Bush to commute Libby prison sentence

[E.J.Armstrong]

Have you stopped beating your wife?

DR

My post was a direct sarcastic variant on RandFan to another poster above it. Me bad.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

But I do have something to say. I said Libby should be punished.

Please don't misrepresent my position.

RandFan - taking issue with things we disagree with is our god given right but taking on yourself is perhaps going a bit further than decency requires?

See actual post for detail.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan - taking issue with things we disagree with is our god given right but taking on yourself is perhaps going a bit further than decency requires?

See actual post for detail.

You are being nonsensical. My question to Davefoc was sincere and not rhetorical. Dave understood the question and he answered it understanding the context and intent of the question.

 

[RandFan]

My post was a direct sarcastic variant on RandFan to another poster above it. Me bad.

It had no resemblance to my question.

Hey Dave,

You seem pretty strong in your wording. Is it simply that Libby lied or are you also upset with Libby's politics (you mention neocon cronies)?

Dave introduced politics into his post. I was curious as to how much politics influenced his views. It's a fair question and one Dave understood and answered. I did not beg the question. I did not create a false dichotomy (note the word "also").

You are off the mark on this one E.J.

 

[Schneibster]

President clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice in a sexual harrasment case.

Wrong. Clinton was accused of committing perjury and obstruction of justice; you forgot the little detail about how he was acquitted.

That is more than a bummer. Sexual harrasment is a serious charge. Although he claims what he did was not sex and hence says it wasn't perjury.

First, under the definition presented during depositions to the plaintiff's lawyers, Clinton may have been misleading, but misleading is not perjury; his answers were literally true.

Here is the original definition of "sexual relations" used in the deposition:

"For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes:

1. Contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
2. Contact between any part of the person's body or an object and the genitals or anus of another person; or
3. Contact between the genitals or anus of the person and any part of another person's body.

Contact means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing."

Many people who would like to obfuscate have used this definition to "prove" Clinton lied. Unfortunately for them, the definition was amended by removing points 2 and 3 prior to Clinton being asked the question; the judge ruled that they were too broad. The remaining point can honestly be answered as Clinton did with respect to fellation; such an answer is misleading, but not perjury. Furthermore, since skin-skin, clothing-clothing, and clothing-skin are specified in the remaining definition, but objects have been thrown out with point 2, the infamous cigar story also is not "sexual relations" under this definition. All that remains is whether Clinton fondled Lewinky's breasts; and the evidence on this is equivocated at best, resting on the proverbial "oath vs. oath" that precedent has stated is insufficient grounds for a perjury charge, much less a conviction; cases have been summarily thrown out because there was not a second witness, or any evidence, in addition to the affirmation of a single individual. Knowing this precedent, no competent prosecutor would bring such a case.

This is all because point 1 is insufficiently specific as to who precisely is being gratified. Jones' lawyers could have made it sufficiently specific that there could be no question, and they had the information to allow them to do so at their fingertips; the proof of that is the inclusion of "any object" in point 2. The judge was willing that they should do so, and in fact they were encouraged multiple times to do so by the defense team. They did not. Whether they were incompetent, or deliberately left this ambiguity in place in order to cause this situation is unknown; the fact that it was ambiguous, i.e. that a reasonable person could interpret it the way Clinton did and answer "No," and not commit perjury, is a matter of public record. This is why Clinton was never charged with perjury in this incident, either in court or in the House. (See below for my assertion he was not charged in the House.)

Furthermore, whether one accepts this definition of "sexual relations," or the more common one that Clinton has asserted (i.e. genital-genital contact that most people would call "having sex"), Clinton's answers before the Starr grand jury with respect to his relations with Lewinsky are also literally truthful; misleading, but that is not his problem. Starr should have asked more careful questions.

Second, the articles of impeachment against Clinton did not include the Jones deposition incident. It was voted on in the House and failed by a vote of 205-229.

These are matters of public record. There is no question; Clinton was a scumbag; he gave answers intended to mislead, in both a deposition in court, and before a grand jury, and got away with it to the extent he did because of the vagueness of the questions. But he did not technically commit perjury, and he did not technically obstruct justice. And since these are specific legal terminology, with specific meaning under the law, "technically" is the only operative definition.

He was reprimanded by the judge in the Jones case, because he was misleading. He paid a fine for contempt of court because of it, as well. The lawsuit, however, was nevertheless summarily dismissed, by the same judge. And if you want to see some payback, well, all those fine upstanding Republicans who had used Jones in their scheme abandoned her like a hot potato, leaving her with legal expenses they had encouraged her to incur, and making comments about her morals to justify themselves.

This doesn't lessen what Scooter Libby allegedly did.

It ain't "allegedly" no more. He's been convicted.

 

[RandFan]

It should be noted that Clinton agreed to a fine and suspension for misleading the court. It could be argued that Clinton made the agreement to end a troubling and time consuming investigation which is fair but also note that the Supreme Court then took the initiative to disbar Clinton from arguing before the Supreme Court.

Your arguments Schneibster remind me of the recent hearing of Mike Nifong. He made similar technical arguments as to why he had not lied to the court. I don't think most judges would be impressed. Perhaps Clinton would have been able to escape a perjury conviction had he actually gone to trial for perjury but he couldn't have escape being disbarred had he contested the fine and suspension. He was an *officer of the court and he mislead the court.

*Not directly in his case was he an officer. It was in general that he was an officer.

 

[Schneibster]

It should be noted that Clinton agreed to a fine and suspension for misleading the court. It could be argued that Clinton made the agreement to end a troubling and time consuming investigation which is fair but also note that the Supreme Court then took the initiative to disbar Clinton from arguing before the Supreme Court.

True enough.

Your arguments Schneibster remind me of the recent hearing of Mike Nifong. He made similar technical arguments as to why he had not lied to the court. I don't think most judges would be impressed.

There is a certain degree of similarity in the arguments; however, to find a defendant doing this is one thing, to find a prosecutor doing it entirely another. You note why below:

Perhaps Clinton would have been able to escape a perjury conviction had he actually gone to trial for perjury but he couldn't have escape being disbarred had he contested the fine and suspension. He was an *officer of the court and he mislead the court.

*Not directly in his case was he an officer. It was in general that he was an officer.

Correct, all of it; I'd quibble a bit whether any prosecutor would bring perjury charges, the law on perjury is quite clear and I do not believe a prosecution could have met its burden of proof for the reasons I have stated.

Lawyers are held to a higher standard by the courts than other participants. It has been said that a lawyer who represents hirself has a fool for a client, and this is why. But there's something else to consider: as you point out, Clinton came before the court in the Jones case not as a lawyer, but as the defendant; yet he was denied the ordinary protections a defendant enjoys, because of his standing as a lawyer. There are varying ways of arguing this. I don't contest whether it was fair or not; IMHO, it was. What is not fair is continuing accusations of perjury when a) there was and is not sufficient evidence to sustain them, and b) he was acquitted.

 

[Texas]

This one might not be entirely clear; it's a misrepresentation of my argument.

I don't "believe with all my heart;" that imputes my arguments to emotional ones. My arguments are not emotional; they are factual and based on the available evidence. You probably didn't intend that as an insult, but it's borderline for me. While I may be emotionally involved, I try to keep that separate from the arguments themselves. My motivation for presenting them may be emotional; you might claim so and I might not deny it. But the arguments themselves stand or fall on their own merits, and no matter how emotionally attached I may be, I will allow them to do so, supporting them if I see them dismissed by arguments without merit. The reason it is borderline insulting is because it accuses me of dishonesty under standards I try to apply to my own statements.

While I took the last statement as facetious or ironic, it is possible that you meant it differently; as hyperbole, perhaps. If that is true you need merely state so.

Point taken. Thanks. I have decided to cede the field to you on this issue. I made my case and you made yours and after some reflection and my previous opinions on pardons in general I feel trying to argue this any further requires more than a little hypocrisy on my part given my past opinions.

 

[Lurker]

Then I confess I don't know all of the aspects of the case. How were his lies substantive? What significant crime did he commit? I thought he was convicted of lying to cover up a crime. What crime did he cover up and why wasn't anyone convicted of that crime?

Please don't take my questions the wrong way. I'm honestly confused.

Well, we do know that Plame's cover was blown. Unfortunately, the law states that you have to knowingly blow the cover. So Fitz would have had to prove that Armitage, Libbey and Rove KNEW that Plame was a CIA operative covered under relevent law. I think Fitz saw early on that he would have trouble PROVING that although he may have been trying to get to Cheney who he could show much easier knew Plame's status.

ETA: Sneibster covered it. Wow!

 

[ponderingturtle]

President clinton committed perjury and obstruction of justice in a sexual harrasment case. That is more than a bummer. Sexual harrasment is a serious charge. Although he claims what he did was not sex and hence says it wasn't perjury.

This doesn't lessen what Scooter Libby allegedly did.

Except that when the judge looks at the claims of the victim and says "even if everything you claim happened, it is still not sexual harrasment" that kind of weakens the idea that it was a serious case.

 

[The Painter]

Doews the name Henry Cisneros mean anything to any of you?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Out, damned spot! out, I say!

William Shakespeare
-Macbeth

Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.
-- [Feste. Act 1, scene 5] Twelfth Night --

When you morph from the latter into the former, I might become a fan.

DR

ETA: I had it right the first time, then I added "to be" when I should not have.

Damned memory!

 

[Darth Rotor]

Doews the name Henry Cisneros mean anything to any of you?

Yep. A hotshot mayor of San Antonio who got into Clinton's cabinet, and then ended up shooting himself in the political foot and disappearing from the national political scene. IIRC, it had to do with a sexual pecadillo, and perhaps an obstruction of justice, but memory is fading.

ETA

Had to go to the archives:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/cisneros/keystories.htm

September 8, 1999
Former housing secretary Henry G. Cisneros pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of lying to the FBI about money he paid to a former mistress, ending a wide-ranging independent counsel investigation that lasted more than four years and cost more than $9 million.

September 7, 1999
Former housing secretary Henry Cisneros, a onetime Democratic Party star whose promising political career was derailed by scandal, returns to Washington to stand trial on criminal charges accusing him of lying to the FBI about $250,000 in alleged "hush money" he paid to a former mistress

DR

 

[SezMe]

Doews the name Henry Cisneros mean anything to any of you?

DR brought back this oldie but goodie. Your point?

 

[Schneibster]

Point taken. Thanks. I have decided to cede the field to you on this issue. I made my case and you made yours and after some reflection and my previous opinions on pardons in general I feel trying to argue this any further requires more than a little hypocrisy on my part given my past opinions.

You confirm my earlier opinion of you. It is a pleasure to argue with an honest person.

 

[Harpoon]

I tried to follow the case closely. But several of you seem to have better sources than I.

I missed the evidence that Libby was covering up for Cheney, or maybe Bush. I only heard that he lied about who he heard about Plame from first. I also missed Fitz's admission that he was after Cheney or Bush and not just seeking the truth.

But I'm upset about conflicting news reports from conflicting agencies. Was Saddam seeking yellow-cake in Africa? Did Plame send Wilson on the mission? Was Plame covert or not? I've seen and read pro and con over the months.

I wasn't upset by the verdict. At first I wasn't upset about the sentence. Then I heard Judge Walton say something to the effect that someone in Libby's position should have checked if Plame was covert before disclosing her identity.

I've tried to find a print version of that comment and haven't. Too bad. It shows the judge believed Libby was guilty of a crime he wasn't charged with. It sounds like he may have considered that in issuing his sentence. A judge can consider much outside of testimony in deciding a sentence -- but a presumption of guilt for a crime not charged I think is going a bit far.

While I might have objected to a pardon, the judge's statement makes comuting the prison term fine with me. Bush lessened the sentence without overturning the jury's verdict -- an unusually wise choice.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Doews the name Henry Cisneros mean anything to any of you?

Yeah, it's an angram for "Hence sin, sorry."
WTF is "doews"? Dowse? Sowed?

 

[Darth Rotor]

WTF is "doews"? Dowse? Sowed?

It is an anagram for "We sod." It might be a farmer, or a landscaping, thing.

DR

 

[Schneibster]

I tried to follow the case closely. But several of you seem to have better sources than I.

I missed the evidence that Libby was covering up for Cheney, or maybe Bush. I only heard that he lied about who he heard about Plame from first. I also missed Fitz's admission that he was after Cheney or Bush and not just seeking the truth.

Hmmmm, not sure where you got that from. He was after whoever had violated the IIPA, and when Libby perjured himself, there was about zero chance he was going to find out who that was. That's why perjury is a crime.

But I'm upset about conflicting news reports from conflicting agencies. Was Saddam seeking yellow-cake in Africa?

Not according to the Nigeriens (that's the term for people from Niger, as opposed to "Nigerians" who are from Nigeria).

Did Plame send Wilson on the mission?

No. It has been shown that she might have suggested him as a good person to send to someone in a position to suggest it higher, no more.

Was Plame covert or not?

That she had worked as a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency is not in question. The only question is whether she was covert at the time her identity was revealed, and there are conflicting reports; apparently she intended to go back to it, if she had even left; her lawsuit states that her career was ruined, and it's hard to say that it's ruined unless she fully intended to go back to it, and was eligible to do so. Whatever those conflicts might have consisted of, it has to be clear to anyone that blowing her prior status, if in fact she was no longer covert, would also blow any agent (which is a term of art that means a source of information who delivers it to an intelligence officer, not the officer, this is frequently mistaken in popular accounts) she might have earlier developed. Since she worked covertly gathering information about nuclear weapons proliferation, the subject matter such agents could deliver is of the utmost importance to national security. That this constitutes treason is therefore a reasonable position, though it might be tough to prosecute as such.

I've seen and read pro and con over the months.

I wasn't upset by the verdict. At first I wasn't upset about the sentence. Then I heard Judge Walton say something to the effect that someone in Libby's position should have checked if Plame was covert before disclosing her identity.

I've tried to find a print version of that comment and haven't. Too bad. It shows the judge believed Libby was guilty of a crime he wasn't charged with. It sounds like he may have considered that in issuing his sentence. A judge can consider much outside of testimony in deciding a sentence -- but a presumption of guilt for a crime not charged I think is going a bit far.

It's reasonable to say so, and it might be reasonable to assume that in fact Libby did have knowledge of that status and therefore committed a felony in disclosing it, and the person he was protecting by his perjury was himself. He could have taken the Fifth, he could have asked for immunity, instead he chose to obstruct justice and perjure himself. It is, however, unreasonable to assume that because a judge makes statements about his private opinions he has allowed those opinions to influence his judgment; judges are specifically required not to do so, and to accuse one of doing so without proof is not just a really great idea. Judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court that were assumed to be "ideologically motivated" in one direction or another and have proven to be assets to the court, clearly not allowing such considerations to affect their judgments. Has it struck you that perhaps you might have made an incorrect assumption about what you think you heard him say, particularly considering that despite the overwhelming motive for doing so, apparently no right-wing pundit has picked up on it?

While I might have objected to a pardon, the judge's statement makes comuting the prison term fine with me. Bush lessened the sentence without overturning the jury's verdict -- an unusually wise choice.

Unfortunately it is also a choice that has a number of sinister ramifications; for example, he cannot testify before Congress because he has an appeal pending, an appeal that he would not need to continue if he were pardoned. Most convenient, wouldn't you say?

 

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The real story of the case....

There were a lot of reasons why presidential clemency was appropriate. The first is that the CIA-leak investigation was a fundamentally political exercise from Day One. Even before the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in December 2003, Justice Department investigators knew that it was former State Department official Richard Armitage, not Libby, who originally leaked the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame Wilson. The Justice Department also knew enough to conclude that Libby had not violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the law at issue in the case. Lacking proof that an underlying crime took place, and knowing the source of the leak, the Justice Department should have shut down the investigation then and there.

But Democrats in Congress, many members of the press, and the president’s adversaries within his own administration agitated for a larger investigation. And in a dreadfully misguided move, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft and other top Justice Department officials chose to appoint Fitzgerald. At that point, the investigation took on the kind of life of its own that we saw in the old independent counsel days. Libby was eventually charged with perjury, the only person accused in the case.

Libby had a credible defense. The perjury charge was based on discrepancies between Libby’s grand jury testimony and that of a few journalists who contradicted him. Libby argued that the discrepancies could be explained by differences in memory. Although the jury disagreed, a reasonable person listening to the faulty memories of the witnesses who testified could have concluded that Libby simply had things mixed up.

Finally, 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.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzQ4ZDQwYzA2Yjk5YmEwZGVhMzVhZGYxMDQ1MWU5MjI=