Dick on Libby
Actually, Dick’s comments about Libby are actually pretty interesting, so I thought I’d give them their own post. [My transcription.]
CBS: Have you spoken to your former top aide since his verdict?
Dick: I have.
CBS: Can you tell us anything about that conversation?
Dick: No. I’ve seen him socially on a number of occasions.
CBS: Do you believe the commutation that President Bush gave Scooter Libby for his prison term was enough, or if you had been President would you have granted a full pardon?
Dick: I thought the President handled it right. I supported his decision.
CBS: Did you disagree with the guilty verdict in the case?
Dick: I did.
CBS: Even though the President said he respects that verdict?
Dick [evil Cheney laugh]: I still … you asked me if I disagreed with the verdict and I did.
CBS: Do you think Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald went too far in pursuing a prosecution of Scooter Libby?
Dick: Well, I don’t want to go beyond where I have already. The matter’s still pending before the Courts, um, there’s an appeal pending, um, on the question and I don’t want to um elaborate further.
See, if you disagree with the verdict, then there’s only one reason to call for commutation rather than pardon. One. And that’s because you want Libby to retain Fifth Amendment privilege.
It’s also rather interesting the way Dick got all fumbly as soon as questions moved to Fitzgerald. Does Dick worry that he’s not out of Fitzgerald’s sights, yet? Because if he is, he surely ought not be having all these "met him socially on a number of occasions" meetings. After all, it was one of those "meet me socially in Jackon" visits where Cheney and Libby compared notes on Libby’s perjurious story.
Say, what -about- Fitz’ sealed indictment? Is that thing still alve?
Hmmm.
Hmmm
There is no indication that Fitzgerald ever issued a sealed indictment. When you’ve got sealed v. sealed, they don’t exactly label it, â€brought to you by the guy investigating Dick Cheney and Karl Rove.â€
I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall on one of those occasions that Dick and Scooter have seen each other!
Quite. (Insert smiley here.)
What I -ought- to have typed instead: â€Say, what -about- Fitz’ much-rumored-though-never-actually-observed sealed indictment? If that thing ever actually existed, would it still be alive? Or would it now be stale, perhaps per GJ term or other expiration rule?â€
Hmmm.
EW @ 17:15: Technically, yes. But â€Sealed v Sealedâ€s are rare to begin with, aren’t they? And that one has been out there for quite some time. It may have nothing to do with the Shooter, but it’s still really weird.
if you disagree with the verdict, then there’s only one reason to call for commutation rather than pardon. One. And that’s because you want Libby to retain Fifth Amendment privilege.
I’m the last person to defend Dick Cheney. But isn’t there one other possible reason — if you have some hope/expectation that the conviction will be reversed on appeal?
I know it’s unlikely, you know it’s unlikely, Dick Cheney knows it’s unlikely. But it is an alternative/additional reason why one might favor commutation over a pardon.
Cheney’s hands are in every questionable act of this Administration. When will a representative in the House table a resolution similar to Rep. Inslee’s resolution on AbuG? Its waaaay past time for the HJC to start impeachment investigations on Cheney’s activities!
Sounds like Deadeye refusal to comment on Fitz acknowledges that Deadeye is still a likely Fitz target. Gotta be real careful not to let anything slip ’cause Fitz is still in the wings waiting.
RE: Is Dick still in Fitz’s sights.
I continue to think that Cheney blew up up at Fitz and said something along the lines of, â€I’m Dick Cheney. I can do whatever the fuck I want. And there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.â€
And Fitz came back with, â€Well, actually…†and then nailed Cheney’s right-hand man with four felony convictions.
And Fitz’s not-so-subtle closing argument made it crystal clear that he thought that Cheney was calling the shots.
Is Cheney still in Fitz’s sights? I think so. Will Libby keep playing the loyal soldier? I’m not so sure. The President of the United States more or less said he was guilty, which he didn’t have to do. He could have just said, â€I’m not saying he’s guilty, but even if he is, I think that the lowest sentence within the federal guidelines is still excessive, so I’m throwing it out.†Libby’s got to be pretty pouty right now.
Nell
Yes, you’re right. But why not even commute all of the punishment? If Libby’s innocent, why should he pay $250,000?
Marcy,
In the event you haven’t seen this, check out this scoop from R. J. Hillhouse:
http://www.thespywhobilledme.c…..spyin.html
Excerpt:
W said he ’respected’ the verdict, not that he agreed with it. I’m sure they’re of similar minds about Libby. I’m sure W is PO’d that anyone got caught but he isn’t a detail guy and CDick was supposed to take care of it.
MinnesotaChuck – If they are doing it on behalf of the government, it doesn’t matter; they are just an agency in fact for the government and it is still government action. This is exactly the kind of illusory dodge I was trying to warn everybody about in an uncharacteristically long and rambling comment I made in both the â€Data Mining 3†and â€TIA/TSP†threads.
Long ago when I was working for a major defense contractor, selling and supporting x.25 DDN gateways for the Air Force, I was working on behalf of and under the supervision of the government. If I were today to design and implement a large-scale date mining system using optical splitters, massive disk arrays, and parallel systems to do first-pass RT packet analysis of names, locations, and key words, I would certainly be doing so on behalf of and directly under the supervision of the U.S. Government. I don’t understand the idea that if it is done by a contractor it’s not accountable. (That’s not what either of you were saying, but â€some people†[god I hate the phrase] have implied it…)
date = data. And you thought dates grew on trees! Nope, today we mine them. Yummy, too.
This is an inanely simple analogy, but it will do as an example. Why do you think the feds, or any law enforcement for that matter, have to get a subpoena in order to view or seize bank records, health records etc.?
Because they have to show the subpoena to the bank, hospital, etc. in order to get the bank records, health records, etc?
Whereas when the government has direct access to the data in the first place, no need (other than legal, at which they either scoff, or else they go to the FISA court after the fact) to get the subpoena first before they can see the data, is there?
Hmmm.
As I understand it the hooks they have put in can only take away endpoint, timeOfDay, and duration information. If you have hooked a telco or ISP you will need their billing database to connect to people ( most phone numbers can be found through superpages etc but its alot easier if you can just join to the billing in RT. Makes solving the DC madams phone book ridiculously easy if you kept all the records for 6 years ( if not more, when did TIA start? ) It used to take a court order for the telecoms or big ISP/backbone providers to do anything, hmmmm perpetual NSLs or something like it maybe.
I think that this is just like EW said Iran-Contra all over again. The new Boland amendmant is the defense spending bill. And now Poindexter is selling it to Singapore, you know a model of free society with caning and all. When you here they have sold it to Burma then you know its just what a good authoritarian would want.
marksb — x.25 haven’t heard of that one since the 80’s
I don’t trust Specter on this new 18 hour ultimatum scam.
I pray that Cheney is still in Fitzgerald’s â€sights†We are still hungry for justice!
Wish someone would put a frog in Karl Rove’s seat when he does not show up on Thursday. At least that would provide a much needed chuckle!