The CBC and the Democrats as a whole should be standing in the background at Rosenberg’s press conference. Clean up or get the hell out.

Agreed completely. My only question is what took so long; what caused the delay, because these look like the same bsic facts we have known about for some time (like years)? My guess is there was some problem in getting the evidence from the African people buttoned down sufficiently. But it is an interesting question.

Bmaz, good point. The timing of this is suspicious.

OTOH, I guess we could have said that for almost any day of the last 3 months.

EW and randiego – Maybe, but Vernon Jackson and Brett Pfeffer both pled guilty guilty on these exact same facts in early 2006. They had some issue in making it stick to Jefferson, whether it was evidence from African citizens or evidence from the search. I dunno, but some sort of problem with the requisite evidence is all I can think of; because the basics on this case have been around for years. I think this is unlikely, but they may STILL have some glitch, but were forced to indict anyway due to a statute of limitations problem on a critical element.

All I can say is that it’s hard not to enjoy a scandal involving a freezer full of money.

I am so glad they finally indicted Jefferson. Took them long enough. I remember when they raided his office Denny Hastert had a fit. Got his panties in a bunch about congressional privacy or something. Maybe this delay was due to their protests.

While I’m done being surprised by the greed and corruption and abuse of power by individuals in our government, I am not done supporting every effort to putting an end to it. The evidence EW cites that the Jefferson (LA-D) indictment was issued by a reputable prosecutor in the DOJ is a relief. I trust the charges were made in good faith. Try Jefferson and if he’s guilty throw the book at him. If he lies and obstructs justice along the way, then throw the book at him twice.

Now, back to the long saga of the unrepentent Scotter Libby CIA leak case investigation, including Libby’s obstruction whihc is a benefit accruing to a Dick Cheney get out of jail free card for alleged criminal behavior, and the fraudulent pre-war intelligence promoted by the same people in OVP. Anyone want to guess Libby’s sentence? I think Walton will give Libby 20 months but I hope he gives him 30.

We started a Bragging rights pool on the libby sentance about 10 threads ago. I’ve been keeping track, but may have missed a few. So far I have:

Me, Rayne, and Loosehead drops with 30 months – thought I claimed it first (they just know I’m smart)

BMAZ – 29 months
hauksdottir – 37 m
EW – 24 m
Freepatriot – 28 months and don’t anyone else dare be coat-tailing on his pick.

Neil – 20 m
radiofreewill – 34 months

Anyone else goint to chime in? I’m keeping a list.

Semi-OT question for the legal pundits… I noted earlier today that the former COO for Enron was sentenced today and received a pretty hefty fine in addition to, I think, some jail time.

When someone receives a fine like that, what happens if they cannot pay? Does it force them to liquidate their estate or file bankruptcy? If they do pay, what is the money used for?

Just something I have wondered about…

bmaz, thanks! I had always just been a little curious about it — particularly if the person could not pay it after they went to jail! Your comment about civil process made a light go off in my head… Mucho thank you!

This is like betting against my home team, but I am going to say 18 months.

Thanks for all you do EW, and please get lots of rest for tomorrow – you & Jane will have a great day at Prettyman courthouse, I am sure.

I do hope you are right about Rosenberg. He is the person Gonzalas appointed as his Chief of Staff after Kyle Sampson resigned. Clearly AGAG had to name someone â€respected†as a temporary replacement for Sampson. Yet, he also needed someone loyal enough to stand at his side without objection to and in facilitation of his actions and testimonies thru the last two months of this scandal. Rosenberg is an ethics enigma, to say the least.

bmaz, your reservation has been duly noted. I’ll add the caviat – â€provided no other takes 26 months before said time of you enforcing the reservation.â€

What’s up bmaz, worried an alligator’s going to jump out of a grate? or more frightening yet, may someone yet come up with an ’argument’. Dare I say the word for cause of nightmares with all our lawyer readers.

Wha, ha, ha, ha, haaa. (rubbing hands together in sinister fashion)

I’m more and more curious about what was in the suitcases and refrigerator-sized box he rescued from his house while people were drowning in New Orleans. On CNN he claimed it was his daughter’s laptop and her suitcase. I recall hearing somewhere else that is was his daughter’s college things. A stack of Hamiltons would be a college necessity, so it might be true even if my nasty suspicions are also correct.

I was going to go with giving Libby 20% off 34 for impressing the jury, 28 months, but that’s taken… I’ll say 25 as it’s still open.

Neil,

The plan is for Jane to be in the courtroom and EW to liveblog from the media room as during the trial. Come on over to fdl for the morning.

It is worth comparing the Democrats’ disciplining of Jefferson to the Republican “criminalization of politics†defense for their lengthy list of miscreants.

Congrats to the Karnack the Magnificent Triplets – Dismayed, Rayne and Looseheadprop!

KAPOW!!!

Congratulations Rayne and Looseheadprop – I shall endevour to obtain the prize. Slim shot, but I have an idea.

So basically, here’s how Walton came up with 30 months IMHO. Oh, hang on. NOT humble opinion. I did win after all!

Sentancing guidlines really didn’t come into it – except in that Walton knew damn good and well that the could support the max without any doubt. He really didn’t need carefull legal analysis within those bounds.

So he knows he wants to give the guy a heavy sentance. But he doesn’t want to go to the max of he just feeds the radio speed freaks too much meat. So he’s going to trim just a bit off. Take the word max away from them – knock off thier buzz without giving them room to crow. 32 does him no good, clearly just a token trim – might as well be the max for the radio people.

29 Na – odd number, drops into the twenties. 30 is a nice round number. 30 is 2 1/2 years – again nice and round. And has the cashe of sounding heafty – 30 good number.

Anyway, I think it was just a matter of how he thought the number would be percieved, and wanting to take the word MAX away from the dicks at Fox and on the radio.

I think it sucks that Walton didn’t set a date for Libby going into custody. He says he’s not going to leave him out for appeal, but looks to me like a month will go by any way you slice it.

Immediate remand is never preferred as opposed to self surrender in Federal Courts. It uses up to much money and valuable US Marshall resources and they really don’t have intermediate detention facilities like state and counties do.

LOL – just careless mental midgetry, no doubt.

Wolfowitz commends Libby for protecting a covert CIA agent, he also relates how Libby helped Armitage with legal advice. Wolfowitz goes on say that Libby’s wife is a â€life long Democratâ€.

One involves his [Libby’s] effort to pursuade a newspaper not to publish information that would have endangered the life of a covert CIA agent working overseas.

[]

I also remember how Mr. Libby offered his services pro bono or at reduced costs after he had returned to private law practice – to help former colleagues and friends with legal issues. In one case he helped a public official defend himself against libelous accusations, something that is extremely difficult to do for anyone in public office. The official in question was Richard Armitage who more recently served as – Deputy Secretary of State.
Wolfowitz letter 5/29/07

Bolton

Bolton expands on the poor memory defense, explaining how he can’t remember anything either.

I myself [Bolton] have been to meetings after which I could not remember which agency or Department most of the people worked for, or even why they were there.Bolton Letter May 14, 2007

Feith

Feith forgets about the memory defense.

He had to deal with enormous quanities of material. I was always impressed by the number of policy papers and intelligence analyses he had read,
It was more than one could keep straight in one’s mind, but Scooter demonstrated dedication and organizational skill throught the papers and notes he prepared on the basis of his reading.
Feith Letter 4/22/07

Matalin and Carville

Though my husband James Carville, a Democratic Strategist and Clinton supporter, shares neither political nor philosophical views with Scooter, he has deep respect for his intellect, his integrity, and joins me in the sentiments expressed here.Matalin Letter 5/10/07

Alan Simpson

Simpson tells about Scooter’s loyalty to Cheney, also uses the word â€splendid†a lot.

During my years of friendship with Scooter, I found a singular attribute which will always remain undiminished in my mind. That is the attribute of Loyalty – unswerving, unselfish, unwavering loyalty. One could almost superimpose upon his blow the accolade â€The Good Soldierâ€.

[]

I has seen him â€at the side†of my old friend Dick Cheney – attentive, thoughtful, gracious, patient and always, always exceedingly effcient and I observed on many occasions how Dick relied on this man.
Simpson Letter 4/17/07

Indeed they are. Any guesses on how long it takes Shrub to pardon Saint Libby? I’m going to hold off on issuing a prediction until I see when Libby will have to report. Don’t see anything happening before a decision from Walton on that.

freepatriot

It can get interesting when bribes are involved. I remember that Agnew was found guilty of accepting a bribe, but the other person was found innocent of offering it to Agnew.

I agree, Walton has done an outstanding job. My gut feeling is the same as yours. Bush will either pardon Libby before he reports, or (I’d say) right at the end of his term. I have a hard time seeing him not pardon him at all. Have to see what happens next week.

Talkleft has all of the letters up in PDF here.

They are alphabetical, of interest Hannah and Eric Edelman.

so, we got some lawyers here:

is being the â€Bag Man†in the bribery process really a crime ??? (probably)

what happens if you fail to actually deliver the bribe you agreed to broker, or if you only deliver 10% of the promised amount ??? (the Mob would just whack your ass)

is stealing money intended to be used as a bribe really a crime ??? (in a way, Mr jefferson prevented a crime, or reduced the crime by 90%) Couldn’t Mr Jefferson claim the $90,000 was his â€Bribe broker’s Fee†???

all I got to say is that we’re all in for a good lesson on the legal concept of â€Intentâ€

and I hope we get a Judge with a good sense of humor on this one …

From my blog yesterday:

Monday, June 4, 2007

Rep. Jefferson and U. S. Attorneys

Anyone watching the news over the past two years has a clear impression that the frozen packages of dollars in Louisiana Representative William Jefferson’s freezer is prima facie evidence he’s guilty.

The news media seems to accept that and report any new information with a presumption of guilt.

Before we get caught up in the laundry list handed out by the U. S. Attorney pursuing the case, we better be careful not to be trapped into becoming a public jury who has already convicted Representative Jefferson.

In my experience as an advocate for pastors in trouble, I discovered how easy it was to believe the first reading of the complaint. That’s natural, unfortunately. But even what appears to be decisive evidence has not been tested in court before a real jury who watch as evidence is brought and cross examination occurs in the search for truth.

Prosecutors try to poison the well of public opinion (too readily supported by some media) and to influence prospective jurors. The defense is put in a position of having to mount a media defense before they even have all the information the prosecution has. If you were the accused, you’d be rather put out by these realities.

But what makes the Jefferson case so difficult for us is that the Attorney General’s office and U. S. Attorneys in particular have been so compromised by politicization that we must be especially careful of all their public statements. That loss of credibility will be a barrier the prosecution will have to overcome down the road in court, if indeed it can.

Now is their best chance to manipulate the news. Representative Jefferson will be so buried by the publicity that even if the court finds him not guilty, who will believe the jury?

Today comes the Republican Minority Leader calling on the Democrats to hold an ethics hearing within 30 days to rule on the Representative’s seat in the house.

That sounds so reasonable. Why shouldn’t the Democrats face up to one of their own being guilty of corruption? The Dems made ending corruption a high priority in the 2006 elections.

What if the ethics committee does meet and makes a decision before the court meets?

If the ethics committee exonerates Jefferson, the Repubs can scream favoritism because â€they protected their own,†NO MATTER WHAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE.

If the ethics committee comes out against Jefferson, a tempting option given how much public opinion has been stacked against him, then the Repubs will be able to claim some kind of high ground while at the same time prejudicing the court with the ethics committee’s â€mini-conviction.â€

Most institutions have some form of suspension which in itself appears prejudicial. The suspension usually lasts until the court deals with the case. As slowly as justice grinds, that’s a long time. A suspension is in order if the accused face charges that were directly related to their job performance.

Because not all accusations are relevant to the job, suspension may not be appropriate.

Tell that to a hostile public.

If the ethics committee does not meet, they will look like they are unwilling to face the problem.

Almost no matter what the ethics committee does, the decision would be treated politically. Representative Jefferson will not come out looking good or be helped in his defense.

The credibilty problem caused by the current administration makes everything they do questionable. What a shame.

I lived in Louisiana for years and heard many of the stories of corruption amongst the dominant Democratic Party (many of whom became Republican after Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Bill). The tradition for any Louisiana politician to use office creatively for personal benefit is very real and a problem for all Pelican State politicians.

Some politicians do things because they have the chance by virtue of their elected office. They are not just from one party. Greed is not Republican or Democratic.

But neither should justice be!

Simpson — the senile old man dribbled some truth onto the page, didn’t he?

Great post!! I have been waiting to see if we, the Democrats are putting our money…. I wrote the SOTH and expressed this some time back. Can’t clean another’s house when yours is dirty.