BREAKING: Scooter Libby Sentenced to 2 1/2 Years
June 5th, 2007 | by Ken Grandlund |Guess obstruction of justice really is a big deal. Oh, and that whole lying to protect your boss isn’t such a great idea after all. Especially if your boss happens to be a Dick.
[tag]Scooter+Libby+sentenced[/tag]
25 Responses to “BREAKING: Scooter Libby Sentenced to 2 1/2 Years”
By tos on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
I’m surprised that a liberal who is always for habeas corpus should be more pissed off about this than the rightest of the righties.This prosecutor knew there was no crime and knew who the leaker was but proceeded with this bougus BS all in the name of getting Rove or Cheney.
I can’t say Libby out and out lied but hey they got someone and that’s all this over zealous prosecuter wanted to put a notch in his belt. Good for him!
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Tos,
The statements that got Libby into legal trouble were made before Fitz was brought in in the case. The crime for which he’s been convicted had already been committed. Regardless of the merits of the investigation, as Clinton learned, lying to investigators is a stupid thing to do, particularly if you or your bosses have committed no crime in the first place. Now, it’s possible that Libby’s lies would not have been discovered and prosecuted if Fitz had dropped the case. That would not have made Libby’s lies the truth. It just would have meant Libby had gotten away with his lies. I don’t think that’s what we’re after in this country.
That’s my stand.
Habeas corpus is irrelevant. It assures that individuals receive due process in their dealings with the government. Libby got due process. He just screwed up.
NOTE: Before trial, I presume innocence. After trial at which someone has been found guilty, I presume guilt. As a matter of absolute moral certainty, I don’t know that Libby lied to investigators. I can’t see into Libby’s brain or know his thoughts or motives. However, as a matter of law, Libby’s been found guilty of lying. If, on appeal, his conviction is overturned by a finding of actual innocence, I’ll have some apologizing to do. Until then, Libby lied.
By Emmet on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Thank God for Pardons!
By SteveIL on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
And fined $250,000. Per the Washington Post:
Ken Grandlund said:
Still trying to push that garbage? Fact of the matter is, nobody outside of the CIA knew “Double-O Soccer Mom” was covert. Therefore, nobody could be charged with the original reason for the investigation, violating the IIPA. If Cheney, everybody’s favorite target, knew about the covert status, then Libby would have had to have known as well. Yet, neither Libby nor anybody else was charged with violating the IIPA.
And the CIA didn’t really care about protecting “Double-O Soccer Mom’s” covert status since they were allowing her husband, “Yellowcake” Wilson, to leak CIA information like piss all over the place, including letting the schmuck write an op-ed in the New York Times. From the AP piece linked in the post:
Too bad that isn’t the case with “Yellowcake” Wilson or “Double-O Soccer Mom” as they’ve both stated under oath to Congress that she had nothing to do with “Yellowcake” going to Niger when there is documentation that clearly states she did. Maybe somebody in the DoJ will have the balls to bring the pair up on their own perjury and obstruction of justice charges.
It also shows that the CIA under George Tenet and all his small-minded minions was misnamed and should have been called the CYA.
Libby did commit a crime and he does need to be punished. Let’s hope that Judge Walton presides over the “Dollar Bill” Jefferson case. And if convicted, Walton should see that Jefferson is sentenced to the maximum: 200+ years in a “pound me in the ass” Club Fed “resort” prison.
By tos on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Craig-Sorry but like I said I don’t think Libby intentionally lied but there would have been no conviction to begin had Fitzgerald not prosecuted this “non-crime” to begin with.
The whole thing is just ridiculous.
Child molestors get less jail time.
By Jersey McJones on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Tos, obviously the only way you can tell the difference between a lie and a truth is whether it eminates from a Republican or a Democrat.
This will be apealed for about a year and a half, at which point Bush will pardon Libby. He has to, lest Libby finally give upto prosecutors why he lied in the first place.
Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
I was right there with you up until you wrote that anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. I’m not quite so certain that I have a lock on the totality of objective truth as you seem to be. For the record, other opinions may be valid and may even turn out to be true.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Tos,
I guess we disagree. It isn’t ridiculous, in my opinion. I agree that child molesters have received less time for their crimes. Believe me, that they do pisses me off to no end. That, though, is not the point for me. I just think, from my own reading of Libby’s statements and the witness testimony et al., I simply don’t believe that Libby was telling the truth in his statements to investigators, not the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in any case. But neither you nor I were in the best position to judge the truth or falsity of Libby’s statements. The jury at his trial was. They made their determination. Until I hear that there is good reason to believe that they erred in that determination, I’m sticking with their verdict.
By tos on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Craig then I have to assume you agreed with Bill Clinton’s verdict as well.(that is a question)
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Tos,
What verdict is that?
By Jersey McJones on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Craig, we’ll never know the absolute truth. What seems pretty damned clear is that Libby lied, he had a reason for lying, and that reason was that he was hiding the Bush administration’s malicious leaking of Plame’s CIA position through a willing press (in particular, Bob Novak) as relatiation and retribution for the Wilson “What I Didn’t Find in Africa” piece - a serious crime. If this had happened 30 years ago, Rove would be in prison right now.
Yes. You’d be a fool to think otherwise.
JMJ
By Jersey McJones on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Let me put it this way - I’ve never actually seen a new species evolve from another, but I’m as sure that evolution is a fact as I am that Libby lied to cover up the Plame leak. You don’t need it tattooed on your friggin’ forehead, Craig.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Jersey, nobody was prosecuted for violating the IIPA. That law itself was put in 25 years ago to stop people from knowingly and maliciously outing covert agents. The facts of this case are that Libby lied (and was prosecuted for it), and that nobody outside of the CIA knew “Double-O Soccer Mom” was covert and therefore could not be prosecuted for knowingly and maliciously outing a covert again (because nobody was prosecuted for violating the IIPA). Repeat it over and over until you get it.
Another fact is that much of what “Yellowcake” Wilson “claimed” has been debunked over the past 4 years. And another fact is that the CYA, I mean CIA, did nothing to protect her status (it came out in Libby’s trial that the CIA told Libby that “Double-O Soccer Mom” was a CIA employee, but never revealed her status), and that they allowed this whole leaking to occur by not stopping any of the original newspaper pieces from coming out, including “Yellowcake’s” debunked op-ed.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Tos,
If you mean do I agree with the “not guilty” verdict in his impeachment trial, the answer is yes, I agree with it. That is not to say that I don’t think he had a sexual affair with Monica. His sexual dalliance with her is conclusively proven by a certain blue dress. Did he lie about it? What is the meaning of is? I think he told a technical truth according to his understanding of what sexual relations includes. I also think that that technical truth was probably purposely designed to mislead. There are, in fact, lots of people who don’t think of oral sex as being sexual relations. I’m not one of them and, I suspect, you are not either but whether Clinton lied or not depends only upon Clinton’s understanding of the term when he testified.
Ultimately, I agree with the outcome of the Clinton impeachment. Had I been a member of the House of Representatives, I would have voted against impeachment so, had I had my druthers, there would have been no impeachment trial. Whether he lied or not, I never thought the suspect statement was about a matter that should have resulted in impeachment. I will then answer your question this way: I was satisfied with the verdict.
This is not really analogous to the Libby trial. I don’t actually think that Libby told a technical truth designed to mislead. I think his testimony contained untruths — statements that were not even technically true according to a disputed understanding of the meaning of some terms — that he knew to be untrue. I think that’s what the jury determined.
By Jersey McJones on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL, if you ever wanna buy a bridge, I;ve gotta great deal for you, man.
And you are not just a fool, but also a phony. If the Clinton administration had perpretrated this treasonous crime, you’d be screaming for the execution of the lot of them.
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
There is the matter of his contempt of court and the subsequent consequences. Because I believe that his technical truth was intended to hide the truth, I agree with the judge who held him in contempt. He was ultimately fined, had his license to practice law suspended for five years and was barred from practicing law before the Supreme Court. One can argue whether the punishment fit the offense but I do agree that there should have been consequences for his conduct.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Jersey, if you’re talking about the bridge in Brooklyn, that’s mine. If you manage to sell it, I’ll give you a commission but that’s it! :^)
By Jersey McJones on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
It is unheard of, Craig and Tos, for those sorts of sanctions to be applied to purgery regarding consentual extra-marital affairs. It was done to placate the idiot Right.
JMJ
By Jersey McJones on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
I’ll give you 90% Craig! Reeeeeaaaaally, I will! LOL!
JMJ
By Craig R. Harmon on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
As I said, “One can argue whether the punishment fit the offense…”
As for the bridge, I’ll go 50-50 with you.
By SteveIL on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
What treason? Hell, Sandy Berger did far worse and was let off the hook by the Bush administration, and many conservatives are still upset about that. I don’t see you bitching and moaning about it. Which goes to show that this statement from an earlier comment:
shows that you are the partisan phony instead of the “independent-minded liberal” you paint yourself to be, not me.
By tos on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Craig-Sexual realations are sexual relations. Clinton was charged with the same thing Libby was Obstruction of justice and perjury. No matter how you spin it it is the same charge,lying to a grand jury.
See the difference with me is I was against that and I am against the Libby thing too.But like Jersey said”It was done to placate the idiot Right.” Only this was done to placate the idiot left.
Like a bunch of children out to get each other. And we worry about what the rest of the world thinks about us? This is a fine example of how they must be laughing at this infighting going on.
By tos on Jun 5, 2007 | Reply
Right on SteveIL. I can only imagine how the Jersey would be dripping tears all over this blog every day had Condi Rice stuffed them there documents down her undies.
By Jersey McJones on Jun 6, 2007 | Reply
SteveIL, you can morally equivicate all you want, but the law says that you can’t out covert CIA agensts, and Plame was designated as such. You sleazy, lying, immoral, unethical, stupid, inept cons just can’t seem to ever face your failures. Perhaps that is the greatest failure of you all.
JMJ
By SteveIL on Jun 6, 2007 | Reply
Jersey,
Who was convicted of violating the IIPA in this case? Name me one person. Just one. Or shut the fuck up.
And for the record, the IIPA (50 U.S.C. § 421) states explicitly that the outing must have been intentional. Intentionally outing a covert agent is a violation of the law, not outing an agent that only the CIA knew was covert.