Do not collect $200. Do not pass Go.
June 5, 2007 9:55 AM Subscribe
Despite letters of support from the likes of Henry Kissinger, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz and James Carville, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby gets 30 months and a fine of $250,000. (Judge Walton apparently also got letters from regular folks). Arguments about whether Libby stays out on bail pending appeal will be heard next week.
It'll all work out okay in the end: he'll get a pardon from Bush, and, in the meantime, Repubs get their dose of persecution complex red meat.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:59 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:59 AM on June 5, 2007
"He must provide sample of DNA"
How awesome would it be if his DNA matched a series of unsolved murders? Schadenfreude indeed.
posted by oddman at 10:03 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
How awesome would it be if his DNA matched a series of unsolved murders? Schadenfreude indeed.
posted by oddman at 10:03 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
Won't be fun for him, but it's a pretty cheap price to pay for treason.
you mean, living off his own considerable means while the verdict is appealed awaiting the ventual pardon?
And Cheney got off cheaper.
every day cheney hears the whispers of the damned calling him home. not cheap at all a soul.
posted by geos at 10:03 AM on June 5, 2007
you mean, living off his own considerable means while the verdict is appealed awaiting the ventual pardon?
And Cheney got off cheaper.
every day cheney hears the whispers of the damned calling him home. not cheap at all a soul.
posted by geos at 10:03 AM on June 5, 2007
Scooter was actually going to get a suspended sentence until the judge looked at some of the signatures on the letters.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:07 AM on June 5, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:07 AM on June 5, 2007 [3 favorites]
That letter isn't from James Carville; it's from Mary Matalin. It does mention Carville, but it's a pretty important distinction.
posted by cerebus19 at 10:08 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by cerebus19 at 10:08 AM on June 5, 2007
One of the comments on Firedoglake reads: "Richard Perle has the weirdest letterhead."
I have to agree.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:09 AM on June 5, 2007
I have to agree.
posted by Faint of Butt at 10:09 AM on June 5, 2007
cerebus19... the letter is signed by both Matalin & Carville.
I love the closing paragraph, which reads:
My family is praying the wisdom and mercy you bring to bear in determining Scooter's future will include a consideration of his family, the price they have already paid and what further justice would be served by additional devastation to them and the many other children who love Scooter.
bold added for What-The-Fuckedness.
posted by pruner at 10:12 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
I love the closing paragraph, which reads:
My family is praying the wisdom and mercy you bring to bear in determining Scooter's future will include a consideration of his family, the price they have already paid and what further justice would be served by additional devastation to them and the many other children who love Scooter.
bold added for What-The-Fuckedness.
posted by pruner at 10:12 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
quonsar: "BUBBA WANTS SOME SCOOTER POOTER"
lol
rape
amirite
posted by Drexen at 10:14 AM on June 5, 2007 [5 favorites]
lol
rape
amirite
posted by Drexen at 10:14 AM on June 5, 2007 [5 favorites]
the letter is signed by both Matalin & Carville
Fair enough, but it was still very obviously written by Matalin, considering the line "Though my husband James Carville..."
posted by cerebus19 at 10:15 AM on June 5, 2007
Fair enough, but it was still very obviously written by Matalin, considering the line "Though my husband James Carville..."
posted by cerebus19 at 10:15 AM on June 5, 2007
Do "letters of support" really have any impact on sentencing? I can see why a victim impact statement might, but is a judge really going to reduce a sentence because of letters from friends?
Or is there some Letitia Baldridge dictum that says failure to write a letter of support on behalf of a convicted white collar criminal is a social faux pas?
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 10:15 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
Or is there some Letitia Baldridge dictum that says failure to write a letter of support on behalf of a convicted white collar criminal is a social faux pas?
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 10:15 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
With all due respect, that letter was signed by both Carville and his GOP-operative wife, Mary Matalin. In fact, her name appears first among the two signatures.
I suspect she got him to sign as some measure of bipartisan idealism and as the mother of his children, not to make political potshots at the Democrats.
posted by vhsiv at 10:17 AM on June 5, 2007
I suspect she got him to sign as some measure of bipartisan idealism and as the mother of his children, not to make political potshots at the Democrats.
posted by vhsiv at 10:17 AM on June 5, 2007
My current pet theory is that the Admin wanted a big sentence, so they could play the "out of control judges attacking good citizens" card and pardon him.
posted by eriko at 10:17 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by eriko at 10:17 AM on June 5, 2007
I'm sorry, is it a normal thing for people to be 'out on bail pending appeal', or just the well-connected ones? If you're found guilty, shouldn't you be in prison serving a sentence? Do crack dealers and rapists get to be 'out pending appeal' or just white-collar criminals?
posted by kaemaril at 10:17 AM on June 5, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by kaemaril at 10:17 AM on June 5, 2007 [3 favorites]
"Out pending appeal" seems to be the purview of the wealthy, famous, and, not too dark-skinned.
posted by stenseng at 10:21 AM on June 5, 2007 [4 favorites]
posted by stenseng at 10:21 AM on June 5, 2007 [4 favorites]
I'm sure he gets a pardon but it will be interesting to see if Bush does so before his last days in office.
Many people looking at this thru the prism of a Bush admin official going to jail are thrilled, but I don't see how the punishment fits the crime in this case. Plame's CIA status turned out to be an open secret and Libby pretty much just had a bad memory.
posted by b_thinky at 10:22 AM on June 5, 2007
Many people looking at this thru the prism of a Bush admin official going to jail are thrilled, but I don't see how the punishment fits the crime in this case. Plame's CIA status turned out to be an open secret and Libby pretty much just had a bad memory.
posted by b_thinky at 10:22 AM on June 5, 2007
So will he be sharing a cell with Paris Hilton, or just be in the same wing?
posted by three blind mice at 10:22 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by three blind mice at 10:22 AM on June 5, 2007
Although I am not generally a supporter of mandatory minimums, I do think that "corruption" related charges should come with some kind of injunction against the convicted ever holding a political office higher than, say, Troop Leader in the Scouts, and that they should furthermore be kept away from any job involving lobbying or defense contracts. Similar measures are enforced for child molesters, right? These guys have an amazing talent for just popping up somewhere else near to government. What are the chances that Libby will end up working for Haliburton?
I do feel that Libby is more of a convenient scapegoat than anything else, just the only guy they could hang anything on. This isn't classic corruption in the sense of guys in alleyways passing envelopes stuffed with cash, but the vibe is similar.
posted by adipocere at 10:24 AM on June 5, 2007
I do feel that Libby is more of a convenient scapegoat than anything else, just the only guy they could hang anything on. This isn't classic corruption in the sense of guys in alleyways passing envelopes stuffed with cash, but the vibe is similar.
posted by adipocere at 10:24 AM on June 5, 2007
There are several potential problems with a pardon for Libby. The two main ones being:
1. He has expressed no remorse or contrition and has not admitted guilt. These are normally prerequisites for a pardon.
2. Pardoning someone who covered up for you can lead to conspiracy charges, as Nixon discovered when he was impeached.
posted by unSane at 10:25 AM on June 5, 2007
1. He has expressed no remorse or contrition and has not admitted guilt. These are normally prerequisites for a pardon.
2. Pardoning someone who covered up for you can lead to conspiracy charges, as Nixon discovered when he was impeached.
posted by unSane at 10:25 AM on June 5, 2007
30 months in Club Fed is far better than having to spend forty hours a week in a meat-packing plant, or cleaning motel rooms, or any of the things that millions of the working poor have to do to feed themselves.
Carville? Look up vermin; he's there.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:27 AM on June 5, 2007 [3 favorites]
Carville? Look up vermin; he's there.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:27 AM on June 5, 2007 [3 favorites]
People are normally bailed pending appeal when the judge concludes that there is a good chance of the appeal being successful. This is why Libby's lawyers are presenting their appeal case to Judge Walton next week. His decision re Libby will be conditioned in part by how strong he thinks their case is. However anyone who followed this case will know that Walton was really scrupulous, as was Fitzgerald. Libby's team were cut a lot of slack, and I think their chances on appeal are very slim. I'm guessing Scooter is going to do time.
posted by unSane at 10:28 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by unSane at 10:28 AM on June 5, 2007
How awesome would it be if his DNA matched a series of unsolved murders? Schadenfreude indeed.
posted by oddman
That made me laugh. There's a goofy screenplay in that, and I can hear the trailer now in that balls achingly low pitched voice:
THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD CAUGHT A LYING POLITICAL OPERATIVE.
WHAT THEY FOUND-OUND-OUND-OUND-OUND
..... WAS A MONSTERRRRR!!!!
< gunshots, massive explosion, orgasmic moan, a scream of terror, evil laugh etc...>
Rated R
heh heh
posted by Skygazer at 10:30 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by oddman
That made me laugh. There's a goofy screenplay in that, and I can hear the trailer now in that balls achingly low pitched voice:
THEY THOUGHT THEY HAD CAUGHT A LYING POLITICAL OPERATIVE.
WHAT THEY FOUND-OUND-OUND-OUND-OUND
..... WAS A MONSTERRRRR!!!!
< gunshots, massive explosion, orgasmic moan, a scream of terror, evil laugh etc...>
Rated R
heh heh
posted by Skygazer at 10:30 AM on June 5, 2007
b_thinky - Plame's CIA status turned out to be an open secret and Libby pretty much just had a bad memory.
I hope you're kidding.
An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.
posted by pruner at 10:30 AM on June 5, 2007
I hope you're kidding.
An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.
posted by pruner at 10:30 AM on June 5, 2007
Skygazer, that sounds like a much better movie than, say, Pirates of the Caribbean 3.
posted by Rangeboy at 10:37 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by Rangeboy at 10:37 AM on June 5, 2007
OMG ITS FITZMAS!!!!!!!!!!!! ROLFO!LOL!
posted by dios at 10:38 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by dios at 10:38 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
BUBBA WANTS SOME SCOOTER POOTER
I'll take obvious jokes for 200, Alex.
posted by jefbla at 10:38 AM on June 5, 2007
I'll take obvious jokes for 200, Alex.
posted by jefbla at 10:38 AM on June 5, 2007
OMG ITS DIOS BEING A TOOL!!!!1 ROOFLES!LOLZ!
posted by stenseng at 10:41 AM on June 5, 2007 [10 favorites]
posted by stenseng at 10:41 AM on June 5, 2007 [10 favorites]
I'm sorry, is it a normal thing for people to be 'out on bail pending appeal', or just the well-connected ones?
Not to dash the "rich white guys get all the breaks while black men sit in jail" stereotype that wants to get played here, "out on bail pending appeal" would be a perfectly normal thing to occur if the person was out on bail pending the trial or deemed not a danger to the public. Violent crimes its not common; stuff like this, there is no danger to community.
posted by dios at 10:43 AM on June 5, 2007
Not to dash the "rich white guys get all the breaks while black men sit in jail" stereotype that wants to get played here, "out on bail pending appeal" would be a perfectly normal thing to occur if the person was out on bail pending the trial or deemed not a danger to the public. Violent crimes its not common; stuff like this, there is no danger to community.
posted by dios at 10:43 AM on June 5, 2007
Seriously though, "Fitzmas" was a pretty fucking embarrassing neologism, especially given that the "present" ended up being the eqivalent of a big box of off-brand red licorice from the gas station minimart, wrapped in old paper towels and duct tape.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:47 AM on June 5, 2007 [5 favorites]
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:47 AM on June 5, 2007 [5 favorites]
It's the thought that counts, Lentrohamsanin.
posted by Floydd at 10:54 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Floydd at 10:54 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
stuff like this, there is no danger to community
It's just a little treason, is all.
posted by taosbat at 10:54 AM on June 5, 2007 [3 favorites]
It's just a little treason, is all.
posted by taosbat at 10:54 AM on June 5, 2007 [3 favorites]
Why is the firedoglake post written so badly?
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 10:56 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 10:56 AM on June 5, 2007
Violent crimes its not common; stuff like this, there is no danger to community.
So being complicit in an act that jeopardizes national security interests by knowingly exposing the identity of an undercover intelligence operative doesn't pose a danger to community? Good to know. So let's reveal the identities of all our intelligence operatives.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:56 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
So being complicit in an act that jeopardizes national security interests by knowingly exposing the identity of an undercover intelligence operative doesn't pose a danger to community? Good to know. So let's reveal the identities of all our intelligence operatives.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:56 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
He'll get pardoned. Because if he doesn't, he'll cut a deal with the gov't and start talking. Bush and company know this and will prefer the modest fallout from a pardon to the massive fallout that would accompany a loose-lipped Libby.
posted by brain_drain at 10:59 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by brain_drain at 10:59 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
on a different note: isn't sentencing leniency on the basis that the accused is 'an all-around good guy and upstanding member of the community' pretty much the opposite of what they meant when they wrote: 'a nation of laws and not of men'?
posted by saulgoodman at 11:02 AM on June 5, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by saulgoodman at 11:02 AM on June 5, 2007 [3 favorites]
This is fun.
I really enjoy watching one of the cabal go down.
More please.
posted by dougzilla at 11:05 AM on June 5, 2007
I really enjoy watching one of the cabal go down.
More please.
posted by dougzilla at 11:05 AM on June 5, 2007
b_thinky, the jury heard the "lousy memory" argument and didn't buy it; "One juror who spoke to reporters outside court said the jury had 34 poster-size pages filled with information they distilled from the trial testimony. They discerned that Libby was told about Plame at least nine times, and they did not buy the argument that he had forgotten all about it." If he didn't remember where he got the information about Plame being a spy from, why would he keep spreading that information to others?
Of course if you had a lousy memory you'd probably compensate by taking notes and documenting things; curious how neither Scooter Libby nor Gonzales feel that way.
posted by Challahtronix at 11:09 AM on June 5, 2007
Of course if you had a lousy memory you'd probably compensate by taking notes and documenting things; curious how neither Scooter Libby nor Gonzales feel that way.
posted by Challahtronix at 11:09 AM on June 5, 2007
I suppose Libby is lucky the judge didn't tack on 3 years for each of those sterling letters of support.
We have someone who is considered a war criminal by many, someone unable to get a republican controlled congress to vote for him for the UN ambassadorship, someone who planned a clusterfuck war and got fired from his next job for nepotism (while whining about it incessantly), and some weird-ass talking head/wife team. Yeah, sterling indeed. It's like the pimp vouching for the streetwalker.
Actually that's a pretty good analogy.
posted by edgeways at 11:11 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
We have someone who is considered a war criminal by many, someone unable to get a republican controlled congress to vote for him for the UN ambassadorship, someone who planned a clusterfuck war and got fired from his next job for nepotism (while whining about it incessantly), and some weird-ass talking head/wife team. Yeah, sterling indeed. It's like the pimp vouching for the streetwalker.
Actually that's a pretty good analogy.
posted by edgeways at 11:11 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Ask yourself, what has Bush to lose by pardoning him? No a whole heck of a lot
posted by edgeways at 11:16 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by edgeways at 11:16 AM on June 5, 2007
"rich white guys get all the breaks while black men sit in jail"
It never happens! NEVER!
posted by Artw at 11:25 AM on June 5, 2007
It never happens! NEVER!
posted by Artw at 11:25 AM on June 5, 2007
pruner: As Novak and others have said, Plame's name had been tossed around by many folks, both in and out of the administration. I seem to recall reading about people claiming even Joe Wilson mentioned his wife being CIA.
posted by b_thinky at 11:29 AM on June 5, 2007
posted by b_thinky at 11:29 AM on June 5, 2007
Where can I lay down money on Bush pardoning him? I mean, is anyone even taking that action?
and b_thinky: why do you hate America? What is it with you people?
posted by From Bklyn at 11:29 AM on June 5, 2007
and b_thinky: why do you hate America? What is it with you people?
posted by From Bklyn at 11:29 AM on June 5, 2007
I seem to recall reading about people claiming even Joe Wilson mentioned his wife being CIA.
Because you always know that you can believe everything you read.
Plame was covert. End of story. Every claim to the contrary was right-wing spinning or outright lying to protect their "side."
posted by deanc at 11:36 AM on June 5, 2007
Because you always know that you can believe everything you read.
Plame was covert. End of story. Every claim to the contrary was right-wing spinning or outright lying to protect their "side."
posted by deanc at 11:36 AM on June 5, 2007
pruner: As Novak and others have said--
And that was where I stopped reading.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:36 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
And that was where I stopped reading.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:36 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
Why...why would someone waste the time...
Nice one from Woolsey tho. Damn strange, that.
I suspect this is all ego. All self-reference establishing one’s own merit and attempting to establish Scooter’s character.
What confounds me is, even the best of men can make mistakes, and if those mistakes are capital offenses there is nothing in their past behavior that can excuse that. It is as though one can store good will or karma for future offenses and have them pay off for later transgressions (pretty sure this is the sort of thing that pissed off Martin Luther).
Even if Libby’s former acts were those of a saint, that in no way can mitigate any later crime.
Only his contrition for the crime can (possibly) do that.
And that doesn’t seem to be happening.
Only angle I can see in the letters is to show good faith and loyalty and to build up some good will for very little cost.
I doubt they’re in earnest.
...certainly not Mr. Rogers earnest.
And indeed, if they are in earnest that seems so utterly self-decieving and ego bound as to be far worse.
Interesting to see the differences in how that generation attributes value to certain kinds of communication.
Many folks on the net tout their expertise of whatever, but their statements are still for the most part exposed to criticism on the merits of their ideas or the value of the piece itself. The reasoning of it, how well it explicates the idea (pastabagels’ comment on mr. rogers again comes to mind - is he an expert on Fred Rogers? I dunno. But he doesn’t need to be for his post to have great merit).
This sort of thing seems to be the inverse, depending not on the inherent reasoning within, but upon the merit of the individual tendering, the matter.
Which, y’know, is way too old skool.
One of the shifts, I think, in thinking from the founding fathers is within this paradigm. (As earlier stated - laws not men).
I mean, Ben Franklin is going to listen to some guy just because that guy holds the title of such and such of something or other and has been a whatsit for ‘X’ years and knows this guy and that. Hey, I invented the f’ing potbelly stove dickhead. I discovered electricity (along with, much later, Muddy Waters) and the lightning rod, and swim fins, and f’ing bifocals. Thomas Jefferson was a Polymath, he invented automatic doors, the goddam swivel chair, he refined archetecture - think he’s going to listen to some guy just because he’s got titles all over the place?
Same deal. Thanks to the internet we’re getting back into that emphasis on the value of pure reason disassociated from personal title, etc. which is why this seems so unnatural to so many online.
(oh, it’s not perfect, and it’ll probably take about 50 more years at least to realize the full effects, but at the very least the anonymity and distance of the net allows a level and reception of criticism, indeed a democratization of criticism (and, if warranted, criticism of the criticism) formerly attainable only due to the limitations of mass communication and the literacy of the audiance)
(There is of course the “Rumsfeld? Screw him” thing going on. But the letters aren’t exclusively from the usual suspect partisan types.)
So it doesn’t really matter much anymore that a person of great merit weighs in on a given issue, all that matters is the value of what they say devoid of other considerations.
Many people know the particulars of the Libby case and therefore the reliance on personal merit due to ignorance of the case doesn’t work as well as it might have in the recent past.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:40 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
Nice one from Woolsey tho. Damn strange, that.
I suspect this is all ego. All self-reference establishing one’s own merit and attempting to establish Scooter’s character.
What confounds me is, even the best of men can make mistakes, and if those mistakes are capital offenses there is nothing in their past behavior that can excuse that. It is as though one can store good will or karma for future offenses and have them pay off for later transgressions (pretty sure this is the sort of thing that pissed off Martin Luther).
Even if Libby’s former acts were those of a saint, that in no way can mitigate any later crime.
Only his contrition for the crime can (possibly) do that.
And that doesn’t seem to be happening.
Only angle I can see in the letters is to show good faith and loyalty and to build up some good will for very little cost.
I doubt they’re in earnest.
...certainly not Mr. Rogers earnest.
And indeed, if they are in earnest that seems so utterly self-decieving and ego bound as to be far worse.
Interesting to see the differences in how that generation attributes value to certain kinds of communication.
Many folks on the net tout their expertise of whatever, but their statements are still for the most part exposed to criticism on the merits of their ideas or the value of the piece itself. The reasoning of it, how well it explicates the idea (pastabagels’ comment on mr. rogers again comes to mind - is he an expert on Fred Rogers? I dunno. But he doesn’t need to be for his post to have great merit).
This sort of thing seems to be the inverse, depending not on the inherent reasoning within, but upon the merit of the individual tendering, the matter.
Which, y’know, is way too old skool.
One of the shifts, I think, in thinking from the founding fathers is within this paradigm. (As earlier stated - laws not men).
I mean, Ben Franklin is going to listen to some guy just because that guy holds the title of such and such of something or other and has been a whatsit for ‘X’ years and knows this guy and that. Hey, I invented the f’ing potbelly stove dickhead. I discovered electricity (along with, much later, Muddy Waters) and the lightning rod, and swim fins, and f’ing bifocals. Thomas Jefferson was a Polymath, he invented automatic doors, the goddam swivel chair, he refined archetecture - think he’s going to listen to some guy just because he’s got titles all over the place?
Same deal. Thanks to the internet we’re getting back into that emphasis on the value of pure reason disassociated from personal title, etc. which is why this seems so unnatural to so many online.
(oh, it’s not perfect, and it’ll probably take about 50 more years at least to realize the full effects, but at the very least the anonymity and distance of the net allows a level and reception of criticism, indeed a democratization of criticism (and, if warranted, criticism of the criticism) formerly attainable only due to the limitations of mass communication and the literacy of the audiance)
(There is of course the “Rumsfeld? Screw him” thing going on. But the letters aren’t exclusively from the usual suspect partisan types.)
So it doesn’t really matter much anymore that a person of great merit weighs in on a given issue, all that matters is the value of what they say devoid of other considerations.
Many people know the particulars of the Libby case and therefore the reliance on personal merit due to ignorance of the case doesn’t work as well as it might have in the recent past.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:40 AM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
"Violent crimes its not common; stuff like this, there is no danger to community." -dios
*Ahem*
You did notice what Mrs. Plame was working on prior to her outing, right?
TechnolustLuddite, that's a liveblogged post, which FDL excelled at throughtout this entire trial. Real-time analysis, without the perfumed pooch and bobblehead on TV making stupid commentary.
b_thinky, multiple CREDIBLE sources (aka not Novakula) have reiterated that she was covert.
posted by rzklkng at 11:49 AM on June 5, 2007
*Ahem*
You did notice what Mrs. Plame was working on prior to her outing, right?
TechnolustLuddite, that's a liveblogged post, which FDL excelled at throughtout this entire trial. Real-time analysis, without the perfumed pooch and bobblehead on TV making stupid commentary.
b_thinky, multiple CREDIBLE sources (aka not Novakula) have reiterated that she was covert.
posted by rzklkng at 11:49 AM on June 5, 2007
Good work on the letters from smokinggun.
However, that firedoglake thing is unreadable pish, scribbled down as someone heard the judge. What, you couldn't reconstruct it into English?!
posted by imperium at 11:50 AM on June 5, 2007
However, that firedoglake thing is unreadable pish, scribbled down as someone heard the judge. What, you couldn't reconstruct it into English?!
posted by imperium at 11:50 AM on June 5, 2007
Also - I do so enjoy how people become experts in CIA operations overnight (anyone -ANYONE who’s been through the clandestine service trainee program is considered an asset - potential or otherwise - and establishing a link between their civilian identity and their cover, official or not, is a cardinal sin. And also illegal. Period)
And I like the schizm in how some information is privaleged, but other, classified information is somehow not. Like how the names of people on the no-fly list is classified but revealing that “Smedleyman” is Ted Shackley - is no big deal because everyone knows Shackley is a CIA agent. Even though y’know, no one had connected the two.
Pffft, get back.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:54 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
And I like the schizm in how some information is privaleged, but other, classified information is somehow not. Like how the names of people on the no-fly list is classified but revealing that “Smedleyman” is Ted Shackley - is no big deal because everyone knows Shackley is a CIA agent. Even though y’know, no one had connected the two.
Pffft, get back.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:54 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
As Novak and others have said
As FoB indicated, that's not the beginning to anything that will convince anyone of anything.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:56 AM on June 5, 2007
As FoB indicated, that's not the beginning to anything that will convince anyone of anything.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:56 AM on June 5, 2007
It's interesting that none of these letters from his closest and dearest friends and colleagues talk about Libby having a total shit memory, as his lawyers vigorously asserted.
posted by Nahum Tate at 11:59 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Nahum Tate at 11:59 AM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
rzklkng- aha! That's what it read like. Unreadable pish indeed. Maybe if the page's layout looked more like an instant messenger window i would have figured that out sooner. Oh well, it still beats the bobbleheads and bubble-headed beach blondes any day....
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 12:03 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by TechnoLustLuddite at 12:03 PM on June 5, 2007
How awesome would it be if his DNA matched a series of unsolved murders? Schadenfreude indeed.
Chandra Levy?
posted by phaedon at 12:11 PM on June 5, 2007
Chandra Levy?
posted by phaedon at 12:11 PM on June 5, 2007
*Ahem*
You did notice what Mrs. Plame was working on prior to her outing, right?
So you're worried that he'll, what, further damage our ability to monitor nuclear proliferation if he doesn't go to jail right away?
posted by moss at 12:12 PM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
You did notice what Mrs. Plame was working on prior to her outing, right?
So you're worried that he'll, what, further damage our ability to monitor nuclear proliferation if he doesn't go to jail right away?
posted by moss at 12:12 PM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
The CIA said she was covert.
The people who claim she wasn't aren't the CIA.
posted by Happy Monkey at 12:13 PM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
The people who claim she wasn't aren't the CIA.
posted by Happy Monkey at 12:13 PM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Time's coverage boggles my mind: Why Libby's Sentence Was So Tough
posted by peeedro at 12:18 PM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
When I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was sentenced Tuesday to a surprisingly long term of 30 months in prison for perjury and obstruction of justice, he became a victim of one of the most troubling aspects of federal sentencing laws — allowing harsher sentences for a crime that was never actually proven.The poor guy is a victim of Fitzgerald legal maneuvering and unfair federal sentencing guidelines, they say, as he was not found guilty for leaking Plame's identity.
posted by peeedro at 12:18 PM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
What was in the Kissinger letter? "It's not like he bombed Cambodia or anything..."
As far as danger to the community— C'mon. I like a little two-minute hate as much as the next guy, but the chances that he's going to go out and, what, tell more state secrets, are pretty slim. I'd rather have Scooter next door than a rapist or child molester. Just like I'd rather have an embezzler than a smash-and-grab thief.
posted by klangklangston at 12:26 PM on June 5, 2007
As far as danger to the community— C'mon. I like a little two-minute hate as much as the next guy, but the chances that he's going to go out and, what, tell more state secrets, are pretty slim. I'd rather have Scooter next door than a rapist or child molester. Just like I'd rather have an embezzler than a smash-and-grab thief.
posted by klangklangston at 12:26 PM on June 5, 2007
It's weird to think that at one point everyone knew that Time Magazine was conservative and reactionary. Now they and Newsweek are interchangable and oddly liberal or conservative seemingly at random.
posted by klangklangston at 12:31 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by klangklangston at 12:31 PM on June 5, 2007
In other Cheney related news: Court tells FCC to go fuck itself.
posted by homunculus at 12:34 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by homunculus at 12:34 PM on June 5, 2007
Many spending a good word for Libby because ...they know if they were caught, they'd spend far more time in a cell. They're just scared silly of ending like him..when the wind changes, suddendly harsh prison sentence isn't such a good idea and people who wouldn't move a finger to check the status of jails are so so so busy trying to built prison for the rich and powerful.
posted by elpapacito at 12:40 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by elpapacito at 12:40 PM on June 5, 2007
Oh and the letter from everyday folk ! Most probably hired or astroturfers.
posted by elpapacito at 12:42 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by elpapacito at 12:42 PM on June 5, 2007
My favorite part of the Matalin tear-jerker is the "little kids are the best judge of character and my kids just love their 'Mr Scooter'" tack. Yikes.
posted by aught at 12:42 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by aught at 12:42 PM on June 5, 2007
The court's reasoning in homunculus's link is awesome:
But the judges said vulgar words are just as often used out of frustration or excitement, and not to convey any broader obscene meaning. “In recent times even the top leaders of our government have used variants of these expletives in a manner that no reasonable person would believe referenced sexual or excretory organs or activities.”posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:42 PM on June 5, 2007
Adopting an argument made by lawyers for NBC, the judges then cited examples in which Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had used the same language that would be penalized under the policy. Mr. Bush was caught on videotape last July using a common vulgarity that the commission finds objectionable in a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain. Three years ago, Mr. Cheney was widely reported to have muttered an angry obscene version of “get lost” to Senator Patrick Leahy on the floor of the United States Senate.
b_thinky, multiple CREDIBLE sources (aka not Novakula) have reiterated that she was covert.
Including the CIA. Plus plenty of other witnesses that convinced the jury who heard all the evidence.
Did you, b_thinky?
Why do you hate the judicial process so much, b_?
posted by dash_slot- at 12:50 PM on June 5, 2007
Including the CIA. Plus plenty of other witnesses that convinced the jury who heard all the evidence.
Did you, b_thinky?
Why do you hate the judicial process so much, b_?
posted by dash_slot- at 12:50 PM on June 5, 2007
Plame was covert. End of story. Every claim to the contrary was right-wing spinning or outright lying to protect their "side."
Never mind all that, we're at war!
posted by homunculus at 12:57 PM on June 5, 2007
Never mind all that, we're at war!
posted by homunculus at 12:57 PM on June 5, 2007
“As Novak and others have said, Plame's name had been tossed around by many folks, both in and out of the administration.—b_thinky”
...was responded to with
“The people who claim she wasn't aren't the CIA.—Happy Monkey”
...and a couple of other comments like it. But that's partly irrelevant. Yes, it mattered what her formal status was, and as we know now with certainty, she was covert. However, the law in question here also required that the covertness be actively protected, so the matter of whether or not her being employed by the CIA was an "open secret" is quite relevant.
Unfortunately for b_thinky's argument, though, her employment by the CIA wasn't an "open secret". That was the bullshitting initial claim by those who wanted to spin this, but as time went on, it became certain that everyone who knew about her employment with the CIA but shouldn't have known learned about it via the leaks from the VP's office. Her status was not an open secret.
Dios wrote:
“‘out on bail pending appeal’ would be a perfectly normal thing to occur if the person was out on bail pending the trial or deemed not a danger to the public. Violent crimes its not common; stuff like this, there is no danger to community.”
...to which there were several responses like this one:
“So being complicit in an act that jeopardizes national security interests by knowingly exposing the identity of an undercover intelligence operative doesn't pose a danger to community? Good to know. So let's reveal the identities of all our intelligence operatives.”—saulgoodman
But dios is right. Danger to the community pretty much means being violent, which Libby is not. And saulgoodman's characterization is pretty loaded. While I think that Libby and everyone else concerned should have been prosecuted aggressively under the secrets act, it nevertheless is the case that Libby is not a spie who might futher pose danger to national security.
“It's weird to think that at one point everyone knew that Time Magazine was conservative and reactionary. ”—klangklangston
You're showing your young age, here. During my adult lifetime, which is the last 24 years, Time has been the more liberal of three weekly newsmagazines. I don't know when Time has ever been thought to be liberal, relative to its peers.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:57 PM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
...was responded to with
“The people who claim she wasn't aren't the CIA.—Happy Monkey”
...and a couple of other comments like it. But that's partly irrelevant. Yes, it mattered what her formal status was, and as we know now with certainty, she was covert. However, the law in question here also required that the covertness be actively protected, so the matter of whether or not her being employed by the CIA was an "open secret" is quite relevant.
Unfortunately for b_thinky's argument, though, her employment by the CIA wasn't an "open secret". That was the bullshitting initial claim by those who wanted to spin this, but as time went on, it became certain that everyone who knew about her employment with the CIA but shouldn't have known learned about it via the leaks from the VP's office. Her status was not an open secret.
Dios wrote:
“‘out on bail pending appeal’ would be a perfectly normal thing to occur if the person was out on bail pending the trial or deemed not a danger to the public. Violent crimes its not common; stuff like this, there is no danger to community.”
...to which there were several responses like this one:
“So being complicit in an act that jeopardizes national security interests by knowingly exposing the identity of an undercover intelligence operative doesn't pose a danger to community? Good to know. So let's reveal the identities of all our intelligence operatives.”—saulgoodman
But dios is right. Danger to the community pretty much means being violent, which Libby is not. And saulgoodman's characterization is pretty loaded. While I think that Libby and everyone else concerned should have been prosecuted aggressively under the secrets act, it nevertheless is the case that Libby is not a spie who might futher pose danger to national security.
“It's weird to think that at one point everyone knew that Time Magazine was conservative and reactionary. ”—klangklangston
You're showing your young age, here. During my adult lifetime, which is the last 24 years, Time has been the more liberal of three weekly newsmagazines. I don't know when Time has ever been thought to be liberal, relative to its peers.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:57 PM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
“The poor guy is a victim of Fitzgerald legal maneuvering and unfair federal sentencing guidelines, they say, as he was not found guilty for leaking Plame's identity.”—peedro
What's wrong with Time saying that? If this is a longer sentence than normal for perjury and obstruction of justice, and if the only reason it is longer is because of the crime they didn't actually prove he committed, isn't that unjust in the specific? Sure, it may serve a greater justice if he happens to actually have committed the crime which they didn't prove he committed, which I think he did, so I'm not losing sleep over his individual case. But beyond this specific case, this bothers me. Assuming it's true.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:03 PM on June 5, 2007
What's wrong with Time saying that? If this is a longer sentence than normal for perjury and obstruction of justice, and if the only reason it is longer is because of the crime they didn't actually prove he committed, isn't that unjust in the specific? Sure, it may serve a greater justice if he happens to actually have committed the crime which they didn't prove he committed, which I think he did, so I'm not losing sleep over his individual case. But beyond this specific case, this bothers me. Assuming it's true.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:03 PM on June 5, 2007
“Just like I'd rather have an embezzler than a smash-and-grab thief.”
posted by klangklangston
I agree with your gist and I take your meaning. But in overall principle, I disagree as to who is, strictly speaking, more dangerous. A thief you can protect yourself from. Someone who steals little you can just shoot or something if they bust into your house. And at the very least, you know where they are and you can get to them.
What can the ex-Enron folks do to protect themselves from someone who steals their life savings and their livelyhood?
Same thing here with Libby. He did not strictly speaking harm anyone personally. But like any white collar sort of crime the damage to the overall environment whether social or financial - is irreparable.
Indeed, who/how many people had their cover or NOC connected to Plame? Are those people alive or dead now? Did this revelation queer any investigation or destroy the value or confidence of any intelligence collected? These kinds of things we’ll never know because it has to remain secret, even in failure.
Libby is not a base villian (emphasis on ‘base’), but that does not make him less dangerous. Indeed, it’s worse if he is a man of quality. We’ve not only suffered the impact of his crime, we’ve lost what might otherwise be a man of good character.
But I have to go with Sam Johnson in that assessment. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Love of country does not excuse abrogation of principle.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:08 PM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by klangklangston
I agree with your gist and I take your meaning. But in overall principle, I disagree as to who is, strictly speaking, more dangerous. A thief you can protect yourself from. Someone who steals little you can just shoot or something if they bust into your house. And at the very least, you know where they are and you can get to them.
What can the ex-Enron folks do to protect themselves from someone who steals their life savings and their livelyhood?
Same thing here with Libby. He did not strictly speaking harm anyone personally. But like any white collar sort of crime the damage to the overall environment whether social or financial - is irreparable.
Indeed, who/how many people had their cover or NOC connected to Plame? Are those people alive or dead now? Did this revelation queer any investigation or destroy the value or confidence of any intelligence collected? These kinds of things we’ll never know because it has to remain secret, even in failure.
Libby is not a base villian (emphasis on ‘base’), but that does not make him less dangerous. Indeed, it’s worse if he is a man of quality. We’ve not only suffered the impact of his crime, we’ve lost what might otherwise be a man of good character.
But I have to go with Sam Johnson in that assessment. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Love of country does not excuse abrogation of principle.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:08 PM on June 5, 2007 [2 favorites]
Why is the firedoglake post written so badly?
It was liveblogged from the courtroom as the events happened. Emphasis was on speed not grammar. Normally Marcy's quite a good writer.
posted by scalefree at 1:10 PM on June 5, 2007
It was liveblogged from the courtroom as the events happened. Emphasis was on speed not grammar. Normally Marcy's quite a good writer.
posted by scalefree at 1:10 PM on June 5, 2007
Does it seem strange to anyone else that the letter from the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious diseases is on DHHS stationery? No matter how this guy feels about it, a plea for leniency doesn't seem like a policy position taken by Health and Human Services.
posted by Killick at 1:18 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by Killick at 1:18 PM on June 5, 2007
Maybe b_thinky can offer us a form of words that - in legislation - would protect covert operatives, but allow personnel like Plame to be identified.
As a follow up, could he tell us which Republican lawmaker he thinks would sponsor it?
posted by dash_slot- at 1:20 PM on June 5, 2007
As a follow up, could he tell us which Republican lawmaker he thinks would sponsor it?
posted by dash_slot- at 1:20 PM on June 5, 2007
Sure, it may serve a greater justice if he happens to actually have committed the crime which they didn't prove he committed, which I think he did, so I'm not losing sleep over his individual case. But beyond this specific case, this bothers me. Assuming it's true.
I think the legal theory is that by obstructing justice the original crime can longer be prosecuted properly and fairly, so the desserts of that crime are visited upon the obstructor. Otherwise it becomes promoted as a strategy like a professional foul in sports: you get punished, but avoid a bigger punishment.
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:13 PM on June 5, 2007
I think the legal theory is that by obstructing justice the original crime can longer be prosecuted properly and fairly, so the desserts of that crime are visited upon the obstructor. Otherwise it becomes promoted as a strategy like a professional foul in sports: you get punished, but avoid a bigger punishment.
posted by Mental Wimp at 2:13 PM on June 5, 2007
So, Osama Bin Ladin's personal driver can't get convicted, but Dick Cheney's personal assistant can.
Funny spot this county has gotten itself into.
posted by empath at 2:33 PM on June 5, 2007
Funny spot this county has gotten itself into.
posted by empath at 2:33 PM on June 5, 2007
Bush will definitely pardon him.
If so, it will be on January 19, 2009 (assuming a normal and orderly transfer of power to a new administration).
posted by blucevalo at 3:20 PM on June 5, 2007
If so, it will be on January 19, 2009 (assuming a normal and orderly transfer of power to a new administration).
posted by blucevalo at 3:20 PM on June 5, 2007
“I think the legal theory is that by obstructing justice the original crime can longer be prosecuted properly and fairly”
Ah, that's persuasive. But it's begging the question.
“But in overall principle, I disagree as to who is, strictly speaking, more dangerous. A thief you can protect yourself from. Someone who steals little you can just shoot or something if they bust into your house. And at the very least, you know where they are and you can get to them. What can the ex-Enron folks do to protect themselves from someone who steals their life savings and their livelyhood? Same thing here with Libby. He did not strictly speaking harm anyone personally. But like any white collar sort of crime the damage to the overall environment whether social or financial - is irreparable.”
Yeah. I've been thinking about this lately and my thoughts have shown up in comments on MeFi here and there. There's this almost universally-held belief that acts of violence are more morally wrong than other immoral acts which aren't violent. But while that seems intuitively true, I've been thinking that there's lots of doubts that can be raised about this. Our intuition may very well be wrong. And, perhaps, it's mostly a practical thing: in many cases, obviously, a violent act is worse than a descriptively comparable non-violent act and so we come to see that this is a bright-line we can draw that is useful and arguably not arbitrary.
The principal context in which I've been thinking about this issue is, surprise, the current US presidential administration. Ironically, outing Plame is among the least of the wrongs that I believe some of these folks have committed.
One big civic and moral problem with this, in my opinion, is that in widening the context for evaluating harm, and making that evaluation more nuanced, then it seems to me that we would have the obligation to do the same with evaluating responsibility and evaluating punishment. But I think that the likelihood of doing either of those things is much less than is that of finding people, um, "more in the wrong" than we currently are.
“So, Osama Bin Ladin's personal driver can't get convicted, but Dick Cheney's personal assistant can. Funny spot this county has gotten itself into.”
Well, conviction of one of two lackeys of evil madmen is better than none.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:24 PM on June 5, 2007
Ah, that's persuasive. But it's begging the question.
“But in overall principle, I disagree as to who is, strictly speaking, more dangerous. A thief you can protect yourself from. Someone who steals little you can just shoot or something if they bust into your house. And at the very least, you know where they are and you can get to them. What can the ex-Enron folks do to protect themselves from someone who steals their life savings and their livelyhood? Same thing here with Libby. He did not strictly speaking harm anyone personally. But like any white collar sort of crime the damage to the overall environment whether social or financial - is irreparable.”
Yeah. I've been thinking about this lately and my thoughts have shown up in comments on MeFi here and there. There's this almost universally-held belief that acts of violence are more morally wrong than other immoral acts which aren't violent. But while that seems intuitively true, I've been thinking that there's lots of doubts that can be raised about this. Our intuition may very well be wrong. And, perhaps, it's mostly a practical thing: in many cases, obviously, a violent act is worse than a descriptively comparable non-violent act and so we come to see that this is a bright-line we can draw that is useful and arguably not arbitrary.
The principal context in which I've been thinking about this issue is, surprise, the current US presidential administration. Ironically, outing Plame is among the least of the wrongs that I believe some of these folks have committed.
One big civic and moral problem with this, in my opinion, is that in widening the context for evaluating harm, and making that evaluation more nuanced, then it seems to me that we would have the obligation to do the same with evaluating responsibility and evaluating punishment. But I think that the likelihood of doing either of those things is much less than is that of finding people, um, "more in the wrong" than we currently are.
“So, Osama Bin Ladin's personal driver can't get convicted, but Dick Cheney's personal assistant can. Funny spot this county has gotten itself into.”
Well, conviction of one of two lackeys of evil madmen is better than none.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:24 PM on June 5, 2007
Glenn Greenwald on the right-wing machine's continuing attempt to spread the lie that Plame wasn't covert. Try and spread your talking points all you want b_thinky, Plame was covert, and under some administrations Libby would be lucky to get 2 years, as opposed to being executed for treason.
That said, it's somewhat amusing to see disgraced figures like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz writing letters for him. I mean, would you want discredited warmongers and profiteers telling a judge what a great person you are?
posted by bardic at 3:36 PM on June 5, 2007
That said, it's somewhat amusing to see disgraced figures like Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz writing letters for him. I mean, would you want discredited warmongers and profiteers telling a judge what a great person you are?
posted by bardic at 3:36 PM on June 5, 2007
If it were up to me, I would have shot him in the head and left the body to be torn apart by dogs.
posted by 2sheets at 3:47 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by 2sheets at 3:47 PM on June 5, 2007
"You're showing your young age, here. During my adult lifetime, which is the last 24 years, Time has been the more liberal of three weekly newsmagazines. I don't know when Time has ever been thought to be liberal, relative to its peers."
Is this what you meant to write, or is there a misplaced modifier or something?
And I only mentioned thinking it was odd after an NPR story on Time dropping its olde styleguide, along with trying to forge a new editorial direction. They mentioned that for most of its life, it was an Establishment Conservative organ, which I hadn't known. Now it seems, generally, conservative in the same way that the NY Times is conservative (only, you know, dumber and breezier).
posted by klangklangston at 3:49 PM on June 5, 2007
Is this what you meant to write, or is there a misplaced modifier or something?
And I only mentioned thinking it was odd after an NPR story on Time dropping its olde styleguide, along with trying to forge a new editorial direction. They mentioned that for most of its life, it was an Establishment Conservative organ, which I hadn't known. Now it seems, generally, conservative in the same way that the NY Times is conservative (only, you know, dumber and breezier).
posted by klangklangston at 3:49 PM on June 5, 2007
Does it seem strange to anyone else that the letter from the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious diseases is on DHHS stationery? No matter how this guy feels about it, a plea for leniency doesn't seem like a policy position taken by Health and Human Services.
posted by Killick
This is an excellent point.
posted by leftcoastbob at 4:10 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by Killick
This is an excellent point.
posted by leftcoastbob at 4:10 PM on June 5, 2007
Regarding his "extreme" sentence, there's also the fact that he has yet to show any contrition for this.
posted by Challahtronix at 4:28 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by Challahtronix at 4:28 PM on June 5, 2007
“Is this what you meant to write, or is there a misplaced modifier or something? ”
No, I wrote liberal in that last sentence when I meant to write conservative.
“And I only mentioned thinking it was odd after an NPR story on Time dropping its olde styleguide, along with trying to forge a new editorial direction. They mentioned that for most of its life, it was an Establishment Conservative organ, which I hadn't known.”
Either that was only true prior to the 70s, or your misheard, or they were simply wrong. In my lifetime, Time has been at the very least centrist. US News and World Report was reliably more conservative than Time.
I think someone would have to be very, very far to the American left to think of Time as an "establishment conservative organ". On a normed-to-American-centrist basis, I can't think of a newsweekly that would have played that role, except perhaps USN&WR, and I'd hesitate to say that. Among the weekly opinion journals, though, for the longest time National Review was quite clearly the establishment organ. These days after the rise of the neocons, I don't think anyone is playing this role the way that NR once was. Now, I think that National Review represents one branch of establishment conservatism and Weekly Standard, the other.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:55 PM on June 5, 2007
No, I wrote liberal in that last sentence when I meant to write conservative.
“And I only mentioned thinking it was odd after an NPR story on Time dropping its olde styleguide, along with trying to forge a new editorial direction. They mentioned that for most of its life, it was an Establishment Conservative organ, which I hadn't known.”
Either that was only true prior to the 70s, or your misheard, or they were simply wrong. In my lifetime, Time has been at the very least centrist. US News and World Report was reliably more conservative than Time.
I think someone would have to be very, very far to the American left to think of Time as an "establishment conservative organ". On a normed-to-American-centrist basis, I can't think of a newsweekly that would have played that role, except perhaps USN&WR, and I'd hesitate to say that. Among the weekly opinion journals, though, for the longest time National Review was quite clearly the establishment organ. These days after the rise of the neocons, I don't think anyone is playing this role the way that NR once was. Now, I think that National Review represents one branch of establishment conservatism and Weekly Standard, the other.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:55 PM on June 5, 2007
What's with the talking head's pardon speculation? How the fuck could this guy be pardoned ethically??!! Seriously, he was the vice president's right-handjob man. Somebody please splain to me how there is no collusion or conflict of interest when the guy you covered up for can pardon you for taking the fall?
Polifuckinticians. [spits]
posted by HyperBlue at 5:39 PM on June 5, 2007
Polifuckinticians. [spits]
posted by HyperBlue at 5:39 PM on June 5, 2007
"Either that was only true prior to the 70s, or your misheard, or they were simply wrong. In my lifetime, Time has been at the very least centrist. US News and World Report was reliably more conservative than Time."
Yes, prior to the '70s. It was a Yalie mag, and represented the "establishment" interests of folks like JP Morgan. I think I heard it here, but am not on a computer with sound, so can't be sure.
posted by klangklangston at 5:53 PM on June 5, 2007
Yes, prior to the '70s. It was a Yalie mag, and represented the "establishment" interests of folks like JP Morgan. I think I heard it here, but am not on a computer with sound, so can't be sure.
posted by klangklangston at 5:53 PM on June 5, 2007
My father subscribed to Time when I was a kid, so I grew up reading it. I stopped reading it about 1970, when I realized that I could predict with amazing accuracy just what Time would write about any given news event. I could even tell you what puns they would put in their article. It was most definitely a conservative-establishment organ. And if a knee is an organ, it was a jerky one of those.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:15 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:15 PM on June 5, 2007
Does it seem strange to anyone else that the letter from the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious diseases is on DHHS stationery? No matter how this guy feels about it, a plea for leniency doesn't seem like a policy position taken by Health and Human Services.
I don't have time to read through all the rules and regulations of federal employees, but if my memory from employee orientation is correct, I'm pretty sure this is a big no-no. Business stationary is for business matters only. Not only does the federal government own the physical stationery material, they are considered to own the logo that appears on the stationery and your title. You're never supposed to even give the appearance of (a) claiming that your federal office has an official position on any political matter or (b) leveraging the reputation of your job/title/office for any sort of personal or political gain.
Unless, of course, you decide that the rules don't apply to you because you're "special." Lotta that going on these days. And I can say that because I'm writing this from home.
posted by deanc at 6:17 PM on June 5, 2007
I don't have time to read through all the rules and regulations of federal employees, but if my memory from employee orientation is correct, I'm pretty sure this is a big no-no. Business stationary is for business matters only. Not only does the federal government own the physical stationery material, they are considered to own the logo that appears on the stationery and your title. You're never supposed to even give the appearance of (a) claiming that your federal office has an official position on any political matter or (b) leveraging the reputation of your job/title/office for any sort of personal or political gain.
Unless, of course, you decide that the rules don't apply to you because you're "special." Lotta that going on these days. And I can say that because I'm writing this from home.
posted by deanc at 6:17 PM on June 5, 2007
Yeah. I feel bad for Scooter. He's done some nice things. But I feel a whole lot worse for all the American and Iraqi children who lose their fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters because Scooter Libby and his ilk successfully engaged in a campaign to start a completely unjustified war.
Carville creeps me out. I do have friends whom I disagree with politically, I really do. But when you actively engaged in a battle with the people who employ your spouse, it's hard to not to suspect opportunism. I don't think I could be friends with a supporter of Bush at this point. Perhaps a supporter of other Republicans, but at some point what you believe really is who you are.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:46 PM on June 5, 2007
Carville creeps me out. I do have friends whom I disagree with politically, I really do. But when you actively engaged in a battle with the people who employ your spouse, it's hard to not to suspect opportunism. I don't think I could be friends with a supporter of Bush at this point. Perhaps a supporter of other Republicans, but at some point what you believe really is who you are.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 6:46 PM on June 5, 2007
Violent crimes its not common; stuff like this, there is no danger to community.
Statement not valid in Iran, Iraq, Bali, trains in London, trains in Madrid, or New Orleans.
posted by jonp72 at 7:29 PM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Statement not valid in Iran, Iraq, Bali, trains in London, trains in Madrid, or New Orleans.
posted by jonp72 at 7:29 PM on June 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
I'd agree that Time is worthy of being called "centrist," as it's in their interest to sell more magazines by offending as few people as possible.
But America has shifted pretty far to the right over the last 20 years, so depending on where you're standing, calling it a right-wing mouthpiece isn't all that outrageous a statement.
posted by bardic at 7:35 PM on June 5, 2007
But America has shifted pretty far to the right over the last 20 years, so depending on where you're standing, calling it a right-wing mouthpiece isn't all that outrageous a statement.
posted by bardic at 7:35 PM on June 5, 2007
It's a center-right mag, and it's drifted with the conventional wisdom. They see Joe Klein as a liberal.
posted by amberglow at 7:48 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by amberglow at 7:48 PM on June 5, 2007
I wonder if the Wall Street Journal will have another "pardon Libby" editorial tomorrow. They had one on Friday.
posted by SisterHavana at 9:40 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by SisterHavana at 9:40 PM on June 5, 2007
Treason is actually good for one's legacy, if Reagan is any measure. This is not surprising because cognitive dissonance theory explains how people actively proselyte the "truth" or announce the greatness of an apparent failure in their expectations in order to convince themselves and avoid the emotional pain.
posted by Brian B. at 10:02 PM on June 5, 2007
posted by Brian B. at 10:02 PM on June 5, 2007
Plame's CIA status turned out to be an open secret and Libby pretty much just had a bad memory. -- b_thinky
It was an open secret in the sense that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Which is to say, many conservatives (such as yourself) believe it's true, but it's not.
1. He has expressed no remorse or contrition and has not admitted guilt. These are normally prerequisites for a pardon.
That may be a guideline, but the president can issue any pardon he likes.
posted by delmoi at 10:13 PM on June 5, 2007
It was an open secret in the sense that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Which is to say, many conservatives (such as yourself) believe it's true, but it's not.
1. He has expressed no remorse or contrition and has not admitted guilt. These are normally prerequisites for a pardon.
That may be a guideline, but the president can issue any pardon he likes.
posted by delmoi at 10:13 PM on June 5, 2007
“That may be a guideline, but the president can issue any pardon he likes.”
Are you sure, however, that it's not the case, as the previous commenter argued, that in the case of a crime in which the President himself arguably was involved, such a pardon itself becomes compelling evidence of conspiracy involving the President?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:17 PM on June 5, 2007
Are you sure, however, that it's not the case, as the previous commenter argued, that in the case of a crime in which the President himself arguably was involved, such a pardon itself becomes compelling evidence of conspiracy involving the President?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:17 PM on June 5, 2007
That may be a guideline, but the president can issue any pardon he likes.
Indeed, as exhibited when Ford granted Nixon a full and unconditional pardon. Nixon never admitted any culpability whatsoever, and he has numerous admirers to this day (though, admittedly, probably more down to disenchantment with Bush than anything else).
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:04 PM on June 5, 2007
Indeed, as exhibited when Ford granted Nixon a full and unconditional pardon. Nixon never admitted any culpability whatsoever, and he has numerous admirers to this day (though, admittedly, probably more down to disenchantment with Bush than anything else).
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:04 PM on June 5, 2007
Words fail me. Here, in the land of the free, where due process has taken its course, people are suggesting that he should go free. For heavens sake, he is a convicted felon. Do the crime, do the time. It is only because he is a Republican hack that any one is suggesting clemency, etc. It saddens me so to this great nation, with so much to admire, respect and be thankful for, should be descending into such petty corruption, hypocrisy and criminality amongst the so-called political leaders.
posted by vac2003 at 3:11 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by vac2003 at 3:11 AM on June 6, 2007
Last night a commentater on Olberman's show asked if these same people will write letters of support for soldiers on trial, people (sent to war by the Bush administration) who had to make split-second decisions about their actions in wartime.
And Olberman asked Wilson if Bush or Cheney had ever expressed sympathy for what HIS family has gone through.
a plea for leniency doesn't seem like a policy position taken by Health and Human Services.
Don't you understand? Perhaps "the children" of America will develop allergies from their stress over Uncle Scooter being in jail.
(And yes, personal correspondence on company letterhead is a big no-no.)
Oh, and Time magazine was definitely more conservative than Newsweek, from the start and at least through the time I used to read the latter (70s into the 80s).
posted by NorthernLite at 7:01 AM on June 6, 2007
And Olberman asked Wilson if Bush or Cheney had ever expressed sympathy for what HIS family has gone through.
a plea for leniency doesn't seem like a policy position taken by Health and Human Services.
Don't you understand? Perhaps "the children" of America will develop allergies from their stress over Uncle Scooter being in jail.
(And yes, personal correspondence on company letterhead is a big no-no.)
Oh, and Time magazine was definitely more conservative than Newsweek, from the start and at least through the time I used to read the latter (70s into the 80s).
posted by NorthernLite at 7:01 AM on June 6, 2007
Oh, and Time magazine was definitely more conservative than Newsweek, from the start and at least through the time I used to read the latter (70s into the 80s).
Not surprisingly, considering its founder Henry Luce was considered by some to be a protofascist.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:08 AM on June 6, 2007
Not surprisingly, considering its founder Henry Luce was considered by some to be a protofascist.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:08 AM on June 6, 2007
(oh yeah, should have mentioned, that link on Luce is to a LaRouche site, so it's a little nutty, and should probably be taken with a big ol' grain of salt, but still... it's a perspective.)
posted by saulgoodman at 9:24 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by saulgoodman at 9:24 AM on June 6, 2007
EB:...and if the only reason it is longer is because of the crime they didn't actually prove he committed, isn't that unjust in the specific?
MW: I think the legal theory is that by obstructing justice the original crime can longer be prosecuted properly and fairly, so the desserts of that crime are visited upon the obstructor. Otherwise it becomes promoted as a strategy like a professional foul in sports: you get punished, but avoid a bigger punishment.
EB: Ah, that's persuasive. But it's begging the question.
I'm sorry, but which question was it begging?
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:40 AM on June 6, 2007
MW: I think the legal theory is that by obstructing justice the original crime can longer be prosecuted properly and fairly, so the desserts of that crime are visited upon the obstructor. Otherwise it becomes promoted as a strategy like a professional foul in sports: you get punished, but avoid a bigger punishment.
EB: Ah, that's persuasive. But it's begging the question.
I'm sorry, but which question was it begging?
posted by Mental Wimp at 10:40 AM on June 6, 2007
It assumes that the person committed the crime for which a conviction wasn't possible. Or are you looking for an actual question? Because I don't go for those newfangled modern usages.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:06 AM on June 6, 2007
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:06 AM on June 6, 2007
Hmm, on second thought, I guess I probably misunderstood you.
Is the theory that it doesn't matter who is guilty of the unprosecutable crime and that the special punishment of any obstruction of justice is that the obstructer assumes the burden of punishment for that unprosecutable crime in addition to some baseline punishment for obstruction itself? I can see the pragmatic argument for that, but by itself that seems disproportionate. And, of course, it's not the case that it's the actual punishment for the unprosecutable crime, but some fractional lesser punishment.
That makes sense to me, except that I'd think it should just be folded into the definition of the obstruction charge itself: that is, obstruction charges have degrees that reflect the degree of the criminal act which couldn't be prosecuted. Not added later at sentencing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:16 AM on June 6, 2007
Is the theory that it doesn't matter who is guilty of the unprosecutable crime and that the special punishment of any obstruction of justice is that the obstructer assumes the burden of punishment for that unprosecutable crime in addition to some baseline punishment for obstruction itself? I can see the pragmatic argument for that, but by itself that seems disproportionate. And, of course, it's not the case that it's the actual punishment for the unprosecutable crime, but some fractional lesser punishment.
That makes sense to me, except that I'd think it should just be folded into the definition of the obstruction charge itself: that is, obstruction charges have degrees that reflect the degree of the criminal act which couldn't be prosecuted. Not added later at sentencing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:16 AM on June 6, 2007
Yes, I see your point. The obstructor may not be (as in this case) the prime instigator of the crime, yet, if the principle I articulated were fully implemented, would take the punishment that would be meted out to the prime instigator were that person known and convicted. So it could lead to some disproportionality, but it would certainly discourage obvious obstruction by a perpetrator in hopes that a lighter sentence could be obtained for the obstruction relative to that for the main crime.
But I guess I'm comfortable with the judge calibrating sentences based on consideration of the motivating crime and the convicted obstructor's apparent role in it. And it sounds as though you feel that's what happened in this case.
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:46 PM on June 6, 2007
But I guess I'm comfortable with the judge calibrating sentences based on consideration of the motivating crime and the convicted obstructor's apparent role in it. And it sounds as though you feel that's what happened in this case.
posted by Mental Wimp at 1:46 PM on June 6, 2007
When Murica finally WAKES THE FUCK UP I think that the names on these letters will make a good starting point for the war-crimes/complicit, traitorous yesman dragnet. Start building the gallows now. We need a cleansing top/bottom. These fuckers has got ta go. /true patriot dreams
.....Just saw Delay on hardball discussing the potential for Scooter's pardon.
WTF
It is like soliciting John Wayne Gacy's opinion on a Jeffery Dahmer pardon. I swear, how the fuck can these guys walk with balls that big and when are we gonna stop letting them?
posted by HyperBlue at 4:24 PM on June 6, 2007
.....Just saw Delay on hardball discussing the potential for Scooter's pardon.
WTF
It is like soliciting John Wayne Gacy's opinion on a Jeffery Dahmer pardon. I swear, how the fuck can these guys walk with balls that big and when are we gonna stop letting them?
posted by HyperBlue at 4:24 PM on June 6, 2007
Right now, Matthews has G GORDON LIDDY! on speaking for Libby.
unbelievable.
posted by amberglow at 4:38 PM on June 6, 2007
unbelievable.
posted by amberglow at 4:38 PM on June 6, 2007
This is wonderful--just perfect: ...As I was reading the Amicus Brief from Robert Bork and friends today, I was thinking to myself, "Jeebus! They sure pulled this together quickly, with 12 fancy lawyers agreeing on a brief within 72 hours. You think maybe they had this in the works ahead of time?"
Well, apparently, Judge Walton is thinking the same kind of thing. Check out the footnote in his order allowing Bork and friends to submit their brief.
It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.
..
posted by amberglow at 4:05 PM on June 8, 2007
Well, apparently, Judge Walton is thinking the same kind of thing. Check out the footnote in his order allowing Bork and friends to submit their brief.
It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.
..
posted by amberglow at 4:05 PM on June 8, 2007
I mean, how do you propose to demonstrate that there isn't always a choice? All I need is one example where someone has chosen imminent death over renunciation, which demonstrates the possibility of a choice.
Forcing someone to choose is not a valid choice for the victim for several reasons.
If someone puts a gun to someone's head and tells them to choose X, or die, then they are only being forced to do something against their will, and if it against their will, then they didn't choose it. If someone argues that they can always choose to die instead, then this is equally naive, because if the gun jammed, they wouldn't normally stick around to die either and their honor is never questioned by fighting back or running because there was no honor in the enforcer to betray. Therefore no willful choice was made.
Another reason, assuming that one special argument designed to thwart common sense, is that willfully choosing to die for one's "beliefs" is presupposing another enforcer who won't let the zealot off the hook in the next life if they artificially choose to do something against their will in order to survive.
Overall, this is why libertarianism and their choice arguments are not only unsophisticated, but instead point to a pathology of choice, and not a philosophy of choice.
posted by Brian B. at 5:21 PM on June 8, 2007
Forcing someone to choose is not a valid choice for the victim for several reasons.
If someone puts a gun to someone's head and tells them to choose X, or die, then they are only being forced to do something against their will, and if it against their will, then they didn't choose it. If someone argues that they can always choose to die instead, then this is equally naive, because if the gun jammed, they wouldn't normally stick around to die either and their honor is never questioned by fighting back or running because there was no honor in the enforcer to betray. Therefore no willful choice was made.
Another reason, assuming that one special argument designed to thwart common sense, is that willfully choosing to die for one's "beliefs" is presupposing another enforcer who won't let the zealot off the hook in the next life if they artificially choose to do something against their will in order to survive.
Overall, this is why libertarianism and their choice arguments are not only unsophisticated, but instead point to a pathology of choice, and not a philosophy of choice.
posted by Brian B. at 5:21 PM on June 8, 2007
Oops, posted in the wrong thread. Here is the right one. I second the call for a desist button on the recent activity lists.
posted by Brian B. at 5:37 PM on June 8, 2007
posted by Brian B. at 5:37 PM on June 8, 2007
The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries
That's brillant Amberglow.
posted by Skygazer at 8:41 AM on June 9, 2007
That's brillant Amberglow.
posted by Skygazer at 8:41 AM on June 9, 2007
isn't it? Judges have had some of the smartest and most honest and biting commentary these past few years--on this, on all the other Bush crimes like wiretapping and the fake terrorists, etc.
posted by amberglow at 10:59 AM on June 9, 2007
posted by amberglow at 10:59 AM on June 9, 2007
« Older Forty years on. | London Goes Carbon Crazy Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
And Cheney got off cheaper.
posted by Flunkie at 9:58 AM on June 5, 2007