Non-Crime Gets Bogus Sentence
Libby gets 2 1/2 years and $250,000 fine. Kristol is worked up that Bush said its “terrible” but is holding off on the pardon. Doesn’t sound like he’s closed the door, nor has Libby heard the doors slam.
Here, once you scroll past a great deal of meandering nonsense, included some speculation on whether I suckled, you’ll find these deep thoughts of a world-weary taker of copious if tedious notes, grateful at longlast, seven years into our national nightmare, to see some justice … so hard when no crimes have been committed.
And here, some snarking over the letters. Be interesting to see who’s crime is deemed greater. Hillary’s for voting to liberate Iraq or Carville’s for writing to liberate Libby.
The Party of Bill demands to know: “Don’t they care about law and order?” Funny, I was wondering the same thing.
OK, back on this side of the aisle, Protein Wisdom notes “not only is Justice blind, she’s gettinga bit tone deaf to irony as well.”
Sidenote: Surber notes that Jefferson stands to get a $47,000 Congressional pension while in the slammer. That’s a lot of bars of soap and toothbrushes and packs of smokes to buy favors with. I bet Libby doesn’t get a sweet deal like that.
LGF has a pardoning poll. And for a palate-cleanser as we exit this sordid business for the moment, Michelle has “Harry Reid Said What? ‘12 Million Undocumented Americans.‘” Also, Surber’s “Global Warming Speeds Up Time.”
Topics: law & order, lawyers, pols
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 1:13 am on Wednesday, June 6, 2007
24 Responses to “Non-Crime Gets Bogus Sentence”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
June 6th, 2007 at 6:18 am
I’m beginning to really dislike this President. Granted, Judge Walton was an idiot who wants to enjoy favorable media attention so threw in with the squirley Fitz. The judge did not rule once in favor of Libby’s team. He did everything but shout “Down with Libby” and “Fitz is the man” during the trial.
However, this president fails to understand that with every policy and legal issue there is a PR idimension. The judge felt confident throwing out the sentencing recommendation of the impartial probation board and going with Nutty Fitzgerald because there were no consquenences in the PR areana.
This President is negligent in defending the war, tying it to the GWOT, explaining this to the American people.
And on the Libby case, he allowed himself to be outmaneuvered by that lovable couple Val and Joe, supported by that serious instituion, the liberal media.
June 6th, 2007 at 7:46 am
[...] Jules Crittenden sums up reaction to Libby’s sentencing left and right best. By JDZ Feedbacks on this entry via RSS 2.0 Please leave a Comment or discuss via Trackback! Comments Please Leave a Comment! [...]
June 6th, 2007 at 8:07 am
I doubt Libby will actually see a jail but yeah, sometimes you’d like to see the president defiantly use his power and to hell with the reaction. He’d have more power if he did. Of course, Harriet Miers would also be on the Supreme Court.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Libby was covering up - and now will go to prison - for Cheney, yet Cheney wouldn’t even write a letter on Libby’s behalf. Classy guy.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:22 am
[...] Jules Crittenden noted: “I bet Libby doesn’t get a sweet deal like [...]
June 6th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Web Reconnaissance for 06/06/2007
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Republicans are the “Party of Accountability” …for those who aren’t white, rich, powerful, and connected.
June 6th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Republicans are the “Party of Accountability” …for those who aren’t white, rich, powerful, and connected.
Well, that explains Barabara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, and Harry Reid’s shennanigans, doesn’t it?
Oh, and I smells me some more “nonobjective criteria” up thread.
June 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Right on, Jeffy. But first, will you tell me about the Barbara Boxer shenagins? Honestly, I have no idea.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Remind me again, what was Libby’s sin? Lying to the nation about having adulterous parties in the Oval Office? Stealing state secrets from the National Archives? Taking bribes from foreign officials? I forget.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Whoops! Got it wrong, it was Feinstein, not Boxer. Boxer is her idealogical playmate, so I tend to conflate them.
Besides, all them white, rich, powerful, and connected folks tend to look the same after a while……
June 6th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
…what was Libby’s sin?
Working for BushCo, Rebecca. Anyone connected to Emperor Chimpy is Guilty! GUILTY! GUILTY!!!.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Thanks, Jeffy. Glad to know it wasn’t Boxer, since I’ve given her money. You’re right about all of them looking the same. Feinstein and Bush look like twins separated at birth.
RebeccaH,
Here’s the reminder - Libby’s sin is that he lied in order to prevent Fitzgerald from finding out whether the Vice President had orchestrated a campaign to publicize a covert CIA agent’s identity.
Not on the same scale as joyous romps in the Oval Office or stealing xeroxes from the National Archives, but to a lot of people, much more important.
June 6th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Heh! Yet more “nonobjective criteria”.
June 6th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Well, sure, Jeffy, it’s all a judgment call. That’s why they call them “judges.”
June 6th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
And the State Department’s blabbermouth, who knew what was what before all the legal PR stunt even started, but kept quiet? Or the fact that the prosecutor knew it? And let’s just pass over the fact that Joe Wilson lied to the entire country for blatantly political reasons (leaving out the sheer vanity involved).
I suppose that since you are all for this kind of thing, you are for an equally vigorous investigation of the numerous leaks of security leaks to the press? And you are for an equally vigorous investigation into Sandy Berger’s lies to the court in order to pleas out and put a stop to all investigations into his criminal activities?
June 6th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Oops. Make that “numerous leaks of security information”. My brain seems to be leaking a bit.
June 6th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Cousin Salty says:
“And the State Department’s blabbermouth, who knew what was what before all the legal PR stunt even started, but kept quiet? Or the fact that the prosecutor knew it?”
Now, just as I did with Jeffy up above, I’m just asking here because I honestly don’t know. Can you tell me more about this? I think the “prosecutor knew it” part is referring to the fact that he knew that Armitage drew first blood? If so, please remember that the law doesn’t require that the person who exposes a covert agent be the FIRST person, just that he intentionally exposes.
But what about the state dept blabbermouth? I don’t think I’ve heard anything about it.
June 6th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
“…it’s all a judgment call.”
And that’s why I keep on pointing out those “nonobjective criteria”.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
The big tragedy here is is that the Wilsons haven’t been charged with treason (shame on the Bush administration for not pressing charges).
Anyone who releases information collected by our intelligence agencies with the intent to embarrass the government in a time of war is obviously providing aid and comfort to the enemy…and that’s what the Wilsons did…and that’s treason.
June 6th, 2007 at 9:55 pm
In addition to trying the Wilsons for treason, they should also consider bringing them up on charges of violating the Espionage Act:
U.S. Code Title 18,798
“(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—…”
“…(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government…”
“…Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
June 7th, 2007 at 12:55 am
The problem with a pardon for Libby now is that none of the constitutional issues raised in the course of his prosecution and trial will be litigated. That propect should scare the hell out of everybody, although the FireDogLake crowd — and apparently Bill Crystal — are too myopic to realize it.
June 7th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
“Libby’s sin is that he lied in order to prevent Fitzgerald from finding out whether the Vice President had orchestrated a campaign to publicize a covert CIA agent’s identity.”
Not a thing to do with Libby’s trial for perjury. A completely separate and distinct issue. Unfortunately, jurors have publicly admitted considering it in their deliberations.
A good site to get a feel for the intricacies of the Libby trial without the BDS lunacy is http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/
June 8th, 2007 at 9:45 am
[...] work of keeping the public terrified and docile. Or your work trying to get your readers to despise the rule of law - when it comes to the oligarchs - as much as [...]