July 02, 2007

Fargin Icehole

You fargin sneaky bastage!

W slips one in on a Monday evening when people are talking about Putin's fish.

Posted by binky at July 2, 2007 06:33 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Corruption | Politics


Comments

i can't really lend substance to why, but somehow this feels like one of the bigger outrages of the whole administration's tenure, at least philosophically. that $250K and professional reputation poppycock relative to the offender, in a case going to the heart of the rule of law and governmental accountability . . . go ahead and ask the guy who recants his prior testimony in a post hoc effort to exonerate his cellmate, accomplice, whathaveyou, of an ugly crime that doesn't have a meaningful fraction of the systemic consequence for society as a whole that Libby's does, ask him whether Libby's $250K (less than half his first salary in a think tank, or on AM radio, and if you think this is cynical just ask Ollie North) holds a candle to the years of prison that'll be tacked on to the recanting witness's sentence, and which won't be served in a federal country club (yes, they're prisons, but let's not be naive here about the differences) but in some underfunded, privately contracted maximum security block.

fucking shameless. i keep wanting to believe that the serial abuse of the law by this administration is a product of short-sightedness or desperation rather than a manifestation of overt and conscious contempt, but it's getting harder and harder. and to think: they consistently run on a platform of anti-elitism. what a collossal load of bullshit. this administration is the most elitist group of people i can think of. they make the academics they so frequently villify look downright magnanimous.

Posted by: moon at July 2, 2007 07:33 PM | PERMALINK

Oh it's contempt alright. Contempt for the rule of law, a love of cronyism (with the attendant hypocrisy that stems from that), and mountains of incompetence thrown into the mix.

1 year, 6 months, 18 days ...

Posted by: Armand at July 2, 2007 07:47 PM | PERMALINK

And as Josh Marshall points out:

DOJ manual on Commutations (emphasis added) ...

Section 1-2.113 Standards for Considering Commutation Petitions

A commutation of sentence reduces the period of incarceration; it does not imply forgiveness of the underlying offense, but simply remits a portion of the punishment. It has no effect upon the underlying conviction and does not necessarily reflect upon the fairness of the sentence originally imposed. Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding.

I like the part about "does not necessarily reflect upon the fairness of the sentence originally imposed," which seems to be the central argument Bush gave for the commutation.

Posted by: binky at July 2, 2007 08:09 PM | PERMALINK

This isn't unexpected: who here really throught something like this wouldn't happen (and I still think Libby might get pardoned on the way out the door at the end of W's term).

The right wing thought this was a politically motivated prosecution, without a crime behind it. W gives his base what they want. Why shouldn't he? Nobody else is left to support him?

Really, who is surprised here?

Posted by: baltar at July 3, 2007 09:03 AM | PERMALINK

No, it wasn't unexpected.

Atrios has this tidbit: Without going into all of the issues, can we just remind the world that... Marc Rich's lawyer was Scooter Libby.

Posted by: binky at July 3, 2007 09:36 AM | PERMALINK

not unexpected, but essentially shameless just the same.

the bottom line, which hadn't occurred to me last night (and which i have to admit i cribbed from NPR's discussion this morning), is that while libby was staring down the barrel of a two-plus-year sentence, he had a powerful incentive to talk about the underlying leak, given the right deal (i'm not seeing he would have, but he might have, and don't think the white house didn't know it).

$250K is a pittance for these guys, regardless of how much they have in the bank. he now has no incentive to talk, and as noted elsewhere here, he's still got the Fifth Amendment. pardon or no pardon, this is an ass-covering move by the administration.

hopefully the next president issues an executive order returning to the 25-year timeframe for the release of confidential executive documents, etc., because then i can at least hope to live to see the details on what a bunch of cockroaches these people are.

Posted by: moon at July 3, 2007 09:56 AM | PERMALINK

I'm with Baltar. This was the flamingly obvious path all along. No pardon, because then Scooter can't take the Fifth, but no jail, because Scooter took one for the team.

Posted by: jacflash at July 3, 2007 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

then there's this:

The president said Libby was given "a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury."\

welcome to federal sentencing, you f*&king putz. libby, in being sentenced for his violation of federal law, was subject to the same relaxed evidentiary standards that a drug dealer, a terrorist (were he ever to be graced with a trial), or a money launderer would be subject to in federal sentencing -- nothing different, nothing special, the f*&king law.

at least fitzgerald, who plainly knows more about the system (and justice in the real world) than bush could learn in the next 50 years, continues to look and sound like a stand-up, principled guy, and hasn't yet taken his eye off the ball:

In a statement issued Monday night, Fitzgerald took issue with Bush's description of the sentence as "excessive," saying it was "imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country."

"It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals," Fitzgerald said. "That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing."

not to mention that, in my view at least, if there's to be an assymetry in punishment for perjury and obstruction it ought to be more severe when it's committed by licensed attorneys and government officials, and it ought to be squared when the offender is both.

Posted by: moon at July 3, 2007 01:07 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?