The Hindsight Factor

With the onset of another episode in administration malfeasance, Bush chose the site of a previous scandal to answer questions regarding his commutation of Libby’s prison sentence. When asked about his decision, our Dissembler-in-Chief told reporters, “I had to make a very difficult decision. I weighed this decision carefully…I thought that the jury verdict should stand. I felt the punishment was severe. So I made a decision that would commute his sentence but leave in place a serious fine and probation. As to the future, I, you know, rule nothing in and nothing out.”

If Bush truly believes that the jury verdict should stand, then how could he possibly fail to rule out a pardon? It seems like only yesterday that Bush’s Attorney General was arguing passionately for stiffer minimum sentencing guidelines:

For victims, another key aspect of any fair and equitable criminal justice system is to ensure that those convicted of crimes serve tough and fair sentences. And since 1987, we have had a sentencing system for federal offenses that responded to this demand - and has helped to achieve the lowest crime rates in a generation … But it is inevitable over time that, with so many different individual judges involved, exercising their own individual discretion, in so many different jurisdictions, shorter sentences and disparities among sentences will occur under a system of advisory guidelines.

The DOJ under both Ashcroft and Gonzales have been pushing for stiffer sentencing from the beginning. Specifically, the call has been to simultaneously remove a judge’s discretion to factor mitigating circumstances into sentencing while also removing the barrier of maximum terms by relegating them to mere guidelines. In other words, there would no longer be anything preventing a judge from issuing a 30-year prison terms for a crime with a 5-10 year guideline.

So I ask you to consider the following two cases: The first is Victor Rita, a man who got snagged in a criminal investigation involving unregistered sale of machine gun parts. Rita was never convicted of the original crime, though he was indicted and found guilty on five felony counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. Rita, a 24 year Marine veteran who served in two wars, received over 35 medals and awards, and is now an elderly man in poor health, is currently serving a 33 month prison sentence.

Sound familiar? I. Scooter Libby was also caught up in a criminal investigation and, while not yet indicted for the original crime (Tony Snow is, to date, the only member of the administration to have even, albeit facetiously, apologized for it), was convicted on 4 out of 5 felony counts of perjury and obstruction of justice. Libby, who was admittedly involved in a scandal which caused immeasurable and irreparable harm to the security of the entire country, was sentenced to 30 months in prison – a term later commuted by the President of the United States.

Two men, both convicted of nearly identical charges, both with similar sentences. Yet the former, whose crimes were no doubt horrific yet finite in scope, is serving time while the latter, whose involvement in the Valarie Plame leak obliterated clandestine operations against groups actively hostile to US interests, benefits from his personal relationship to the White House.

Besides once again bathing in the stench of cronyism, George W. Bush has, with the stroke of his pen, caused unforeseeable harm to the future of this country. For years now, the Bush administration has dismissed critics who complain about inflated sentencing guidelines as well as the ability for courts to consider factors not proven to the jury while ignoring a defendant’s positive contributions and the burden imprisonment would pose on the families. Pish-pash, says King George the W, unless of course the defendant happens to be a loyal courtesan.

According to Law Professor, Ellen Podger, we can expect to see the courts inundated with the “Libby Motion” from defense lawyers expecting their clients to get similar treatment:

The motion will likely include a comparison to the client's circumstances with that of Libby. It will probably also contain language from the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines that speaks to a basic policy consideration of the guidelines being to obtain "reasonable uniformity in sentencing by narrowing the wide disparity in sentences imposed for similar criminal conduct." … And the judges, what will they do with these motions? The activist ones - might follow the activist executive and say - yes this is grounds for departure.

Once again, the administration evades even the faintest glimmer of accountability and, in the process, metes out untold damage in his wake. And we can all take this opportunity to remind ourselves of the immortal words of Mel Brooks - It’s good to be King.

BooMan Tribune contributor, clammyc, has a word of advice for the Bush admin – “Don’t you dare pardon Libby”! Also, Steven D puts the smack down on post-trial exultation with a reminder that with nearly two years to go, there is no limit to the potential damage ahead.

TalkLeft’s Jeralyn gives us the non-lawyer explanation of federal sentencing guidelines along with a prediction of what Libby may realistically be facing.

With the White House refusing to discount the possibility of pardon, John Aravosis from AmericaBlog finds little to celebrate in the verdict.

Over at Hullabaloo, digby has a response for jurors wondering about Rove’s whereabouts.

Hillary Rosen recounts a chance Startbucks meeting with Joe Wilson and offers some regret for the impact this has had on their family. Also at The Huffington post, Arianna provides a preemptive strike against the coming GOP spin.

Posting at the TPM Café, Larry Johnson tasks congress to pick up where the trial left off.

DoubleSpeak sees little hope in Libby’s appellate chances and reminds naysayers that Bush could still pardon Libby after election day has long passed.

At TAP, Jeff Lomonaco sifts through some of the right-wing reactions to the verdict as a process of blaming the jury.

Finally, John at C&L has the audio clip on Limbaugh’s “poking the bear” remark. Also, is this a veiled reference to Libby’s sex scene?

With the verdict (finally) in, we should expect a torrent of posts over the next couple of days. In the meantime, here are standouts from the past few days:

Over at TalkLeft, Jeralyn offers a couple of posts pondering the significance of the jury’s clarification request on reasonable doubt.

Melissa Lafsky at The Huffington Post explores whether perhaps Libby’s attorney’s botched his chances for acquittal.

And at FDL, emptywheel follows the “breadcrumbs” of jury questions while Jane Hamsher smells an imminent verdict.

Stop by tomorrow for a roundup of post-verdict analysis.

Many apologies for the belated posting - my surgical recovery time has been longer than expected. Pain meds and blogging make poor lovers. Here is the roundup from last Friday:

Posting at My Left Wing, Josh Langdon isn’t buying into the blog-o-rumors – including from many on the left – that Fitzgerald’s investigation will end with the Libby verdict.

After finally graduating into the courtroom, emptywheel shares some impressions of the respective moods of Team Libby and Team USA.

Also at FDL, Scarecrow explores Plame’s role in this trial amidst recent, possibly irresponsible, editorializing from the mainstream media.

Shifting over to The Next Hurrah, emptywheel compiles a chronological update to her original post on Indicting Dick.

Jeff Lomonaco explores the question of whether Fitzgerald is using his closing, in part, to legitimate the idea that Cheney is indictable.

Finally, BooMan finds himself salivating over the big fish fry to come.

BooMan Trib’s Larry Johnson proffers a gift to reporters still confused by Plame’s status with a run-down of the terms ‘covert’, ‘cover’, and ‘non-official cover’.

Offering a chronology of Cheney’s involvement, emptywheel invites Fitzgerald to use his research to indict the Vice-President.

Also at FDL, looseheadprop contrasts the quasi-related topics of jury nullification and judgment notwithstanding.

Over at TAP, Jeff Lomonaco ponders the PR implications of a Cheney indictment.

Finally, Jeralyn finds herself conflicted in a case where Libby may be being charged with the wrong crime and where Fitzgerald seems to have “missed the forest for the trees”.

Pach bemoans a missed opportunity for self-evaluation from the NYT over the media’s role in Plamegate and notes that the Gray Lady is “trying to pretend she's not in it way past her tits in propelling right wing propaganda.”

Over at Hullabaloo, digby highlights Fitzgerald’s conservatism against a recent article by Murray Waas exploring whether Libby will shield Cheney from prosecution.

Larry Johnson takes issue with Victoria Toensing’s recent assertions that Plame was not undercover and that Joe Wilson is a big, fat liar.

Also, Jeralyn at TalkLeft counters Toensing’s claim of jury nullification and argues that she could not think of a worse argument to make to the jury.

Finally, enjoy these two articles from FDL’s looseheadprop which offer a legal analysis of both the prosecution’s opening and the defense’s closing.

Wonkette highlights perhaps the most surreal journalistic one-liner since Bill Frist’s testosterone soaked hair and clothes.

Over at FDL, Swopa sees the defense strategy as a microcosm of the same “state of mind” that got Libby into trouble in the first place.

With the defense attempting to demonstrate the lack of a vast conspiracy by trotting out reporters to whom Libby did not leak, Jeff Lomonaco provides the obvious rebuttal – Cheney and Libby were focusing on Miller before moving on to others.

Professor Kim takes issue with Clarice Feldman’s contention that Russert may have perjured himself over learning Plame’s identity from Libby.

Finally, on the way back home to Denver, Jeralyn bids a wistful farewell to new friends and colleagues and leaves us with a video appearance from herself, Jane, and Marcy.

While it may seem that Libby’s defense has passed by faster than a DC cold front, emptywheel offers a stunning recap of what Team Libby has tried in order to stave off prison.

On the flip side, Jeralyn at TalkLeft reminds us that the trial is not about proving the defense, but rather raising the specter of reasonable doubt.

Alongside the void of Scooter and Shooter’s absence from the witness chair, Jeff Lomonaco notes the enormous legal faux pas of not following through with an introduced defense and wonders if this indicates a confidence surplus on the part of Team Libby.

Also lamenting Shooter’s absence, Jane Hamsher at FDL finds solace in a “Perry Mason moment” during Fitzgerald’s questioning of Cheney-proxy, John Hannah.

Wendy Hoke offers a brief rundown of a recent discussion over the impact of bloggers at the trial and lavishes props on Frontline’s multi-part series on the media’s role in getting us where we are today.

Finally, with testimony over who said what to whom running rampant over the last few weeks, Political Maven’s, The Stiletto, cuts through the confusion with a handy chart for the visually oriented.

Following Russert’s testimony, mainwebreport observes that the Libby trial appears to be an affirmation of the maxim that “sometimes those who most loudly decry a sin are in fact the most guilty of it.”

Aldon Hynes at Orient Lodge takes a step back from the literal and sees the trial as an exploration of who controls the flow of information and what effect this has on the interplay of cooperation and competition in the media.

For your auditory edification, SilentPatriot at C&L provides the audio coverage of Armitage outing Plame.

Over at TalkLeft, Jeralyn follows Team Libby’s strategy and is left wondering if the journalists played the administration officials or vice-versa and, in the exchange, who is looking out for us?

Posting at the Daily Kos, emptywheel explores the conveniently-timed conversations Libby had with Novak, Russert, and Miller.

Perplexed by Team Libby’s witness strategy, Jane Hamsher at The Huffington Post ponders whether Cheney and Libby (Shooter and Scooter) will actually take the stand. Also, while gushing praise upon their diligence in the courtroom, Swopa nevertheless chastises the MSM for missing the obvious front-page headline.

Finally, Professor Kim provides a sorely needed biographical summary of Judge Reggie B. Walton.

Over at MainWebReport, Lance Dutson battles the urge to purge after watching MSNBC’s tragically incomplete coverage of Russert’s testimony which has so far glossed over or ignored compelling reasons to doubt his account.

Eric Brewer at BTC News chastises the blogosphere for buying into Team Libby’s red herring against Russert noting that, regardless of who is on the stand, defaulting in favor of press freedom is the right thing to do.

John Amato at C&L presents Mary Matalin’s theater of the absurd.

As the trial continues to expose the circus of leaks in 2003, Creative Ink’s Wendy Hoke explores how “Big Journalism was talking out of both sides of its collective mouth.”

Jeralyn at TalkLeft explores the debate over whether Andrea Mitchell will testify at the Libby trial.

Parsing two key points the defense plans to make, John at AmericaBlog sounds the BS alarm.

Noting GOP assassin Barabra Comstock’s surprise trial guest, Digby wonders whether it is “too much to ask that reporters refrain from actually sleeping with the people they are supposed to be covering?”

Atrios weighs in on Russert’s role as White House stenographer.

Describing Fitzgerald’s closing witness as two trials in one, Arianna Huffington notes that this is not choosing between two evils – “Scooter Libby lied and lied and lied to Patrick Fitzgerald” and Russert is guilty of journalistic malfeasance. “Two thoughts, both true -- and not remotely mutually exclusive.”

Finally, in part five of a continuing series, eriposte explores one of the key unsolved mysteries of the African uranium scandal.

With “reputations and fig leaves falling left and right,” Pachacutec splays open the claim that partisan bloggers can’t be trusted – “There are no virgins here, folks. Everyone around this trial has an agenda, including every media outlet.”

On Democrats.comUnity, dlindorff notes that Kristof’s call for Cheney to come clean should also be extended to the president and presents a litany of questions the public has a right to know.

Jeff Lomonaco examines the implications surrounding a surprise revelation that Wolfowitz was in this scandal at least up to his ankles. Also, some further exploration of Bush’s collusion in the pushback against Wilson.

Wonkette blogs about CourtTV blogging about bloggers blogging about Libby – yowza, I need to sit down!

Following 15 minutes of blogular fame, Politblogo explores the layers of ‘meta’ surrounding the Libby case and offers some tough love for the Democratic Party’s complicity with a system that allows for such crimes, metacrimes, and metametacrimes.

Finally, Jeralyn notes the blogosphere’s role in sustaining a story the MSM would have rather seen dead.

Over at FDL, Jane Hamsher describes Libby’s devolution in the grand jury tapes as a “gradually dawning realization under Patrick Fitzgerald's relentless and dogged questioning that he was in fact screwed.”

Positively giddy over the grand jury tapes, BooMan highlights a revelation about the UN inspections spin and further evidence that Plame-related misconduct may have extended beyond the OVP to leave an indelible stain on Bush’s hands as well.

Jeralyn offers some background and analysis on Tim Russert, the final prosecutorial witness and Fitzgerald’s last hope to end on a high note.

Posting at The Huffington Post, Marcy Wheeler explores the conundrum of Cheney’s testimony through the evolution of his talking points.

From the Desk of Patrick Fitzgerald heaps praise on – well, Patrick Fitzgerald and, subpoena power aside, notes that it was Fitzgerald and not the media who has done the most to ferret out the details of this Washington scandal.

Finally, I would like to extend a hearty welcome to Rev. Brian Donner of The Uncooperative Blogger who will be my doppelganger of sorts in presenting conservative blog round-ups for the remainder of the trial.

Over at FDL, TRex compares the trial to an Antarctic “ice core sample of the Bush Administration's incestuous, manipulative, and deeply disingenuous relationship to the media” while Jane Hamsher finds the search for a coherent defense strategy as elusive as Iraqi WMDs.

On a continuing mission to glean what bloggers can add to the reporting process, Aldon Hynes at Orient Lodge steps outside the big picture to focus on character development.

Noting that this trial is “first and foremost a trial of the media, by the media and for the media,” Rory O’Connor has the unfortunate epiphany that modern journalists are nothing more than partisan hacks who may be hurting America.

Jeff Lomonaco adds himself to the “list of observers” who are skeptical that Tricky Dick v. 2.0 will be called to the stand.

Given recent trial revelations, Larry C. Johnson, posting at No Quarter, argues that it was Walter Pincus and not Nicholas Kristof who is responsible for starting the “five alarm fire” in 2003 and suggests that timelines need to be updated.

Likewise, Jeralyn is equally stumped about Wally’s role and wonders why Pincus isn’t being called as a witness? And speaking of key witnesses not testifying…

Finally, Digby sees the Libby trial as providing an excellent peak into Kurtz’s thesis that Cheney has concocted a constitutional rationale to turn the OVP into a fourth branch of government.

No rest for TalkLeft’s Jeralyn as she burns the weekend oil exploring Team Libby’s attempts to insert Bush into the narrative and churns out a couple of posts on Cheney and other potential upcoming witnesses. Also, check out this parsing of Saturday briefs from both legal teams over the recent admission of two Washington Post articles from 2003.

Posting at the Daily Kos, emptywheel argues the significance of changing the date on Libby’s 2003 note and offers four possible scenarios explaining its sensitivity.

Forget Dick Cheney! MaineWebReport explains how Russert’s testimony is just as significantly tied into the wider ramifications of this trial.

Meanwhile, over at Huffington’s Eat the Press, a little heathers-esque rivalry between Russert and Matthews helps illuminate this White House’s manipulation of the news cycle.

Brent Budowski, one of the original authors of the CIA Identities Law, sees the trial beginning to unravel “a long term, well planned, highly deceptive campaign” to bring the country to war and offers some predictions for the trial’s future

Larry Johnson at BooMan rejoices in the document dumping process this trial has initiated and explores documents between the CIA and OVP in 2002 expressing skepticism over the Iraqi-Niger connection.

eRiposte from FDL offers some observation and analysis of documents from the trial proceedings as well as an exhaustive exploration the under-reported war against Wilson.

Finally, a big welcome to Eric Brewer and Lance Dutson who will be in the courtroom this week.

Highlighting Miller as the least credible witness “in the history of witnesses,” BooMan notes the cruel irony that her only payback is to be torn to shreds by the very people she was trying to protect.

Jeff Lomonaco at TAP discusses some of the potential evidence Fitzgerald is lobbying to introduce as the trial proceeds.

Quipping on the twisted brilliance of banishing bloggers to indefinite “fake jury duty,” Wonkette weighs in on Cheney’s notes (“written in the blood of infants”) as potentially damning to the president.

With the assault that recent testimony has delivered to the professional stature of journalism, Wendy at Creative Ink explores whether the politics of journalist subpoenas is a cyclical phenomenon or a merely the result of political ideology.

Observing witnesses under cross-examination, Jeralyn at TalkLeft examines their respective performances and hints at a possible surprise revelation regarding a conversation with Mary Matalin.

For the visually-oriented, Eric Brewer at BTC news has put together a handy relationship chart of “Plame at a Glance.” Also from BTC, Weldon Berger offers some biographical context on the testimonies of Miller and Cooper.

1 Boring Old Man discusses the “fingernails on a chalkboard” experience of attorneys hammering away on typos and finds himself vindicated in having renounced a career as a jurist.

Finally, C&L gives us a comedic break with this spot-on clip from The Daily Show.