Decius wrote:

The Scooter Libby case has triggered some very weird commentary around the blogosphere; perhaps the weirdest claim is that the case against Libby was "purely political."

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

In the end, frankly, I have no idea what happened, and I have nearly everyone screaming partisan talking points at me and absolutely none of it is credible. There is no simple summary of facts and I do not know who to beleive. Everyone is equally insistent that they understand the truth and their version of events must be believed and they are the ones who should be trusted and its the other guys who are the crooks. Perhaps if I devoted months to reading all of the court filings and press reports I could come to an understanding that I was comfortable with, but I don't have time for it. Basically, as far as issues upon which to form political views, I'll stick to things that are a lot more clear than this.

that's chicken shit
edit
of course the problem with sitting on the fence is that you get shot at by both sides
i still think you're wrong but my language was inappropriate and i apologise for that
the question arises about the extent to which any of us can be in complete command of the facts and the extent to which we make calls based on faith -- be it faith in a jury, or an "expert", i'm not convinced that since the time of Leonardo anyone could be in complete command of the facts because for centuries the realm of knowledge has been too big for one person. Therefore we take things on faith however the extent to which this is achievable, case by case (literally in this instance), is something to ponder.

adam wrote:
that's chicken shit
edit
of course the problem with sitting on the fence is that you get shot at by both sides
i still think you're wrong but my language was inappropriate and i apologise for that
the question arises about the extent to which any of us can be in complete command of the facts and the extent to which we make calls based on faith -- be it faith in a jury, or an "expert", i'm not convinced that since the time of Leonardo anyone could be in complete command of the facts because for centuries the realm of knowledge has been too big for one person. Therefore we take things on faith however the extent to which this is achievable, case by case (literally in this instance), is something to ponder.

I think you are making an exageration here. Its not as if we're talking about an issue where there is a perponderance of evidence in one respect and I'm unwilling to engage it out of some sort of agnosticism. The split on this issue is almost exactly on partisan lines, and the difference is not about policy, but about which side is full of a bunch of crooks who shouldn't be trusted. My faith based inclination is that they both are, and that doesn't lead me anywhere in terms of having an opinion on their little spat.

Decius wrote:

The Scooter Libby case has triggered some very weird commentary around the blogosphere; perhaps the weirdest claim is that the case against Libby was "purely political."

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

In the end, frankly, I have no idea what happened, and I have nearly everyone screaming partisan talking points at me and absolutely none of it is credible. There is no simple summary of facts and I do not know who to beleive. Everyone is equally insistent that they understand the truth and their version of events must be believed and they are the ones who should be trusted and its the other guys who are the crooks. Perhaps if I devoted months to reading all of the court filings and press reports I could come to an understanding that I was comfortable with, but I don't have time for it. Basically, as far as issues upon which to form political views, I'll stick to things that are a lot more clear than this.

Well, since my opinion is already well known, the facts/time line go like this. Richard Armitige, then Deputy Secratary of State told Bob Novak Joe Wilson's wife worked at CIA. What is not clear is whether or not Armitage connected that to the reason Wilson was sent or not, but someone did (Rove? Libby? Cheney? Addington? that part has never been real clear). At that point an inquiry into who leaked a CIA agent was started.

Ashcroft recused himself as too close to the subjects of the investigation and it was handed over to Patrick Fitzgerald, who was made a US Attorney by W. Fitzgerald worked the grand jury for months and finally came back with perjury and obstruction charges against Libby for lying repeatedly to the grand jury. Fitzgerald never charged anyone directly with the leak for two reasons, one the charge is very difficult to bring, and second, Libby's lies to the jury obfuscated what happened. In the meantime, the "partisan witch hunt" cries start, even though Fitzgerald was appointed by Bush, and the judge in the case was also appointed by Bush.

Libby gets convicted and told he's going to do 30 months, have a $250,000 fine, and some other minor things. He files for appeal, and suspension or jail time until the appeals process... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Mike the Usurper wrote:
That's the scenario basically spin free.

Thank you. I guess the problem I'm having is that opinions seem to hinge on stuff you don't mention in your fact list and are perhaps not really knowable.
1. Was Plame actually a covert agent?
2. Why did the administration leak this information? Is it because they were getting revenge against Wilson or was it simply an explanation for what Wilson was doing in Niger?
3. Was the sentence reasonable or not? (Was the judge trying to send a message to the political class about how the court system actually works for normal people? Even if so, what does a commuted sentence mean?)
4. Was it reasonable to pursue a prosecution against Libby in the first place?

There is a hell of a lot of smoke here, in particular because Bush has never used his power to commute a sentence in this way before, but I'd prefer to stick to issues that are clearer. In many cases there is a clear disagreement about policy, and its possible to have an opinion about it. In this case there are simply a whole lot of people pointing fingers at eachother and saying "those guys are corrupt partisans who've gone too far." People's opinion about it seems to line up clearly on partisan lines.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:
That's the scenario basically spin free.

Thank you. I guess the problem I'm having is that opinions seem to hinge on stuff you don't mention in your fact list and are perhaps not really knowable.
1. Was Plame actually a covert agent?

Yes. Not only covert, but by all accounts, she was a NOC, able to use her husbands travel as ambassador to Iraq under HW Bush, and other trips to further her operations.

2. Why did the administration leak this information? Is it because they were getting revenge against Wilson or was it simply an explanation for what Wilson was doing in Niger?

This is somewhat unclear, but the strong suspicion is, yes, it was done to try to discredit Joe Wilson and as a warning to anyone else, "cross us and you'll pay." Saying he was in Niger on a junket created by his wife at CIA doesn't address anything Wilson said, so either way, they're trying to take down the messenger. Either they're doing it as payback or they're doing it as a smear job.

3. Was the sentence reasonable or not? (Was the judge trying to send a message to the political class about how the court system actually works for normal people? Even if so, what does a commuted sentence mean?)

Going by basic guidelines, the sentence for Libby starts out at something like 15-21 months (most of the sentencing news reports have notes on this) and the judge has some discretion. In this case, the judge found that based on the position he held and the damage done to the investigation (Libby effectively blocked it) there were circumstances by which he saw fit to increase that to 30 months. That is still no where near the maximum sentence allowable.

What the commuted sentence means is that Libby won't do any jail time. He still has the fine and two years of probation, but the fine is a joke (his legal defense fund had already raised something like 4 million, so forget that). Oh, and Bush has said a full pardon is still an option.

4. Was it reasonable to pursue a prosecution against Libby in the first place?

Yes. Fitzgerald's mandate was the leak and related issues. Libby was prosecuted for deliberately blocking that investigation. That is a related issue, and fully within Fitzgerald's purview.

There is a hell of a lot of smoke here, in particular because Bush has never used his power to commute a sentence in this way before, but I'd prefer to stick to issues that are clearer. In many cases there is a clear disagreement about policy, and its possible to have an opinion about it. In this case there are simply a whole lot of people pointing fingers at eachother and saying "those guys are corrupt partisans who've gone too far." People's opinion about it seems to line up clearly on partisan lines.

I think the telling point to take here is, do a substitution on the subject of the investigation. Instead of a leak, let's say it's about the mob. Libby becomes the accountant who lies to the grand jury. The subject of the grand jury isn't the accountant lying, it's about the mob, but you can bet your ass the accountant is going to get fried for lying to the grand jury.

Something else that is extremely suspicious in this. Libby's defense team has a reputation for being pit bulls. At the start of this they said they were going to have Libby on the stand, have Cheney on the stand, and all of a sudden, they turned into lap dogs and let Scooter go down. Was a deal cut before the trial was even finished? If that's the case, we've gone right into Nixon bribing the plumbers territory.

I have a feeling this is going to get much much worse for W&Co.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

1. Was Plame actually a covert agent?

Yes. Not only covert, but by all accounts, she was a NOC, able to use her husbands travel as ambassador to Iraq under HW Bush, and other trips to further her operations.

Apparently Libby's lawyers have argued that this was never proven.

Going by basic guidelines, the sentence for Libby starts out at something like 15-21 months (most of the sentencing news reports have notes on this) and the judge has some discretion. In this case, the judge found that based on the position he held and the damage done to the investigation (Libby effectively blocked it) there were circumstances by which he saw fit to increase that to 30 months. That is still no where near the maximum sentence allowable.

In spite of all the cultural zen that existed in the image of America's sweetheart homemaker going to prison, I feel like cases where its clear nothing wrong was done but they send someone to prison for lying to them are somewhat questionable. (I'm not saying thats the deal here, but it is the story with these sentences.) Basically, the idea that the court can compel you to testify against your friends and loved ones and can imprison you for lying or for refusing to comply seems, frankly, wrong to me. They really are putting a gun to your head and your wife's head and asking you which trigger you'd like them to pull. The length of these sentences, of course, seems questionable in this regard. Having said all of this, those who are most likely to be swinging on a star about Libby's pardon are the exact same people who are usually "throw the book at them" law and order types, so the complaints aren't real credible to me. "What do you think about the Scooter Libby pardon" ought to be a fun one to pop out the next time someone takes a "tough shit" tact in regard to an overzealous sentence.

Oh, and Bush has said a full pardon is still an option.

Likely to be played after the election.

Yes. Fitzgerald's mandate was the leak and related issues. Libby was prosecuted for deliberately blocking that investigation. That is a related issue, and fully within Fitzgerald's purview.

Conservatives argue the whole thing was driven by a partisan agenda and should have been dropped.

I have a feeling this is going to get much much worse for W&Co.

I agree. The level of frustration in liberal circles seems to be explosive. Kind of trite compared to other things that have gone on in the past 8 years, but it could be the straw that broke the camel's back... Emboldened by their win in '06 the left may become rather hard in response to this.

Decius wrote:

Mike the Usurper wrote:

1. Was Plame actually a covert agent?

Yes. Not only covert, but by all accounts, she was a NOC, able to use her husbands travel as ambassador to Iraq under HW Bush, and other trips to further her operations.

Apparently Libby's lawyers have argued that this was never proven.

Going by basic guidelines, the sentence for Libby starts out at something like 15-21 months (most of the sentencing news reports have notes on this) and the judge has some discretion. In this case, the judge found that based on the position he held and the damage done to the investigation (Libby effectively blocked it) there were circumstances by which he saw fit to increase that to 30 months. That is still no where near the maximum sentence allowable.

In spite of all the cultural zen that existed in the image of America's sweetheart homemaker going to prison, I feel like cases where its clear nothing wrong was done but they send someone to prison for lying to them are somewhat questionable. (I'm not saying thats the deal here, but it is the story with these sentences.) Basically, the idea that the court can compel you to testify against your friends and loved ones and can imprison you for lying or for refusing to comply seems, frankly, wrong to me. They really are putting a gun to your head and your wife's head and asking you which trigger you'd like them to pull. The length of these sentences, of course, seems questionable in this regard. Having said all of this, those who are most likely to be swinging on a star about Libby's pardon are the exact same people who are usually "throw the book at them" law and order types, so the complaints aren't real credible to me. "What do you think about the Scooter Libby pardon" ought to be a fun one to pop out the next time someone takes a "tough shit" tact in regard to an overzealous sentence.

Oh, and Bush has said a full pardon is still an option.

Likely to be played after the election.

Yes. Fitzgerald's mandate was the leak and related issues. Libby was prosecuted for deliberately blocking that investigation. That is a related issue, and fully within Fitzgerald's purview.

Conservatives argue the whole thing was driven by a partisan agenda and should have been dropped.

I have a feeling this is going to get much much worse for W&Co.

I agree. The level of frustration in liberal circles seems to be explosive. Kind of trite compared to other things that have gone on in the past 8 years, but it could be the straw that broke the camel's back... Emboldened by their win in '06 the left may become rather hard in response to this.

All of this is amusing.

Fact, Speculation, assertions, faith, and some skulduggery. All the workings of a "made for tv" movie.

Has anyone really bothered to read between the lines?

dc0de wrote:
All of this is amusing.

Fact, Speculation, assertions, faith, and some skulduggery. All the workings of a "made for tv" movie.

Has anyone really bothered to read between the lines?

What do you see there?

Decius wrote:

dc0de wrote:
All of this is amusing.

Fact, Speculation, assertions, faith, and some skulduggery. All the workings of a "made for tv" movie.

Has anyone really bothered to read between the lines?

What do you see there?

I see that a former NOC agent was outed. And someone had to take the fall for the outing. Libby may have been the sacrifice for outing Plame. Libby wasn't a stupid man, look at his history... He's a very intelligent man, with a very strong record in the past.

The real question that needs to be answered is "Who ordered the outing of Plame, and why?"