« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Snow Plays Lawyer
OK, here's the last you'll hear from this morning's press conference. As we noted earlier, Tony Snow cited a respect for the jury's decision as one of the driving considerations for the commutation, but he also strove to cast the president decision as in line with with the probation office, which makes sentencing recommendations to the judge. In Scooter Libby's case, the probation office recommended 15-21 months imprisonment and cited some possible grounds upon which the judge might reduce that sentence. The judge disagreed with the probation office and sided with the prosecutor's arguments that a 30-36 month sentence was more appropriate, ultimately deciding on 30. (Unfortunately, the probation office's actual recommendation is not public.)
But to hear Snow tell it, the probation office had recommended no jail time for Libby.
Snow: ...He does respect what the judge says, but he also respects what… if you took a look at the trial record at what the parole commission [he means the probation office] recommended, that what the parole commission recommended was highly consistent with what the president thought was an appropriate punishment here.Q: Well, no they talk about 16, 16 plus months.
Snow: Now, that is there’s a range.. what what you’re taking a look….this gets very complicated….
You have obstruction of justice and then you have mitigating factors that bumps it down – and the bump down gets you, according again to the parole commission, to an area where it would be appropriate, would be within acceptable guidelines to have such things as home detention or probation.
Libby's lawyers, of course, argued for such a "bump down" (or "downward departure" in the legal lingo). So what Snow is really saying is that the president agreed with Libby's lawyers interpretation of the probation office's recommendations. Which is no surprise at all.
Update: Bush also cited the probation office's recommendation in his statement on the commutation: "In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation."
Update: Here's the AP's straightforward take on this:
"To hear Snow tell it, Walton ignored the recommendation of probation officials and sentenced Libby to prison. That isn't what happened. Probation officers recommended Libby serve 15-21 months. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald recommended more than 30 months. Libby's attorneys asked for probation.Walton accepted Fitzgerald's interpretation of the law, which said Libby should be sentenced more harshly because of the seriousness of the investigation he obstructed."
Comments (45)
Herb Tull wrote on July 3, 2007 3:25 PM:If the commutation of prison is the price the Administration has to pay for Libby's silence, could this be viewed as Libby blackmailing the President (and/or VP)?
Hmmmmm....
KestrelBrighteyes wrote on July 3, 2007 3:42 PM:Does anyone have a link to a good list of talking point rebuttals? I'm tired of trying to explain it to the wingnuts, and would be easier just to be able to cut and paste when they keep hitting the same myths over and over. (Yeah I know, it'd be the lazy way to go, and I'll probably come up with my own list when I have more time.)
Has anyone heard from Judge Walton since The Commuter let Shooter's lil Scooter off the hook?
(cross-posted at Firedoglake.)
Joe wrote on July 3, 2007 4:23 PM:So, if this is what they contend the probation office advised, who in the probation office said it and who do they have connections to?
Steve5117 wrote on July 3, 2007 4:24 PM:Damn, leave town for a week and everything goes to hell.
I've heard, through a specialized grapvine, that there are several ex-military types who have specialized training in special-ops that are very unhappy. They question I heard was, "Do you think that the military can account for all the munitions they have bought over the years?"
I find it scary, that the all volunteer military could spawn soldiers that feel strong enough about the mis-guided commander-in-chief to imply that there are former soldiers who have access to ammunition and explosives, who disagree with the political situation, and are thinking about using the skills they have to protect the United States of America.
You did this Dubya, you have created a situation where normal Americans are comptemplating revolution. Fuck You George W. Bush, you ruined my country.
mo2 wrote on July 3, 2007 4:24 PM:Libby's testimony clearly shows that Cheney was in charge of what was said to the press, and Cheney said that Bush asked Libby to go to the meat grinder. 'Go to meat grinder' might imply that Bush asked Libby to do this activity to protect an incompetent action by Rove.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7262723
Page 1 of 45 - Libby asked Cheney "should I also say OVP, and Defense and State -- it wasn't just us, it was several offices asking about this?" And he quite rightly said, no, you should get the Agency [CIA or Tenet] to say that.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml
Cheney wrote "not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy this Pres. asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others."
David Eoll wrote on July 3, 2007 4:27 PM:"The Commuter let Shooter's lil Scooter off the hook"
That is priceless. Thank you.
Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 3, 2007 4:33 PM:Consider the message that is being sent to the U.S. prosecutor community by this commutation: regardless of the fine work put into the prosecution a case and regardless of the guilt of the defendant, it can be all overturned on a whim if the defendent is politically connected.
Why bother to have a Department of Justice at all? Oh, I just answered my own question. We no longer have one.
jon wrote on July 3, 2007 4:43 PM:One hand just washed the other.
Yeah, Bush could have let Scooter pull a month, then say he'd learned his lesson and suffered enough. He could have insisted on the lower range of the probation office's recommendation. He could have converted jail time to home confinement. But he didn't. Any time is too much time.
Well, Bush really polished his Compassionate Conservative credentials this time. Imagine, a guy who set a record for executions, who gets a laugh from someone's pleas for clemency, who's pardoned fewer people than any president in the past century, his heart finally opens for Scooter. It really touches me .
I wonder what the families of 3,630 US soldiers who have returned home in 'transfer tubes' have to say about this? Men and women who served faithfully, did their job and died for no reason.
Scooter Libby knowing committed multiple felonies in order to smear and discredit Joe Wilson, who had dared to publicly fact check the reason for the invasion of Iraq. Libby's lies also shielded other high administration officials who, with him, orchestrated the smear and disclosed the undercover identity of a CIA operative who was tasked to counterproliferation of Iran's nuclear program.
In the old days if you were faced with someone like Libby, they would have said 'get a rope'. I would have commuted Scooter's sentence to 30 months painting schools in Falluja and assisting in the operating rooms and burial details in Baghdad.
Commuting Scooter's sentence prevents justice from being done. If the prosecutor had been of Ken Starr's temperment, rather than Fastidious Fitz, the list of charges and persons indicted, brought in for questioning and otherwise had lives turned upside down - it would have looked like a telephone book
Bush, with this single action, has shown the sort of contempt for the country that got the French all uppity about their king in 1789. This is not the first of his actions like this, far from it. But it really brings the issue home. The law is for others. W will be denied nothing. He has no shame. He knows no limits. He will not, cannot stop himself. And he will see everything in ruin before he feels a moment's conscience for his acts. He's well on his way.
Who will stop him? Who will stand in his path and bring this madness to an end?
mo2 wrote on July 3, 2007 4:48 PM:Good link:
slb wrote on July 3, 2007 4:54 PM:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/swopa/why-the-trail-of-plame-le_b_54784.html
>> If the commutation of prison is the price the Administration has to pay for Libby's silence, could this be viewed as Libby blackmailing the President (and/or VP)? <<
Maybe even better. I'm no lawyer, but I think a decent prosecutor could make a case against all three for conspiracy.
slb wrote on July 3, 2007 4:58 PM:Ever notice than whenever a reporter calls Snow or Dana what's-her-name on a completely bogus assertion, the answer is always (after some abortive unsuccessful attempts at spin) "Well, see, it's complicated."
Billy Pilgrim wrote on July 3, 2007 5:01 PM:jon
Very impressive analysis. You are certainly not the only one today thinking of the events in Paris in 1789. "Who will stop him? Who will stand in his path and bring this madness to an end?" In France, after a revolution followed by a Reign of Terror, the French were rewarded with a tyrant surpassing any who had yet lived. We can only hope that this current period of madness is not followed by one that makes the current one look puny.
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 5:10 PM:slb:
It IS complicated, but maybe you can start with exactly what you think the Bush said that was false here "In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation." Thanks in advance.
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 5:30 PM:P.S. jon: even assuming it is "madness" why won't it stop on January 20, 2009? Would you care to wager that Bush will not be President after that date?
St. Augustine wrote on July 3, 2007 5:36 PM:slb
Have you noticed how that retarded troll, Jake, thinks he deserves thanks for his asinine evaluations.
Jake and anyone else who thinks that George W. Bush is serving as the President legally is sadly mistaken. Bush's own actions have shown that his only concern is for himself and his cronies, not the people of the United States.
Here's a question; If a person holds an office due to an illegal act(s), are the offical acts of that person legal? Think in terms of the election where the popular vote was for Al Gore.
I wish noting for Jake, other that the fleas of 1000 camels to infest his armpits.
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 5:41 PM:$1000 says that George Walker Bush will not be President of the United States on January 21, 2009. Any takers?
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 5:48 PM:St. Augustine:
I was thanking slb "in advance" for pointing out what he / she thought was false about the President's statement -- I was not saying I deserve thanks -- learn to read and then maybe you can spot who the retarded trolls are better.
Vegas Vic wrote on July 3, 2007 5:51 PM:I agree that on 1-21-09 that George W. Bush will not be president, but I also beleive that the odds are 3-5 against George W. Bush being in office come 1-21-08.
ohiomeister wrote on July 3, 2007 5:58 PM:It is actually not complicated at all. Tony Snow and the rest of the Bush-Cheney administration are despicable liars.
mo2 wrote on July 3, 2007 5:59 PM:If Jake hates the rule of law and prefers a monarchy or dictatorship, then why doesn't he exit the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave?
St. Augustine wrote on July 3, 2007 6:11 PM:slb
Do you beleive that the President's statement that "I thought the punishment severe", was false?
Had he said, "I think any time behind bars is not proper for someone who lied to save the possible revealing of illegal activities of my administration", might lead me to agree with the asshole known on this blog as Jake.
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 6:24 PM:Vegas Vic:
Maybe you can convince jon and Billy Pilgrim above?
mo2:
I'm not going anywhere.
Vegas Vic wrote on July 3, 2007 6:33 PM:Jake
Given the views you are expressing, you may be going places!!
Harriett wrote on July 3, 2007 6:46 PM:For America's sake, will someone PLEASE STOP THIS MANIAC?
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 6:56 PM:Well, I hear there may be an opening or two over at DoJ ; )
mo2 wrote on July 3, 2007 6:59 PM:No, I can see that you aren't. But my question, and it is not necessarily "to" you, it is more "about" you, is why would a person who claims to desire different levels of protection under the law of their land stay in a land that aspires to allow freedom and equality to all citizens? I think the answer is because such a person believes that they are in the group that would receive the benefits of elitism.
So my next question would be, why would such a person think that people who do not believe they would receive the benefits of elitism would ever be swayed by anything that person says?
Fitting security code: white - As in guess what color Jake is.
SteveW wrote on July 3, 2007 7:05 PM:When did Bush become a legal scholar?
Bush really doesn't know anything other than whatever Dick Cheney and Karl Rove spoon feed him, so I'm sure if really pressed for answers about the FACTS concerning the Libby case, he'd choke like he did on the alleged "pretzel."
Bush claimed in September/October of 2004 (CNN just showed the clip on Lou Dobbs moments ago) when asked, "do you still stand by your claim that you will fire anyone connected to this outing?" Bush replied, " yes, and I will leave the legal matter in the hands of the special prosecutor." So, what changed? Fitzgerald was his guy chosen by Bush's DOJ and AG, Walton was a Bush appointed judge, and two of the three judges on the appellate court were put their by Reagan and Bush Sr...and they both agreed with Walton.
If Bush agreed with the jury's verdict, then why keep open the option for pardon?
Snow said today when asked how much time, "wouldn't be excessive (see transcript) in Bush's mind" and Snow said, "the president believes ANY JAIL TIME for Mr. Libby at all is EXCESSIVE." What the fuck!? Let me get this straight, Bush only believes the fine was okay...for now, because he will pardon Scooter at a later date...say, January 20, 2009.... let's not even believe for one moment he won't pardon him. In other words, Bush was again not even genuine in his press release last night where he claimed Libby deserved some punishment, though not the "excessive" jail time.
Do I sound confused? Angry? Frustrated? Well, I am and my head is about to explode, because the PAID mainstream media outside of Keith Olbermann and David Shuster understand the facts of this case.
These folks turn reason on its head at every turn and Snow/Perino aren't even smart enough to realize the rabbit holes they're going in head first. As usual, these propagandists can't even get their collective stories straight and on the same talking points page.
This point should be hammered home daily, as the White House I'm told believes/believed (and told Bush as much) this would be a "one day story" and then go away.
SteveW wrote on July 3, 2007 7:08 PM:Bush really doesn't know anything other than whatever Dick Cheney and Karl Rove spoon feed him, so I'm sure if really pressed for answers about the FACTS concerning the Libby case, he'd choke like he did on the alleged "pretzel."
Bush claimed in September/October of 2004 (CNN just showed the clip on Lou Dobbs moments ago) when asked, "do you still stand by your claim that you will fire anyone connected to this outing?" Bush replied, " yes, and I will leave the legal matter in the hands of the special prosecutor." So, what changed? Fitzgerald was his guy chosen by Bush's DOJ and AG, Walton was a Bush appointed judge, and two of the three judges on the appellate court were put their by Reagan and Bush Sr...and they both agreed with Walton.
If Bush agreed with the jury's verdict, then why keep open the option for pardon?
Snow said today when asked how much time, "wouldn't be excessive (see transcript) in Bush's mind" and Snow said, "the president believes ANY JAIL TIME for Mr. Libby at all is EXCESSIVE." What the fuck!? Let me get this straight, Bush only believes the fine was okay...for now, because he will pardon Scooter at a later date...say, January 20, 2009.... let's not even believe for one moment he won't pardon him. In other words, Bush was again not even genuine in his press release last night where he claimed Libby deserved some punishment, though not the "excessive" jail time.
Do I sound confused? Angry? Frustrated? Well, I am and my head is about to explode, because the PAID mainstream media outside of Keith Olbermann and David Shuster understand the facts of this case.
These folks turn reason on its head at every turn and Snow/Perino aren't even smart enough to realize the rabbit holes they're going in head first. As usual, these propagandists can't even get their collective stories straight and on the same talking points page.
This point should be hammered home daily, as the White House I'm told believes/believed (and told Bush as much) this would be a "one day story" and then go away.
Sincere Regards,
Steve
Jake wrote on July 3, 2007 7:33 PM:Harriett:
Don't you worry, now. Bush will not be President of the United States soon enough. Ask Vegas Vic if you don't believe me.
SteveW:
"Legal scholar" or not, the President of the United States can overrule ANYONE'S legal opinion in the Executive branch, including DoJ. Bush never said Libby "deserved some punishment" or even that he "agreed" with the verdict. As for firing Libby" didn't he resign himself the same day the indictment was handed down? I realize you are confused, angry, and frustrated -- try to get the facts straight the best you can -- in the meantime, keep repeating over and over that "the PAID mainstream media . . . understand the facts of this case" : )
SteveW wrote on July 3, 2007 9:26 PM:Hi Jake,
Gee, thanks Jake! You so enlightened me:) I left out one word in my sentence, and meant to state, the paid media DOESN'T understand the details of this case.
Yes, Bush can do whatever the heck he wants...he can pardon Scooter, though that doesn't make it right...Jake/Scooter's boy:)
In any case, you're just little Republican't troll, so go whack off with your boyfriend and do your Scooter walk. You know the litte sideways stroll:) Go powder your nose, because you can't handle the truth.
Jane wrote on July 3, 2007 11:29 PM:Bush commutes a sentence for an act which he claimed he would punish. By doing so he covers his administration's ass letting Scooter keep his 5th Amendment Rights.
Since Bush's friends are collecting the dough for Scooter's fines and we have every reason to believe that Scooter will obtain a fine job somewhere, the punishment is a few visits with a probation officer and loss of his law license until the pardon comes through.
A Snow Job is worse than a Blow Job any day of the week.
Jessica wrote on July 4, 2007 12:28 AM:Yeah thats fact indeed.Bankruptcy Lawyer at www.getlawyeradvice.com is an online legal assistant for Bankruptcy and Personal Injury Attorneys.
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 5:39 AM:"Q: Well, no they talk about 16, 16 plus months.
"Snow: Now, that is there’s a range.. what what you’re taking a look….this gets very complicated….
"You have obstruction of justice and then you have mitigating factors that bumps it down – and the bump down gets you, according again to the parole commission, to an area where it would be appropriate, would be within acceptable guidelines to have such things as home detention or probation."
30 months is 16+14 months.
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 5:53 AM:"slb:
"It IS complicated, . . . ."
Actually, it isn't at all complicated:
1. Prosecutor Fitzgerald is neither Republican nor Democrat, and has a long history of prosecuting and imprisoning both Democrats and Republicans.
2. The judge was a Republican "law and order"/"throw the book at criminals" appointee of Bushit himself.
3. Libby was convicted beyond teh shadow of a doubt by a non-partisan jury of his peers.
4. The judge said the evidence against Libby was "overwhelming"
5. The sentence was within -- and at the lenient end -- of the Republican-instituted sentencing guidelines intended to limit judge's discretion.
6. An extremely recent SC decision upheld a sentence of 33 months for perjury against a person with a sterling military record of 25 years(Libby is a draft-dodging chickenhawk) in the process of evaluating, and holding, that the sentencing guidelines, in particular that for perjury, is neither too little nor excessive.
". . . but maybe you can start with exactly what you think the Bush said that was false here "In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation." Thanks in advance."
Bushit's first comments on the leak were the whole truth:
1. That it was a crime. (Were Plame not a covert agent, it would not have been a crime. Were it not a crime, there wouldn't have been an investigation to begin with.)
2. That whoever did it would be "taken care of".
As to 2., however, we law-abiding citizens assumed he mean prosecuted to the full extent of the law -- which includes prison-time -- not instead _protected_.
We now know he was lying on 2.
"Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 5:10 PM"
Of equal interest and importance: in all instances after the first statement, one can tell by Bushit's facial expressions, and at times his tone of voice, that he was lying during those subsequent statements.
Lying to defend lying, "Jake," is immoral. It shreds your pretense to be concerned with right and wrong as something more than hypocrite's cudgel against all who don't treasonously put party before country.
We are blessed, though, "Jake": you and your fellows are now officially fewer than 23 per cent of the population. It's time you ceased lying that you represent a majority that is other than an anti-American extremist right-wing fringe.
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 6:09 AM:"Here's a question; If a person holds an office due to an illegal act(s), are the offical acts of that person legal?"
No, they are not. As a principle of law, everything which flows from an illegality is null-and-void.
Though "Jake" pretends -- his dishonest pretense being all too obvious -- to be about right and wrong, he won't know, and will not admit, that the branch of gov't given sole authority to resolve election disputes such as that in 2000, as expressly stipulated in the Constitution, is not the unelected Supreme Court but rather CONGRESS.
During the Framing debates, when the topic was how to select a president, a delegate suggested he be chosen by the Supreme Court. James "Father of the Constituion" Madison responded: "Out of the question!"
For obvious reasons: we do not place democratic election disputes for resolution into the hands of the unelected. As the purpose of our gov't is to serve We the people, We the people want to be able to "dis-elect" those, in the next election cycle, who made a decision of which We the people disapprove.
Thus the 2000 election dispute was "resolved" by means of an unconstitutional usurpation of that exclusive authority of Congress by the unelected SC. Thus it doesn't surprise that those who support that unconstitutional usurpation -- the outcome of it -- want to "move on" -- change the subject -- as swiftly as possible away from the issue.
And in anticipation of "Jake"'s intellectually dishonest excuse-making:
Ends and means -- a foreign concept to "Jake"'s ilk -- apply. So the excuse that the outcome would have been the same if the matter had instead gone to Congress, which was Republican-controlled, is not a legitimate analogy --
An illegal end, regardless whether achieved by legal or illegal means, remains illegal. And, a legal end achieved by illegal means is null-and-void. And the illegalities in each instance are prosecutable as crimes.
The difference being, of course, that the "law and order" party is only about "law and order" for everyone but themselves.
"Posted by: St. Augustine
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 6:14 AM:Date: July 3, 2007 5:36 PM"
"St. Augustine:
". . . learn to read and then maybe you can spot who the retarded trolls are better."
"Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 5:48 PM"
Given the choice, "Jake," I'd prefer the retarded to the liars, "Jake" -- especially, "Jake," when the liars lie even in their pretense to be opposed to lying, "Jake".
I'd ask how it feels to be a constantly lying hypocrite, "Jake," but your response would be a lie.
Bert wrote on July 4, 2007 9:23 AM:Maybe we should all fly the flag upside down today, the Fourth of July, to signify the trouble our nation is in.
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 10:07 AM:Maybe we should all fly the flag upside down today, the Fourth of July, to signify the trouble our nation is in.
Posted by: Bert
Date: July 4, 2007 9:23 AM
Better to stiffen one's resolve and keep talking about the facts -- especially to Bushit supporters. They now constitute less than 23 per cent of the population, so can no longer pretend they are a majority or mainstream.
And it doesn't matter what they say in response: keep refuting their assertions -- and label their personal attacks and name-callings for what they are, then go riht back to stating the facts. They should not be allowed to have the last word. And should not be allowed to fillibustering so they can endeavor not to hear the facts.
There has never been any reason to tolerate their insults to truth and intelligence. For them to pretend that reality is a fantasy. There is ever less reason now.
Anonymous wrote on July 4, 2007 11:11 AM:"St. Augustine:
". . . learn to read and then maybe you can spot who the retarded trolls are better."
"Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 5:48 PM"
Given the choice, "Jake," I'd prefer the retarded to the liars, "Jake" -- especially, "Jake," when the liars lie even in their pretense to be opposed to lying, "Jake".
I'd ask how it feels to be a constantly lying hypocrite, "Jake," but your response would be a lie.
Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 4, 2007 6:14 AM
Thanks, JNagarya:) Yes, Jake is an annoying little troll. The fact he can't get his facts straight and/or doesn't want to understand the truth and instead continue to spew Hannitty's lies, proves the intellectual level he is forced to live with every day.
You know, this administration is known to pay trolls like Jake to post on these sites. Today is a holiday, so these Bush Admin. trolls are known to drop-off on days like these...because it's their day off:)
Again, thanks.
SteveW wrote on July 4, 2007 11:11 AM:"St. Augustine:
". . . learn to read and then maybe you can spot who the retarded trolls are better."
"Posted by: Jake
Date: July 3, 2007 5:48 PM"
Given the choice, "Jake," I'd prefer the retarded to the liars, "Jake" -- especially, "Jake," when the liars lie even in their pretense to be opposed to lying, "Jake".
I'd ask how it feels to be a constantly lying hypocrite, "Jake," but your response would be a lie.
Posted by: JNagarya
Date: July 4, 2007 6:14 AM
Thanks, JNagarya:) Yes, Jake is an annoying little troll. The fact he can't get his facts straight and/or doesn't want to understand the truth and instead continue to spew Hannitty's lies, proves the intellectual level he is forced to live with every day.
You know, this administration is known to pay trolls like Jake to post on these sites. Today is a holiday, so these Bush Admin. trolls are known to drop-off on days like these...because it's their day off:)
Again, thanks.
Jake wrote on July 4, 2007 12:14 PM:I'm still here, SteveW.
JNagarya wrote on July 4, 2007 12:33 PM:I'm still here, SteveW.
Posted by: Jake
Date: July 4, 2007 12:14 PM
So you told the truth once. We aren't lulled, persuaded, or fooled.
Frebnedzo wrote on July 4, 2007 1:36 PM:http://www.tiny.cc/kHrXH
Steve5117 wrote on July 4, 2007 2:32 PM:Virus alert:
Do not visit http://www.tiny.cc/kHrXH
Posted by: Frebnedzo
JNagarya wrote on July 5, 2007 8:03 AM:Date: July 4, 2007 1:39 PM
A Snow Job is worse than a Blow Job any day of the week.
Posted by: Jane
Date: July 3, 2007 11:29 PM
Or any night. Or any weekend day or night.
As a male, I would testify to the truth of those two facts. The first causes "shrivelling". But the second isn't a negative at all (and has the opposite effect), so shouldn't be conjoined to the first.