Archive for category: emptywheel

Fitzgerald’s filing in response to Judge Walton’s request for clarification on Libby’s magical disappearing prison sentence has the feel of bitter duty. Much of it is an attempt to stave off any attempt by Libby’s lawyers to disappear even the supervised release.

As discussed more fully below, it is the government’s position that the supervised release term remains operative, and that, by effect of the commutation, the supervised release term began on July 2, 2007.

It offers three different reasons why Libby should be unable to bid to have the supervised release vacated.

Still, it is not without its snark. It repeats what Fitzgerald said in his statement–that Libby actually got a light sentence.

The Court sentenced the defendant to imprisonment on each of the counts, and the total sentence of imprisonment, 30 months, was at the low-end of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range. [my emphasis]

And it goes to some length to demonstrate that this kind of commutation has almost never happened before. As in, once.

Before setting forth the specific grounds for its position, the government acknowledges the absence of case law authority that directly addresses whether a term of supervised release may follow a commutation of a term of imprisonment where no actual imprisonment has been served. The government is aware of only one other instance since the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 of a ‘prospective’ commutation, that is, where no imprisonment term was actually served, and no case law analysis arose from that other commutation.

And it explains US Code, "not surprisingly," doesn’t account for the kind of commutation Libby received.

Section 3583(e) sets forth the circumstances permitting termination, extension, modification, or revocation of supervised release, and not suprisingly, § 3583(e) contains no provision for vacating a lawfully-imposed term of supervised release because a Presidential commutation deemed the sentence of imprisonment to be “expire[d].”

After all, Libby didn’t do the same things others had to to get their sentence commuted.

Although defendant Libby apparently did not submit a “petition[] for mercy,” the holding of Schick should still apply here: the defendant has readily accepted the “full benefit of a lesser punishment,” and thus it is appropriate that he still meet the much lesser burdens of the sentence he now faces.

The filing makes me more bitter than I was even last Monday. That’s what we’ve come to–arguing diligently to sustain the scrap of punishment Libby still has.

Wow. When I railed on Mikey Isikoff’s horribly conflicted coverage of the CIA Leak case while on Sam Seder’s show today, I had not yet read Mikey’s latest blowjob to Karl Rove. But this is truly shameful stuff. First, Mikey provides tons of details that make it clear that the White House has scrupulously tried to pretend no one influenced Bush in untoward manner … even while a lot of pressure came to bear.

Libby’s allies pressed their argument with White House aides but gotnowhere. George W. Bush’s senior staff was under strict instructions:listen politely, but give away nothing about what the president mightultimately do.

Uh huh. They carry out that strategy furthest with Cheney.

Cheney did not directly weigh in with Fielding, but nobody involved hadany doubt where he stood. "I’m not sure Bush had a choice," says one ofthe advisers. "If he didn’t act, it would have caused a fracture withthe vice president."

Cheney made the decision, of course, but there was no quid pro quo. Nope, no obstruction here. Now move along…

Mikey nods to Bush’s false claim of respect for the verdict, as if it were sincere.

But Bush didn’t clear Libby entirely. He said he respected the jury’sverdict and described special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald as a"professional prosecutor."

… When any sane observer would say Bush couldn’t have said "fuck you" to Fitzgerald and the jury in any clearer language.

Big Media Matt and Brendan Nyhan and Tom Maguire are puzzling over what motive Bush might have for commuting Libby’s sentence. Since Maguire was helpful enough to quote from Team USA, I’ll offer an explanation offered by Team Libby. (I could point to a number of Fitzgerald quotes about clouds and VicePresidents that Maguire is overlooking, but I find that Jeffress isbetter at soundbite than Fitzgerald.) In his closing argument, Bill Jeffress described the events surrounding Libby’s July 8 meeting with Judy as a "secret mission" known only to Bush, Cheney, and Libby.

The prosecution has focused on this July 8^th meetingwith Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. They said, could Mr. Libby, how, if he was so busy, did he have two hours to go out and have lunch with Ms. Miller on July 8th. The reason he took two hours tohave lunch with Ms. Miller is that Mr. Libby understood that the Vice Presidentof the United States had directed him to go meet with Ms. Miller and that the President, PresidentBush was behind it too.

[snip]

I mean this is basically a secret mission that three people in the world know, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Scooter Libby. Because he goes and does what he is asked todo by the President and the Vice President and meets with her for two hours,suddenly they’re trying to find something bad in that because, in Ms. Miller’snotes at the lunch, she’s got the word WINPAC. [my emphasis]

That’s the defense lawyer speaking, mind you. That’s a pretty good start for a motive, don’t you think? After all, by lying and claiming he first learned about Plame from Tim Russert two days after his "secret mission," Libby pretended it was impossible to have leaked Plame’s identity to Judy Miller during his "secret mission." By lying and obstructing justice, Libby hid his "secret mission"–in which Cheney and Bush were participants–from any scrutiny.

In my post on the felon of considerable means, rhfactor noted that Libby’s check paying his fine was dated July 2–the same day Bush obstructed justice commuted Libby’s prison sentence. What a coinkydink, huh?

But I checked with the good folks at the Prettyman Courthouse, and at least on the surface, there’s nothing untoward about the date. Libby’s sentence included the following deadlines for his fines:

Total amount due for special assessment $400.00 due within 30 days of the 6/5/07 date. Fine in the amount of $250,000 imposed, due immediately.

In other words, the $400 was due on July 5 anyway. And, well, it looks like Libby’s got the same lackadaisical approach to the word "immediately" as he has with classified information. Because I’d say "immediately" is probably not the same thing as 30 days.

But if you’ve got the President in your back pocket, who cares about deadlines!?!?!?!

I’m with Howie and Josh. I think we ought not assume that, because two GOP Senators mired in scandal jump ship, it reflects widespread dissatisfaction with Bush’s failing war in Iraq.

The two rats in question are Senator Domenici, who will have a real challenge for re-election next year. Reid  has effectively challenged Domenici to put his votes where his mouth is next week, at which point Domenici might cave.

More interesting still is John Doolittle. Given the number of close Doolittle staffers who have been interviewed by the FBI of late, I expect the seemingly inevitable indictment against him will be very aggressive. Now perhaps this Doolittle trial balloon (ha!) is going to be about as effective as the similarly legally threatened Ted Stevens’ vote of present on the no confidence vote against Alberto Gonzales: that is, not a voice in favor of Bush’s guy, but not effectively a vote that does the same thing anyway.

The most interesting thing about this, though, is not any real dissatisfaction from Republicans with Bush’s imperial war (I’m not holding my breath). But the use of the war as currency with which you can get distance from Bush–or pressure him.