Libby sentenced to 30 months in prison

[Oh, Gee!!]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was sentenced Tuesday to 30 months in prison for lying to investigators looking into the leak of a CIA operative's identity.

He also was fined $250,000. Libby was convicted March 6 of four counts in a five-count indictment alleging perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to FBI investigators.

He plans to appeal the verdict......


http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/05/cia.leak.trial/index.html

[boutons_]

dubya will pardon him for Christmas 08

[xrayzebra]

^^I hope he does it before then. It is a miscarriage of justice.

[clambake]

That's what happens when you lie to the grand jury, and obstruct justice.

Bush will pardon him and hand him a big sweaty wad of cash.

[FromWayDowntown]

^^I hope he does it before then. It is a miscarriage of justice.

And if his appeals are rejected? Then what? Nothing but a bunch of "activist judges," I guess. And an activist jury as well, to be sure.

[ChumpDumper]

Miscarriage in what way?

He broke the law and was tried and convicted by a jury.

[awaits "Clinton got a blowjob" retort]

[ChumpDumper]

He'll be pardoned before the clock runs out on his appeals.

[xrayzebra]

He was convicted of a charge stemming from a no crime committed
investigation.

Clinton, was the President of the United States, and lied to a
Grand Jury, was convicted of such crime and got a slap on the
wrist. But I wasn't going to say anything about Clinton, but
since you brought the subject up.

[ChumpDumper]

I wasn't going to say anything about Clinton:lol

Bullshit.


He was convicted of a chargeThere you go. That's why he's been sentenced to jail.

[FromWayDowntown]

Clinton, was the President of the United States, and lied to a Grand Jury, was convicted of such crime and got a slap on the
wrist.

I'd be interested in seeing a reputable link documenting that President Clinton was convicted of perjury.

Frankly, I'm not sure that he was ever tried for such a crime.

He was, of course, tried in the Senate for having been fellated under his Oval Office desk, but he wasn't convicted in that setting.

[td4mvp3]

He was convicted of a charge stemming from a no crime committed
investigation.

Clinton, was the President of the United States, and lied to a
Grand Jury, was convicted of such crime and got a slap on the
wrist. But I wasn't going to say anything about Clinton, but
since you brought the subject up.
holy lord, the point is not whether a crime was committed and that he lied aboutt it, the pointt is that he lied multiple times to a grand jury about anything. as for the severity of the sentence, the circumstances are mitigatting factors. clinton lied aboutt a blowjob. libby's lie related to the reasoningg behind what has led to thousands of u.s. deaths. big difference.

[RighteousBoy]

So when all is said and done, what does Richard Armitage get? The whole purpose of this investigation was to find the person who leaked Plames name, and he has openly admitted to it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/13/AR2006091301572.html

[Yonivore]

I'd be interested in seeing a reputable link documenting that President Clinton was convicted of perjury.

Frankly, I'm not sure that he was ever tried for such a crime.

He was, of course, tried in the Senate for having been fellated under his Oval Office desk, but he wasn't convicted in that setting.
I'd be interested in seeing a reputable link documenting that President Clinton was tried in the Senate for having been fellated under his Oval Office desk.

Frankly, I'm not sure that he was ever tried for such a crime.

He was, of course, tried in the Senate for high crimes and/or misdemeanors, after being impeached by the House of Representatives, after he allegedly perjured himself, suborned perjury by others and obstructed justice.

Oh, and as a result of the civil trial -- over which he allegedly perjured himself, suborned perjury by others and obstructed justice -- (once it was revealed he lied, tried to get others to lie, and obstructed the investigation) he was disbarred and paid a hefty settlement for the sexually harassing a former employee.

[xrayzebra]

libby's lie related to the reasoningg behind what has led to thousands of u.s. deaths. big difference.

Holy smokes, you do know how to stretch, don't you?

Who has been charged with what the investigation is all
about, anyhow?

[ChumpDumper]

I'd be interested in seeing a reputable link documenting that President Clinton was tried in the Senate for having been fellated under his Oval Office desk.

Frankly, I'm not sure that he was ever tried for such a crime.

He was, of course, tried in the Senate for high crimes and/or misdemeanors, after being impeached by the House of Representatives, after he allegedly perjured himself, suborned perjury by others and obstructed justice.

Oh, and as a result of the civil trial -- over which he allegedly perjured himself, suborned perjury by others and obstructed justice -- (once it was revealed he lied, tried to get others to lie, and obstructed the investigation) he was disbarred and paid a hefty settlement for the sexually harassing a former employee.So this means Libby shouldn't be punished?

[Nbadan]

Hitlary Clinton advisor, James Carville, wrote a letter supportting Scooter Libby...

Scooter Libby Love Letters
Washington elite petition judge on behalf of convicted Cheney aide


JUNE 5-- Donald Rumsfeld, Henry Kissinger, Paul Wolfowitz, and John Bolton top the list of individuals who wrote a federal judge on behalf of former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was sentenced today to 30 months in prison for lying to investigators and a federal grand jury examining the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. On the following 30 pages you'll find an assortment of letters from former colleagues and friends of Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. The letters, which do not include a missive from Cheney himself, were filed this morning in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.. Included in the correspondence is a letter on former Cheney aide Mary Matalin's stationery which is signed by her and husband James Carville, the Democratic strategist. Others writing on Libby's behalf included Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Richard Perle, former Pentagon adviser.

The Smoking Gun (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0605071libby1.html)

Just in case you have any doubts who is really financing the Hitlary campaign.

[ChumpDumper]

I have doubts who is really financing Clinton's campaign.

[PixelPusher]

It's amazing how the absolutism of the law-and-order Republicans (perjury MUST be punished!) of 10 years ago dissapated like a fart in the wind when one of their own get's caught in the same snare.

[FromWayDowntown]

I'd be interested in seeing a reputable link documenting that President Clinton was tried in the Senate for having been fellated under his Oval Office desk.

Frankly, I'm not sure that he was ever tried for such a crime.

He was, of course, tried in the Senate for high crimes and/or misdemeanors, after being impeached by the House of Representatives, after he allegedly perjured himself, suborned perjury by others and obstructed justice.

Oh, and as a result of the civil trial -- over which he allegedly perjured himself, suborned perjury by others and obstructed justice -- (once it was revealed he lied, tried to get others to lie, and obstructed the investigation) he was disbarred and paid a hefty settlement for the sexually harassing a former employee.

The results of civil trials are substantially different than a criminal conviction. The burdens of proof are radically different and the consquences stemming from each proceeding aren't comparable.

xray suggested that President Clinton had been convicted -- I don't know that he was ever convicted of anything, which makes him necessarily different than Libby. Comparing the two situations is ridiculously inapt.

[Yonivore]

The results of civil trials are substantially different than a criminal conviction. The burdens of proof are radically different and the consquences stemming from each proceeding aren't comparable.

xray suggested that President Clinton had been convicted -- I don't know that he was ever convicted of anything, which makes him necessarily different than Libby. Comparing the two situations is ridiculously inapt.
I was more interested in pointing out the irony of your post, in which you pretend to hold xray to some high standard of defining and sourcing his claim of a conviction while, in the very next breath, throwing out some garbage about Clinton being tried for getting a blowjob.

And, regardless of a spineless Senate's inability to the right thing, do you really believe Clinton innocent of perjury, suborning perjury, and obstruction of justice?

Finally, there is no comparison between the Clinton's impeachment and Libby's criminal trial. They're two separate methods of adjudication. One is political while the other is judicial.

Have a nice day.

[ChumpDumper]

So Libby shouldn't be punished?

[Wild Cobra]

Finally, there is no comparison between the Clinton's impeachment and Libby's criminal trial. They're two separate methods of adjudication. One is political while the other is judicial.

I'd like to believe that, but all I say was political revenge in the Libby case.

1) Case was to find the leak.
2) Leak was found to be Richard Armitage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage) early on, yet investigations continued.
3) Libby was indicted and convicted for what could really be misspoken words and a poor recollection.

I believe they didn't stop because Armitage was a critic of president Bush's invasion. They wanted to find someone close to president Bush or vice president Cheney as a political attack, not justice.

Pretty bad to resort to convicting an innocent man of an ordeal over his word taken as lies. What is this countries justice coming to? Pretty bad when the liberals use the justice system as a political weapon.

[ChumpDumper]

:lmao

He just misspoke!

Nice to hear from the "law and order" crowd again.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

He just misspoke!

Nice to hear from the "law and order" crowd again.
I've read some of the court transcripts and downloaded some of the evidence. Have you?

Consider this when asking about Plame.

Did he know, or was he asked the identify of:

Valerie Plame
Valerie Wilson
her code name
Mr.s Wilson, etc.

Originally, not knowing that Plame and Wilson are the same person, it makes things difficult to resolve and answer truthfully AND accurately what you did and did not know.

[ChumpDumper]

I've read some of the court transcripts and downloaded some of the evidence. Have you?Yes.

And the jury saw and heard all of it.

If you don't want the laws of the land to apply to Scooter, just say so.

[clambake]

If he doesn't pardon him, then he must be worrying about the whispering and watercooler talk. Maybe vanity is kicking in.

[ChumpDumper]

I personally blame the Bush-appointed prosecutor for filing the charges and the Bush-appointed judge for sentencing Scooter.

[clambake]

I personally blame the Bush-appointed prosecutor for filing the charges and the Bush-appointed judge for sentencing Scooter.
That's funny. I'm upset as well.

[ChumpDumper]

Goddam activist partisan hacks.

[Yonivore]

I'd like to believe that, but all I say was political revenge in the Libby case.

1) Case was to find the leak.
2) Leak was found to be Richard Armitage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage) early on, yet investigations continued.
3) Libby was indicted and convicted for what could really be misspoken words and a poor recollection.

I believe they didn't stop because Armitage was a critic of president Bush's invasion. They wanted to find someone close to president Bush or vice president Cheney as a political attack, not justice.

Pretty bad to resort to convicting an innocent man of an ordeal over his word taken as lies. What is this countries justice coming to? Pretty bad when the liberals use the justice system as a political weapon.
I'm having a little difficulty understanding all the surprise and angst over Libby's sentencing. A duly constituted jury heard the evidence in front of a judge. Libby and his lawyers presented their defense. That jury found that Libby committed perjury and obstruction of justice. That's the way the criminal-justice system works in this country.

A 30-month sentence for obstruction of justice and perjury is not out of line, especially for multiple counts. Both are serious crimes against the rule of law, and should be punished accordingly.

Whether or not I think Libby deserves a pardon or was railroaded by an overzealous prosecutor is immaterial. A jury convicted Libby, and they followed the case better than anyone. I'm going to accept the result of the justice system and respect that decision.

Libby has plenty of opportunity to appeal the decision. If it's wrong, it will likely be overturned.

And, finally, if George Bush wants to pardon Libby, I don't see a problem with that, either. That's part of due process as well, and it's a political decision for George Bush. I think it would be a political mistake to offer one before the appeals run out. There are extenuating circumstances that warrant consideration of a pardon -- but that doesn't mean that Libby should have gotten a pass from the judge after the convictions. (It certainly would be a more supportable pardon than most of those granted by Clinton at the end of his term.)

If you support the rule of law, then this sentencing was a foregone conclusion. He was convicted weeks ago, and people who get convicted on these charges get sentenced to prison time, especially those who work in the executive branch of our federal government. I really do fail to see the reason for all the current hysteria over this sentencing.

[DarkReign]

I'm having a little difficulty understanding all the surprise and angst over Libby's sentencing. A duly constituted jury heard the evidence in front of a judge. Libby and his lawyers presented their defense. That jury found that Libby committed perjury and obstruction of justice. That's the way the criminal-justice system works in this country.

A 30-month sentence for obstruction of justice and perjury is not out of line, especially for multiple counts. Both are serious crimes against the rule of law, and should be punished accordingly.

Whether or not I think Libby deserves a pardon or was railroaded by an overzealous prosecutor is immaterial. A jury convicted Libby, and they followed the case better than anyone. I'm going to accept the result of the justice system and respect that decision.

Libby has plenty of opportunity to appeal the decision. If it's wrong, it will likely be overturned.

And, finally, if George Bush wants to pardon Libby, I don't see a problem with that, either. That's part of due process as well, and it's a political decision for George Bush. I think it would be a political mistake to offer one before the appeals run out. There are extenuating circumstances that warrant consideration of a pardon -- but that doesn't mean that Libby should have gotten a pass from the judge after the convictions. (It certainly would be a more supportable pardon than most of those granted by Clinton at the end of his term.)

If you support the rule of law, then this sentencing was a foregone conclusion. He was convicted weeks ago, and people who get convicted on these charges get sentenced to prison time, especially those who work in the executive branch of our federal government. I really do fail to see the reason for all the current hysteria over this sentencing.

Oh

My

Dear

GOD!

IMPARTIALITY POLICE!! ALERT! ALERT!

[Yonivore]

Oh

My

Dear

GOD!

IMPARTIALITY POLICE!! ALERT! ALERT!
Don't faint, I still think it was an abusive and pointless investigation (of Libby) by Fitzgerald and that Libby was wrongly prosecuted not because he is innocent but because no one else in the whole affair was prosecuted for crimes that ostensibly exceeded those of Libby -- presuming the underlying premise of the investigation had, in fact, been true -- related to the unlawful disclosure of the identity of a superty-duper secret agent. And, while I'm still in favor of a pardon, should it come to that, there is another reasonable alternative being floated.

Bill Otis is a career prosecutor, and served as member of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on the Sentencing Guidelines under both parties. As a special counsel to the first President Bush, he worked on issues relating to the pardon of Casper Weinberger.

In an op-ed in today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/06/AR2007060602292.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) Otis argues that Bush should not pardon Scooter Libby, but that his sentence is excessive and should be commuted. Specifically, the prison term should be eliminated and Libby should pay the fine.

Bill Otis opposes a pardon because he wants to uphold the "fundamental rule of law that the grand jury is entitled to every man's evidence." However, the sentence seems quite excessive. As he notes:


This was an unusually harsh sentence for a first offender convicted of a nonviolent and non-drug-related crime. Sandy Berger, national security adviser to President Bill Clinton, was not sentenced to prison for sneaking documents out of the National Archives, destroying them and then lying to investigators. For his actions, Berger received no jail time, a fine one-fifth of that imposed on Libby and 100 hours of community service.
Moreover:


[Libby] is by no stretch a danger to the community, as "danger" is commonly understood. He did not commit his crime out of greed or personal malice. Nor is his life one that bespeaks a criminal turn of mind. To the contrary, as letters to the court on his behalf overwhelmingly established, he has been a contributor to his community and his country.
In my view, the fact that Libby's process crime seems to have occurred during a senseless and arguably abusive process -- the special prosecutor already knew the answer to the question he was supposed to be investigating -- would, when coupled with Libby's service to the country, support a pardon should Bush decide to grant one. However, this suggested "middle ground" also has much to recommend it.

[ChumpDumper]

In an op-ed in today's Washington Post"Special counsel for Bush's daddy thinks Libby should get off easy."

[Nbadan]

Libby was the only exec prosecuted in this case because most of the adminstration took the Reagan defense on the stand and were never called to the rug by our lame-ass M$M. The pieces of the puzzle are all out there pointing back to the office of the V.P. but the lazy M$M can't be expected to actually do their job this decade and do a little work putting all the pieces together.

[Yonivore]

Libby was the only exec prosecuted in this case because most of the adminstration took the Reagan defense on the stand and were never called to the rug by our lame-ass M$M. The pieces of the puzzle are all out there pointing back to the office of the V.P. but the lazy M$M can't be expected to actually do their job this decade and do a little work putting all the pieces together.
Fitzgerald knew, before he even questioned Libby that Armitage was the culprit.

Plus, there were people outside the administration that were complicit in the alleged crime. Most in the media.

Why weren't any of these people prosecuted?

[clambake]

Fitzgerald knew, before he even questioned Libby that Armitage was the culprit.

Plus, there were people outside the administration that were complicit in the alleged crime. Most in the media.

Why weren't any of these people prosecuted?

Libbys defense team were the ones that tried to implicate the media (and failed). I recall a court brief filed just a few weeks ago that Fitzgerald refers to her as "covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson".

She stated in her testimony before congress that she was "a covert agent of the CIA". This was backed up by a statement read at the hearing and approved by CIA director Michael Hayden. Why would Hayden back that up if it weren't true?

Has anyone seen the footage of a 1999 speech before the CIA given by Bush senior? He said he had nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing names and sources. He called them the most insidious of traitors.

[DarkReign]

Don't faint, I still think it was an abusive and pointless investigation (of Libby) by Fitzgerald and that Libby was wrongly prosecuted not because he is innocent but because no one else in the whole affair was prosecuted for crimes that ostensibly exceeded those of Libby -- presuming the underlying premise of the investigation had, in fact, been true -- related to the unlawful disclosure of the identity of a superty-duper secret agent. And, while I'm still in favor of a pardon, should it come to that, there is another reasonable alternative being floated.

Bill Otis is a career prosecutor, and served as member of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee on the Sentencing Guidelines under both parties. As a special counsel to the first President Bush, he worked on issues relating to the pardon of Casper Weinberger.

In an op-ed in today's Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/06/AR2007060602292.html?hpid=opinionsbox1) Otis argues that Bush should not pardon Scooter Libby, but that his sentence is excessive and should be commuted. Specifically, the prison term should be eliminated and Libby should pay the fine.

Bill Otis opposes a pardon because he wants to uphold the "fundamental rule of law that the grand jury is entitled to every man's evidence." However, the sentence seems quite excessive. As he notes:


Moreover:


In my view, the fact that Libby's process crime seems to have occurred during a senseless and arguably abusive process -- the special prosecutor already knew the answer to the question he was supposed to be investigating -- would, when coupled with Libby's service to the country, support a pardon should Bush decide to grant one. However, this suggested "middle ground" also has much to recommend it.


Well, youre certainly entitled to your opinion and you may just end up being right. I was just giving you props for seeing the forest for the trees, instead of being a political hack.

[xrayzebra]

Libby was the only exec prosecuted in this case because most of the adminstration took the Reagan defense on the stand and were never called to the rug by our lame-ass M$M. The pieces of the puzzle are all out there pointing back to the office of the V.P. but the lazy M$M can't be expected to actually do their job this decade and do a little work putting all the pieces together.

Dan, remember NO CRIME WAS
COMMITTED. Got it.

[Yonivore]

Libbys defense team were the ones that tried to implicate the media (and failed). I recall a court brief filed just a few weeks ago that Fitzgerald refers to her as "covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson".

She stated in her testimony before congress that she was "a covert agent of the CIA". This was backed up by a statement read at the hearing and approved by CIA director Michael Hayden. Why would Hayden back that up if it weren't true?

Has anyone seen the footage of a 1999 speech before the CIA given by Bush senior? He said he had nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing names and sources. He called them the most insidious of traitors.
So, that still begs the question, why wasn't Armitage prosecuted? Libby didn't reveal her name.

[Yonivore]

Well, youre certainly entitled to your opinion and you may just end up being right. I was just giving you props for seeing the forest for the trees, instead of being a political hack.
Thanks.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Dan, remember NO CRIME WAS
COMMITTED. Got it.


uh ray isn't obstructing justice still a crime? lying under oath is something many of those on the right were outraged when slick willy was in office. i guess since this a republican then it's ok.

[clambake]

So, that still begs the question, why wasn't Armitage prosecuted? Libby didn't reveal her name.

Some people are more expendable than others. I'm sure there was a backroom discussion. I'll bet Libby understands that, now.

[Yonivore]

Some people are more expendable than others. I'm sure there was a backroom discussion. I'll bet Libby understands that, now.
So, this had nothing to do with justice then.

I'm back to saying Fitzgerald engaged in an abusive prosecution of Libby because, since he had already solved the underlying question of who revealed Plame's name, there was no reason to question Libby in the first place.

[clambake]

So, this had nothing to do with justice then.

I'm back to saying Fitzgerald engaged in an abusive prosecution of Libby because, since he had already solved the underlying question of who revealed Plame's name, there was no reason to question Libby in the first place.

You don't hear any outrage from the administration. It's clear that this decision has been approved. I think it sheds light on what we don't know.

[Yonivore]

You don't hear any outrage from the administration. It's clear that this decision has been approved. I think it sheds light on what we don't know.
So, now, you're claiming Fitzgerald was a pawn for Darth Cheney?

C'mon, there is absolutely no right response from the adminstration on this matter and you know it. Silence is the most sensible option.

Anyway, the administration has left the door open to a pardon. That's not insignificant.

[clambake]

So, now, you're claiming Fitzgerald was a pawn for Darth Cheney?
Never said that. Some animals eat their cubs.


C'mon, there is absolutely no right response from the adminstration on this matter and you know it. Silence is the most sensible option.
If they had a right response, I'm sure they'd state it. A little credibility would be a welcome change.


Anyway, the administration has left the door open to a pardon. That's not insignificant.
What is so significant about something that everybody expects to happen?

[ChumpDumper]

Let's not be disingenuous here. There were multiple leaks that needed to be investigated. Fitzgerald did what law and order types claim they want from a prosecutor.

Scooter has a JD from Columbia. He knew what he was getting into.

[Oh, Gee!!]

If Bush does pardon Libby, will that action save his law license?

[ChumpDumper]

Doubtful.

Libby can spend the rest of his life writing books, giving speeches, teaching Neocon 101 at UC and commenting for Fox News.

Mourn not for Scooter.

[Oh, Gee!!]

He could be Dean of the Law School at Liberty U.

[George Gervin's Afro]

He could be Dean of the Law School at Liberty U.


He always has Regents University...

[Yonivore]

Never said that. Some animals eat their cubs.
So, who controlled Fitzgerald and kept him from prosecuting everyone that needed to be prosecuted?


If they had a right response, I'm sure they'd state it. A little credibility would be a welcome change.
What's to say? The White House has expressed its sadness over the affair and that a good public servant has been caught up in it.


What is so significant about something that everybody expects to happen?
That was in response to this portion of your post:



You don't hear any outrage from the administration.

This administration isn't in the habit of displaying outrage, (even when I believe they should). But, it does indicate where it stands on issues. And, that the White House isn't ruling out a pardon, is significant.

[clambake]

So, who controlled Fitzgerald and kept him from prosecuting everyone that needed to be prosecuted?
That's what you call a "fall guy". Maybe he accepted their token of a sacrificial lamb. Libby should be the one upset, as opposed to you or anyone else. I'd like to see how Libby will sort this all out. You know he knows.


What's to say? The White House has expressed its sadness over the affair and that a good public servant has been caught up in it.
Caught up in it and convicted. He might take his silence to the bank.


This administration isn't in the habit of displaying outrage, (even when I believe they should). But, it does indicate where it stands on issues. And, that the White House isn't ruling out a pardon, is significant.
The only thing significant is that he hasn't been pardoned already.

[j-6]

This is a moot point. He's been sentenced in his first trial. The appeal process hasn't even started. When you're dealing with the White House, you don't think that an executive official's appeals process is going to drag? He got indicted, what, two years ago?

Probably long enough for the outgoing president to slip in a last pardon one sunny morning in January 2009. This saga will be five years old by then. More heiresses will go to jail, more celebrities will adopt babies, and less people will even remember who Valerie Plame is or what Scooter Libby did.

Everyone wins: The Dems got another "Evil Bush" notch in their belt, Scooter skips jail, and the GOP doesn't hang a pawn. John Poindexter was in the White House running DARPA less than five years ago and he was actually convicted of something a lot worse.