was a single paragraph.

    For clarity’s sake, it should be noted that it was the appeal of the denial of staying his sentence pending appeal of the conviction that was denied. That appeal is going forward. Which is why I think this was exactly the right move. I’d much rather see this get overturned, and I’m sure Libby would too. A pardon would make that moot.

  2. I have yet to hear a Media talking head ask Joe Wilson if he knows who Richard Armitage is…

  3. BTW, how was Libby subordinate to Bush? He was the Chief of Staff of Cheney, who was duly elected.

  4. …an irony so clarified that it belongs in a ramekin next to a 5 lb lobster tail.

    That’s fucking brilliant, by the way.

    ;^)

  5. Pablo — yeah, I was making that clarification as you were writing your comment.

  6. Four words: Lynne. Stewart. 28. Months.

  7. Did Sandy Burger have any comment?

  8. How about Sandy Burgler?

  9. I’ve worked up some Democratic talking points. They all seem so relevant, and yet…

  10. Do any of you lawyers know if Bush can change his mind and renege on the commutation? I’m not suggesting he will or that he should, but only wondering if he can.

  11. Scott, they’d be a tad more relevant if the question of guilt were still not in play, and even more so if the other perjurer in question had been prosecuted.

  12. Jeff — since I can’t find the e-mail button on this site anymore check this out

  13. I need to add a contact bit, I know. I’m at jeff -at- proteinwisdom-dot-com.

  14. This is a yawner. Until they slam and lock the greybar door on Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton the outraged liberals can all go f*ck themselves. I simply do not care how outraged they become.

  15. There is no caselaw on the question that I’ve seen. Its not a question that’s come up, but I expect that the President cannot.

  16. Sorry, that last was directed at Charles Austin.

  17. Scott, they’d be a tad more relevant if the question of guilt were still not in play, and even more so if the other perjurer in question had been prosecuted.

    Not really: they’re both cases in which it wasn’t any underlining crime but the perjury itself that’s at issue. The idea of perjury-qua-perjury as a crime seems to have shifted parties.

  18. Jeff wrote:

    I’m not sure how helpful it will be for Republicans in the long term; the President’s decision to commute the sentence should take the spotlight off of his Immigration Reform Bill debacle, at least for the time being — but it will also turn the public conversation to political favoritism, and already, Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer are positioning themselves for high moral dudgeon.

    Yes, over the July 4th holiday, when no one is paying attention.

    Not that anyone cares, if public opinion polls are any guide.

    And if the MSM wants to try to gin up interest (having failed to do so already), the GOP can simply demand that the MSM start asking Hillary the same sorts of questions about various outright pardons her husband handed out at the 11th hour.

  19. The idea of perjury-qua-perjury as a crime seems to have shifted parties.

    If that were the case, Libby would have been pardoned. He was not, and the case is still in play. Therein lies the difference.

    You read the Bush statement, right?

  20. Scott —

    The idea of perjury-qua-perjury as a crime seems to have shifted parties.

    Well, in addition to the differences Pablo notes, you fail to take into account, in your analysis, that many of the people who were Dems at the time have since shifted parties. For whatever that’s worth.

    Many current “conservative” readers of this site, for instance, voted for Clinton, I daresay. And maybe even Gore. God forgive them that latter transgression.

    At some point, many of us who thought of ourselves as “liberals” became classical liberals when the claim to “liberalism” was staked by progressives.

    I leave it to you to decide who is closer to, say, JFK, in terms of policy prescriptions, and the way he sees the US: Bush or John Kerry.

  21. Scott, the outcome of the Jones lawsuit wouldn’t be relevant to the Clinton-Lewinsky matter because at the time of the perjury the outcome of the lawsuit was still in question.

    Whereas, it’s been pretty well documented, I believe, that by the time Libby gave a version of events that differed from Chris Matthews’, the prosecutor not only already knew who had “leaked” Valerie Plame’s CIA employment status, but had even asked the real leaker not to tell anyone else it was him. Which means that by the time Libby committed the “offense” for which he was tried, the outcome of the “leak” investigation was already known by the prosecutor — though not to anyone else, thanks to said prosecutor.

    Slight difference, but a relevant one, I think.

  22. Pingback: Six Meat Buffet » Junior Gets One Right

  23. Charles, the commutation was done by Presidential Proclamation. I don’t know if that makes any difference. The actual Executive Clemency proclamation is on the whitehouse.gov page under Proclamations.

  24. Tell me, does anybody have standing to sue this guy for wasting tax payer dollars — and for dividing the country with his transparent attempt to swing an election by publishing material that was later revealed to be one of a string of lies for which Wilson, unlike Libby, has not been prosecuted?

    I dunno, Jeff, you’re the guy pretending to be a lawyer around here, why don’t you tell us.

  25. “Not really: they’re both cases in which it wasn’t any underlining crime but the perjury itself that’s at issue.”

    Clinton settled out of court, you cannot say there was no underlying crime in his case.

  26. If that were the case, Libby would have been pardoned. He was not, and the case is still in play. Therein lies the difference.

    That’s maneuvering on the Administration’s part — can’t tell yet whether it’s brilliant or boneheaded, however.

    Well, in addition to the differences Pablo notes, you fail to take into account, in your analysis, that many of the people who were Dems at the time have since shifted parties. For whatever that’s worth.

    So those who came to Clinton’s defense against perjury — that it was about a hummer — now come to Libby’s because it was about … who leaked Plame’s identity? Isn’t that worse instead of better?

    Whereas, it’s been pretty well documented, I believe, that by the time Libby gave a version of events that differed from Chris Matthews’, the prosecutor not only already knew who had “leaked” Valerie Plame’s CIA employment status, but had even asked the real leaker not to tell anyone else it was him.

    That’s I quoted the “rule of law” invocations from ’98 and ’99 — the specific consequences are less important than the moral precedent being set by allowing the perjury go unpunished. Only now, it seems, they’re not.

  27. Clinton settled out of court, you cannot say there was no underlying crime in his case.

    He was also found in contempt for his perjury, ordered to pay Jones’ costs because of it and disbarred. But not prosecuted.

  28. Clinton settled out of court, you cannot say there was no underlying crime in his case.

    People settle out of court all the time in order to avoid further legal entanglements. There’s a formal admission of guilt, I think, but that’s different than there having been an underlying crime. And with that, I’m out for the night. Let’s go Mets! (Sorry, Jeff.)

  29. That’s maneuvering on the Administration’s part — can’t tell yet whether it’s brilliant or boneheaded, however.

    So those who came to Clinton’s defense against perjury — that it was about a hummer — now come to Libby’s because it was about … who leaked Plame’s identity?

    No, we know who “leaked” Plame’s identity, ignoring for the moment that common knowledge cannot be leaked. That person is Richard Armitage, and there is no Armitage prosecution.

  30. Grrrrr….

    Jeff, if we don’t have a preview button, the terrorists have won.

  31. “People settle out of court all the time in order to avoid further legal entanglements. There’s a formal admission of guilt, I think, but that’s different than there having been an underlying crime.”

    The point is, Clinton was charged with sexual harassment and there was no final judgment of guilt or innocence regarding the case, so you cannot make any factual pronouncements regarding his guilt or innocence. No one was charged with any other crimes in the Libby case, the comparison you are making is invalid.

  32. I read on another site that upon hearing the announcement about Libby, Andrew Sullivan’s ass exploded spontaneously.

  33. Add judge Sentelle to the liberal conspiracy.

    “Because until that time, we’ll hear nothing from the press but the slowly ossifying “truth” that Libby “outed” a “covert” CIA agent”

    Where is this truth being touted? this is the first i’ve heard of it.

  34. “The point is, Clinton was charged with sexual harassment and there was no final judgment of guilt or innocence regarding the case, so you cannot make any factual pronouncements regarding his guilt or innocence.”

    I dont think clinton was ever charged. It was a civil trial.

  35. Biden: “I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law.”

    Percentage of Americans who have heard of Scooter Libby: 14.2

    Percentage of Americans who understand what a commuted sentence is: 5.7

    Percentage of Americans who think this is an atrocity: 0.3

    But I understand Biden can use his autodial machine that he uses to raise campaign funds and reprogram it to call the White House. I’m sure Neil Kinnock has had some choice words about Libby’s commuted sentence.

  36. “I dont think clinton was ever charged. It was a civil trial.”

    Well pick another verb then, the point still stands. Do you ever get tired of being such a sniveling little tool?

  37. “Well pick another verb then, the point still stands. ”

    You can still make factual pronouncements and argue for conclusions. But they can’t really be about guilt, because I don’t think it was ever claimed he committed a crime.

  38. Lynne Stewart is locked away from the public? ‘Twere a mercy to the sighted.

  39. Is sexual harassment a crime? Is it a violation of someone’s civil rights? Is violating someone’s civil rights a crime? If the lawsuit had gone to its conclusion, and Jones had won, would it be wrong to say Clinton had been found guilty of sexual harassment?

  40. shine – Let’s quit playing dumb, or maybe you aren’t playing? We all know what the underlying accusations were in the Jones v. Clinton case were.

  41. “Is sexual harassment a crime?”

    I don’t think so. But I don’t think clinton was charged with a crime. But if you want, go ahead and pronounce about guilt. Oh wait. You said we can’t.

    “If the lawsuit had gone to its conclusion, and Jones had won, would it be wrong to say Clinton had been found guilty of sexual harassment”

    Yes. Because civil trials don’t determine guilt, which is criminal.

  42. Comment by Toby Petzold on 7/2 @ 9:15 pm #
    “Lynne Stewart is locked away from the public? ‘Twere a mercy to the sighted.”

    And in the last episode Valerie Plame rips her rubber face off and it’s none other than…

    Hu-hu-uh-agblorph!

  43. If Clinton sexually harassed Paula Jones, he was guilty of sexual harassment. Do you really get some sort of satisfaction out of appearing to be so damn dense?

  44. “Comment by shine on 7/2 @ 9:00 pm #

    ““Well pick another verb then, the point still stands. ”

    You can still make factual pronouncements and argue for conclusions. But they can’t really be about guilt, because I don’t think it was ever claimed he committed a crime.”

    It was claimed that he commited rape.

    I don’t neccesarily believe that claim.

    I just pointed it out to prove what a passive-voiced fuckhead you really are.

  45. It would be fun to serve wilson with a summons — especially when he’s in front of a camera.

  46. It’s the return of actus….gack!

  47. Have any of you had the pleasure/displeasure of hearing Joe Wilson’s comments on this yet? We should have a contest between Larry Johnson and Joe Wilson to see who is the bigger liar.

  48. Any truth to the rumor that Hillary has promised to name Wilson to head the NSA if she gets elected? Of course Berger is will get State or be the A.G.

  49. Comment by Spiny Norman on 7/2 @ 5:56 pm:

    “…an irony so clarified that it belongs in a ramekin next to a 5 lb lobster tail.”

    Oh, yes, it was soooo marvelous! Not only was it to the compositional point, but now I’m thinking lobster, cole slaw, and a brew or two.

  50. I guess that frog won’t march.

  51. Bush Commutes Libby Sentence

    I have the windows open right now. I can hear lefties heads exploding in the distance.

    It’s like a pre 4th of July warm up!

  52. Marc Rich, bitches.

  53. Where is this truth being touted? this is the first i’ve heard of it.

    Sorry, was off watching the baseball game.

    I’ve posted on this recently — can’t remember the columnist’s name — but no matter. If you’ll check the update, you’ll see that Barack Obama has joined the ranks.

    yawn —

    Actually, I always note that I’m not a lawyer and look for lawyers to correct me when I err in my analysis. One of the lefties who visits here, Moops, has corrected me on certain points or the misuse of a particular phrase, and I’ve admitted to the error and thanked him.

    But I don’t think one needs to be a lawyer to have an opinion on legal matters; so I’m not sure what your comment accomplished, other than to prove once again that the left has a fetish about credentials — which, I suppose, is fitting, as it is really just another way of regulating people and creating hierarchies for when the Great Leap forward comes.

    Some pigs are more equal than others.

  54. Ah, here it is: Marianne Means.

    And Mike Littwin, too — though I didn’t post about it. It is, as I say, so ubiquitous now that I hardly know who is using it dishonestly and who is simply confused. Like Voinovich the other day with respect to the Immigration Bill and the Fairness Doctrine.

  55. Pingback: The Cutting Edge

  56. Sexual harrassment is not a crime, but it is illegal and Jones did file suit against him alleging her rights had been violated.

    In this case, otoh, Fitz charged no one for the so-called leak.

    And the sentence handed out to Libby was far greater than what Sandy Berger got for stealing highly-classifed docs about 9/11 from the National Archives.

    Not that such makes a difference to a drooling partisan troll, natch.

  57. To the extent that Bush’s commutation is criticized as deleterious, an honest analysis would have to extend that judgment to encompass Patrick Fitgerald’s prosecution. There’s a reason why “prosecutorial discretion” is a concept. I heard this on the tv once.

    The Democrats have been floridly asserting that what is at the heart of the fired attorneys issue is that what can never be compromised is the faith the American people have that prosecutions are not undertaken for political reasons. Fitzgerald has done far more to undermine that faith than David Iglesias’ replacement could ever dream of doing. In both cases, liberals are attempting to manipulate public perception of the justice system such that the feared result of compromised faith in the justice system is realized. Barack Obama thinks this is a fun game. He is sick and twisted that way, and also he reminds me more of Steve Urkel than, say, Bobby Kennedy. Mostly though this is because he is a goofus-eared dork, and he smiles too much, like he hears a laughtrack the rest of us don’t. But he is also turning out to be an opportunistic little twerp.

    Clinton’s perjury had import in that it called into question the integrity of his testimony in voluminous other concurrent matters. Libby’s perjury had no bearing on anything, most especially the crime which was being investigated. If Fitzgerald were here I would be like, “You are a dick, and you know what else? Your judgment sucks, and I bet a lot of people have noticed that.” He would be all like, “I am so NOT a dick.” But deep down, he knows.

  58. Heh.

  59. Pingback: BeldarBlog

  60. Comment by Spiny Norman on 7/2 @ 5:56 pm #

    …an irony so clarified that it belongs in a ramekin next to a 5 lb lobster tail.

    That’s fucking brilliant, by the way.

    ;^)

    It truly is. Brilliant.

  61. …an irony so clarified that it belongs in a ramekin next to a 5 lb lobster tail.

    That’s fucking brilliant, by the way.

    ;^)

    It truly is, Brilliant.

  62. WordPress said I already made the comment so I tried again- but whatever – twice as nice.

  63. Pingback: President George W. Bush seals the fate of the G.O.P. in 2008. « Exposing The Neo-Right

  64. Yeah, that Obama, “national security,” comment really got me, when I saw it. A bald-faced lie.

    When I saw Hillary’s comments I almost puked, though:

    “Today’s decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration’s politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House’s efforts to quell dissent. This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice.”

    The administration has politicized national security intelligence? Too funny!

    And the old, “quelling dissent,” line of BS? Please, Hillary, tell me exactly who’s dissent was quelled? Wilson told his lies in a newspaper, and your, “Bush lied,” brigades have been doing nothing but trumpet that BS for four years now.

  65. I think you can find better points of comparison for Scooter Libby other than Bill Clinton. Don’t get me wrong. I wanted Clinton expelled from the White House, for perjury, and for being a jerk. It didn’t happen, what can I say ….

    I am an old school Republican who was taught that perjury was a big deal: think Alger Hiss, who served almost 4 years of a 5 year prison sentence for perjury. I was taught to consider that just.

    Martha Stewart spent several months in prison, not for lying under oath, but for insider trading: this administration insisted on it. Recently, Paris Hilton spent three days in prison, got out to general outrage, and then served three more weeks (or something) not for lying under oath, but for driving with a suspended license. Judith Miller spent almost three months in prison, covering Scooter Libby. Scooter, on the other hand, has to get the POTUS to commute his sentence immediately so that he doesn’t have to spend even a day in a minimum security country club.

    Of course, there is an out for Scooter if one argues that he committed no perjury. Yet a jury concluded that his perjury was severe, as did the presiding judge, and, remarkably, the President did not dispute Scooter’s guilt. He simply claimed that any time in prison — for perjury, mind you — would be too harsh. With an eye to Mmes. Stewart, Hilton, and Miller, that is absurd on its face.

    So the people who have been pushing for Scooter to get off without any sentence are settling into a position where it is now being argued that “even if” Scooter committed perjury (the “even if” is a generous adornment usually left out), he shouldn’t serve any jail time at all, because (a) jail time for perjury is “too harsh”, (b) perjury convictions pursued via a political vendetta, even though everyone involved in this prosecution were Republicans, are null and void, which leads to the general view that, well, perjury is no big deal. Not a point of view any serious person would want to defend, I think.

  66. Martha Stewart spent several months in prison, not for lying under oath, but for insider trading: this administration insisted on it.

    No. She was not convicted of insider trading. She was convicted of perjury and obstr. of justice.

  67. Pingback: The Moderate Voice

  68. So the people who have been pushing for Scooter to get off without any sentence…

    Um, Steve, you do realize that he still has to pay a $250,000 fine and serve two years of probation, right?

  69. jeff, chirping about liberalism there?
    Classical liberal my ass.
    Let’s invade somebody preemtively. Let’s impose on them.What a pompous dummy

  70. Classical liberal my ass.

    sashal’s tenets of classical liberalism will follow in…three…two…one…never.

    Shocking!

  71. I’ve got mixed feelings about the commutation. Considering the jury members’ statements post-trial, to the effect that ‘somebody has to pay for the lies that got us into this goddam lousy Bush war’ I tend to think the conviction wasn’t entirely on the up and up. On the other hand, a conviction is a conviction, and the sentence was appropriate, if a bit stiff. So color me ambivalent. On the other hand, Holy Joe Wilson’s comment was pretty striking:

    Considering that this is an obstruction of justice case, and considering that the prosecutor has said repeatedly that there remains a cloud over the Vice President, it seems to me that those who are arguing for pardon are in fact accessories to an ongoing crime.

    Did any of you catch that? Wilson says that political free speech of the sort he disagrees with, is a crime in and of itself. “Accessory” is a term of art, it is a crime in and of itself. If he means what he says (and Joe gives evidence of believing everything that drips from his mouth) then he thinks most of y’all are criminals and ought to be charged with some crime.

    Lovely. I wonder what other political speech this left wing dashboard saint thinks should be criminalized… perhaps arguing against signing Kyoto, or arguing against ethanol subsidies?

  72. the President did not dispute Scooter’s guilt.

    If you’re looking to Bush’s official acts as the distillation of his opinion on the matter, you may want to reconsider. It’s possible Bush (1) does believe Libby innocent, and (2) believes Libby can prove it in court on appeal, and (3) should have the chance to do so.

  73. (3) believes Libby should have the chance to do so.

    PIMF. Not that I ever used it when it was available…

  74. “jeff, chirping about liberalism there?
    Classical liberal my ass.
    Let’s invade somebody preemtively. Let’s impose on them.What a pompous dummy”

    What the fuck? Are you planning to crash a Joe Wilson dinner party, Jeff?

  75. So when are Joe Wilson and Valarie Plame going to be arrested?

  76. So the people who have been pushing for Scooter to get off without any sentence

    He has to pay $250,000 and serve two years of probation. That’s a sentence.

  77. “I’ve posted on this recently — can’t remember the columnist’s name — but no matter. If you’ll check the update, you’ll see that Barack Obama has joined the ranks.”

    Obama didn’t say libby outed anything. Libby did obstruct a national security investigation.

    “So when are Joe Wilson and Valarie Plame going to be arrested?”

    Amazing stuff aint it?

  78. To say the he did is an unconscionable slander, one born either of ignorance or cynical opportunism.

    Both. He hasn’t been paying attention, he’s been running for President.

    I can’t wait for Libby’s appeal.

  79. “I can’t wait for Libby’s appeal.”

    Why is that? He’s going to lose.

  80. Obama didn’t say libby outed anything. Libby did obstruct a national security investigation.

    What was that national security investigation that he obstructed? Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was already.

    And I take it you have no problems if we shut down the New York Times for compromising national security?

  81. And I take it you have no problems if we shut down the New York Times for compromising national security?

    Given the number of stories they’ve published that depend on leaks of classified information, it’s only fair.

  82. Thirty years of social engineering and all that the Collectivists could produce is bottomefeeders sucking the piehole of Joe Wilson.

  83. Given the number of stories they’ve published that depend on leaks of classified information, it’s only fair.

    Shutting down the Times may be a little overboard. But prosecuting the reporters and news staff that wrote those stories is only fair. And you can’t say it’s politically motivated… after all, national security was compromised. And since the left thinks that Libby is a traitor for compromising national security, that must mean the Times staff are traitors as well.

  84. “What was that national security investigation that he obstructed? Fitzgerald knew who the leaker was already.”

    At the time that Libby made his statements? And even if Fitz knew of one leaker, did he know there was only one at that time? I don’t think so. Besides. Libby was convicted of obstructing justice and perjury. Or do you think that this conviction shouldn’t have happened?

    “And I take it you have no problems if we shut down the New York Times for compromising national security?”

    Yes I do. I believe the first amendment protects what the NYT has said. But it doesn’t cover perjury and obstruction of justice — even by NYT reporters. You may have a different view of freedom of speech, however.

  85. Percentage of Americans who think this is an atrocity who aren’t automatically outraged at anything whatsoever that President Bush does: 0.3

    Clarified your point, Attila

  86. “Comment by Civilis on 7/3 @ 6:33 am #

    And I take it you have no problems if we shut down the New York Times for compromising national security?”

    I think it’s time that we passed some sensible newspaper control laws.

  87. “You may have a different view of freedom of speech, however.”

    Well, yeah, because you seem to think that it’s ok for Joe Wilson and Valarie Plame to lie and slander with impunity.

  88. “Or do you think that this conviction shouldn’t have happened?”

    You just can’t make this shit up.

  89. “BTW, how was Libby subordinate to Bush? He was the Chief of Staff of Cheney, who was duly elected.”

    Under a unitary executive Bush might have the power to fire him. But that’s a bit of an extreme kooky theory.

    “Well, yeah, because you seem to think that it’s ok for Joe Wilson and Valarie Plame to lie and slander with impunity.”

    I’ve heard this one often. As if people think that an untruth put in a newspaper is the same as one said under oath or during an investigation. Thats not the case. Not constitutionally at least. We don’t put people in jail for not telling the truth in our political discourse.

  90. Basic facts STILL wrong, Jeff. Libby leaked to Judith Miller and Tim Russert, among others. He was A leaker, just not the leaker to Bob Novak. In addition, whether he leaked or not was immaterial for his conviction for perjury and obstruction, since the other two leakers (Armitage and Rove) remain uncharged. Funny thing, when you’re called to testify, you should tell the truth…

    Also, kudos to me for predicting, amongst the conservative, errr Classically Liberal, yammering that Mr. Libby would never spend a day in jail. Thus proving what we know about George Bush and loyalty.

    Another lesson: if you’re gonna break the law, make sure you do it for someone REALLY important! That way, you can avoid the punishment.

  91. “Another lesson: if you’re gonna break the law, make sure you do it for someone REALLY important! That way, you can avoid the punishment.”

    Oh, you mean like Sandy Berger?

    Mr. Liar, liar pants stuffed with national security documents that you take home and destroy?

    That one, timmuh?

  92. “Basic facts STILL wrong, Jeff. Libby leaked to Judith Miller and Tim Russert, among others. He was A leaker, just not the leaker to Bob Novak.”

    And that is what he said, you fucking moron, Libby was not the leaker. Where did you predict Bush would commute the jail time? I thought you were predicting a pardon, which would make you wrong again.

  93. Comment by Alice H on 7/3 @ 7:08 am #

    Clarification appreciated.

  94. “And that is what he said, you fucking moron, Libby was not the leaker”

    I understood Jeff to mean that Libby did not do any leaking. Now you tell me libby did leak? And Jeff was talking about that?

  95. “I understood Jeff to mean that Libby did not do any leaking. Now you tell me libby did leak? And Jeff was talking about that?”

    Your lack of understanding is getting old.

  96. Whether of not Libby leaked is a matter of opinion, the jury was of the opinion he did, others disagree. What is not a matter of opinion is the leak that matters, the one that “outed” Plame, was absolutely not Libby. That is a stone cold fucking fact. It is incredibly tiresome to have to keep repeating this same thing over and over to you idiots, that is also a fact.

  97. What, B Moe, is a “the leaker?” There were at least three leakers of this story to the press and Libby was one. I don’t why that’s so hard for you to understand.

    Pardon/commute, I said he would not spend a day in jail. Bully for me.

    As N. O’Angry, Mr. Berger pled guilty to taking those items and, without a presidential pardon, will live up to the terms of his plea agreement. Significantly, he also lost his law license.

    I know it’s common place for simple-minded people to look at a crime and say “oh, yeah, that guy did it too,” but the analogy is a poor one. Mr. Berger destroyed documents for which he was punished. Mr. Libby obstructed an ongoing federal investigation, lied under oath, refused to take a plea, and was convicted of a felony.

    Felony….misdemeanor. Do try better next time, N

  98. HAHAHAHAhahahahahaha…

    Christ, I just watched the Olbie/Wilson clip.
    Somebody get that man some clown shoes, stst!

  99. Do better, timb? Maybe when you cease lying and ducking when getting caught yourself you might have some credibility in such a demand. For now, its just more of your hypocrisy.

  100. So destroying classified documents relevant to the most important historical event in the last twenty years is less of a crime than having a different recollection of events than a reporter?

    Huh.

  101. “Your lack of understanding is getting old.”

    There’s no lack: I understand Jeff to mean Libby was not a leaker. Because THE leaker is Dick Armitage, per Jeff. But you tell me Libby WAS a leaker. Thats cool. I never imagined that this was some highlander game, that there could be only one leaker.

    “Whether of not Libby leaked is a matter of opinion, the jury was of the opinion he did, others disagree.”

    I don’t think the jury found that libby was a leaker. They werent asked to rule on that. You’re telling the lies / wrongs that Jeff is trying to pin on Obama.

  102. We knew Libby would get some special treatment because that is how it *always* turns out. For 30 odd years, it has been so. It has to be, or we wouldn’t get anybody of sound mind to agree to work in an administration.

    Why do people bother begging for political investigations if they aren’t willing to acknowledge they will get a political solution, and most likely not the one they want?
    Why not just….let it go. Stop dreaming of humiliation and impeachment. 4 years between votes is simply not too much to ask people to bear.

  103. “As N. O’Angry, Mr. Berger pled guilty to taking those items and, without a presidential pardon, will live up to the terms of his plea agreement. Significantly, he also lost his law license.”

    Angry, timmuh?

    You misunderstand, fuckhead.

    I’m laughing at you!

    Mhehe.

  104. I don’t think the jury found that libby was a leaker.

    Then why are so many of the people wailing and gnashing their teeth over the fact he won’t be going to prison acting like he WAS?

  105. Also, kudos to me for predicting, amongst the conservative, errr Classically Liberal, yammering that Mr. Libby would never spend a day in jail.

    You, me and everyone else with a healthy cynical streak.

  106. timb – Berger surrendered his law license voluntarily so that he would no have to submit to any proceeding under which he might have been compelled to further explain his conduct. You can google it!

  107. “Comment by Rob Crawford on 7/3 @ 8:33 am #

    So destroying classified documents relevant to the most important historical event in the last twenty years is less of a crime than having a different recollection of events than a reporter?

    Huh.”

    I may shock you to know, Rob, that I am not dictator of the universe. As such, I have no personally arranged the crime and punishment sections of our penal code. With that said, a felony, by definition, is worse than a misdemeanor and, wishing it were otherwise is cute, but counter-productive.

    As for B Moe and his ever-growing rage, you can say something as many times as you want, B, but Judith Miller and Tim Russert were both leaked to by Scooter. He called them and talked to them. You might notice that Mrs. Miller went to jail for much longer than Scooter to protect him.

    Now, I don’t live in the strange world you inhabit, where you and I can call 17 reporters and tell them a secret and the person guilty of leaking the secret is only guilty if a story is published. Is that the leaking equivalent of the “schrodinger’s Cat” physics experiment.

    It’s still sort of early in the day and, given your anger, you might want to take two of those pills today…

    Oh, and Robin, you’ve gone over the cliff lately. When you return to rationality, I will address your accusations.

  108. Once Fitz knew that Armitage was responsible for the “leak” and that Plame had not been “outed” according to any of the relevant statutes, the investigation should have ended.

    For Hillary to wail about obstruction of justice and improper commutation/pardon is simply rich.

  109. Allowing Berger to skate is a travesty, and certainly a blemish on the DOJ and this administration. Could you imagine what would have happened if Cheney or Rove had destroyed documents pertinent to the 9/11 investigation?

  110. “Now, I don’t live in the strange world you inhabit…”

    And I hit my knees and thank God for that every night.

    “the person guilty of leaking the secret is only guilty if a story is published….”

    Waiting for shine to explain all about guilt and criminal acts any minute now…

  111. “Comment by timb on 7/3 @ 8:45 am #”

    So, timmah, what color is the sky on your planet?

  112. Yes I do. I believe the first amendment protects what the NYT has said. But it doesn’t cover perjury and obstruction of justice — even by NYT reporters. You may have a different view of freedom of speech, however.

    I should have included sarcasm tags with my post. So you’re saying a journalist is absolutely free to publish classified information?

    Another lesson: if you’re gonna break the law, make sure you do it as a journalist! That way, you can avoid the punishment.

    Fixed that for you! The next president will hire a professional journalist to leak for him/her. That way, it’s completely legal!

  113. Joe Biden? Democratic presidential hopeless is more like it.

  114. shine —

    Stop trying to parse. You’re beginning to sound like Clinton. The charge that Libby “compromised national security” can only relate to one thing: the outing of a covert agent. Obama certainly isn’t saying that Libby’s difference in memory than Tim Russert compromised national security — nor is he saying “obstruction of justice,” which follows from the (dubious) conclusion that Russert’s memory is better than Libby’s, and that Libby was intentionally “lying” about what he remembered — compromised national security.

    So if it helps, I’ll acknowledge that perhaps Obama is more careful with his words than Marianne Means. For your part, you can stop pretending that you don’t know what he meant because he didn’t write underline it with a Sharpie.

    Tim —

    You’re still very confused. But as there’s no way to keep you from being so, judging from the amount of energy already expended, with little success, on that score, I’m afraid that’s just the way you’re going to have to muddle through life.

    Incidentally, I didn’t appreciate you heading over to the Prof’s place yesterday and painting my site as some sort of hypermasculinist wingnut fest. You know that, when you argue here, people AT LEAST try to raise points to rebut yours. You haven’t been summarily banned, and your comments aren’t moderated.

    Further, when you’ve emailed me, I’ve been cordial and forthcoming in my responses.

    Your behavior was shabby.

  115. This will teach Bush a lesson or two for being nice and statesmanlike to the Clintonites after they left office. He should have gone after the greedy, lying, soulless, cretins with both barrels, but he made the mistake of trying to be a uniter.

  116. But having ingratiated himself, I’m sure Tim’s welcome over there any time he likes.

  117. Shine on, you craaaaazy diamond.

    I admit to being entertained by all the deranged lefty spittle flying about today. Watch this:
    MARC RICH!

    Hah!

    SANDY PANTS!!

    It scares ‘em, don’t it?

  118. My understanding is that Libby didn’t leak to Russert. The Russert count was that Libby claimed to have heard about Plame (spit) from Russert. On the stand Russert testified that they did not discuss Plame (spit).

  119. “Then why are so many of the people wailing and gnashing their teeth over the fact he won’t be going to prison acting like he WAS?”

    Do you really not understand what he was convicted of? It was perjury and obstruction. Not the leak.

    “So you’re saying a journalist is absolutely free to publish classified information?”

    Anyone is, except those that have a duty to keep it classified. If you have a duty to keep info classified, and you give it to me, you break the law. But I don’t break the law once I discuss it. I don’t break the law once I discuss what is in the new york times. You take on that duty when you join some work or take some oath that gives you classified info. But others? who haven’t taken that oath? You can infringe on their speech rights to discuss our governments operations just because those operations are classified. Most certainly not with jail!

    I think though, there is another level that the law, and the constitution would recognize as punishable. That is things like cryptographic keys and intelligence identities. At least with keys, there can be really no public interest as they have no use but as code-breaking.

    “Stop trying to parse.”

    Jeff, you got your own readers here telling me Libby was a leaker. Parse that shit.

    Meanwhile we have libby convicted of obstructing a national security investigation. Just because you disagree with what a republican judge, a bush appointed prosecutor with authority from another bush appointee, and a republican majority appellate panel have said don’t make it no less than obstruction of justice and perjury in a national security investigation. Now you can parse that, but its fair to call it a bad for national security. Perhaps compromise wasn’t a good word though. “Obstruct” would have been much better.

  120. Jeff, I already addressed this on another comment thread. First, you’re wrong about Scooter and have been from day one. There were multiple leakers all with the intent to get the information on Mrs. Wilson into the press.

    Secondly, I told the professor where the comments originated and described this as manly place. I don’t live in a purely black/white world, but should I have referred to as girly?

    Like it or not, PW is overwhelmingly masculine. I’ve seen others describe it as a locker room. Apparently, I am not offended by that assertion in that I continue to return for re-education.

    And, yes, you are cordial when I e-mail posting tips and I appreciate. To be honest, I would have never expected anything less.

    I understand, fundamentally, that we do not agree on many political issues, yet I am touched to think you thought what I posted was a betrayal. What I mean is that despite our many disagreements, I thought it was cool that you expected loyalty from me. Nonetheless, I felt I had described PW and its many odes to Jessica Alba’s honey pot, breasts, and other masculine endeavors fairly (by the way, Dan, I appreciate those posts. I am a man after all).

    I certainly wasn’t calling you weenies.

  121. sorry. I mean you can’t infringe on their speech rights.

  122. “Significantly, he lost his law license.”
    Yes, and apparently that’s equivalent in Democratese to 30 months in the slammer. For some strange reason, he hasn’t been prosecuted for lying to the FBI about a matter directly relating to national security, and nobody ever tried to prosecute Dick Armitage who, it appears, owes Joe Wilson an apology.

  123. From today’s NRO editorial, a good point:

    “…after the guilty verdict, Fitzgerald argued that the judge should sentence Libby as if Libby had been convicted leaking Mrs. Wilson’s identity. The prosecutor wanted to throw the book at Libby for a crime for which Libby was never charged. The judge accepted Fitzgerald’s recommendations, sentencing Libby to 30 months in jail. In our view, that was clearly excessive.

    ‘…a crime for which Libby was never charged’

    Joseph Stalin would be proud.

  124. We all know that timmah will just argue to argue, and shine will continue to play/be dumb. C’est la vie.

  125. Look folks, I was as nauseated by the whole kabuki show that this investigation turned into as the rest of you were, and think Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame should be sterilized so the risk of any more of their cloven-hoofed spawn wandering this planet is negated.

    But Bush, in my opinion, is in the wrong here. Like it or not, Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, and sentenced accordingly with the seriousness of the investigation that was taking place. Had Bush just let things be, the most that would have come of this whole mess in the end would have been a minor media footnote upon Libby’s release. Hell, Bush could have even granted Libby a pardon on his way out of office in 2009 on the grounds of good behavior while in prison, and it still wouldn’t have been a big deal because at least time would have been served. This just gives the impression that Bush doesn’t give a shit about the rule of law or the judgements of our legal system. Keep in mind that Fitzgerald did this investigation for FOUR YEARS, and the only crime he could find was Libby’s relatively minor infractions. Bush had nothing to gain politically by doing this.

    Forget Sandy Burglar for a moment, forget the Plame/Wilson gorgon, forget the media feeding frenzy, and take the case on its own merits. In doing so, can anyone honestly say that what Bush did in this instance wasn’t incredibly arrogant? If the President can so easily dismiss the judgements of the very system that we rely on to settle our everyday legal matters, how on earth is the American public supposed to have confidence in it as well?

  126. What, B Moe, is a “the leaker?”

    If one of your children was bitten by a stray dog, timmy, would you want a dog tested for rabies, or the dog tested for rabies?

  127. I don’t think it’d be wise to tell Chris how long presidents have held the pardon power. I’d hate to think how much that would scare him.

  128. “Jeff, you got your own readers here telling me Libby was a leaker. Parse that shit.”

    That isn’t what I said shine and you know it, shove that shit back up your ass. Tedium and evasion are barely tolerable, dishonesty isn’t.

  129. “I don’t think it’d be wise to tell Chris how long presidents have held the pardon power. I’d hate to think how much that would scare him.”

    I was thinking maybe start with the Easter Bunny, then slowly tell him about Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy.

  130. If the President can so easily dismiss the judgements of the very system that we rely on to settle our everyday legal matters, how on earth is the American public supposed to have confidence in it as well?

    He can “easily dismiss” the ruling because that’s a Constitutionally endowed power of the presidency.

  131. Chris – Bush did not vacate any judgements. The verdicts stand. Probation was within the sentencing guidelines recommended by the usual sentencing authority. The judge, not the jury nor the appelate court made a judgement on the extreme other end based on a recommendation by a prosecutor not supported by the case presented. That is what Bush is reacting to.

  132. Chris – I think the fundamental problem that many of us have is that Libby was sentenced as though he “outed a covert operative” when he, in fact, did not. He still has to pay a $250,000 fine, probation, and will lose his law license. Given what he was actually charged with, that is still a pretty harsh sentence.

  133. Forget Sandy Burglar for a moment, forget the Plame/Wilson gorgon, forget the media feeding frenzy, and take the case on its own merits. In doing so, can anyone honestly say that what Bush did in this instance wasn’t incredibly arrogant? If the President can so easily dismiss the judgements of the very system that we rely on to settle our everyday legal matters, how on earth is the American public supposed to have confidence in it as well?

    I guess it depends on how you view the situation, and how the appeals turn out. The big question is how often the defendant in cases like this is able to remain free pending appeal. If in these sorts of cases the defendant is normally free pending appeal, the decision to commute the sentence may be justified given that the prison sentence will be finished by the time the appeals process makes its way through. And it seems a trifle more just than the idea of Bush pardoning Libby completely on the way out the door in 2009.

    For me, the whole Plame kerfluffle has no effect on my perceptions of justice in this country given what we see on the legal front fom celebrities in Hollywood. Given the amount of politics in this case, any outcome is going to seem unjust to most people. Its watching millionare celebrities get away time and time again with DUI and drug offences that really rankles me.

  134. Did Libby call Judy Miller Sugar Tits? Anyone know?

  135. There are bigger deals than this. Mostly it’s just another instance of the left repackaging current events to better assume the contours of a comfortable boomer-friendly template. Richard Nixon’s library is just south of here, not so far on weekends. Would be kind of a nightmare to get to on a weekday. The weird thing about the library is that the ceilings are not very high at all, and it’s pretty obvious that they’ve made some compromises in exhibiting stuff because of this. I think it’s safe to assume that Bush’s library will have much higher ceilings. Oh and also there won’t be an exhibit on impeachment and resignation and stuff. I bet there’s a real nifty Scooter Libby storyboard though. shine can take his kid there, and they can stand and read the storyboard together, and his kid will know that this is one of those things you just do cause dad wants you to.

  136. Probably the one thing that most pisses me off about all this is that the Orwellian redefinition of events perpetrated by the Democrats and aided and abetted by the “objective” Establishment Media, still gets bought, as far as I can tell, by the American people. Hook, line and sinker.

    Especially hook.

  137. yeah, trial transcripts are part of the MSM narrative, McGehee

  138. When most of the testimony is from media figures…

  139. Comment by timb on 7/3 @ 9:15 am #

    Jeff, I already addressed this on another comment thread. First, you’re wrong about Scooter and have been from day one. There were multiple leakers all with the intent to get the information on Mrs. Wilson into the press.

    Excuse me, but, even assuming that this is true, where is the crime here? Nobody was prosecuted for leaking Plame’s alleged, ‘covert,’ status. Wilson was lying to discredit the president. Was the president just supposed to sit back and let those lies stand? Is that what Hillary calls, “quelling dissent?” Not allowing anti-Bushites to get away with lies?

    This whole thing has reeked from the git-go. Bush should never have let this get so far.

  140. Comment by McGehee on 7/3 @ 10:55 am #

    When most of the testimony is from media figures…

    This comment may raise the level of McGehee’s paranoia level to “Slim Pickens from Dr. Strangelove” level. ALL media people lie, even when they go to jail to not reveal their sources. How comforting, McGehee, have you stocked up on enough canned goods to stop CNN’s take over of the nation?

  141. It’s “arrogant” to use constitutionally appointed power without a buy-off from the loopy left, it seems. Pity ol’ Billy didn’t see it that way when he was pardoning every two-bit rip-off artist on the books…

  142. NPR had Joseph Wilson on this morning, asking him the tough questions. Even with the sympathetic interview, he still ended up ranting. Wilson and, in a separate piece, Juan Williams, both asserted the idea that Bush is himself engaging in obstruction of justice because the commutation takes away any pressure there might be on Libby to reveal incriminating information about Bush and Cheney. Which, am I missing something? How could Fitzgerald have any more leverage now on Libby, post-sentencing, than he would have had prior to conviction?

  143. Nevermind. Looks like there’s a new thread exactly on point.

  144. Happyfeet, have you seen an episode of “Law and Order”. The Prosecutor can petition the court to reduce the sentence of an offender who decides to cooperate with the preceding investigation or any other investigation.

    That is explanation of those statements, not an endorsement. Personally, I don’t Libby was ever going to say anything about Cheney or Bush, because he knew he wouldn’t serve a day in the pokey. You can see that as a good thing (loyalty from the President) or a bad thing, but I think Scooter knew it would happen.

  145. You know, I think I’ve officially lost track of all the disingenuous lefty conspiracy theories. I mean, sure, they don’t talk about GB1 flying in an SR-71 to Iran late one night to ensure Reagan’s election much anymore, but there are still so many of them!

    I ran into one of those very serious and wide-eyed adherents of the “selected not elected” one recently – made them blow a fuse by pointing out that Gore might well have won if he hadn’t taken his case to the Florida Supreme Court first – to stop the vote count while he was still ahead.

    The problem with these lefty “theories” is that the next person who runs into Mr. Wide-Eyes will have to explain it again, because these people can’t assimilate new information unless it fits their paranoia.

    I used to make up linked “fact sheets” I could post when these debates happened, until I realized that the deranged leftists didn’t really give a rat’s patoot about the facts – presenting the facts has, at best, a very temporary effect on the debate.

  146. I used to make up linked “fact sheets” I could post when these debates happened, until I realized that the deranged leftists didn’t really give a rat’s patoot about the facts – presenting the facts has, at best, a very temporary effect on the debate.

    One noticeable pattern is that once a wild-eyed claim has been refuted, it’s not dead, merely resting. The claims will shift to another area for a few months, then the refuted claim will be trotted out once more. The effect of this, if not the purpose, is to tire out the opposition by making them sick of refuting the same idiotic claim for the twentieth time.

  147. Rob:

    I’m still working on a solution to that problem. Well, solutions are available, I mean palatable / legal ones.

  148. ALL media people lie, even when they go to jail to not reveal their sources.

    If you don’t stop humping those strawmen, you’re going to get one hell of an uncomfortable rash.

  149. course it helps if you have an acquaintance on the jury.

    And a former Washington Post reporter whose editor was now-Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward; he went to barbecues at the house of NBC’s Tim Russert, a neighbor, and just published a book on the CIA and spying.

    I don’t know where anyone would get the idea something might have been funny with the jury.

  150. aarrrrgh, it ate my links.

  151. “Happyfeet, have you seen an episode of “Law and Order”. The Prosecutor can petition the court to reduce the sentence of an offender who decides to cooperate with the preceding investigation or any other investigation.”

    Man, and I went and wasted three years in law school and spent 5 years in the State’s Attorney…who knew it was so easy?

  152. Point of order: Plame was not outed, and there was no “leak”. A leak was not possible, therefore there was no leak. Classified information can be leaked, Plame’s status was not classified. There was no secret to tell, and this episode has been a sham from the moment it was concocted.

    Carry on.

  153. “Happyfeet, have you seen an episode of “Law and Order”.”

    “Man, and I went and wasted three years in law school and spent 5 years in the State’s Attorney…who knew it was so easy?”

    I was thinking the same thing, Major John. Everything I know about the law, I learned from Public Defenders, and the first thing they tell you is forget about all that shit you saw on TV.

  154. Major John, I could have saved those three years of law school too if only I’d known about timb’s talent.

    Of course, he’s best used as a negative indicator. If timb says that the law is X, then I know its actually the opposite.

  155. Dear Lord, Roberts, YOU are a lawyer. A person so unacquainted with analytical thinking? At least MJ can be respected….it boggles the mind to think YOU are an attorney. Was it a mail order law school out of the Bahamas?

Leave a Reply