Bush defenders have argued that the disclosure of Plame’s identity represented a “good leak” because it suggested that Wilson’s critical findings were tainted by the fact that his wife worked in the CIA office that sent him.

While that argument is a stretch – considering the potential dangers from blowing Plame’s cover versus the marginal significance of Plame’s limited connection to Wilson’s trip – it could serve as a legal fig leaf to justify a decision by Bush or Cheney to declassify Plame’s CIA identity and have their subordinates leak it.

Fitzgerald might well have concluded that a battle over the president’s classification powers made a case built around the Intelligence Identities Protection Act impossible, even if other standards of the law were met.

In other words, a Bush-and/or-Cheney blessing of the Plame leak arguably would have protected their subordinates and fit with the administration's overall assertion that the Commander in Chief at “a time of war” has virtually unlimited powers, that he effectively becomes the law.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/070907.html

The case and actions all point back to the point that goes back to Woo and the Bush Admin.'s mantra. They are justified to do whatever they deem necessary in the interests of national security . They deem only they are capable of maintaining national security so they can do whatever they decree or want the law be damned. In the interests of national security the President and VP must be protected from accountability and checks & balances and to disregard the Constitution. This is a time of perpetual war...and national security of the State.

It's a pity that it will never happen!

Anybody know why Rita was allowed to stay out of prison pending his appeal, while Libby was not?

I'm all for the judge's decision in the Libby case; Libby didn't meet any of the requirements for release pending appeal in my opinion and Bush's commutation is offensive.

I'm just curious.

Was it his medical condition or did he have a better chance on his appeal than Libby, according to his trial judge?

They have enough on Cheney that they could impeach and remove both them at the same and make Pelosi the President.

Yeah, because clearly 17 Republican senators are going to vote to remove Bush and Cheney from office, knowing that it'll put Pelosi in the White House. That seems incredibly plausible.

Certainly the president has the power to commute sentences. But Congress has the power to remove the president if they judge that the president abused that power. That specific check on the pardon power was discussed by the authors of the U.S. Constitution. Their specific question was, "What if the crime being pardoned was actually committed on the advice of the president?"

What part of my post was a lie?

You have no problems with TPM concealing the fact that there are important differences between the Libby case and the Rita case?

Let's say a car salesman has two cars, both the same make and model, but one of them needs some work. Would it be honest of him to describe them as "strikingly similar" while not noting the differences?

Does that mean that I can describe the Libby case and the Clinton-Lewinsky case as "strikingly similar" because both were cases involving perjury?

I don't know what's worse, liars or sycophants of liars.

George: "I wonder, when will the TPM community, also known as the "reality-based community", actually face the harsh reality that they are being lied to on a consistent basis?"

When will you stop lying on a consistent basis?

Rita's prior conviction could not be considered under federal sentencing guidelines, so it cannot be considered when comparing the cases. The cases must be compared according to the applicable law in each case.

Moreover, the definition of perjury (and the other crimes Libby was convicted of) do not legally require that an underlying crime be committed, much less proven.

Thus, whether there was an underlying crime or not is entirely irrelevant to either conviction or sentencing in Libby's case.

Indeed, no individual anywhere in this country has ever escaped a perjury conviction based on the absence of proof of an underlying crime and probably the vast majority of convictions for perjury either don't involve an underlying crime or would have to be overturned on your theory due to the absence of any proof.

Where are you and Bush on giving those convicted felons (ones in which their perjury conviction was not based on proof of any underlying crime, such as perjury in a civil matter) a break?

You are also one of those same people, I suspect, who thought Clinton should go to jail for lying under oath in a meritless CIVIL matter (no underlying civil tort, equivalent to no underlying crime) and on immaterial issues which ensured that it didn't actually rise to the level of perjury, yet you defend Libby for lying under oath in a CRIMINAL matter on material issues.

Therefore, neither of the points you raise has any legal significance and are, in effect, lies about alleged differences in the two cases, not to mention hypocritical.

Bush said the sentence was too harsh under the federal guidelines that he has approved, that he has argued must be strictly construed without any judicial interference or mitigation, and that apply to all convicted felons in the US, including Libby.

If you have a problem with the federal sentencing guidelines, then simply say so and demand that they be amended to be "more fair" (whatever that actually means to wingnuts) TO EVERYBODY, but for the purposes of Libby and Rita their legal positions were virtually identical and you have identified no dissimilarities that are relevant or significant for purposes of imposing Libby's sentence or making him serve it.

By considering factors outside the federal sentencing guidelines, Bush (and you) are undermining the federal guidelines that you insist be imposed without fail on every other convicted felon without judicial consideration of factors outside those guidelines, contradicting the official administration position that the guidelines are good and unalterable, and mocking every other convicted felon's inability to have outside factors considered.

Rita, for example, had over two dozen commendations and faithfully served his country.

His "crime" wasn't even a crime if you believe conservative blather about the Second Amendment, since it involved illegal firearms I believe, which makes consideration of that "crime" even more hypocritical when coming from the Right.

Libby's so-called "service" to his country primarily consists of partisan activities on behalf of Republican administrations. He never served his country in the manner Rita did.

Interestingly enough, you don't seem to consider that as a difference favoring Rita, you only considere faux differences relevant to favoring Libby.

As at least one commenter has noted, in Rita, the government never proved that the PPSH 41 kit could in fact produce a machine gun, thus, no underlying crime.

Hmmmmmm . . . seems like your partisanship is showing, George, and there is plenty of dishonesty in your posts to characterize them as lies.

Ironically, Wikipedia notes that at Yale Libby was vice president of the student Democrats.

I guess he came to prefer the criminal activities of the Republican Party.

Code word = brain, something that George, like the Scarecrow, is lacking.

Lynn,

I, the person who is me, have never described the Libby and Clinton-Lewinsky cases as similar. Perhaps I should smear you with the doings of anyone I find on the Left? Notice how you do not even discuss anything I said in my post, but just attack me. Duly noted.

anonymous,

"Rita's prior conviction could not be considered under federal sentencing guidelines, so it cannot be considered when comparing the cases. The cases must be compared according to the applicable law in each case."

That's true, but it still does not erase the fact that Rita was convicted of a similar crime in 1986, something TPM thought you shouldn't know.

"Moreover, the definition of perjury (and the other crimes Libby was convicted of) do not legally require that an underlying crime be committed, much less proven."

Very true, and I have not said anything to the contrary.

"Thus, whether there was an underlying crime or not is entirely irrelevant to either conviction or sentencing in Libby's case."

I see. So thus lying during an investigation centered around national security matters should be considered along the same lines as lying during a sexual harassment investigation? I think you'll find that your peers would not agree. You know, since it's Libby we're talking about here.

"Where are you and Bush on giving those convicted felons (ones in which their perjury conviction was not based on proof of any underlying crime, such as perjury in a civil matter) a break?"

The same place where you and Clinton are on giving tax evaders and terror financiers a break, I suppose?

"You are also one of those same people, I suspect, who thought Clinton should go to jail for lying under oath in a meritless CIVIL matter (no underlying civil tort, equivalent to no underlying crime) and on immaterial issues which ensured that it didn't actually rise to the level of perjury, yet you defend Libby for lying under oath in a CRIMINAL matter on material issues."

You assume too much, as is your wont. I have never said anything other than that the Lewinsky case was a complete waste of time.

Notice how you contradict yourself here, you distinguish that Libby perjured during a criminal investigation apart from the civil matter of Clinton, whereas you earlier argued that it is irrelevant in which context perjury arises. Make up your mind, perhaps?

"Therefore, neither of the points you raise has any legal significance and are, in effect, lies about alleged differences in the two cases, not to mention hypocritical."

This is silly, all I did was note two things that TPM failed to mention in pretending that the Rita and Libby case are "strikingly similar". All you are doing is saying that the differences don't matter. That's fine, but the differences are still there, regardless of whether you deem them relevant or not.

"If you have a problem with the federal sentencing guidelines, then simply say so and demand that they be amended to be "more fair" (whatever that actually means to wingnuts) TO EVERYBODY, but for the purposes of Libby and Rita their legal positions were virtually identical and you have identified no dissimilarities that are relevant or significant for purposes of imposing Libby's sentence or making him serve it."

As I pointed out, there are differences, ones you deem to be irrelevant, ones that I will still note exist. I deem there to be a difference between a man without a criminal record, and one who has already been convicted of a crime he has committed once more.

It's the difference between a repeat-offender and a first-offender. Whether or not the judge in this case felt this was valid or not is another matter, but you cannot continue to pretend that Libby and Rita are "similar" when one is a repeat-offender and the other is not.

"His "crime" wasn't even a crime if you believe conservative blather about the Second Amendment, since it involved illegal firearms I believe, which makes consideration of that "crime" even more hypocritical when coming from the Right."

I won't even wander off into commenting on how ridiculous this is. Actually, just one thing: how does defending the 2nd Amendment blend into lying about an investigation into illegal firearms?

"Libby's so-called "service" to his country primarily consists of partisan activities on behalf of Republican administrations. He never served his country in the manner Rita did."

I think you've just discovered another difference between the Rita and Libby case! Of course, this should also apply under your "this is irrelevant to the guidelines" spiel, but you seem to have a knack for contradicting yourself.

"Interestingly enough, you don't seem to consider that as a difference favoring Rita, you only considere faux differences relevant to favoring Libby."

Ah yes, I see, so instead of considering whether someone is a repeat offender of the law when sentencing them for a crime, it is more relevant to take into consideration their health, and their personality. Goodie.

As someone named Beinart said, Hitler "meant well".

"As at least one commenter has noted, in Rita, the government never proved that the PPSH 41 kit could in fact produce a machine gun, thus, no underlying crime."

Others were charged with crimes in that investigation. But I thought you said this was irrelevant? Change your mind again?

"Hmmmmmm . . . seems like your partisanship is showing, George, and there is plenty of dishonesty in your posts to characterize them as lies."

That's funny, because you have just contradicted yourself numerous times, and held Libby to a standard you would not hold anyone else.

All I did was list two simple facts that TPM did not mention, and you call me "dishonest" for havint the balls to show up TPM for it. You haven't even argued that what I said were lies, you have simply scoffed at the facts I brought up and labeled them irrelevant.

"I guess he came to prefer the criminal activities of the Republican Party."

Sigh. Does "seems like your partisanship is showing" ring a bell? I mean, I can just rattle off a name for you: William Jefferson. Come on, grow up. The political elite in the US are all a bunch of favor-pandering crooks.

"Code word = brain, something that George, like the Scarecrow, is lacking."

A liberal Deflect the Facts post wouldn't be complete without the obligatory ad hominem. Well done.

anonymous #2 (same or different? come on, make up a name, geez)

"Thus, it is okay to you to consider Rita's prior conviction as a difference, even though strictly forbidden by the very sentencing laws Bush has championed, but ignore Rita's commendations."

OK, straight up, would you treat a serial liar the same way you would a person who has lied once? Even if the serial liar was a really, really, really nice person? Or perhaps a Vietnam vet?

I thought justice was about evaluating the law, not a popularity contest. Apparently in Liberal Lawyer Lobby Land, tis not the case.

Desider,

"Considering Libby didn't actually put on a defense, Rita had to have a stronger chance of appeal."

Libby, having testified to investigators and a grand jury for many, many hours already, apparently saw no need to get on the stand and repeat himself again during the trial. I'd say that would show that he stood by what he already said, rather than not having "put on a defense".

Libby was demanded to go to jail immediately, Rita was not. There's another difference between them. Bingo!

George: "That's true, but it still does not erase the fact that Rita was convicted of a similar crime in 1986, something TPM thought you shouldn't know."

Since it is irrelevant to any issue either TPM or you have raised, you might as well rant about TPM not mentioning that Clinton's brother did [whatever] back when Clinton was president.

"So thus lying during an investigation centered around national security matters should be considered along the same lines as lying during a sexual harassment investigation?"

Since the comparison is between Rita and Libby, this is a non sequitur and pretty much shows where you are coming from.

In any event, the issue would be should lying about national security matters be treated the same as lying about certain alleged illegal gun sales or possessions.

"The same place where you and Clinton are on giving tax evaders and terror financiers a break, I suppose?"

Since Libby himself supported Rich's pardon and Rich was never convicted, you have no leg to stand on. We can prove that Libby did what he did; we have a jury's verdict. Anything you have to say about Rich is speculation. Too bad, and so sad, but that's the way it is.

"Notice how you contradict yourself here, you distinguish that Libby perjured during a criminal investigation apart from the civil matter of Clinton, whereas you earlier argued that it is irrelevant in which context perjury arises."

Now you are simply lying about what I have written. Pointing out the difference between the Clinton and Libby situations was based on YOUR contention that the circumstances matter, not mine. In any event, Clinton was not convicted of perjury or punished for perjury nor did he commit perjury, not matter how many times your try to falsely say so.

"Ah yes, I see, so instead of considering whether someone is a repeat offender of the law when sentencing them for a crime, it is more relevant to take into consideration their health, and their personality. Goodie."

Again, you are attributing your views to me. YOU said items outside the sentencing guidelines should make a difference in how the two were treated, but failed to identify those non-guidelines differences when they favored Rita. Pointing out your hypocrisy is not adopting your viewpoint.

"That's funny, because you have just contradicted yourself numerous times, and held Libby to a standard you would not hold anyone else."

Again, you lie. I specifically criticized YOU for failing to hold Libby to the same standards. It is YOU who wanted to consider factors not permitted by the sentencing guidelines, just not the ones that favored Rita, but only those that favored Libby.

Under the sentencing guidelines which were properly applied in both cases, Libby and Rita were treated the same.

They were treated differently OUTSIDE the guidelines by Bush and you want those outside considerations applied to Libby but not Rita.

I want them to be treated the same. If Rita's past conviction outside the guidelines is to be considered, then his commendations should be considered too; if Libby's sentence is to be dealt with outside the guidelines, then every other convicted felon should be able to offer up matters outside the guidelines.

You (and Bushites) are the only ones asking for different treatment between the two men and only you are bringing up circumstances that the judge was not allowed to consider and that Bush, in characterizing the sentence as too harsh, should not have considered.

"Libby was demanded to go to jail immediately, Rita was not. There's another difference between them. Bingo!"

And how do the rules for determining who goes to jail immediately and how doesn't compare in the two cases?

If you don't know, then you are just blowing smoke.

But, as we've seen above, that's just what you do.

"I'd say that would show that he stood by what he already said, rather than not having "put on a defense.""

I'd say that he didn't want to face more perjury charges.

"OK, straight up, would you treat a serial liar the same way you would a person who has lied once? Even if the serial liar was a really, really, really nice person? Or perhaps a Vietnam vet?"

Not if the law prohibited me from considering previous lies.

You see, I am about the law; you clearly are not.

You want to consider Rita's prior convictions when the federal sentencing guidelines prohibit it, yet you also want judges to apply the law as written and not make up their own law!

Which is it?!

Should the judge have ignored the law and considered Rita's prior convictions or not?

If not, then his situation is similar to Libby's, just as TPM stated and the difference you point out is irrelevant, which means beyond use in any comparison of the two cases.

If you insist that it is not beyond use for comparison, then you must accept that Rita's commendations should be considered.

You can't have different rules for Libby than for Rita or your implied claim that you believe the law is about justice is pure hypocrisy.

both were similar in that william otis testified for the gov't in it's appeal FOR incarceration in the rita case and that william otis waxed poetic in the wsj AGAINST incarceration in the libby case

bumper sticker seen on the presidential limo:

"bushco <> hypocrisy, because we CAN have it both ways"