Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, July 06, 2007
Pat Buchanan :: Townhall.com Columnist
How Scooter Skated
by Pat Buchanan
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Why did Bush do it?

Why did he suddenly barge into the legal process and erase the entire 30-month sentence of Scooter Libby?

For, from his own statement, Bush found the act deeply distasteful.

In that statement, Bush calls Libby's crimes "serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice." He praises Patrick Fitzgerald as "a highly qualified professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged."

Bush indicated no disagreement with the verdict.

"[A] jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. . . . our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable."

"I respect the jury's verdict," Bush added.

Bush went on to detail the punishments that will stand.

"My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. . . . The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting."

This reads like the preamble to Judge Reggie Walton's imposition of the two-and-a-half-year prison sentence. Yet, this is contained in Bush's explanation for wiping out Libby's entire sentence. It is mystifying.

Why did Bush do it? Why did he intervene at all? Why now? Why not let Scooter go to jail and commute the sentence at Christmas, if he thought it excessive?

The suddenness of Bush's action is easiest explained. Hours before he tossed his commutation statement to the press, the court had turned down Libby's last request that he be allowed to stay out of prison as his appeal is heard. Bush's need to act was obvious. Scooter was on his way to prison.

But why did Bush rush to spare him even one day behind bars?

Three explanations come to mind.

The first is that Bush capitulated to intense pressure from the neoconservative commentariat led by The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard.

To these folks, Scooter is no felon. Scooter is a hero. In the neocon network, Scooter was the pivot man in the veep's office moving the cherry-picked intel on Saddam's WMD, Saddam's nukes, Saddam's ties to 9/11 and al Qaeda to a collaborationist press as determined as he was to smash Iraq and Iran, secure Israel and control the Middle East.

So what if Scooter lied to cover up the White House campaign to carve up Joe Wilson? If Scooter did it, good Straussian that he is, he did it for the highest of motives in the noblest of causes.

To the neocons, Scooter is, in Ahmed Chalabi's phrase, "a hero in error," one of the boys. And as they saved him from the slammer, they will not stop until they secure him a pardon -- to which Bush has now opened the door.

The second explanation is that Vice President Cheney went to Bush, closed the door, and asked, as a personal favor, that he spare Cheney's faithful friend and loyal aide the disgrace and pain of prison. And Bush did this distasteful and shameful act at the behest of a vice president to whom he feels an immense debt.

The third explanation is that Cheney, and perhaps the president, fears that if Scooter goes to prison, and is staring at disgrace and 30 months away from friends and family, he may think he has been abandoned by people whose secrets he kept at the cost of reputation and freedom. An idle mind being the devil's workshop, Scooter might sit down and write a book, or phone "Bulldog" Fitzgerald and tell him he just remembered something.

Whatever the motives of President Bush, this was a radical not a conservative act. Whoever pressured Bush to wipe out Scooter's sentence was more a friend of Scooter than a friend of Bush. For the president has damaged his reputation as a just ruler, so Scooter could elude what other men have to face.

Will the student deferments for these fellows never end?

The act reeks of cronyism. The perception is that Scooter Libby got preferential treatment, a get-out-of-jail-free card because he was chief of staff to Cheney and assistant to Bush.

That perception is correct.

Because of whom he knew, Scooter got preferential treatment, big-time. The Godfather took care of the consigliere.

Nothing new. After all, one recalls that the attorney who rustled up a pardon for Marc Rich from Bill Clinton was also a Beltway hustler by the name of Scooter Libby. The insiders take care of their own.

And that is how the game is played in the big city.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Pat Buchanan is a founding editor of The American Conservative magazine, and the author of many books including State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Pat Buchanan's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
The real criminal in this affair
is Armitage! If I recall correctly, the charge Fitzgerald was given was to find out who "outed" Valerie Plame. There were many many "forgetful" witnesses throughout the trial. The whole thing was a witch hunt, pure and simple!

foxfire 22 or beacon
Your seemingly neutral comments regarding my posting and your disregard for our judicial system smacks of chutzpah!

foxfire 22 or beacon writes:

I'm sick of this whole atitutde in Washington of being willing to trash a mans life for political advantage.

Aslan writes:

BTW: I am sure you are sick of the willingness to trash Buchanans life for political advantage too!?? Arent you?

Jimbo 55 writes:

Pat Buchanan
Pat's supposed hero, Ron Reagan, once said "speak no ill of a fellow Republican." Pat's made a career out of doing just that. I have a hard time even thinking of him as conservative any more.

Aslan writes:

Jimbo 55, did you ever wonder what the difference is between a NEOCON and a CONSERVATIVE? You have some more tea leaves to read my friend! If the Republican Party had stuck with the Gold standard i.e. (Goldwater) standard then we would still know the difference between Neocons and True Conservatives. We would still know the difference and so would you between Rockefeller CFR Republicans and Reagan/Goldwater Republicans...if you listen to this link below then you will see why I think you sound like Nelson Rockefeller did when he addressed the Republican Convention there in the 1960's.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix7is2yU-uQ



Pat Buchanan
Pat's supposed hero, Ron Reagan, once said "speak no ill of a fellow Republican." Pat's made a career out of doing just that. I have a hard time even thinking of him as conservative any more.

sir aslan
sir aslan writes: Monday, July, 09, 2007 7:56 PM
Damn Good Article!
Before reading this article I decided to do something backwards? I read most of the postings first and noticed that there were a lot of what I would call NEOCON comments that were filled with all kinds of hatred. Some were obviously from Zionists and others probably from the Rainbow Coalition...not to be confused with the Jesse Jackson Rainbow Coalition.

Because of the comments I had to ask myself some questions and one of them was if Scooter Libby was Jewish? Yes, he is. Is Mark Rich Jewish? Yes he is. Is John Bolton Jewish? Yes he is. Then, did this really matter that they were Jewish? No, it does not. Is Bill Kristol..editor or the NEOCON Weekly Standard Jewish? yes he is. Is the new owner of the Wall Street Journal...Rupert Murdoch...who owns Neocon Fox News Network Jewish? I have no clue whether he is or not.

Does it really matter that most of these gentlemen are Jewish? No it does not! Does it matter that they broke the law? Yes, it does! Because most of them are Jewish and Neocons, should they be given special treatment and not made to comply with the rulings of the court or courts? No, they should not be given special treatment. Are Non-Jew Neocons involved in this web of deceit too? You betcha they are! Who are some of them? Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton..etc. The big question is should they be given special immunity because they are Jewish or Neocons? No they should not!

Should columnists like Buchanan not comment or opine about the lack of justice that is served for the American People because they are Jewish or Neocon? Apparently, some of the folks who left such hateful postings think they should be given special treatment and not be subject to the Laws of our country. Cronyism will be the Legacy of the Bush administration just as it is for the Clinton administration. How very sad...

In conclusion, sometimes the truth hurts and in this case Buchanan did an excellent job of laying out the facts.. We know that the NEOCONS just cannot stand facts...for those are always the little pesty things that have a way of sneaking up on you and biting you in the Gluteus Maximus! This is the real reason why the hate-posters are so livid! Its not because of some trumped up charge about Buchanan being an anti-semite..........it has more to do with the fact that they are all NEOCONS and some of them are Zionists too! This is where the real hatred lies!


RESPONSE

I'm neither Jewish, a NEOCON, or neither do I hate Pat Buchanan.

I am neither for or against Bush in this matter.

I'm sick of this whole atitutde in Washington of being willing to trash a mans life for political advantage.

The same thing happen with the La Crosse players.

I don't care if it's the Democrats or Republicans that do it, it's just plain wrong.

It needs to stop.

Justice For Who !
I’m just as adamant about enforcing the law as any upright citizen, but this fiasco has to come to an end.

I consider what these people did to Scooty was pure entrapment for political purposes.

After two years they ask him who he heard about Valerie Plame from.

He named a source that he thought had told him, while saying several source knew.

Fitzgerald knew who the leak was before Scooty was even asked.

Novaks printed the article, Armitage was the leak, and neither of them has been prosecuted.

Come on folks, this was simply a witch hunt to trash the Bush administration.

Scooty did nothing to deserve prosecution.

Maybe he should have pulled a Hillary, and just said that he forgot.

We the American people need to think twice before we allow this sort of thing to go on, because it could be you that gets set up next time.

One Last Thought! Almost Forgot..
NEOCON Presidential hopeful Fred Dalton Thompson was suppose to make an announcement that he would run for President and officially be a candidate for the Republican Presidential Nomination on July 4th 2007. Fred was suppose to appear with clips of him and Lady Thatcher arm in arm as she commented that the more he ran, the more he looked like Ronnie! This was suppose the give stature to Fred's already flegeling campaign and coupled with his speech at yet another CFR think tank associate in London, England...Fred could ride the waves of the appearance that he knew something about foreign policy.

Fred must have been tipped off by Cheneys people..i.e. Mary Maitlan or Liz Cheney that Bush was going to commute Libby's sentence...so word has it that Maggie Thatchers subliminal endorsement however solicited will have to wait...along with the photo-ops because the Scooter Libby story stole the headlines and even miraculously pre-empted the terrible defeat of the illegal Immigration Bill by the CFR Rockefeller crowd and the Bush people. It also pre-empted Fred's announcement that he would officially run for President. I guess timing is also important when movies are released too!? :O)

Damn Good Article!
Before reading this article I decided to do something backwards? I read most of the postings first and noticed that there were a lot of what I would call NEOCON comments that were filled with all kinds of hatred. Some were obviously from Zionists and others probably from the Rainbow Coalition...not to be confused with the Jesse Jackson Rainbow Coalition.

Because of the comments I had to ask myself some questions and one of them was if Scooter Libby was Jewish? Yes, he is. Is Mark Rich Jewish? Yes he is. Is John Bolton Jewish? Yes he is. Then, did this really matter that they were Jewish? No, it does not. Is Bill Kristol..editor or the NEOCON Weekly Standard Jewish? yes he is. Is the new owner of the Wall Street Journal...Rupert Murdoch...who owns Neocon Fox News Network Jewish? I have no clue whether he is or not.

Does it really matter that most of these gentlemen are Jewish? No it does not! Does it matter that they broke the law? Yes, it does! Because most of them are Jewish and Neocons, should they be given special treatment and not made to comply with the rulings of the court or courts? No, they should not be given special treatment. Are Non-Jew Neocons involved in this web of deceit too? You betcha they are! Who are some of them? Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton..etc. The big question is should they be given special immunity because they are Jewish or Neocons? No they should not!

Should columnists like Buchanan not comment or opine about the lack of justice that is served for the American People because they are Jewish or Neocon? Apparently, some of the folks who left such hateful postings think they should be given special treatment and not be subject to the Laws of our country. Cronyism will be the Legacy of the Bush administration just as it is for the Clinton administration. How very sad...

In conclusion, sometimes the truth hurts and in this case Buchanan did an excellent job of laying out the facts.. We know that the NEOCONS just cannot stand facts...for those are always the little pesty things that have a way of sneaking up on you and biting you in the Gluteus Maximus! This is the real reason why the hate-posters are so livid! Its not because of some trumped up charge about Buchanan being an anti-semite..........it has more to do with the fact that they are all NEOCONS and some of them are Zionists too! This is where the real hatred lies!

Children
Quiet now. This is the United States of America. In this country you are not allowed to lie under oath. Childish excuses like "Oops...I forgot", "Someone else (Amitage - who didn't lie under oath) did it too" or "I don't like this game (Fitz is the REAL criminal)" shouldn't sound so much like beautiful music to all of you.

Conservatism and truth used to know one another back in the day. If you prefer lies, then so be it. Just mark down this event and your response to Pat's column, and in ten years refer back to it whenever you're asking yourself, "why is the country so blue now?"

Pat Buchanan is a nasty
anti-Semite who has wasted his time defending Nazi war criminals. He hates Libby because he is Jewish. He despises Israel and sucks up to Moslem terrorists in the mistaken belief that the next time they attack they will leave him alone because they like his columns! He was brought up listing to Father Couglin and still believes his garbage. Pat, wake up and enter the 21st century! His nutty column could have been written by one of the crazy Kos Kids. His hatred of Bush is apparent and, so far as I know, Buchanan left the GOP many years ago. Or did we leave him?

Buchanan Article
Was that Pat Buchanan or the Democrat James Buchanan? I think Pat has been at Mess NBC to long and has developed the Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann paranoia. Hey Pat, Laura Ingraham got out of that place just in time, and she's doing fine. Nobodys watching MSNBC! Get out while you can!

Flag Water
re-read this paragraph.
Israel is at the bottom of the whole escapade according to Pat:

"To these folks, Scooter is no felon. Scooter is a hero. In the neocon network, Scooter was the pivot man in the veep's office moving the cherry-picked intel on Saddam's WMD, Saddam's nukes, Saddam's ties to 9/11 and al Qaeda to a collaborationist press as determined as he was to smash Iraq and Iran, secure Israel and control the Middle East."

/ Phil Byler / Flag Water
,He did bring Israel into the mix.
He never fails. Pat is such a virulent anti-semite that he will never understand the true nature of terrorism. His endless defense of the made-up peoples known as "Palestinian"
first named by Arafat is because of his hatred of all Jews. Too bad Pat couldn't have been at Buchanwald--he would have enjoyed the job.

So, he stands with the State Department, the UN, the quartet to bring Israel down by ceding land for her defense to the Paelstinian cause wich when granted land as in the West Bank, can only survive where Israeli ingenuity makes life possible. So far the Gaza community of Gush Katif has been decimated by Palestinians now in power.
The green houses which employed thousands of Palestinians have been destroyed.
The families of Gush Katif have been misplaced with morgages still extant on properties that have been destroyed all at the urging of the US and the State Department.
Israel cannot cede any more land without erasing itself. Thereby becoming a platform for Islamic hatred. Buchanan knows none of this because his knowledge of history does not go back to 1967 even though he is an old fart!
He does not know that Al Quida, Hizbullah, Hamas, PPK, etc. etc. are all flavors of the month of terrorist cells with the same agenda! They are all joined at the hip with Syria, Iran, Shiite, Suni, all acting out age-old vendettas and when looking outward, look to the West and Israel!

More Conservatives are pro-Jewish then the democrats, but American Jewery is slow to catch on.

My many trips to Israel including Gaza has opened my eyes.

See:http://www.friendlyarts.net/Parnell/index.htm

Hypocritical liberals
Buchanan's a silly old fool -- just look at his whinging about America entering the WW2 to defeat Hitler. Now he is spouting the typical leftist vindictiveness against Libby. Once again, it is absurd to prosecute someone for supposedly lying about a non-crime.

But as for these leftists baying for Libby's blood, where were they when Wilhelm Klinton pardoned terrorists, cronies and tax cheats http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DickMorrisandEileenMcGann/2007/07/06/do_the_clintons_now_support_jail_time_for_perjurers

I'm just surprised...
...that old Pat didn't somehow bring Israel into the mix--seeing as to how everything is the fault of the eeevilll neocons and their Israeli masters!

How Scooter skated
It is no secret to me.

This is the "Scooter Diversion" for King George W to divert attention from his crashing defeat on the Bush-Kennedy backroom formulated amnesty bill.

King George W is hoping that the commutation of sentence will draw conservatives back to him. He is reserving a full pardon for another diversion when it is needed.

King George W could have stopped the farce at any time but he let it play out to the point of sentencing.

This persecution of Mr Libby should never have been carried out when the original premise of the investigation showed that he was NOT the person to drop the name of Ms. Plame. The federal persecutor deserves to be prosecuted.

Bush has lost the conservative base.

Finally, my message to Bush, Kennedy, McCain, Clinton, Brownback, Obama, Hagel, Kerry, Specter, and all the rest of the Amnesty Axis...

No Amnesty - GOT IT?

To Tasha Tschin
There is no Bush-Clinton cabal. Clinton has had the hypocritical gall to attack Buch for the Libby commutation, never mind that Clinton issued more than 100 pardons and commutations to such unworthies as Puerto Rican terrorists and donors convicted of bank fraud, tax evasion and drug offenses. Bush, on the other hand, has exercised the pardon and commutation only four times, but I will agree that he needs to do so in some more cases, particularly the border agent cases. Bush was right to do what he did in the Scooter Libby case. The sentence handed down was excessive and in part unconstitutionally based on treating Libby as having violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act when he was not even charged with that offense and evidence as kept out of the trial related to it. Also, Libby has an ongoing appeal. I recommend reading Roger Aronoff's "Commutation Sets Stage for Libby's Exoneration" in today's Accuracy in Media Online.

Sashal, stop trolling
Joe Wilson contradicted his NYT article when under oath, speaking to the Senate.

Have you read the testimony?

Have you read the NYT article?

And later, on television, he claimed to have debunked the infamous Italian forgery. Of course, his claimed date preceded known existence of the document by about six months.

To robert
I was going to ignore your posts except for the statement about the memory expert (it was too bad to pass up). I don't think you know what you are talking about. But I did notice that you assert that Libby's supposed perjury stopped the Fitzgerald investigation, and I can't let that one go. That is what Harry Truman would have called hooey.

The July 11, 203 conversation between Russert and Libby was completely inconsequential and obstructed nothing. What set all this off was Bob Novak's column "Who sent Wilson?" Wilson's op-ed column had suggested that it was Cheney who had sent Wilson and then launched into an attack on the Bush Aministration for relying upon Brit intelligence concerning what were in fact Saddam's efforts to obtain yellow cake uranium in Niger. It wasn't Cheney who sent Wilson and would not have been Cheney, as Wilson was a known left wing Democrat around Wasdhingtbn D.C.. What Cheney was doing at the time was letting journalists know that it was not Cheney who sent Wilson, and that was right of Cheney to do so. In tis situation, Bob Novak, an experienced journalist in Washington D.C., asked the question, if not Cheney, "who sent Wilson?" The question was answered by one Richard Armitage, who was a Deputy Secretary of State, a crony of Colin Powell and a critic of the Iraq War. Fitzgerald knew all this before he even convened the grand jury. That did not stop Fitzgerald from calling countless number of witnesses before the grand jury in years of "investigation" and spending millions of dollars. Libby for one fully cooperated and testified for hours on end. In the end, Fitzgerald prosecuted no one for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, and he only brought one indictment -- the one against Libby for supposedly lying about certain conversations with a few journalists based on differences of recollection between Libby and those journalists. The July 11, 2003 conversation between Russert and Libby was not documented. That is pathetic.

Partisans spin while the Republic burns
Funny, but I don't remember Bush commuting poor little Martha Stewart's sentence. She lied to the FBI about an inconsequential stock sale that didn't effect anyone but herself (she lost money from the sale). This is nearly identical to the Scooter Libby affair, yet Martha does time and Scooter does no time.

I do remember that Bush refused to commute the sentences of loyal Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean, saying that they needed to go through the appeals process before he would consider dealing with their cases. So off to jail for two brave men who did the job Bush refuses to do -- secure the border against invasion and the importation of WMD by terrorists, narco and otherwise. And, they didn't go to some glorified "Club Fed" either, like Scooter would have had he done one minute of time behind bars.

I don't remember Bush demanding that Alberto Gonzales "throw the book" at Sandy "Burglar" for stealing and destroying evidence in the 9/11 inquest. But then again, the Bushes and the Clintons are great friends (even though for political purposes they pretend that they're not).

I do remember Bush's "Bulldog" Johnny Sutton attacking Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez at the behest of the Mexican government after he was cleared by the Sheriff's department. No pardon or commutation of his "harsh" sentence was forthcoming.

Does anyone see a pattern emerging here? I do. If you are a member of the Bush-Clinton Cabal you can break the law and avoid equal punishment under the law. In other words, being connected to the Bush-Clinton political machine means never having to do the time for the crime.

All you partisan Kool-aid drinkers on the Left and on the Right -- you are being played for fools. While you spend your time bashing each other over "partisan" issues like this one, the Bush-Clinton Cabal keeps on chipping away at the old Republic.

By the time the Bushes and the Clintons are done, there will be no Republic left to defend. The "fix" is already in -- a Clinton or (less likely) a Bush-bot will be elected to the presidency in '08. Then George P. Bush will be the candidate of choice for all the Latino anchor-babies as they come of age in 2016 and the games begin once again as they did in 2000. Will it be Chelsea in 2024, if we are still holding elections?

The partisans will still be "spinning" as our Republic burns to the ground. And, a pox on the Bush-Clinton Party with its two moronic faux-factions! Your love of party outweighs your love of country and that is the true crime we should be discussing here.

To JF
Your 2:07 PM post states that the Libby appeal was not successful. WRONG. The appeal has not been even briefed yet. What you be thinking about was denial of a stay motion. That was not, however, the appeal; and given the lack of briefing yet, the decision on the stay motion should not be seen as meaning much of anything.

Let me explain something. After graduating from Harvard Law, I clerked for a U.S. Court of Appeals judge for two years and thereafter for the past 29 years, I have been a litigation lawyer in private practice. I have done plenty of appeals and have at times sought stays from an appellate court. In one case I got a stay that was absolutely critical to get. My rule of practice for when I make a stay motion to an appellate court is, if at all possible, to perfect the appeal (i.e., file my brief and the record on appeal) before or as I move for the stay. That may mean hustling to get the appeal brief and record on appeal into the appellate court, but if you really need a stay, you substantially increase the chances of getting that stay by perfecting the appeal.

To JF
In an earlier post that I just noticed, you try to twist a comment of mine disputing the classification of Fitzgerald as a loyal Republican. You try to say that I am asserting that Schumer appointed Comey. No, I did not say that. What Schumer did was to recommend Comey and since then has been solicitous of him. What I have pointd to are the ties that have developed between Schumer and Comey, which were reflected in recent congressional testimony gven by Comey. Also, Schumer was all over the Fitzgerald investigation, which is one reason Fitzgerald went off in the direction he did in adopting the alternbative left wing universe about the Libby case. I view Schumer as a bad guy for a number of reasons.

To JF: addendum
One other point: here, the make up of the jury was another factor. You don't have a fair trial if you don't have a reasonably unbiased jury. The Washington D.C. jury here was a left wing group generally and included a friend of Russert on it. I don't think that a red state jury would have convicted based on the evidence before them even without the trial evidentiary rulings corrected.

To JF
It may be that the system entails that in the perjury case brought by Fitzgerald (where there was no underlying crime), the jury is asked to determine whether the difference in recollection of conversation means that one or the other participant in the conversation is lying. But that is what makes, in such a case, trial evidentiary rulings and prosecutorial conduct critical to a fair trial, and it is a fair trial to which every defendant is entitled. What I have been writing is that Libby did not get a fair trial because of prejudicially erroneous evidentiary rulings by Judge Walton and prejucicial prosecutorial misconduct during the trial that I have been detailing in my posts.

To robert re Memory Expert
It is a hoot that you say in a perjury case based on different recollections of an undocumented ocnversation that a memory expert is irrelevant. Baloney. That the jury wondered why Libby did not put on a memoray expert reflects that even they knew such an expert would have highly relevant and probative in this particular case. The trial judge was just wrong.

libby
The liberal parrot squates again.
For shame Buchy.

To followup my last post...
So if the judge could have went with a 15 month sentence, but doubled it to 30, Bush could have commuted half the sentence and probably not have recieved the flack that he has already recieved.

I mean, c'mon folks...How can you defend a man who states that the judge and jury reached the reached the right verdict, but yet believes that the correct sentence is 0 days for the crime?

I would have a little more respect for Bush if he gave a full pardon. At least there is some principle in that (And if it's one thing you guys like about Bush it's his principled stands).

I would have a little more respect for Bush if he would have commuted 1/2 the sentence and said it was excessive. As I stated above, the judge could have gone as low as 15 months, but chose not to do so...

Instead he tells the world that perjury and obstruction of justice charges require no prison time. Zero. None. Just pay a fine and be on your way, thank you.

Law and order Republicans my but.

And I lied a bit above...W lost my respect a long, long time ago...Ain't no way he gets any of it back, even if he let the sentence stand...

To Reactionary...
For example: JF immediately above this post states that the sentence was within federal sentencing guidelines for the crimes. If this is so, how come every and I mean every commentator and source of information say that the sentence was excessive and outside the guidelines.

----

Why do I say what I say? Because I goto the source, instead of relying on commentators like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity to spoonfeed me the news. So here you go. Your federal sentencing guidelines from the source (no, no...not Hugh Hewitt or Dennis Praeger or whomeever you worship...the real guidelines)

http://www.ussc.gov/2005guid/2j1_2.htm

The lowest sentence of the choices for this perjury charge is level 14. For a first time offender this level calls for a sentence of 15-21 months.
The highest level, applied because it relates to operations of the CIA, is 14+12 or level 26. This level calls for 63-78 months for a single count.

http://www.ussc.gov/2005guid/2j1_3.htm

The lowest level of the choices for this obstruction charge is level 14, 15-21 months.
Additional considerations assuming substantial interference of justice raises the level 14+3=17, or 24-30 months.
The highest, assuming this interfered with the administration of justice, is 14x2=28, or 78-97 months.

The 30-month sentence Libby earned was for the obstruction of justice charge. Libby received shorter sentences on the other counts, to run concurrently. If he received the lowest sentences to run concurrently he would have received 15-21 months. Because the judge found there was substantial interference with the administration of justice, he doubled this to 30 months. He could have received as long a sentence is 97+78 months or 175 months or 14.5 years.







One Answer...
Two questions
1. The perjury charge against Libby hinged on the fact that his testimony differed from Tim Russert's. When a lawyer and a reporter tell different stories, how on earth do you decide which one's telling the truth? Odds are they're both lying.

Answer: You put the evidence in front of 12 men and women and tell them they must all reach the same verdict and if they choose to convict, they must believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence supports the conviction.

The jury looked at Russert's testimony and Libby's testimony (and other evidence) and concluded that Libby was lying. You may disagree, but that's the way the system works...


Two questions
1. The perjury charge against Libby hinged on the fact that his testimony differed from Tim Russert's. When a lawyer and a reporter tell different stories, how on earth do you decide which one's telling the truth? Odds are they're both lying.

2. Where does Buchanan buy his tinfoil? It must be awfully expensive to buy enough to make a hat that's big enough to fit his head.

Tearing yourselves apart
over trying to justify this pollution of American rule of law. No wonder the GOP is now the party of the 22%ers. And will be forever, if you folks don't wise up and face facts. Making up your own facts and justifications for this blatant cronyism doesn't mean you're right, it only means you're delusional. I know it's been very hard falling so far from the day's of Rove's "Permanent Republican Majority!" (aka a one-party state, aka a dictatorship)
But really, it's time you guys woke up and tried to act like Americans again. Once that happens, we'll welcome you back into the law and order fold. Until then, you are just a tiny minority screaming and foaming at the mouth because our justice system works to put those who perjure themselves behind bars, and does, at least in cases where the defendant doesn't have a Potus to pollute American rule of law.

Robert the Stupid Intellectual
Robert, So you think you are smarter than all the rest of us eh?
Well you talk about the CIA saying Valerie Plame was undercover. Wrong! Read the law that was passed to protect agents. Not going to get into the name of the statute or what year it was passed. Mostly a waste of time trying to convince know-it-alls like you...

For example: JF immediately above this post states that the sentence was within federal sentencing guidelines for the crimes. If this is so, how come every and I mean every commentator and source of information say that the sentence was excessive and outside the guidelines.
Reading these comments is an exercise in futility because so many of you educated idiots could not find your way to shelter in a rainstorm.

The last time that I'll ever read
Buchanan. The guy is a nut job and lost all credibility years ago. His isolationist ideas would cause so much damage so fast and quite frankly, he wants to have too much input into people's everyday life - just like the democrats that he despises.

I can't help myself...really...
One last comment to Phil on his original rebuttal of my "analysis".

You started by saying that I put a lot of "left wing spin" out there...wouldn't mind an explanation of how the following items are "spin" and not "fact"

-> All judges / prosecutors in this case were appointed by Republicans.

-> Libby was convicted obstruction and perjury by a jury of his peers.

-> The judge handed out a sentence that falls within federal sentencing guidelines for the convicted crimes.

*ALL* of the rest is pure smoke and mirrors designed to fool the audience.


Laugh out Loud Funny!
general macarthur writes:

The ultimate fact remains, had Libby been a democrat the case would never have been tried, as a matter of fact it would have been buried in the back pages of the NY Times and Washington Post. The Sandy Berger case is the glaring example of Washington justice.

---------------

Is that really the "ultimate fact"? For one, it's not a fact...just your silly conjecture. Two, is ultimate the right word to shoot for? That's the one over-riding factor you see is that Sandy Berger was not indicted on anything by a Republican administration and Scooter Libby was? Perhaps, the DOJ reviewed Sandy's incident and saw no crime (or at least no crime that was worth pursuing...you'll have to bring that one up with your Republican buddies)...

If Scooter Libby was a Democrat, he would have been inidcted and convicted years ago...You forget that you guys were in power for a majority of this case...Silly, silly argument...Why don't you take this guy to task Phil?

Libby
The ultimate fact remains, had Libby been a democrat the case would never have been tried, as a matter of fact it would have been buried in the back pages of the NY Times and Washington Post. The Sandy Berger case is the glaring example of Washington justice.

Hey don't mess with Tricky Dick
JF from Texas writes.

Don't mess with Nixon. His international policies were indeed vindicated. After all, only Nixon could go to China...

Why?
Phil Byler writes:
"The Libby case is a miscarriage of justice. Sometime in the future, it will be so seen widely."

JF from Texas replies (thats so formal)

Why?
He committed perjury. He was convicted of perjury. The sentence falls within the guidelines for sentencing. Whats the problem?

Indeed the miscarriage of justice is that his sentence has been commutted. Overturning the judgement of tweleve citizens of the US is not something a good Republican should be doing.

How Long?
Phil writes, "The Libby case is a miscarriage of justice. Sometime in the future, it will be so seen widely."

Funny comment...

How long before all of Bush's unbelievably poor decisions will be vindicated? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?

I find it funny how everything Bush does these days is wildly unpopular, but "he will be vindicated in the future"...

I can imagine Richard Nixon saying similar things in his waning days as well...

Back to Phil
Some general responses to Phil:

-> I don't think I was attempting to fully analyze the situation...just post some comments.

-> So you're saying Chuck Schumer appointed Comey? (BTW...I know your not). Comey is a Republican appointed by a Republican administration. Don't make him or Fitz out to be liberals. Just wrong.

-> I'll sum up the rest of your comments in a two words: Armchair quarterbacking. I don't claim to know the level of detail that you are claiming and I won't attempt to sink into the weeds of the fever swamp. This is what I know. Every person involved in this case was independent at best and Republican leaning at worse. The 30 month sentencing judge is a Republican for goodness sake! You want me to make a similarly silly accusation: Fitz could have indicted on IIPA charges, but didn't because he's a Republican stooge who realized he needed something to show for his work and chose Libby when he could have gone much further. Is that silly? Of course, but no sillier than your defense of Libby.

-> Last comment: IIPA requires the accused to knowingly out an agent. Very difficult to determine "knowingly" in a court of law. That is why no IIPA charges. BUT, what Libby, Armitage, et al. did in giving out Plame's name was *reckless* regardless of whether they knew she was covert. While no one broke the IIPA law (that we know), what Libby and everyone did had national security implications and I believe it was correct for Fitz to bring it up...

To JF
There are a number of problems with your "analysis," which is really some left wing spin. For example, I would not certainly not cast Fitzgerald as a loyal Republican; Fitzgerald was appointed by Comey, who is a friend of Chuckie Schumer, and Fitzgerald pursued the case seemingly adopting the left wing Washington D.C. line. But what strikes me most is that you don't deal with the particulars of the case brought against Libby, and there are plenty of us who say that Libby was innocent of the charges and was only convicted because of a Bush hating Washington D.C. jury. That you refer to the jury as one of Libby's peers reflects the unrealism of your "analysis."

Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice, perjury and lying to federal authorities essentially for stating that on July 11, 2003, he had a conversation with Tim Russert about Wilson during which according to Libby, Russert referred to Plame as having sent Wilson to Niger. Russert denied that reference, never mind that in his November 2003 statement to the FBI Russert stated that he might have told Libby about Plame. The July 11, 2003 conversation was not documented. The subject of the July 11, 203 conversation was that Cheney had nothing to do with Wilson being sent to Niger, contrary to what Wilson had suggested in his NY Times op-ed column. So, the proof was Libby's recollection, Russert's recollection, Russert's statement to the FBI, testimony of others intended to make one side or the other more likely. The cross-examination of witnesses established that no one had a good memory, including Russert. The trial judge kept out of evidence an expert for Libby on memory (the jury asked later why Libby did not put on such a witness), Libby's work schedule, and tapes showing Russert giving inconsistent statements. The weakness of this case against Libby was, I submit, why Fitzgerald throughout the trial and in closing argument argued the case as if Plame was covert and endangered by what Libby had done, never mind that Libby was not charged with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and never mind that Fitzgerald had successfully moved the trial judge to keep out of evidence proof as to Plame's CIA status. A good jury would not have convicted Libby based on the trial evidence; a good prosecutor would not have brought the case Fitzgerald did; and a good trial judge would not have made the prejudicially erroneous rulings Walton did.

The Libby case is a miscarriage of justice. Sometime in the future, it will be so seen widely.

Sandy "The Burgler>"
Hey Pat, let's talk about Sandy "The Burgler."
He got much better than a pardon. I guess this, too, was part of some neocon plot to protect its own.

This is it.
When Clinton commits perjury, it is a crime.

When Libby commits perjury, it is not a crime.

Bushies really are good at drawing these distinctions.

The Real Lie...
...was when Wilson and Plame went public with their partisan outrage in the NYT and then made mockery of their own importance to the country by appearing on the cover of Vanity Fair and in the pages Playboy magazine. Such a demonstration of class, real class, by two patriotic "public servants". They were not exposed by Libby as "covert", they were exposed by themselves as common white trash.

Wilson, Plame and Libby are acting a farce in the real tragedy of Islamic terrorism.

Hang them all!

Two JF's
And I'm JF from Texas, the margarita drinking one.

Two JF's
There are two JF's...I'm JF from PA...and I wrote the recent bulleted diatribe...Direct all venom to me!

JF
I do believe there's two JF's on this thread...

Let me wade into the fever swamp a bit..
Let me throw some facts out there (in some cases...throw them out AGAIN) for you guys to knock down:

-> The *CIA* referred the case to Justice. I know you RWNJs think the CIA is filled with Marxists looking to overthrow our government, but I remind you they did successfully play a large part in winning the Cold War against said Marxists.

-> Every judge / prosecutor involved in this case is either a Republican or an independent placed by a Republican. Your own guys couldn't honestly say this guy was innocent.

-> This case has dragged on for years, but Libby gave his sworn testimony months after the alleged leak. Your telling me you couldn't recall an important conversation a few months prior. It's funny how Tim Russert was asked and recalled the same conversation. Tim Russert must have a SUPER-HUMAN memory! I'm tired of the conservative spin about how "it's so easy to catch a person in a perjury charge" nonsense.

-> A jury of Libby's peers *unanimously* convicted Libby of these charges. During the jury selection process, BOTH sides get the opportunity to weed out potential jurors for whatever reasons. So don't give this non-sense that the jury was comprised of 12 liberals looking for blood. These 12 people examined the evidence and decided that the charges brought were valid.

-> Federal Sentencing guidelines indicate 1 - 3 years for the conviction. You want to argue that the judge was harsh with a 30 month sentence? Fine. It was on the high side (although not greater than guidelines as some have suggested). But not a single day in jail? You guys wanted Clinton impeached for the same crime! Be consistent folks...

-> My last point to the "Clinton did it too!!!" folks on the right. Wasn't Bush supposed to "restore honor and dignity to the White House" (and obvious slap in the face to the Clintons). How's that working out for you guys? Everytime you pull the "Clinton did it" defense, you are essentially putting yourself on the same level as that undignified former President Clinton. Nice yardstick for a conservative.

Hey guys, it's ok to be wrong once in a while. Heck, I'll start by saying Clinton was wrong for pardoning Marc Rich...who (besides Pat) has the stones to call a spade a spade and say it was wrong of Bush to commute Libby?

To Phil
To Phil
Respectfully,

I could care less whether outing the CIA person was actionable. Its irrelevant.

He committed perjury.

He was convicted of that crime.

The crime was not successfully appealed.

Let him rot.

Dyerje
You are exactly correct. I think it is obvious that both CIA and Justice lawyers reviewed the case law, the facts, Plame's status and Armitage's confession. I think it was obvious even to them that the entire L'Affaire Plame was Much ado About Nothing. During the intial FBI investigation, it also turned out that many of Wilson's and Plame's freinds knew her job title and status from none other than the famous couple themselves. However, they just couldn't say that in public. If you remember, the Beltway was in a complete lather, and Joe Wilson was on TV constantly; his faux indignation made great press, and the couple was featured on the cover of Vanity Fair. If Justice were to publish thier investigation, and close up shop all hell would break out.

So, Coomey kept the details of his investigation quiet and requested a special prosecutor be appointed. Remember, Ashcroft was forced to recuse himself. No one outside a tight circel of Justice Department's attorneies and Powell knew of Armitage's confession.

The fact remains, in a criminal investigation it is up to the courts -name the Judges to determine if Plame was in fact covered under the Foreign Agent's Protection Act. The fact that no one at Justice or Fitzgerald attempted to argue this point indicates why he went on his insidious witch hunt.

The truth will all come out soon. The Wilson's filed a civil lawsuit against Cheney, Rove, and Libby. In civil cases, the rules for evidence are much looser. You can bet your paycheck that the witness list will include the entire list of players in this affair.

To robert
Addendum: I know the case. I am stating it correctly. What I say just does not fit your crazy left wing spin; that's all.

To robert
The issue of whether Plame was covert is not decided by a referral. It can only have been decided in a court of law had Fitzgerald indicted someone for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Then, given what we know indicates Plame did not meet the stautory test for being covert, the trial court would have been met with a defense motion that based on the trial evidence, there was only one permissible conclusion -- that Plame was not covert under the law and no conviction could be obtained. If the trial judge still sent the issue to the jury, the trial judge would have had to instruct the jury on the elements of the offense, including as to the element of an agent being covert. The jury would have then decided, among other things, whether the evidence showed Plame to be covert. Had the jury stil decided that Plame was covert, the matter would be the subject of appeal -- that either the jury instructions were erroneous as a matter of law, or that the evidence did not permit the jury to reach any conclusion other than to decide Plame was not covert and no conviction under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act can stand. In short, there would be due process of law. But that did not happen here. Fitzgerald never prosecuted anyone for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, and I submit one reason he did not is that he knew he could not prove that Plame, a Washington D.C. analyst, was covert. That makes Fitzgerald's trial misconduct particularly egregious.

Lie to a jury go to jail whoever you are
Libby's conviction for remembering an undocumented conversation differently from Tim Russert will remain a travesty, however.
****************************************
But he was convicted. Lie to a jury and you should go to jail. Why you are there is irrelevant.

He lied to a jury. He's a bum. Put him away for a while, like anyone who lies on the stand should be put away.

Bush commutes his sentence but meanwhile the Border Patrol Officers still rot in jail. Its pathetic, why even call yourselves Repiblican at this point? Lets call it like it is. There's the "Politicans in Washington" party and "Everyone Else." No difference.

Of course
It must be an evil Democratic cabal behind it all who got all those Republicans who filed charges and presided over the case and denied Libby's request to stay out of jail appointed.

They were really crafty getting their political opponents appointed just so they could bring Libby down until St. George set him free.

Much is made of how this was all a non-crime. If that is the case, then why did Libby perjure himself? Was it just a bad political habit making its way in the courthouse at an inopportune time?

Aside from that, I think many of you miss the point of how this looks to the unwashed non-connected masses who see people go to rot in jail for similiar 'non-crimes', while the President personally steps in to spare one of his own.

Heck, even if you think that's right, don't you think you're handing your political opponents a loaded weapon during a particularly critical election cycle?

To All Libs
Why didn't Fitzgerald indict Libby for out Plame? As others stated above, not only did Libby out Plame, but also Ari Fliescher, and Armitage. If it was so obvious, why didn't Fitzgerald indict Armitage?

During the trial, in the opening days, Fitzgerald made it a point to remind the Judge and the jury that Libby was on trial not for breaking The Foreign Agents Protection Act, but for perjury. When Libby's lawyers attempted to present evidence about the investigation at large, Judge Walton intervened and support Fitzgerald's contention that the trial was ONLY ABOUT PERJURY AND NOT NATIONAL SECURITY. Of course, this flies in the face of what Fitzgerald told reporters outside the court house (the case was all about protecting foreign agents).

When Libby's lawyers attempted to bring up the point that no laws were violated, and were to offer evidence as such, Fitzgerald strongly objected. Judge Walton, again sided with Fitzgerald. However, outside the courtroom Fitzgerald adamantly reiterated that his efforts were guided by the desire to protect foriegn agents.

At no time was the case about Plame's outing. On the final days of the trial we found out why. Fitzgerald admitted that Dick Armitage fully confessed in detail how, when, and why he blabbered Plame's name to Novak. We also found out that Deputy AG Coomey knew this even before Fitzgerald was appointed. And most likely, his staff found that Armitage broke no laws, or at the very best it would be impossible to convince a jury that he did. It didn't matter; Fitzgerald admitted that he strongly advised Powell to keep quiet on the matter (despite the fact that Powell was under no legal obligation to do so. Armitage came to Powell first, not Coomey.). If it was so important to keep Plame's identity classified why wasn't Armitage indicted? Why not use him as an example, and let the jury decide?


The Libs continued to ignore what Fitzgerald said in the court room as well as in public. Again, we may ask, Why is Armitage still free?

How Desperate is Pat?
He works for MSDNC!

Phil Byler
Extremely well said.

Having actual experience with the requirements of the IIPA, I have found almost everything said about it by the news media and Bush's political opponents to be laughable. Plame's status at the time Armitage told Novak of her involvement in sending her husband to Niger did not meet the criteria to trigger prosecution of anyone under the IIPA.

The CIA and Justice Department will never publicly clarify all aspects of Plame's situation, nor should we expect them to. Sentences that start out "we can neither confirm nor deny..." are standard for the intelligence community for good reason. So there will never be a "moment of truth" at which all is revealed, and the analytical deductions of either side of this debate incontrovertibly validated.

Libby's conviction for remembering an undocumented conversation differently from Tim Russert will remain a travesty, however. The bottom lines on this whole thing are that Fitzgerald prosecuted no one for violating the IIPA, although that's what he was chartered to investigate, and that Scooter Libby remembered a conversation differently from Tim Russert. God help any of the rest of us if we ever do.

Classless Clown
Pat,

There you go again it seems you just cannot help yourself with your neocon rant, and anti-Israel bigotry and it is getting old. Your have become a regular class clown, or should I say regular classless clown!
Bob

Bush "barged" in? Puh-leeze!
"Barging in" would have to have pardoned Libby as soon as the jury delivered its verdict.

Why is it so difficult for people to see that Libby was Nifonged in the worst way. He was convicted of having a different memory of a conversation from that of a newspaper reporter, in an investigation into a non-crime, whose perpetrator was already known to the special prosecutor. The whole prosecution and trial was the closest thing smacks of Bolshevik justice, warping the courts to political purposes.

Sorry, Pat, swung and missed again.

Hillary delenda est.

Great Article
All you wankers should listen to the man, he has been around politics for a long time.

I don't always agree w/ Buchanan, but at least he does not always spew rhetoric, propaganda and demagoguery, which is what some of you eat and barf all day, thinking its intellectual debate.

He has insight. Often I want to disagree with Buchanan, but gosh darn it, I find myself agreeing many times.

This site needs more thinkers who can write and can read the political tea leaves with out partisan BS. That means they have a freaking clue of what they are talking about. Most articles are by amateurs with little but partisan agenda and regurgitation of the same old BS.

This is one of the best articles I have read on the subject. I think what Libby did was crap, and Bush's action in the matter even bigger crap; but it is politics.

The good news is it will harm the GOP, which they deserve. Rove's master plan was to make the GOP a permanent majority by manipulation of the government chills me. I don't care if it was the Dems plotting to do it either. Its anti-American.

Have any of you noticed how Bush seems totally oblivious to it all. Weird. I bet he sleeps like a baby. If I was commander in chief and 100's of solders where dying and 9 billion going down the drain each month, I would look more concerned. It's like the lights are on but no one is at home.

As an independent I vote either party. I was leaning GOP only because I think the houses will stay DEM and gain more majority; I HATE a one party domination, and a DEM president would give us a Dem version of what we had in 2000, 6 years of power crazed, corrupt republicans. However I changed my mind, screw the GOP.

I was undecided about who to vote for, but never vote on party lines, however after this Bush / Libby deal, I'll vote Democrat regardless in the next election, even Clinton. Why?

I want to punish and purge the government of the Bush/Cheney/Rove political stink. All the lame incompetent political operatives, Texas good-ol-boys and special interest people Bush and his crew appointed and hired into gov have to go or not be continued. The GOP needs to learn.

Sadly all the GOP has for 2008 is a bunch of losers, wannabes, frauds, flip flopper's and egomaniacs with no character.

It may be good for either party to NOT win the white house next term? The next president term is going to have a tough time, may be a sacrificial term. I see the economy going down and fuel prices going higher. It's like Carter when he got the mess from Nixon/Ford. With the mid east oil embargo's of the 70's and economy he inherited, Carter was destined to fail.

Ironically Bush's poll numbers are lower than Carter, ha ha. I bet GW Bush goes down in history below Bush Sr., Carter and Ford, who are at the bottom of historical popularity opinion polls of modern presidents. That is sad.

G.W. Bush - Great president or Greatest president? G-Dub better than Washington, Lincoln, both Roosevelt's and Thomas Jefferson rolled together. LOL ha ha ha ha. Even funner a GW Bush library! I think I'd vote to skip a presidential library for Bush and save the money. May be these library's should be voted on?

Buchanan - Scooter Libby
Mr. Buchanan:
I have a more complex question:

Why would a brilliant, experienced Lawyer in D.C.
lie about a non-crime for which he knew he was not responsible?

Marilyn Ficco
Centennial, CO

yes, of course
Yes, yes, yes, Buchanan is this and Buchanan is that. I think his character has been summed up nicely now. Also, the whole case against Libby was this and the whole case was that. Now we have that situation summed up. Folks, all that aside, Libby was found guilty and sentenced. GW Bush did commute the sentence. Why did he do that? That’s what the article is about.

Regarding Tim Russert.
If Tim Russert did NOT tell Libby about Plame and told the Libby trial court the same, I suppose one can believe Russert.

However, if Russert DID tell Libby about Plame but then denied it, under oath, at Libby's trial, then Tim Russert committed a perjury as serious as Libby.

If Libby lied in order CHA. Did Russert also lie as well? Where is the special prosecutor investigating Russert for; "what did he know, and when did he know it", and who and when did Russert tell (if any)?

Tim Russert has political proclivities and conflicting and complex interests in this case that do not exonerate his possible and probable complicity.

Tim Rusert needs to PROVE that he did not do anything wrong or illegal.

Phil!
Couldn't agree more! Pat's hatred of the Bushes should now be apparent to even the most brain-dead liberal [sorry for that redundancy]. Pat is NOT conservative ... he just uses the label without regard to the positions he consistently takes that are anti-conservative.


Pat
Either you have overdosed on koolaid or it's time for the old folks home.

put it down
Pat, Put down the kool-ade and step away . the libs have got you

Libby Column
Oh please.

Every time I think Pat might have regained his sanity he writes something like this ridiculous column whining about Bush's commutation of the Libby sentence. When you are reduced to being a minor league Snarling Chuck Schumer it's all over.

To Gene Touchet
We all know better, but you don't. At the time Fitzgerald convened the grand jury, he knew who told Bob Novak about Plame sending her husband Wilson to Niger -- Richard Armitage, a Deputy Secretary of State, a crony of Colin Powell and a known gossip in Washington D.C.. Also, Fitzgerald knew what should have told him that Plame was not covert under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act; she had been a desk bound Washington D.C. CIA analyst for more than five years and the requisite efforts were not made to hide her identity as required to be covert under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Fitzgerald never did prosecute anyone for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or for violation of the Espionage Act. What, in short, he was commissioned to do, he never did. Instead, he ran a grand jury for years costing the American taxpayers millions of dollars, and in the end, he brought one prosecution based on a difference of testified to recollections about conversations that Libby had on July 11, 2003 and July 12, 2003 with a few journalists about Wilson; and that difference of stated recollection was over whether Plame was mentioned to Libby. It is a generally accepted prosecutorial practice that you don't prosecute for perjury and obstruction of justice if there was no underlying crime. In fact, what Fitzgerald did was to use the grand jury as a perjury trap so that he had something to show for years of "investigation" and millions of dollars. It was bad behavior by Fitzgerald, and but for a Bush hatng Washington D.C. jury, he would not even won the one conviction he got.

What's the matter Pat?
Are you disappointed they didn't hang, draw and quarter Libby? What was it again Libby did, oh yeah, he's the one who didn't out a not secret non-undercover agent and then wouldn't tell who he didn't have those conversations with.

This whole episode reminds me of the mob scene in Frankenstien where the villigers are wanting to burn the monster only in this instance they can't get their hands on their monster so burning burning someone else will have to do.

To loco
In my view, Buchanan wrote the article because: (i) he wants to hurt George W. Bush, just like Buchanan did to Bush the Elder; (ii) the Scooter Libby case is being misused to attack the Iraq War; and (iii) Scooter Libby was a loyal public servant in the Vice President's office that is strong on pursuing the Iraq War and an aggressive war on terrorism that Buchanan opposes.

In my view, Buchanan should be viewed as a reactionary paleocon who will serve the left wing by his rants and who as a consequence should be expelled from being considered a conservative.

To charlie
You are right in your 9:09 AM post, and a good jury woud have so found based on the trial evidence. Instead, a Bush hating Washington D.C. jury, hearing Fitzgerald prattle about the danger to Plame (never mind that Fitzgerald kept of evidence as to Plame's CIA status) and including a barbecue buddy of Russert on it, ruled differently.

I am interested
in why Mr. Buchanan wrote this article. It reeks with condecension and anger. Some of you have hit on it such as anti-semitism. There's more to it I am sure except for a careful, judiscious reading of the events that unfolded culminating in the conviction.

Here are FACTS DemoCraps deny:
Fact number 1: Special Prosecutor Nifong...er, I mean Fitzgerald ADMITTED that he KNEW from day number 1 that NO CRIME WAS COMMITTED, yet he continued to investigate what he KNEW wasn't a crime.

Fact number 2: Nifong...I mean Fitzgerald (darn, I keep making that mistake) ADMITTED that he KNEW from day number 1 that had there been a crime committed, it was Richard Armitage who would have committed it, and not only did Nifong....I mean Fitzgerald continue investigating what he admitted was nothing, he instructed Armitage to flat out lie by keeping secret about his involvement.

This investigation was NEVER, EVER, EVER about finding the perpetrator of a crime. It was about the EVIL kooky commies in the Democratic Party looking to falsely accuse someone of something...ANYTHING. NOBODY can honestly deny that IRREFUTABLE fact.

Buchanan's Bottom Line
Pat's anti-Semitism trumps everything. I don't think he even denies he is a Jew-hater anymore. He was raised on Father Coughlin. Sometimes Pat is correct but if he smells Jews or Israel his brain seizes up. I have my suspicions as to the reasons for Patsy's hate but I don't want to be tagged as offensive.

Sour Grapes
Everything Pat Buchanan writes about President Bush is colored by his HATRED of Bush the Elder. This is a well documented FACT! So I take EVERYTHING Pat Buchanan says about President Bush with a Salt Block!

Talking points...
"Why should Libby be prosecuted at all for a being forgetful about to whom he told what, oops, sorry, 'lying', about a non-crime? Fact: Valerie Plame's outing was not a crime, and Armitage was the one who outed her, not Libby. So this persecution of Libby was an exercise of raw prosecutorial power."

Perjury is perjury, even if you're lying about a non-crime. Just ask Bill Clinton. Getting a BJ from Monica wasn't a crime, but lying about it got him in big trouble.

"Fact: it was established that Wilson/Plame were not undercover, so leaking their identidy was no crime, as Fitzgerald well knew."

Uhh, no, the CIA has blatantly said that she WAS undercover. The issue is that Armitage and others didn't know she was undercover when they spoke to the press, and therefore couldn't have committed a crime.

my goodness
Pat Buchanan is no liberal, nor is he a RINO. He is as conservative as they get. While I don’t often agree with him, Buchanan has always stuck to his principals no matter what. Subsequently, he’s one of the few old line conservatives who criticize the president. In previous threads, I have already stated my opinion that GW Bush did the right thing because while Libby was guilty, the sentence was too harsh. All Buchanan did was to lay down 3 very plausible reasons why Bush commuted the sentence. We should examine them and either refute or confirm them based on their merits. The rest is just noise.

Stop This Game Pat
Billary Beltway Bandits--yet again.
How much harder must the Clinton's push before you people realize they are trashing the Constitution? Bill Clinton is precluded from being President ever again by virtue of the 22d Amendment to the Constitution which was ratified pursuant to Article V. When a President is elected to office, he or she must sell all their stocks or put them in a "blind trust" so as to demonstrate no conflict of interest on legislation effecting the economy. Hillary has stated on numerous occasions, you will get 2 for 1 if I am elected and some syndicated columnist even refer to her now as "Billary". Bill Clinton should recuse himself from all government activity during Hillary's tenure should she win.
This should include a strict provision limiting Bill Clinton's access to just the living quarters in the White House. That is not cruel, Hillary will have chosen these limits by running, and I believe there is a valid court argument that could be made reference the potential for purposely attempting to violate or circumvent the 22d Amendment. Bill Clinton is not just another First Lady(man)--he has no business in those portions of the White House where National Interest and security decisions are made. Bill Clinton's preclusion is specific; it is an amendment to the Constitution. This attempt to further degrade our Constitution must be stopped or the vote of we "The People" means nothing.

Phil Byler
Very well expressed! I agree 100%.

Ahhh Pat: That Same Old Song!
Once again Pat Buchanan has managed to blame this on the Jews, excuse me the “neocons”; the code word one uses to blame Jews in polite company. First, Libby never deserved to be convicted, as any 4 year-old who managed to pay attention can plainly see. He did NOTHING wrong or illegal; unless a bad memory is now a crime.

Some weeks ago in commenting on another of Buchanan’s “pearls of wisdom” another poster said that if the price of corn declines in Iowa, Pat would find someway to blame Israel, or the Jews on that. My advice is for Pat to go back to his cell with the other anti-Semites, keep reading their copies of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and stop masquerading they are “conservative” because what they profess in antithetical to everything conservatism is about. Bigotry and anti-Semitism has always been confined to the “left” from International Socialism (Communism) to National Socialism (Nazism). We know Pat rejects International Socialism but I’m not so sure about National Socialism.

johninoregon
you are without doubt full of
rhino dumo .
you are also a pseudo-intellectual--------
one who thinks he should be the
international president of mensa ,
but in reality hasn't got enough
sense to get out of a shower of rain .

Gene touchet correct
"How can anyone say Libby's conviction stemmed from a "non-crime?" The "crime" was committed during the course of the investigation. The "crime" for which Libby was convicted was perjury before a Grand Jury. What's so hard to understand about that?"

Exactly. Perjury should be met with criminal time. Those defending Libby should be defending Bill Clinton's perjury as well.

I could care less who "outed" her. Thats not what its about. He lied to a jury. Once you lie to a jury partisan politics should be out the door. Else you're just a party hack and no better than Democrats when they do the same thing-two peas in a pod.

Bitter
Pat Buchanan is just a bitter loser who knows he is no longer relevant. That's why we hear his bile spewing in this article. Which makes him even less relevant in the eyes of the readers. Unless he has finally decided that he can get more attention from the left. He's sounding more and more narcissistic, kind of like Al Gore...

Armitage
How do we know Armitage did it? Did he testify under oath? Not that that matters. As Scooter proved, they also lie under oath. It's ludicrous to compare Presidential pardons between Bush and Clinton. Our boys are fighting and losing their lives every day because we were lied to, and Scooter Libby was central to this terrible deception. America sees this, no matter the conspiracy amongst conservative journalists to cook the facts or point the finger at Clinton. Public outrage won't go away, because it is understood that comparing the commutation of Scooter's sentence with Clinton's pardons is farce. Keep up the great patriotic work, Pat.

my question
As I understand it, this entire case against Libby, legally, boils down to the fact that he didn't heard of "plame" from Russert, as he claimed under oath?
I to this day must wonder why, if it not be due to an honest lack of memory that Libby testified in error, did Libby choose to testify to something he must have known would not be corroborated by the source? It makes no sense for this guy, as seasoned and intelligent as he is, to have purposefully lied, knowing that he would obviously be caught in his lie, and, considering the true agenda of this "special prosecutor", charged with perjury? Why didn't he simply respond to the query under oath that he didn't recall? Many, many said just that and they weren't drawn before a judge. I have to believe that Libby really thought he had first heard of "plame" from Russert, as he testified.

Ron Paul Shocks !!!



Ron Paul Shocks Cobb GOP With Straw Poll Results

The Georgia libertarian Party was not behind the effort of the eye popping results from Ron Paul from our sources! This makes the results even more shocking! With independents growing from discontent with both parties do you think Ron Paul has a chance?

PP-Its almost not news that Fred Thompson won. What is news is that Cong. Ron Paul came in second, with Mitt Romney third. I have to hand it to my former colleagues in the LP, they brought out a strong showing for Ron.

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/ron-paul-shocks-cobb-gop-with-straw-poll-results


Buchanan Is No Conservative
Buchanan's article is dreadful nonsense. A hard core left winger could have written it. The article buys into the left wing conspiracy theory involving Cheney and Rove that did not happen; the article attacks President Bush and other coneservatives in a personal way similar to how left wingers engage in personal attack; and the article concludes with a left wing-like charge Bush with cronyism so that Libby does not spill the beans. What utter false garbage for Buchanan to write.

The charge of cronyism is just wrong. President Bush has only exercised the pardon and commutation power four times, and the three previous times cannot be called a matter of cronyism by any stretch. In contrast, President Bill Clinton did use the pardon and commutation power over 100 times and in particular for financial backers and cronies. We all do remember, don't we, the pardons for Clinton donors Marc Rich (tax evasion), Roger Clinton (drug offenses), Susan MacDougall (bank fraud), and Henry Cisneros (lying to deferal authorities about payments to a mistress)? Apparently, Buchanan does not remember though.

If you want to speculate about President Bush's motives, there is a simple explanation. The commutation of the sentence was the decent thing to do. President Bush did not act until the D.C. Circuit refused a stay of sentence, and the President did not want a decent person in Libby to be in jail for 30 months away from his family. The sentence was excecssive. It exceeeded federal sentencing guidelines. It was predicated in good part on Libby violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act for which he was not even charge and Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald successfully moved to keep out of evidence what would have shown Plame not to be covert under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. The President's power to commute a sentence is absolute, but there was ample reason to use the power in the Scooter Libby case.

What is more, Libby's appeal continues, and there is good reason that the conviction will be reversed. Judge Walton made erroneous evidence rulings; Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald was guilty of misconduct. Those errors were prejudical because the "case" against Libby was weak; the case essentially was about Libby stating a different recollection of an undocumented July 11, 2003 conversation with Tim Russert, with Libby saying Russert told him about Plame and Russert denying he did -- never mind that Russert's statment to the FBI in November 2003 was that he might have told Libby about Plame in that July 11, 2003 conversation. It was a conversation that did not mean a thing. Fitzgerald already knew who told Bob Novak who sent Wilson to Niger -- Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, an Iraq War critic and a crony of Colin Powell.

So, for Buchanan to be writing what he has in today's article just shows that he is not a conservative, but a budding left winger. He already has been preaching the isolationism like George McGovern, and his greatest fans now on this site appear to be left wing trolls.

Miky at 1:30 PM states that it seems odd that Pat Buchanan is the only conservative that does not get that Scooter Libby was scammed. The short answer to Miky is that Pat Buchanan is no conservative; this article helps establish that. If Pat Buchanan were no lonber carried Pat Buchanan because he is no conservative, I would agree with the decision. If you want to get a conservative vierw of the Scooter Libby case, listen to Rush Limbaugh. Rush has had it right along in castgating the case.

This is all about silencing Libby
This commutation of Libby's prison sentence will not be well received by those on the right who are enraged Bush has not pardoned Compean and Ramos.

Of course, the neocons are delighted with the decision. Neocons have, or had, relevance inside the beltway.

But now many of them have abandoned this administration for the safety and sanctuary of think-tanks, leaving a beleaguered president to contend with the consequences of their disastrous advice on Iraq.

Some on the right will be angered that this president protects one of his high ranking cronies, a member of the elitist club, while ordinary U.S. border agents languish in prison, prosecuted by a Bush lackey(Johnny Sutton)on the testimony of a Mexican drug dealer(who now is suing the U.S. government).

Among the reasons provided by Buchanan for this commutation, I am inclined to think it is number 3.

Integrity test?
sashal--

Joseph Wilson "outed" his wife, years before this incident, many times to many people. And, at least according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bush's "sixteen words" regarding Iraq, uranium and West Africa (Niger) were true.

Wilson was a liar and he needed to be discredited.

There was a legitimate question as to why Joe Wilson went to Niger, as Bob Novak pointed out. Novak confirmed her position with the CIA itself. So, if it was not a crime to mention her connection between CIA and Wilson, what of it? It did clarify the matter of why he was chosen, which was not at the behest of the White House.

Wilson's attack on the administration was entirely partisan, and ill-motivated. Wilson lied repeatedly about the matter, as he finally admitted under oath to the Senate. In fact, he was under oath only once, with the Senate, and then contradicted nearly everything he said publicly about the matter.

So, which word of Wilson do you believe? Public statements attacking the administration, or his sworn testimony? If you believe his public statements, then you ought to demand his prosecution for perjury.

And think about this. Niger has four main exports: black-eyed peas, onions, beef and uranium. Since the Iraqi official involved was Iraq's top nuclear diplomat, are we to imagine Saddam was merely looking for better ingredients for Hoppin' John?

and finally, the integrity test
Has any neocon or right-winger , in all this time, come up with a legitimate reason for there being a need to discredit Joseph Wilson by outing his wife ?

Because if, as they claim, Wilson was demonstrably wrong in his Niger report, it seems you'd just show he's wrong and leave his wife out of the whole damn thing. Unless...well, you know.

Anyone got an answer they can point out?


Pat
RHINO

As it is with ..
anyone in politics, the man is probably a useful and artful liar. Be that as it may, it probably seems to the rest of us that Jorge stuck it to Scooter as he did the border cops and the Marine Corps. The guy didn't push drugs, he didn't steal from anyone, he didn't assault anyone and he hasn't sexually molested anyone. Most of us can get along with the idea that if he lied, he was just lyeing to another bunch of liars.
If these had dueling pistols, that I could get along with just fine.

more
You have been brainwashed into thinking that those four Plame outers--Libby, Rove, Armitage and Fleisher--did not out Plame because they have not been prosecuted under the statute that allows for such prosecutions when the elements of the statute can be met.

You have been conditioned into thinking that, if they have not been prosecuted, then, ergo, they could not have outed Plame. But the fact that all four outed Plame is no longer in dispute within the land oif the sane. However, to prosecute someone under that statute, it is also necessary to prove that the outer KNEW that the agent was covert when he/she outed the agent. That is a very difficult thing to prove and, being a conservative prosecutor, Fitzie did not charge the four Plame outers under that statute.

As to some brainwashed claims to the "manufactured crime of perjury and obstruction of justice," I cannot make you realize that it is a serious crime, nor can I make you realize that the jury could not rationally find that Libby simply "forgot" the truth when Libby did not even testify.

As you can see, the actual, facts are FAR different than the lies that have been stuffed into your head.


I specialize in deprogramming cons
who are sick and tired of believing the lies GOP propagandists have told them....

You have been led to believe that Libby did not out Plame. He did, as did Rove, Armitage and Ari Fleisher. This is no longer in dispute within the land of the sane. So, while you question if Libby outed Plame, that is because you believe the lies you have been told.

In fact, Libby's crime WAS lying through his teeth, under oath, as a jury concluded. Again, you have been brainwashed into believing what is 180 degrees from the truth.


what a joke, some of you.
Turn off the propaganda. Face the facts


1. Libby was not brought before the grand jury (in 2004)and interviewed by the FBI (in October 2003) as part of a perjury investigation - he was subpoenaed to determine whether he or others (such as his friend and boss the Vice President) violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. If he (implausibly) said that he had no recollection at all of relatively important recent conversations on a matter that had clearly exercised him and Cheney, he would have left himself defenseless against other evidence establishing that he (and/or Cheney) passed on the information. At the very least, an implausible failure of recollection would allow the investigation to continue, and would leave him twisting in the wind. 2. Libby's inital false statements were made to the FBI in October 2003, a very short while after he leaked the Plame information to the media. A catastrophic loss of memory in October 2003 would not have been credible. At that point the investigtion was under the control of a compliance Justice Department. It was not until afterwards that Fitzgerald was appointed and the investigation gained steam. Libby was not brought before the grand jury until 2004. At that point, his testimony was essentially locked, because he had already made perjurious statements to the FBI. So he had to stick to his story and try to "tough it out."

The real question
The real question is why Pat Buchanon sides with the Left on this matter.

One explanation is he is opposed to the war and does not mind seeing a political "hit" on a Bush White House official.

Another explanation... well, there isn't one, is there?

Scooter Libby, in order to have actually committed a crime, would have to have lied about a material fact. Since the non-crime of Plame's "super-secret spy" status was known prior to the start of the investigation, it is hard to imagine materiality of Libby's supposed lie.

Which gives rise to the question of why the investigation even took place.

The other problem is why, if Scooter was convicted, Tim Russert was not even indicted?

And why is the prosecutor not undergoing some bar association review in the manner of Mike Nifong's malicious prosecution.

Yep, it's a scandal alright. Thanks again, Pat.

johninoregon talks more crap
just like the vindictive liberal he is. Fact: it was established that Wilson/Plame were not undercover, so leaking their identidy was no crime, as Fitzgerald well knew. Fact: Armitage was the leaker, as Fitzgerald well knew. If there was a crime, then go after Armitage, the leaker.

For goodness' sake, who can remember what you said to whom, when and where? But a runaway prosecutor can swing juries with emotional pseudo-righteous posturing, in the same way ambulance-chasers like John Edwards can sway juries with junk science to win massive payments for themselves, oops sorry, for their clients.

Correction
Sorry. In my previous post, I meant to enclose the entire first paragraph in quotes to indicate that it came from jono64a.

Bury the Talking Points
Why should Libby be prosecuted at all for a being forgetful about to whom he told what, oops, sorry, 'lying', about a non-crime? Fact: Valerie Plame's outing was not a crime, and Armitage was the one who outed her, not Libby. So this persecution of Libby was an exercise of raw prosecutorial power."

Nice summary of most of the main discredited conservative talking points on this case.

Libby was not "forgetful." Fitzgerald compared his experience with this particular defendant as being like that of an umpire who can't make a call because sand is being kicked in his face. In other words, Libby obstructed justice trying to protect someone. Now who do you suppose that someone was?

What Libby lied about was not a "non-crime." It is hardly a non-crime to out an undercover CIA agent. It is treason---and in this case, may well have resulted in the deaths of some people associated with her Brewster-Jennings CIA front company. And don't give me the talking point about Plame not being covert. It has been discredited over and over again (most recently by the prosecutor himself) and was a non-starter from the beginning. After all, this whole case emerged precisely because the CIA complained that someone had blown the cover of an agent.

As for "It was Armitage who outed her, not Libby," that is a matter of missing the point and overlooking a more pertinent question. And that question is---Who orchestrated a campaign to punish Joe Wilson (with part of the punishment being the "outing of his wife) for revealing one aspect of the Bush administration's cooked intelligence to justify a war? Clearly, several people were enlisted in that campaign, and it hardly matters who was on first.

All of these facts are readily available to people who live in the reality based community. None of us have the right to create our own facts, despite the valiant efforts of Rush, Sean, et al to aid in that process..

Correction: Last comment
Correction on last comment: "Why aren't congressional republicans calling for a hearing into Libby's actions?" Should say ""Why aren't congressional republicans calling for a hearing into Fitzgerld's actions?"

Scooter Libby
It seems odd to me that Pat is the only Conservative out there who doesn't realize that Scooter Libby was scammed. Richard Armitage was the one who leaked Plame's name to novak, and Fitzgerald knew that, didn't even consider it a crime, but went on to investigate Libby anyway. There needs to be some sort of investigation into why Fitzgerald went after Libby. Why aren't congressional republicans calling for a hearing into Libby's actions? Beats me. It is wrong of Pat to distort what actually happened just because he doesn't like Libby's ideologies. Pat, Separate the hate from the facts. You may not like the Libby, but Bush was right in pardoning him. Pat, shame on you for letting your hate distort the truth.

Buchanan talks crap, as usual
Why should Libby be prosecuted at all for a being forgetful about to whom he told what, oops, sorry, "lying", about a non-crime? Fact: Valerie Plame's outing was not a crime, and Armitage was the one who outed her, not Libby. So this persecution of Libby was an exercise of raw prosecutorial power.

The only problem with Bush is that he didn't pardon Libby fully. Dems and Pat "Neandertal" Buchanan would hate him just as much, but Bush would win the respect of those who voted for him.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.