Posted on 07/13/2007 11:17:25 PM PDT by the Real fifi
Ten days after the President commuted the prison term of I. Lewis Libby, Judge Walton upheld the amended sentence in a new memorandum opinion, and displayed his pique at the executive interference and disputed the criticism of his sentencing process. But a review of the relevant facts suggests the President has the better argument.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Ping
ping
Sentence was not merely excessive, but simply wrong. Then again, so was the verdict, the persecution, the investigation and the political perception fed by the same media that were also the main participant, the witness, the accuser and the commentator of so-called “Plame affair”.
Obviously, there is far more than one “D.C. Madame” in nation’s capital.
We need to fire those judges and replace them with real ones, not politicians (and criminals themselves) in robes.
This Valarie Plame joke Should have resulted in many prison sentences being handed out, and those serving them should have been her husband, MSM conspirators, and Democrat co-conspirators.
The President was absolutely right to commute; I loved it how he slapped down the judge when saying the sentence was in some measure based on “evidence not proven at trial” (ala the covertiness of our gal-pal-Val).
I wonder what is happening with the other leak investigations? The TSP? The Iranian ops? The latest leak of the NIE? Etcetera, etc. etc.
I also wonder what the status is of Libby’s appeal; I hope he does pursue it. Someday Fitzy needs to get his due, and the only way that will happen is through the appeals process, I think. Unless the republicans in the house and senate start doing their own investigation of the Fitzy fiasco. What was done here is beyond the pale, and the more I think about it, the angrier I get.
Great article btw.
You are right...the perception is reality.
I agree that the Administration did not initially handle this well. OTOH they seem to have been unaware of the bureaucratic was against them in the CIA,DoS and DoJ. And they expected Tenet to clear them from Wilson’s charges and he inexplicably failed to. Instead he pressed for the investigation and somehow that stupid referral letter which was baseless in law was leaked to NBC’s Mitchell giving Schumer and Conyers more steam.
This is consistent with Mr. Libby's notes of that conversation, which do not identify Ms. Wilson as covert or classified. See GX 104; GX 104T. At trial, the government produced three witnesses who said they, too, had told Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA: Marc Grossman; Robert Grenier; and Cathie Martin. None of them testified that he or she had told Mr. Libby that Ms. Wilson was covert or classified. [emphasis added]
The bottom line is that the government had witness accounts of every conversation Mr Libby had about Ms. Plame - and Libby's own notes from his initial discussion with the Vice President - and none of them even mention the possibility it might have been "classified."
This lies in stark contrast to Richard Armitage, who read about Ms. Wilson in a Top Secret memo, but even so managed to convince Mr Fitzgerald he shouldn't have been expected to know that part was classified.
The obvious double standard being applied raises serious questions about the propriety of the prosecution.
Mr Fitzgerald compounded that perception by quoting Judge Tatel's opinion in the earlier reporters' privilege case (that upheld jailing Judith Miller for contempt):
"insofar as false testimony may have impaired the special counsel's identification of culprits, perjury in this context is itself a crime with national security implications. What's more, because the charges contemplated here relate to false denials of responsibility for Plame's exposure, prosecuting perjury or false statements would be tantamount to punishing the leak."
At the time, Mr Fitzgerald was still contending Mr Libby was the first government leaker, and "at the beginning of the chain of phone calls" . . . even though he knew Armitage found out about Ms. Wilson two days before Libby got it from the Vice President.
As we now know, Mr Armitage leaked more than a week before, on tape, to Bob Woodward. And nothing in Libby's testimony obstructed Mr Fitzgerald from discovering that. In fact, Mr Libby wasn't even aware that Armitage was the leaker.
Fitzgerald, however, knew Armitage was the one who'd leaked to Bob Novak . . . he just didn't bother to check if he'd leaked earlier. It's now apparent that punishing Libby doesn't even punish the leaker, let alone "punish[] the leak."
In short, Mr Libby's "obstruction" didn't affect Mr Fitzgerald's "investigation" at all. The prosecutor knew who the actual leaker was, which Libby didn't; he just didn't care to pursue him.
Even accepting Libby's months-old recollections of conversations were lies, rather than mere memory errors, the only possible effect was on Libby's own state of mind. And since any criminal charge required proving the defendant knew the information was classified, and he obviously didn't, he couldn't be guilty of leaking.
Moreover, since nobody involved knew the information was classified, there simply was no "underlying crime."
There are no statutory provisions for applying a cross-reference to a non-crime, and if there were, it'd be a miscarriage of justice.
Fitzgerald made a vindictive attempt to increase the punishment based on assertions, not evidence, and Judge Walton applied the wrong standard when sentencing Libby. Even if the cross-referencing was legally correct, it was a miscarriage of justice.
President Bush is justified both in characterizing it as "excessive" and in exercising his Constitutional prerogative of clemency.
~~~~~~~~~~
The minutiae and maze-like legal technicalities and confounding legalese are at the heart of the public opinion about this case, with the help of a bloodthirsty partisan media, and the inept, arrogant, and vindictive persecutor counted on these confusing and agitating the jury and American public ..... and sadly, it's worked to produce an unconscionable judicial travesty.
I wonder about all those things too. From what I can find out about Libby’s appeal, his lawyers chose only a few weak issues to carry all their eggs in. Waltin looked at it and said that ain’t sh** so I deny bond pending outcome of appeal. They challenge whether Fitz was legitimate prosecutor when he was not a “special counsel” but was indeed a sitting U S Attorney from Chicago and was selected by AG’s office. I believe there were many legitimate lines of defense ruled out of order, and several witnesses not called (Andrea Mitchell and other reporter’s notes and phone records) which were not touched. Perhaps the lawyers screwed it up from the get-go. One thing they did was try to say Libby was White House scape goat. Bad idea, because it was simply not true, but also did not challenge the CIA, Fitz, Wilson, Plame et al. They also certainly screwed up jury selection. For one a Washington Post reporter served and has published a day-to-day diary of the whole trial. Amazing...
I think you have misread the record. The only brief filed to date was on the bond issue and that is a different test than that on the appeal on the merits. Nevertheless, you may wish to reread it because, for example, the Mitchell issue is right there.
Yes, he was. This sentence was way over the top...those loser loons in DC make me sick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.