Rich Lowry, The Corner:
At first I thought that commuting Libby’s sentence was a reasonable compromiseâ€â€keeping him from serving prison time, but letting the jury verdict stand. But now I don’t think it makes any sense. There’s an incoherence at the heart of the administration’s case. It says that Libby’s sentence was excessive. But technically, it’s not. It’s only excessive if you think it was a politicized prosecution and never should have happened in the first place. But if you believe that, then Libby deserves an outright pardon. The administration’s middle ground can’t hold. A pardon would have been better, and more defensible.
[my emphasis]
This is, you’ll remember, essentially the position I took — though I noted at the time that, from a political perspective, there was something to be said for the compromise, provided the President was willing to follow it up with a pardon should Libby’s appeals fail.
And I still feel this way, given that the entire case comes down to the judgment of a jury that we know was looking to punish someone for Iraq — and given that the entire basis for the conviction is competing memories, with the jury siding with the press over a Cheney underling.
Still, this Orin Kerr post — along with the discussion that follows — does an excellent job of cataloging rebuttals to those of us who’ve argued that the Fitzgerald prosecution was overzealous, shoddy, or politically motivated.
Among other arguments offered up in the thread, the case is made that Fitzgerald’s failure to prosecute Armitage is (legally) irrelevant; that Plame’s status really was “covert” with respect to the IIPA and the Espionage Act (at least, according to certain CIA records); and that, in obstructing justice as one of the leakers, Libby prevented Fitzgerald from getting to Cheney, who would have known, presumably, Plame’s status — and so may have been vulnerable to prosecution under either or both statutes.
On the flip side, no one taking this position seems to be able convincingly to explain why Plame’s status as a CIA agent was confirmed to Robert Novak over the phone (which suggests that the CIA failed to take affirmative steps to protect Plame’s status) — or why and how Joseph Wilson was not made to sign a non-disclosure agreement before going on the “fact-finding mission” his wife helped orchestrate.
And, it seems to me, at least, that if Fitzgerald was able to determine early on that Plame’s status — whether “covert” or not with respect to both IIPA and the Espionage Act — was not being affirmatively guarded by the CIA as a condition of maintaining covert status, then the IIPA and Espionage Act could never have been applied to anyone, regardless of whether or not s/he knew of Plame’s (ostensible) status.
At any rate, I’m interested to hear your thoughts on both Kerr’s post and on the positions maintained by the commenters over at Volokh — the majority of whom seem to lean in favor of Fitzgerald.
(h/t CJ Burch)
In other words, it’s the same old meme. Cheney did it, Plame was “covert” (she wasn’t), her hubby didn’t lie through his teeth in the NYT (he did), etc, ad nauseam.
As I’ve posted elsewhere, there are enough holes in Fitz’s case to sink a battleship. And the reason Bush handled the commutation the way he did is that he is well-nigh certain that Libby’s conviction will be overturned on appeal, (withholding evidence, calling on the jury to consider “facts” never entering into evidence, the jury’s own publicly revealed bias, etc) which would be better for all concerned.
My God, the whole sorry mess boiled down to a swearing match between Libby and….Tim Russert? Give me a fucking break….
I do urge you to read the comments and try to tackle the specifics of the arguments, though. The Volokh site is not exactly a hotbed of fanatics (though a few name callers show up), and they tend to offer cites for their assertions.
Which is to say that it’s not enough to say, for instance, Plame wasn’t covert. How can that be proven?
Jeff – How can that be proven? Your post points out a fatal flaw to the assertion that she was “covert”, as the CIA was not taking affirmative steps to conceal her identity. That point alone should be sufficient.
If you couple that with the fact that she had not been posted internationally in the preceeding 5 years, it makes their assertion even more untenable.
Could someone please tell me how Joe Wilson lied? To be honest, I haven’t followed this whole affair as it smacked of good old fashioned politicking to me. Clinton pardon’s campaign contributers, Libby obstructs for his boss, etc…I do realize that Libby seemed to get burned for his boss and that he wasn’t convicted of the one crime the libs wanted him to be convicted for and that is obviously the outing of Plame. Anyhow, how did Joe Wilson lie? Thanks in advance.
The applicable CIA records that labeled her covert were internal designations. Their actions suggest she was not. The CIA does not have the power to alter the statutory meaning of the term, and in practice, she did not meet the requirements.
The whole Cheney aspect is merely speculation and wishful thinking.
How did Libby’s actions prevent the nailing of Cheney?
The man was convicted by journalists. Vile, petty journalists. That’s just effed up.
“It’s only excessive if you think it was a politicized prosecution and never should have happened in the first place. But if you believe that, then Libby deserves an outright pardon. The administration’s middle ground can’t hold. A pardon would have been better, and more defensible.”
Sure it can hold.
Why?
Because George W. Bush said it could, that’s why.
Libby won’t be pardoned. Period. He broke the law, according to a jury of his peers.
The President was correct to eliminate the jail time in the sentence, but leave the fine and probation. Why? Because, according to a jury, Mr. Libby broke the law. And yet, in his defense, he has decades of unblemished public service.
Libby should be punished for being found guilty of breaking the law. But he should not be punished with jail time. That was what the President decided. And of course, since he’s the one who GETS to decide, that will be that as they say.
Joe Wilson claimed in his op-ed in the NY Times that the Vice President’s office sent him to Niger to investigate claims the Iraqi’s were attempting to purchase yellowcake.
Joe Wilson was not sent anywhere by the Vice President’s office. He was sent there by his wife, who also lied to Congress when she claimed she could not remember offering his name when asked who should investigate the claim.
Unless he decides to pardon later.
sureitcanhold…Thanks. Like I said, I never really paid much attention to the whole affair as it seemed to me like politics as usual.
“He was sent there by his wife”
No argueing with that.
I’m not certain that the problem wiht this case is necessarily that it was politicised (though that’s a part of the problem) or that Fitzgerald was out of control. I think the problen here is that fizgerald may have been tightly controlled, and maybe duped by the press, specifically by NBC.
We know at this point that the testimony that is creditied with convicting Libby was Russert’s. yet Russert showed surprising lapses in meory on the stand. what was more here had filed an affadavit wiht the court begging out of testifying that was on its face flase. he had all ready tlaked wiht the FBI at the time, over the phone to an agent he claimed he had not met, wihtout seeing a badge.
Stragner still Andrea Mitchell had indicated earleir on tellevison that it was an open secret that Pl;ame was CiA, only to later recant, but the defense’s access to her was severeluy curtialed by the trial court. More disturbing still, after houd8ing Libby inot the dock the press has gvien Russert, Mitchell and David Gregory ( also invovled in the controversy over Plames covertness) a pass, similar to the pass they have handled Richard Armitage.
shine said something coherent !
Hmmm.
The weakest argument in favor of Valerie Plame being covert is that if she actually were then her *husband* would be the very first person indicted for blowing her cover.
Jeff
On the flip side, no one taking this position seems to be able convincingly to explain why Plame’s status as a CIA agent was confirmed to Robert Novak over the phone (which suggests that the CIA failed to take affirmative steps to protect Plame’s status)  or why and how Joseph Wilson was not made to sign a non-disclosure agreement before going on the “fact-finding mission†his wife helped orchestrate.
Another point to remember is Plame herself organized, invited and introduced her Husband at a meeting at Langley to discuss the idea of sending him — to various government employees (DOS etc.) by name — AKA – she outed herself on Feb 19, 2002 – and as the memo about that indicates “a CIA managerial type” initiated a meeting. She also cabled all various agencies to drum up interest in a trip (i.e get other agencies support and on board) even though the embassy staff in Niger had already said it wasn’t necessary — and of course this was all initiated BEFORE Cheny asked his CIA briefer what the CIA knew about this foreign Niger reporting.
Too bad it isn’t relevant to Libby’s case. Cling to the dream, though. I’m sure Wilson will be charged with high crimes shortly. snort.
I’m not certain that the problem with this case is necessarily that it was politicised (though that could be apart of the problem) or that Fitzgerald was out of control. I think the problem here is that Fitzgerald in his zeal to get something out of this monumental waste of time may have been duped by NBC.
We know at this point that the testimony that is credited with convicting Libby was Russert’s. Yet Russert showed surprising lapses in memory on the stand. What was more he filed an affidavit with the court begging out of testifying that was on its face false. He had all ready talked with the FBI at the time, over the phone to an agent he claimed he had not met, without seeing a badge. The FBI notes of those conversations, oddly enough are nowhere to be found now.
Stranger still, Andrea Mitchell had indicated earlier on television that it was an open secret that Plame was CIA, only to later recant, but the defense’s access to her was severeluy curtialed by the trial court. More disturbing still, after hounding Libby into the dock the press has given Russert, Mitchell and David Gregory ( also invovled in the controversy over Plames covertness) a pass, similar to the pass they have handed Richard Armitage. Oddest still, the right leaning press has also handled Russert and Mitchell wiht kitt gloves seemngly because they value appearances on Russert’s show more than they do finding out what the story was with the affidavit and with Mitchell’s disavowed statement.
I suspect the argument could be made therefore that Fitz was a giagantic, sad dupe. And I suspect that arguement will be made when Libby feels he is free to tell his side of the tale. Of course we will never know for cetain, because no one on either side of the press will every bother to say anything to Russert, other than “Can I have another, sir.”
I don’t think that’s exaclty on point here, and I apologize, but it’s what troubles me.
Corvan is bang on. Vile and petty and not even attractive journalists is what convicted him.
JD, incredibly wrong as always, the statutory definition required her to be oversea on official business with a cover within five years. The Agency’s records, as Fitzgerald shows on page 12 of the sentencing document indicate she was overseas and she had a cover. The CIA DID take affirmative steps to protect her, by telling Novak to leave the story alone and then attempting to initiate an investigation into who leaked it.
That boat has sailed.
Interestingly enough, many cynical folk have decided Bush commuted the sentence, so that a) he and Cheney can refuse to answer question during the ongoing legal process and, because pardoning him would remove Fitgerald’s claim of Fifth Amendment protection.
In my mind, that’s too clever for the Bush folks by half. The first part may be true, but Libby always knew a pardon was coming (all the evidence points to Cheney initiating this blowback on Wilson and Cheney would never let him fall on his sword like that)
The sentencing document can be found in pdf format at http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/Libby_Sentencing_memo052507.pdf and the part Cheney played is documented at http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_wilson-plame-novak-rove_blame_game.html
I want to make it clear for some folks that I am not saying Cheney did anything illegal. The illegality in this case is Libby’s perjury and obstruction. In fact, although I loathe Cheney as much as a person probably can loathe a public figure, I do not know of one illegal thing he has done. His philosophy is anathema to me, the interests he serves are, in my opinion, directly contradictory to the interests of my nation, and he is a brutal liar.
None of that is illegal.
Actually, I don’t know that I’m bang on. I could be wrong. My point is this. Had the press been willing to treat one of their own, the way they treated the defendant, or for that matter they way they treat any other witness we would be much closer to having an idea of what happened. But they, all of them, gave special treatment to their own…just like any other interest group would do. For that reason we will never know for certain.
“We know at this point that the testimony that is credited with convicting Libby was Russert’s. Yet Russert showed surprising lapses in memory on the stand. What was more he filed an affidavit with the court begging out of testifying that was on its face false. He had all ready talked with the FBI at the time, over the phone to an agent he claimed he had not met, without seeing a badge. The FBI notes of those conversations, oddly enough are nowhere to be found now.”
And all of this escaped the judge and jury. Poor libby.
Wilson doesn’t need to be charged with anything. The fact that you see him as some sort of hero, heet, is condemnation enough.
oe Wilson claimed in his op-ed in the NY Times that the Vice President’s office sent him to Niger to investigate claims the Iraqi’s were attempting to purchase yellowcake.
Joe Wilson was not sent anywhere by the Vice President’s office. He was sent there by his wife, who also lied to Congress when she claimed she could not remember offering his name when asked who should investigate the claim.
Right, and also in early articles that he this off he claimed -anonymously- he had debunked the forgeries – quote “the names were wrong, the dates were wrong” in which he then said he accused Kristof an Pincus misquoting and misattributed because he couldn’t (legally anyways) have seen them – as we did not get them until 8 or so months after his trip.
Turns out from the trial the CIA DID have there own copies apparently never analyzed sitting in a lockbox until turned over to IAEA after the war. Think about that – the CIA NEVER bothered to look at, scrutinize, authenticate the documents that the IAEA said were so crude on cursory view and quick goggle search rendered them fakes?
I know there is incompetence level in the intelligence community (Larry Johnson) but that just sounds fishy, doncha think?
Well either way. Scooter can be pardoned or not, but as far as Russert goes, you can’t pardon ugly.
Actually Tim the problem with the case is specifically the fact that Libby might not be lying. There is a very real possiblity that Russert, and Michell have been, and that quite unwittingly Fitzgerald has helped them. That’s the point I want cleared up. I have little doubt Libby’s personal fortunes will survive all of this. Political people always survive this sort of thing. But the principal that all should be treated fairly before the court, whether they happen to have a television show or not is another question. One no one, and I mean no one in the press is willing to explore. that’s worrisome.
Timmah – the law is most definitively not as you stated it in re. the prior 5 years. In the light most favorable to your assertion, there is unsettled and/or unclear law.
Juries make mistakes all the time. Juries see what they want to see all the time. Our history proves that over and over. And the comments of some of the jurors after the case was over seem to indicate that this jury wanted to see certain things, I believe at least one of them was ajournalist himself. That’s not the biggest deal in the world in this kind of case. Libby will survive. And no one belives this conviction will curtial his job prospects in the future. Hell, he’ll probabaly be a useful funding raising tool for the Republicans from here on out. The fact that Russert, Mitchell and NBC got treatment from their colleagues that none of the rest of us would ever get should be firghtening to every one, though. Even you TimB, who knows who Bill O’Reilly might get a chance to lock up one day.
The point is this the press is supposed to double check these things. In this case they weren’t interested in that at all. They were the conductor on the rail road…all of them, every single one. If it turns out Libby in fact had it coming, they will have lucked out. But it will only be luck, not any sort of devotion to their so called professional standards at all.
timmah – Having previously held a security clearance, I am fairly certain that “leave this story alone” falls significantly short of affirmarive actions to conceal. Besides, they confirmed it.
I have yet to see this explained. If we assume Plame was outed, I know – huge assumption, why has nobody been charged or tried ? Timmah, what say you?
Apparently Armitage was a notorious gossip. Joe Wilson, too. Who feeds on gossip–reporters. What’s the chance that Plame’s role wasn’t a hot topic on the DC cocktail circuit long before Armitage leaked? Slim to none. Andrea Mitchell blabbed that it was common knowledge, and then incredibly lamely tried to cover her butt. Is there any chance in the world that if Mitchell knew of the Plame rumor that she hadn’t shared the scuttle butt with Russert and Gregory? None in my book.
So how do crack reporters run gossip to ground–undisclosed sources. So Russert calls Libby and fishes for confirmation on Plame–“say Scooter, I hear that Joe Wilson’s wife is CIA?” Scooter says he’s heard that, too. Etc.
Russert may have misremembered this conversation, or he may have perjured himself. Scooter, same story, but I can’t believe that Russert hadn’t at least heard the Plame buzz. Same with Cooper, Miller, et al.
I wasn’t in the jury box, but I see plenty of room for reasonable doubt and a reversal on appeal.
You know, I keep seeing all this discussion about Fitzgerald and whether or not he should have continued – the fact he was uninterested Armitage told Novak yada yada – the one aspect I see none of the legal eagles address is Joe Wilson as liar and trading in what is supposedly classified info – at least as applied to Libby- in the first place and Fitzgeralds total indifference to it.
IOW’s Fitzgerlad has basically authenticated the use of false information/accusations to be used and criminalized correcting the record. At some point he did indicate that the government would not stipulate to Wilson’s honesty, but it seems to me as a fair investigator weighing the whole situation is warranted. Someone tells a lie about someone else in the newpaper – the accused has a right to rebut it that should be considered it as a part of the investigation. That seems scary for all of us. It’s derelict of Fitzgerald to ignore Wilson publishing some classified details with false accusations and but look with a criminal eye at the OVP to correct those false accusations?
I mean this case is a mess from start to finish – including the terrible precedents of jailing reporters Fitzgerald se
My word. You haven’t really looked, then. Like, at all. Read the link Jeff provided and the comments to the post. It is discussed at great length.
“sureitcanhold†(above): “Joe Wilson claimed in his op-ed in the NY Times that the Vice President’s office sent him to Niger to investigate claims the Iraqi’s were attempting to purchase yellowcake. “
Joe Wilson (the NYT Op-Ed you refer to): “In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney’s office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake  a form of lightly processed ore  by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990’s. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.â€Â
Hmmm. I don’t think he wrote what you say he wrote.
As for whether Mrs. Wilson’s covert status qualified under the relevant statute ,we’ll check with a Republican appointed federal official whose knowledge of the facts of the case vastly dwarfs all of ours, FITZGERALD (5/25/07): [I]t was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.
“Topsecretk9 “: “the one aspect I see none of the legal eagles address is Joe Wilson as liar and trading in what is supposedly classified infoâ€Â
That might be because they are “Legal Eaglesâ€Â, and you are not.
Joe Wilson (the NYT Op-Ed again): “After consulting with the State Department’s African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.â€Â
That was fun. Let’s do this again sometime.
Funny to watch lefties accept the CIA directive to the media “Leave this story alone” as dispositive now.
“Yeah, that’s right! That should have been the end of it right there!”
My six-year-old shows more moral consistency than today’s Left.
Oh and does it bother any one in the press or out that Russert burned a source to a man on the telelphone, who claimed to be FBI wihtout seeig a badge then went into court and claimed he couldn’t burn a source? Are there any government people here, forced to deal with journalists, who find that reassuring? Shouldn’t somone in the press have mentioned that? Are some sources more flammable than others? Is whether a source is toaster ovehn material depend on his poltical party? Are Al Qaeda sources less flammable than Scooter Libby? Is it okay to mebed yourself with the Taliban and protect them as sources and okay to toss a little kerosense on a mid lever political do nothing invovled in a notheing case about an outing that he in fact had nothing to od with? How come Novak had to protect Armitage to the death but russert had the option of feeding Libby to Fitzgerald’s career? Should a media reporter wonder about that? Yet none of them do. Odd. I know I’ve ranged pretty far afield her and I’m osrry. But there is a disturbing possiblity that the folk over at Volokh’s could be right and we were still all hosed, but not by fitzgerald, or the Democrats or Cheney or Libby. And, finally, if NBC would burn Libby to a man on a telephone what would they do with any secrets that might get their hands on through a FOI Act request when an Al Qaeda operative wiht a gun came calling, and not on the phone.
“secrets that might get their hands on through a FOI Act request”
Does someone help you dress?
david and heet – If Fitz believed she had been “outed”, why not charge somebody with it? Why not try the issue, get a judicial finding? Why wait until sentencing recommendations to trot it out?
David, you are down on strikes. The lie about Cheney sending Wilson was in Kristoff’s column with Wilson as sole source, not the one Wilson subsequently wrote. You have swallowed the attempted Wilson rehab hook, line and sinker.
Two, Fitzgerald has made several statements such as the one you cited that turned out to be either overreach, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong. Fitz is not the sole arbiter of this issue.
And even if Wilson did not actually trade in classified information, one has to wonder why he was not sworn to confidentiality. Either way, accepting an admitted liar as the final say here is a checked-swing third strike. Take a seat.
Okay or not through an FOI act request.. how about through a confidential source? You don’t think these are even issues that journalists should discuss?
“And all of this escaped the judge and jury.”
Because judges and juries are never wrong. Ever.
“…and the part Cheney played is documented at…”
Which, unless I am missing something, consists solely of this:
July 12, 2003 –
Libby flies with the Vice President and others to Norfolk , Virginia and back. The Vice President allegedly advises Libby that Wilson ’s wife works for the CIA, information Libby understands the Vice President received from the CIA.
Two days before Novak’s first column mentioned her name, and four days before Wilson outted her as covert to David Corn.
I am still not seeing what serious crimes Cheney committed that Libby obstructed the investigation of. Wait a minute, what is this you say, timmy?
“I want to make it clear for some folks that I am not saying Cheney did anything illegal.”
Ohhhh. So you admit you were full of shit in the other thread then?
“David, you are down on strikes. The lie about Cheney sending Wilson was in Kristoff’s column with Wilson as sole source, not the one Wilson subsequently wrote. You have swallowed the attempted Wilson rehab hook, line and sinker.”
Kristof’s Op-ed: “I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger.â€Â
You seem to be a clueless asshole.
“Two, Fitzgerald has made several statements such as the one you cited that turned out to be either overreach, unsubstantiated or just plain wrong. Fitz is not the sole arbiter of this issue.”
Name one, you clueless asshole.
“And even if Wilson did not actually trade in classified information, one has to wonder why he was not sworn to confidentiality.”
Why? Oh, that’s right, because you are desperate for something, anything to say to pretend you didn’t lose this argument.
“Either way, accepting an admitted liar as the final say here is a checked-swing third strike. Take a seat.”
So, he lied. It’s classified. For some reason, no one has ever attempted to claim that in public. Why not? Oh, that’s right, because they are not clueless assholes, like you.
David:
Quoting the piece of the Op-Ed that you conveniently neglect:
“The vice president’s office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.”
Wilson was clearly trying to leave the false impression that the Vice President asked him to go to Niger and that the President was aware of his “findings.”
Wilson also left out of his OpEd that it was, in fact, his wife who sent him to Niger.
David,
Lord knows I hand out abuse here on occasion, but in this case I’m really wondering. Is the way Russert acted and the way Mitchell has acted and the way the rest of the press has treated the both of them the way the press is supposed to act. I know they weren’t on trial. But if i had been the star witness or you would the US attorney’s office have been willing to negogiate my testimony with our corporate lawyers? This just seems unsettling to me.
Joe Wilson: “I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.â€Â
And they all told him they weren’t doing anything wrong, and that proved they weren’t. Somebody needs to explain to the CIA and State Department that Peter Sellers is a comedian and those aren’t fucking training films.
“Wilson was clearly trying to leave the false impression that the Vice President asked him to go to Niger and that the President was aware of his “findings.—
I didn’t know I was arguing with a psychic. That’s not fair. Oh, maybe you’re just making stuff up. I guess you can’t avoid that, it beats your staring at the screen in frustration.
Wilson, on CNN:
WILSON: Well, I went in actually in February of 2002 was my most recent trip there, at the request I was told of the office of the vice president, which had seen a report in intelligence channels about this purported memorandum of agreement on uranium sales from Niger to Iraq…
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=4160
Sit the fuck down.
“Somebody needs to explain to the CIA and State Department that Peter Sellers is a comedian and those aren’t fucking training films.”
Yeah, you tell ’em, you worthless loser, sitting on your ass typing/whining/bitching while people with actual expertise and experience actually do shit to help secure our country. Do you not possess an ounce of self-awareness?
that was brutal
i meant sponge, not this other fella
Fitz was wrong when he claimed Libby was the first leaker:
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2005/11/mr_fitzgerald_n.html
And Fitz leaves the claim Plame was covert under the statute unsubstantiated. Hell, Fitz claimed in his closing “There’s a cloud over the VP’s office.” I don’t suppose you see any overreach there, right David?
Siddown already.
“Yeah, you tell ‘em, you worthless loser, sitting on your ass typing/whining/bitching while people with actual expertise and experience actually do shit to help secure our country. Do you not possess an ounce of self-awareness?”
Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism, dude.
Too bad mirrors don’t work on the intratubes, it would be fun to bounce projection like that right back at ’em.
David,
You clueless asshole, you clueless asshole, you clueless asshole. If you go back and read the many things Wilson wrote and testified to, you would see he contradicted himslef many times. He claims to have debunked the forgeries before the foregeries even happened. He claimed he “debunked” the fact that Iraq sought uranium in Niger, but his report to the CIA actually supported that claim. Kristof has stated that Wilson was his source for the claim that the V.P.’s office sent Wilson to Africa. The Senate 9/11 panel found that Wilson lied about much of what he said/wrote. Wilson claimed his wife did not send him, or have any involvement in sending him – again a flat out lie.
Wilson is a pretty well documented liar and political hack. So, you clueless asshole, you really are a clueless asshole.
Again, what galls me is that what Sandy Berger did was 10x worse than what Libby is conviced of, but you leftards could care less. Indeed, what the NY Times does in publishing secret information harms america much, much more than what Libby is convicted of, but again, people like you don’t care. All you care about is politics and getting leftism and socialism in power. Your hypocracy is staggering. So too is your willingness to lie for your cause.
Libby may indeed be guilty of perjury. (not “outing” anyone – he was neither charged nor convicted of that, nobody was. Indeed, as of right now, since we know that armitage “outed” plame but was not charged, we know that Fitzgerald did not feel that the “outing” was a crime – thus I am mystified why the left is so set on arguing that she was “outed” or that a crime was committed in “outing” her, when the only evidence we have (1) that Armitage definitely “outed” her and (2) that Fitzgerald, whose job it was to investigate and prosecute the “outing” decided not to do so – seems to demonstrate pretty conclusively that no crime was committed in the “outing.”
However, perjury was a pretty weak crime in the libs eyes just a few short years ago. Any argument about “national security” is also hokum as we know from the libs refusal to care about Sandy Berger’s acts – or even to wonder what exactly he was destroying evidence of? Why is the left not even curious as to why Bill Clinton’s NSA was willing to steal and destroy classified evidence? It seems to me that such actions are a pretty big flag that something bad is being covered up.
But, the left doesn’t care. The nation’s interest’s are not the left’s interests.
Holy Christ on a rubber crutch, please shut the fuck up about Wilson. It is incredibly tiring to hear the same recycle bullshit. At least try a new tack like JD’s “I dunno man, why didn’t they charge anyone with outing Plame?” inanity.
“Somebody needs to explain to the CIA and State Department that Peter Sellers is a comedian and those aren’t fucking training films.â€Â
Dissent? Nah, just a worthless loser deluded into thinking (or just pretending) he/she knows something for the sake of being a whiny bitch (for a change).
“And, finally, if NBC would burn Libby to a man on a telephone what would they do with any secrets that might get their hands on through a FOI Act request when an Al Qaeda operative wiht a gun came calling, and not on the phone.”
FOIA doesn’t allow the release of classified materials.
“Because judges and juries are never wrong. Ever.”
Orin Kerr, in a better post than the one our host links to, quotes the judge as calling the evidence “overwhelming.”
I’ve got to hand it to the Great Banana, though. He must have broken the record for most Plame talking points in a single blog comment. Sorta like reaching the limits of Shannon’s theorem with delusion. It’s almost pure noise at this point.
And, “Great Banana”, do you actually walk around in public? You’re positively unhinged.
I am laughing so hard I can’t do this anymore. heet and david have self-parodied themselves to the point I feel completely useless. Maybe later.
some people’s whelming threshold is lower than others
Why don’t you use some of your time away to actually learn about the Plame case instead of ripping up pictures of Joe Wilson and then pissing on them.
…while crying and referring to yourself by a girl’s nickname in the third person.
I haven’t read all the commnets yet (I’m on short lunch break and need to run) but I want to say why, IMO, the sentence was excessive.
First off, Fitzgerald argued at sentencing allegations that were never put before the jury. That seems to fly in the face of at least a couple of court decisions. Secondly, it is so rare that a judge rejects the recommendations of the Probation report…and in this case from straight probation to handing down 30 months … that alone is breathtaking.
I really can’t recall when the last time I’ve seen it, anecdotally, at my office.
Then add Hillary’s chutzpah in the whole thing considering Billy’s quid pro quo pardons….
Holy Christ on a rubber crutch, please shut the fuck up about Wilson.
Translated into adult male: “Please stop kicking our asses when we bring up some dumbass thing we read on some lefty blog and actually believed without even bothering to think critically or, God forbid, second source.”
Heet, Dave, the other team is in the locker room drinking beer and laughing at you. I think it’s time for you to hit the showers.
So how do you feel about congressional review of judges, shine? If they are all infallible, it seems to me to be quite the waste of time.
And heet and david, you guys should take that shit on the road, seriously. The Incredibly Self-Aware Talking Points Twins!
Yeah, Darleen, we’ve heard that one before :
“But records show that the Justice Department under the Bush administration frequently has sought sentences that are as long, or longer, in cases similar to Libby’s. Three-fourths of the 198 defendants sentenced in federal court last year for obstruction of justice  one of four crimes Libby was found guilty of in March  got some prison time. According to federal data, the average sentence defendants received for that charge alone was 70 months.”
Maybe get out of the office a bit.
Jeez, heet, then it’s almost like fucking government, isn’t it? The same one you and your boys here in this thread all seem to expect to suddenly use, post-Clinton/post-Starr, to justify federal “justice.”
Like the man said, sit down already because with you morons it’s clearly all about the Party. Which means that unless you spontaneously grow a perspective — and a moral one at that — all you’re doing is peeing gas on your own little burning at the stake. Must be pretty damn frustrating to wait nearly a decade only to follow up an impeachment with a fine paid in a weekend by partisan contributions, huh? In fact, gaging from the tone you three stooges bring to the party, I’d say frustrated barely scratches the surface.
Moral justice by federal court. Libby as the Republican’s sacrificial crucifiction. And thus the Democrat’s principles of governance vindicated. You oafs completely crack me up. That Libby walks says not a damn thing about what you think you know about how to operate a country and from there, if there’s ever going to be, by the principle, a moral, criminal reason to convict an Administration figure. You know, like war crimes, face-shootings, having big monkey ears, shit like that.
Libby obstructed justice where justice was not being sought, provided something unjust ever occurred. So pay 250 large, go home.
Have fun with those short hairs, losers.
Apparently I’m not tracking the points correctly, because it seems to me that david and sponge are making the same argument about Wilson thinking he was sent to Niger by the OVP. But I really never cared anyway.
What I really want to know, and all the pundits have been mysteriously silent on this critical issue, is this: how do you debunk a forgery? Isn’t a forgery ipso facto debunked? So if you debunk something that is already debunked it just disappears down a wormhole, right? So without the primary reason for this whole sordid mess, time moves backward and this case never occurred! Libby doesn’t exist and it’s Springtime in America!
cynn – I think you are onto something.
Sometimes I too just feel like writing something.
Like the man said, sit down already because with you morons it’s clearly all about the Party.
This is pretty hilarious, though frightfully it was unintentional on your part. The plain fact is you are so far up your own ass that you can’t discern desperate spin, conspiracy theories, and obfuscation in the name of Party from a reasonable thought. Thankfully, there are some Republicans in Justice who have enough scruples to know our country needs honest men to do the right thing. That is why Libby was convicted. One day, when you are sitting in your rocking chair at the winger old folks home, you’ll be shaking your fist at the TV when they air the 30th anniversary special on “The Plame Affair” and how it shattered the Republican Party. You still won’t know what the fuck happened. But you’ll shit your diapers and call it a victory for freedom, just like the olden days on PW.
Holy Christ on a rubber crutch, please shut the fuck up about Wilson.
Thanks dude, that was comic genius. You were trying to be humorous right?
FOIA doesn’t allow the release of classified materials
Yes, and we all know how infallible the Federal government is, and we trust all their acts implicitly. Right? I mean, no one in the press would ever improperly be provided important secrets right?
I just love how the left wants to compartmentalize, but only on their own terms. The Libby verdict is all about the rule of law,and nothing to do with politicized prosecutions. The Plame affair is all about the seriousness of national security and the need to protect agents and secrets, and nothing to do with shadowy governmental figures (A CIA spook, no less!) using her office to secretly and safely play dirty political tricks. No abuse of power there, move along.
Yet Sandy Berger and the NYT’s serial leakage are greeting with a yawn.
I’m tempted to tell the leftards to fuck off and get out of my sight but they are so goddamn transparent it’s not even necessary.
ThomasD,
That must have been satisfying. What would you tell Ashcroft, Comey, and Walton, all Republicans who have materially damaged the Bush administration? Would you maybe string ’em up? Or just tell them to “fuck off”? I know this is all hyperbole but you are clearly able to operate in the land of fantasy.
The most frustrating thing for me, is all this noise obscures the fact that to believe everything Wilson said, you must accept that a well known diplomat and businessman, openly acknowledging he is there on behalf of the US government, proved that Iraq was not trying to buy yellowcake by spending a weekend asking government officials if they were or not. By this reckoning, why is anything ever investigated? If the suspect says he didn’t do it, that should be good enough, right?
Joe Wilson: “I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.â€Â
And he leaves the embarrassing and illogical detail his “rationale” for this was, had he not, it might cause a crisis among his Niger “contact” that he was there on National Command Authority.
With the way things have been going regarding “perjury and obstruction” charges, and “lying to the feds” like poor Martha, it’s getting to the point where the very act of testifying may become grounds for claiming fifth amendment protection.
I mean, if you can be jailed for having a different recollection of events from someone else, you’re risking prison time every time you appear in court.
Somebody had better get that crap under control, or it’s going to rip our court system to shreds.
Hey, thanks for the rather indignant assist, heet — like I said, it’s really gotta suck equating morality only with justice at the federal level pursuant Fitz and Wilson/Plame (or even Clinton, speaking of them good old days when right had no overriding moral authority and the wrong letters just got tore off keyboards.)
I mean, I can dig all that “progressive” appearances-centrism and narrative-molding and all this Libby-oriented neo-moralism, but really. Substance much? Perspective?
Speaking of which, I can also see, as I implied and you just proved, where the appearances-centrism that has you fuming about Libby getting off the hook and then having somebody laugh in your face about it would have somebody of your slovenly standards and petty wit also struggling to conjure up nothing more robust than, oh, say the ageist/bowelist/toothless/homeless stereotype you just did. That one really went to eleven.
Here’s a tip, one that given your brilliant progressive trajectory should prove most useful at the level you apparently exist to serve: I hear ordinary peace symbols ward off most old conservative rocking-chaired white males. So go save the planet.
Because we all know a man’s gotta have his principles in order. Bravo, Einstein.
Who are you to stand in the way of justice, Merovign?
KEN STARR, DAMMIT!
Wow, you are seriously fucked up. Nice run on sentence, too. Two questions – what is an “appearances-centrism”? Where am I fuming about Libby, again?
Clinton’s former campaign director got indicted today. David Rosen. Here’s a fun game. Find the AP coverage of it.
i think that should be campaign finance director
“i think that should be campaign finance director
It should be Miz Clinton but her campaign finance director is taking the hit so far. I wonder if he’s been to Hubbell’s ‘roll over one more time’ school?
BTW – for those interested, here is the declassified report about what the liar Wilson actually “discovered” in Africa. (h/t Cecil Turner).
Please note the description by former Nigerien PM Mayaki of what he believed the Iraqi trade delegation was seeking from Niger.
heet – Double the dosage, and relax a bit. You sound positively apopleptic.
BTW – for those interested, here is the declassified report about what the liar Wilson actually “discovered†in Africa. (h/t Cecil Turner).
Thanks Rick.
What would you tell Ashcroft, Comey, and Walton, all Republicans who have materially damaged the Bush administration?
I’d tell ’em I reject Heet’s flawed premise but certainly appreciate his undying concern for the Administration.
You? I’d say fuck off.
Appearances-centrism, heet. Part of demanding what things look like and then that what things look like beats what’s actually there all day long. Libby looks like the entire Bushitler gang is guilty of war crimes. Bingo. You guys will take what you can get and then make what it looks like/means stick by some means.
To the Left, Libby is guilty by appearances because he lied about a case that doesn’t reliably exist. Clinton, for example, is not guilty because he was heavily convicted only about a case that by some opinion, maybe shouldn’t have existed. The Bushitler Regime versus the Smartest Black President in History.
Two utterly inverted reactions to basic fact and both depending on making appearances central to the debate.
Consider it a leftist staple: Controlling the appearance — in this case, of “justice” across at least a decade — is an adjunct to attempting to control speech, a trick the Left is positively bristling to do these days at every turn. Right next door to angrily framing — invoking holy moral writ in these sorts of things, right were you always reliably find holy moral writ, in political witch hunts — why Libby deserves to hang, dammit, that being a subsection of the Left’s religion of narrow exclusive partisan values.
Wow, I’m seriously fucked up for pointing out the obvious. Einstein.
Kinda like you frothing about justice, the American way, and the Lincoln bedroom, or whatever it was you were all moralizing about. What it looks like, as you define it, is superior to what it actually is. Jeff asks a principled question about if reducing the sentence doesn’t actually speak to or against, er, justice, and suddenly it’s the church of the federal pen for lying-about-offenses-that-don’t-exist around here. Kinda like the inverse of back in the day, when Clinton had nothing but personal business that wasn’t any of our business and suborning perjury and lying to a grand jury isn’t anybody’s business either because why he did it wasn’t anybody’s business. Was that about the kind of federal justice that’s all in vogue again or was it about relative values based purely on party, heet?
Clinton looked clean. Libby looks dirty. Unless neither case occurred for any other legitimate reason — HELLO! — than because the political process allowed it to.
IOW, these days, about justice, taking moral advice from a leftist is akin to taking constitutional advice about primary American rights from a Socialist.
Catching on? Einstein.
“I just love how the left wants to compartmentalize, but only on their own terms. The Libby verdict is all about the rule of law,and nothing to do with politicized prosecutions”
Whose politics? Bush appointee ashcroft? Bush appointee Comey? Bush appointee Fitzgerald? GOP appointee Walton? Sentelle?
Whose politics? Bush appointee ashcroft? Bush appointee Comey? Bush appointee Fitzgerald? GOP appointee Walton? Sentelle?
If you are trying to make an argument you really should do so.
Otherwise you are just supporting my point. Pretending that Plame/Wilson wasn’t political – from the word go – is absurd. Plame thought she had the perfect game – being somehow insulated from blowback. But she and her husband’s motives were purely political and they got caught out. Only then her cronies insisted on an investigation – that was the source, not Admin appointees.
You cannot compartmentalize the attending prosecution as something divorced from the entire matter. Meaning that any verdict is inherently politicized, so fodder for any further political acts, up to and including full pardon.
Still trying to have your cake and eat it too.
heet
So what? Give me the number of sentences that were actually handed down that were way out of line with the Probation recommendation.
And in any of those cases, did the prosecuters say one thing during the trial and another thing at the PJ hearing?
Your quote means nada in relation to Libby’s case.
Maybe YOU ought to do some volunteer work at a DA office and find out what happens in the real world.
Let’s set Richard Armitage aside for a moment and ask why, if Plame was covert, Bill Harlow hasn’t been prosecuted for leaking her identity. As the CIA Public Affairs Officer, he certainly would have been in a position to know her status, and yet he told Novak she was CIA. The suggestion that his telling Novak to keep that information under his hat was “actively protecting her cover” is idiotic. You simply do not disclose classified information to those not authorized to have it, ever, period, end of story, amen.
Why hasn’t Harlow been prosecuted? Same reason he found it acceptable to tell Novak: Plame was not covert.
As for the legalities, since we’re given a choice between believing heet, david and Timmah!, all knuckleheads of long standing or believing Victoria Toensing, who wrote the fucking law….gee, this is a tough one, isn’t it?
“Pretending that Plame/Wilson wasn’t political – from the word go – is absurd”
I’m not pretending. I’m wondering of the people actually making the decisions that made this a prosecution and sentence and commutation, who was political? Ashcroft? Comey? Fitzgerald? Walton? Sentelle? Bush?
It’s the tu quoque argument Jeff is always trotting around the track. I thought Bill Clinton’s pardon of Rich and others to be blatant financial pandering.
The instant case with Libby just stinks of a poke in the eye. He may prevail in his appeal (there very well could have been errors); but he is free in the meantime. So as loyal opposition, I respect the system and will wait for the outcome.
A pardon would be a political disaster. It would slap the majority, and doom Libby to an unindicted conspirator status forever. And what right-wing juggernaut wants those tin cans on its tail?
Cynn, did Jeff mention, or even allude to Clinton and I missed it? Where’s the tu quoque?
Everything that Fitzgerald says about Plame’s status under IIPA is bullshit, as he never charged a violation of that statute and so never had to prove it.
This really, and I mean this seriously, is not nearly as politically momentous as some people think. What was the name of that guy in Florida with the thing for young guys? And that preacher guy who did meth with hookers. And that guy who exchanged tags on stuff from Wal-Mart or something. And the dude who wore his military uniform to church meetings. When all you do is screech, all your songs sound the same. Except for Bjork.
Yeah, happyfeet. Glad to hear your feet are happy. Cause whatever, it’s all about the tapping and whatnot.
You are cynical. What can help with that is tropical fish. Most people’s lives are filled with things like that. Not a whole lot of purpose to it, but for some reason it’s very satisfying for them and it takes up a little bit of each day. Scooter Libby is not very satisfying and he doesn’t take up a little part of every day. A year from now the innocuous little fish will retain their place in people’s lives. Mr. Libby? Not so much.
see #70
I see the commutation as another one of Bush’s dirty tricks on the Democrats. First their heads explode just because Libby’s not going to jail now. Later Bush has the possiblility that the case will be overturned on appeal causing further Democrat heads to spontaneously explode. Finally if the appeal fails Bush can cause more exploding Democrat heads by pardoning Libby when he leaves office.
FITZGERALD (5/25/07): [I]t was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.
That’s not right. Fitzgerald asserts the crime occurred instead of proving it. Libby’s lawyers were forbidden by the judge of presenting arguments or evidence about this very assertion during the trial. That’s just not right.
mop it up, baby.
maybe you could just start with some houseplants
I am thinking a stuffed animal maybe, something inanimate to start off. Inanimate and fairly durable.
they make happyfeet dolls you know
They actually had a meeting at Warner Bros to discuss how they could make the happyfeet penguins penguinly distinctive so that kids who wanted penguins wouldn’t be satisfied with any old penguin stuff… I don’t mean to mock them – they have to work with what they have to work with, but what’s interesting is that this discussion was among people who have no more insight into penguin distinctivity than anyone here, or anywhere really. Obviously, they didn’t have any major breakthroughs. So when I see happyfeet penguins for sale it’s like a little parable of humility.
I’m wondering of the people actually making the decisions that made this a prosecution and sentence and commutation, who was political?
Your ignorance, feigned or otherwise, is really getting tiresome.
If you want an answer to your own question why don’t you ask the person(s) at the CIA who sent the bullshit referral to DOJ? A referral they knew was bogus, because they were never willing to assert that Plame was covert under the governing statute. That’s what started the prosecutorial ball rolling.
No referral, no special prosecutor. Once again, a shadowy cabal within the CIA hatching plots to discredit the elected Executive. Leading us to politicized prosecutions and no evidence of the actual crime alleged. JC that’s a an act only worthy of reichwinger, or your typical leftards stereotype of a reichwinger.
Yet all the so called ‘liberals’ and ‘libertarians’ are strangely silent about this abuse of the system.
If this type of crap had been tried against Clinton the MSM would have gone ballistic against the perps. It would be Round Two of the Church hearing and the erstwhile right wing Plame/Wilson duo would be the ones facing felony raps.
“If you want an answer to your own question why don’t you ask the person(s) at the CIA who sent the bullshit referral to DOJ?”
So thats it. Everything else is on the up and up, just hte CIA referral was political. Tenet then? The guy that bush kept at the CIA, and a presidential medal of freedom winner? Ok. What was the politics going on here?
. Tenet then? The guy that bush kept at the CIA
Um ok, this is hilarious. You’ve basically unraveled the scandal premise of firing of 8 USAT vs. Clinton 93 massacre. Bush is SO political he actually kept a Clinton appointee. Keep it up.
Comment by cynn on 7/6 @ 7:56 pm #
It’s the tu quoque argument Jeff is always trotting around the track. I thought Bill Clinton’s pardon of Rich and others to be blatant financial pandering.
The instant case with Libby just stinks of a poke in the eye.
No. The Clinton pardons were a poke in the eye. The Bush clemency of Libby just might be to correct a miscarrage of justice. Cause if you were an authentic progressive you’d be on the side of the little guy.
“You’ve basically unraveled the scandal premise of firing of 8 USAT vs. Clinton 93 massacre. ”
He fired 8 of his own. Thats whats interesting there. Haven’t you got this?
Because of course, if he hired them, he’s obligated to be satisfied with their performance forever and ever and ever…
Shit happens. Projectors shine.
Chocking on a pretzel was interesting too. But what’s your point, actus?
It seems to me that the basic problem shine is having is being unable to imagine political motivations outside of a Democrat vs. Republicans mentality. A view surprisingly lacking in nuance, I must say.
“Because of course, if he hired them, he’s obligated to be satisfied with their performance forever and ever and ever…”
And performance is another part of what makes this interesting. So is how they told the story.
“It seems to me that the basic problem shine is having is being unable to imagine political motivations outside of a Democrat vs. Republicans mentality.”
I’m just having trouble seeing who was animated by politics and who was doing what their normal job was. Prosecutors prosecuted, judges judged, etc…
Because of course, people who’ve been fired have no motivation whatsoever to shade the truth to make themselves look like victims.
Seems to me that, if Libby lied, we know what he lied about. We know the truth. So the obstruction no longer exists. No obstacle to Fitz going after the real leaker.
Since Libby’s lie prevented it. Now it no longer does.
If Fitz fails to find the IIPA leaker now, he’s a hack.
…and the investigation is concluded, isn’t it?
Probably pw commenters, actus. At the least, given the utter lack of politics in government at the DC level. I’d bet that Fitz had no sense of legacy when bringing this case either. Pure as snow as federal employees typically are.
Remember, Congress — that bastion of unpolitical politicos — convicted Clinton. You know, congresspeople objectively congressing and prosecutors prosecuting and grand juries grand jurying.
And given that Libby damn near brought down the entire District and with the country before justice caught up with him, you’re right: Prosecutors prosecuting his malfeasance and judges judging it. Clockwork.
Oh, and then there’s private citizen juries jurying too, and all without the slightest hint of controversy, actus.
“I’d bet that Fitz had no sense of legacy when bringing this case either. ”
Certainly. Orin Kerr addresses that:
Fitz is gonna make damn sure every t is crossed and every i is dotted. He’s doesn’t want to be made to look like a fool.
Pablo,
Maybe, maybe not. But, if and when, no IIPA leaker, Fitz is a hack.
Unlike Starr. The guy who was incapable of sharpening a pencil. That really passes the reasonableness test, actus.
Why does anyone try and reason anything whatsoever with you? He said to himself.
Richard, Fitz is back at work in Chicago, isn’t he? As far back as the Libby indictment, we have this.
There is no leak, there was no outing, and no one will be charged with the violation that was supposed to be investigated. It simply didn’t happen, and the only people who don’t know it are those who are holding on to the ridiculous notion that whatever obstruction Libby might have done was insurmountable. Which is like riding down a bike path, seeing a rock in the path, then turning around and going home.
“Why does anyone try and reason anything whatsoever with you? He said to himself.”
Dont worry about me. But do be worried about the opinions of the likes of Orin Kerr. Brilliant guy. Conservative. I would imagine you’d think him on your side.
That’s what you call dotting i’s and crossing t’s, Pablo. Now that Libby’s been dealt with, the country’s legal system can go back to the just task at hand, which is, concerning Wilson/Plame, absolutely nothing.
Libby lied/botched testimony/misremembered about thin air. Jailtime for Bushitlerco, I say.
Except I don’t agree with your use of Kerr’s reasoning, actus. Typical of you to warp it so. So, nice ploy but no banana.
See, there’s a third option here: In his comment, Kerr allows for the dichotomy between a competent prosecutor’s objective, competent viewpoint or a biased prosecutor’s outright political malevolence concerning Libby, that being the argument in some circles. From this Kerr assumes, as a reasonable mind would, that a competent prosecutor would not make a mistake, botch a mission, fumble the ball, be misdirected, make misdirection, get his lunch on his shirt, fall off the curb, or whatever actually happened here, a point not too terribly far from my speculating that professional ardor might have motivated Fitz, political motivation not yet having been ruled out because this is speculating as to motive, counselor. I might even read that by his use of “experienced”, Kerr is tacitly allowing that Fitz isn’t reaching the necessary high bar for these sorts of things.
But I speculate; apparently you do not.
See, Pablo’s link quotes Fitz as admitting tossing Libby from the game not for concealing a crime but for preventing Fitz, as the argument goes, from looking for one, one that doesn’t exist. One of the major points being made here at pw and elsewhere is you don’t then develop this huge partisan sense of moral outrage when your side, in effect, has to manufacture crimes to prosecute because your real legal goal simply vanished.
Fitz, charged with investigating Bushco, busted Libby for speeding on the way to a KKK meet that Bushco was never proved as having. No photographs or videotape, even. Congratulations. This neither means that Fitz is competent (it tends to argue the opposite) nor that he is politically motivated. See?
So Kerr didn’t specifically allow that Fitz didn’t put himself into such a position — he’s making the point that he disagrees that Fitz was an overzealous prosecutor, not that that means he’s flippin’ Perry Mason. Naturally, you read that as a conservative defense of Fitz’s universal menu of all possible motivations and actions. Bingo: Competence (and perfect motives) by default (and further, by extension, that based on appearance.) You know, your prosecutors prosecuting, judges judging, and all that. In DC, the very heart of purity.
And yes, I’m still trying to figure out why I try and correct your fetid slimetrail of reasoning.
“One of the major points being made here at pw and elsewhere is you don’t then develop this huge partisan sense of moral outrage when your side, in effect, has to manufacture crimes to prosecute because your real legal goal simply vanished.”
Side? Fitz is a republican appointee. Though I don’t know Kerr’s party affiliation, I know he’s a conservative. Patterico, a righty blogger, is in this boat too. Thats as far as simplesides are concerned, politically. So it must be something other than the simple politics of “sides.”
Again, collect no points, actard, for your perpetual misreadings (with which to shove sticks into the spokes of the naaasty conservativeses.)
The Left, as a “side” has manufactured mountains of crimes — of war, against humanity, what-have-you — against Bushco. I believe Libby is part of, yes, Bushco. Prosecuting Libby was the Left’s wetdream (given that imprisoning Cheney seems perpetually out of reach for, oh, I don’t know, a lack of premise, all that hysteria notwithstanding.)
Ergo, Fitz = Friend of Bill, so to speak, and off we go on our merry adventure.
Anyway, I see you have absolutely nothing substantive to offer. Okay.
Thats a wacky story you’ve concocted. Too bad it doesn’t make as much sense as the simple explanation of people doing their jobs. Something some other conservatives say. But I do admit that Kerr is a brilliant guy. Maybe it is above some of us.
Let me try one last time. The big problem I have with the death penalty, shine, is how it is abused in my opinion by the politicization of the judiciary. Too many prosecutors use death penalty convictions as campaign trophies, and it makes me a bit uneasy. We have a classic case of lawyers and judges “just doing their jobs” to the point of utter absurdity in Atlanta, this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Nichols
has been primarily using as is sole defense the fact that it is so obvious he is guilty he can’t possibly get a “fair” trial, and the judges are buying it. Combine that with a prosecutor hell bent on frying his ass and seemingly completely unwilling to accept a plea deal, and you have an endless judicial clusterfuck that is going to cost the taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. All politically motivated, nothing to do with party affiliations. Fitzgerald holds a political position and is on a political career track, if he didn’t deliver somebodies head in this it would not be good for his career. Judges are motivated similarly, when they give a ruling it is called an opinion for a reason.
Too bad it doesn’t make as much sense as the simple explanation of people doing their jobs.
What is a prosecutor or a judges job? Is it to try to find the truth, and be fair? Is it to ruthlessly advocate for one side and ignore mitigating facts that may help your opponent?
Or is it to get re-elected and/or set your self up for promotions and appointments to higher office?
“Fitzgerald holds a political position and is on a political career track, if he didn’t deliver somebodies head in this it would not be good for his career”
A republican political position. A republican career. That’s the “side” he’s on. Sure he’s got career motivations. He wants to make sure he’s not played here.
“Or is it to get re-elected and/or set your self up for promotions and appointments to higher office?”
I dont think that’s whats animating the republican appointees in this case, be they walton, fitz or even sentelle.
That’s a wacky story you’ve concocted, actuse. Too bad it doesn’t make as much sense as the simple explanation of people doing what they think it behooves them to do. Unless, as you allude, you know what it is they’re thinking to the contrary. And how the letter behind the name that appointed them defines not only who they are, but what they do and too, the very meaning of “political”, as B Moe gets with nine-tenths of his IQ in idle while a mind of your caliber
refusescannot.I mean, you must right?
What blows my mind (and what may explain why I am endlessly fascinated with your various delusions, end-runs, obstructions, and generally fantastic approaches to just about everything) is that you’re said to be involved in law. The blind describing the blinded, as it were?
“And how the letter behind the name that appointed them defines not only who they are, but what they do and too,”
Nope. It defines the political career they are on. There are other types of moves one makes to take care of one’s career though. Like plain old ruling the right way. Did you read the other Kerr posts? Patterico’s? The latter aren’t as good, but Kerr does appear to be the smarter of the two. Of most of us.
I don’t work in law. Just read some people on it. On this case, Kerr and Patterico make the most sense. bushco talk? not so much.
So you really think if the Democrats gain the White House and a controlling majority in Congress in ’08 Fitzgerald’s career in government is over?
So is David Souter. And…?
“So you really think if the Democrats gain the White House and a controlling majority in Congress in ‘08 Fitzgerald’s career in government is over?”
Right now he’s a US attorney. Which usually get replaced by new administrations and serve at the “pleasure of the president.” Remember?
Then again, he’s got experience in terror prosecutions and other national security matters. So maybe a new administration might find those useful skills.
“So is David Souter. And…?”
And he’s a lifetime appointment. So a political career? I don’t think he has one.
You are really kind of weak on the whole concept of a “future”, aren’t you shine? I will try to keep this in mind in our future discussions.