Comments (22)

jak1 wrote on July 5, 2007 3:43 PM:

That's less than a Haliburton daily per-diem allowance.

So harsh!

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 3:46 PM:

Atleast that gets rid of the "Legal Fund will just pay the fine" talking point.

meander wrote on July 5, 2007 3:55 PM:

Jake wrote: "Atleast that gets rid of the "Legal Fund will just pay the fine" talking point."

Yes it does eliminate that precise talking point, but we still don't know if another entity paid his fine. Did his new employer (the Hudson Institute) pay it? Or an as-yet-undisclosed Libby Legal Fine Trust? Or did the Libby Legal Defense Trust send money to a third party that paid the fine?

Big Time Patriot wrote on July 5, 2007 4:02 PM:

If only little "Scooter" had a multi-millionaire friend. Perhaps some kind of guy who might have got in trouble if little "Scooter" hadn't obstructed justice. Perhaps some guy who might have been "impeached" if little "Scooter" hadn't obstructed justice might chip in a small tad of his multi-million dollar net worth.

Just saying...

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 4:08 PM:

meander:

Cut off one talking point and 3 more grow in its place.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 4:11 PM:

Jake is well known troll from Thinkprogress. Ignore him.

TheraP wrote on July 5, 2007 4:21 PM:

Remember the "Troll Principle." The presence of a troll is a sure sign that the other side is worried. A sure sign that the topic is "right on!"

So welcome, Jake. Thanks for tipping us off!!!

And let's roll with the topic!

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 4:29 PM:

I don't even know what "Thinkprogress" is.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on July 5, 2007 4:30 PM:

Irwin was one of the wealthiest folk on the White House staff. This is chump change for him.

INQUIRY: Do you think Irwin had to pay with a stack of money orders cuz the court did not trust that his check would clear?

INQUIRY #2: Do you think that Marc Rich paid the fine as part of lawyer's fees he paid the Lib-stir
for getting him the pardon from the Clinton?

Additionally (with an eye to the future), Irwin may get reimbursed from the fund when he receives his eventual pardon from GWB as the boy king walks out the door. Just cuz the defense fund has not paid out today, it does not mean that tomorrow is not a new day. As our good buddy, Snowjob, implies . . . Americans can't rule out future smelly crap coming out of the White House in the future.

Anonymous wrote on July 5, 2007 4:42 PM:

If you want to know more about I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's holdings, spend a little time looking at "Swift Gift" as well as his oilpatch holdings in Louisiana.

He's not a pauper.

His disclosures are available here:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/candlook.asp?txtName=libby

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 4:42 PM:

Libby was richer than Cheney?!

Samsara wrote on July 5, 2007 4:48 PM:

I did research on charter schools in the 1990's. Hudson was sponsoring an advocate of charter's named Chester Finn. I hope Chester likes having his research linked with a convicted felon.

The Sun says that Hudson let him go after the conviction.

http://www.nysun.com/article/55943?page_no=3

McClain Stevenson/ Hello Larry Fan 4 Life! wrote on July 5, 2007 5:24 PM:

Will probably get a well paying gig at the American Enterprise Institute as well serve on some corporate boards.

profmarcus wrote on July 5, 2007 5:27 PM:

what's REALLY painful is reading comments like this from the wingnut news fringe...
-----
NEAL BOORTZ: ... Scooter Libby was sentenced to pay a $250,000 fine. That's a quarter of a million dollars, that's more than a lot of people make in a year.
-----
$250K IS ONE FRIGGIN' HELL OF A LOT MORE THAN A LOT OF PEOPLE MAKE IN A YEAR...! whatever bubble boortz lives in, the man has clearly lost touch with any semblance of reality (although i realize that's not unusual for our far-right, wingnut fringe)... there's a lot of individuals and families out there who would die to earn $50K a year...

http://takeitpersonally.blogspot.com/

bobh wrote on July 5, 2007 5:28 PM:

LOL JAKE YOUR THE THINKPROGRESS TOKEN CONSERVATIVE FOR FUCKS SAKE!

FUCK OFF ROVE...

mo2 wrote on July 5, 2007 5:47 PM:

It was noted on an earlier thread that Libby's cashier's check is dated July 2. I assume before 5:00 pm on July 2.

According to The New York Times:

The decision was announced by the White House in a formal statement, just after Mr. Bush had returned to Washington from Kennebunkport, where he spent the weekend meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. ...

The decision was closely held; only a few aides knew. The commutation seemed to catch Justice Department officials, and even some of Mr. Bush’s closest aides, off guard. At the Justice Department, several senior officials were on their way out of the building shortly before 6 p.m. when news flashed on their Blackberries. They were floored.

At the White House, Tony Snow, the press secretary, said he did not know who was consulted, or how the decision reached. Asked if Fred F. Fielding, the White House counsel, had been advising Mr. Bush on the matter, Mr. Snow said, “My guess is Fred did, but I’m guessing with you right now.”

chuck wrote on July 5, 2007 6:01 PM:

Check the date on the cashier's check by which the fine as paid, it was drawn on the 2nd, the same day as the commutation was announced. It's clear this was no surprise. I suppose it would be silly to ask when Libby heard this was coming. It's probably been in the works since Cheney wasn't called in the trial.

MechInf wrote on July 5, 2007 8:19 PM:

Has anyone stopped to think maybe we were had by Patrick Fitzgerald from the very beginning? First of all, he was appointed by the Bush Justice Department, and we've all seen how they value being a "loyal Bushie" above EVERYTHING else. Also, notice how careful Bush and the White House are not to criticize Fitzgerald in any way. Bush criticized the Republican-appointed judges sentencing, but not Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald was praised as a non-partisan rule of law type, but so was Bush's Supreme Court appointee John Roberts if you'll remember. Roberts is turning out to be just as "loyal Bushie" as Scalia, Thomas, or Alito.

I read the other day that Fitzgerald's office was surprised the commutation did not take place even sooner than it did. Why did they know that already?

I'm starting to think we were had by Fitzgerald, and that he only went after the small fish on purpose. He knew the White House would just pardon or commute the sentence of any small fish like Libby.

It's not like there was no evidence that could have been used to charge Rove or even Cheney himself.

My "conspiracy theory" on this whole issue is that Fitzgerald did not target any big fish on purpose. In fact, he protected them.

Jake wrote on July 5, 2007 8:39 PM:

That's a good "conspiracy theory" -- please, PLEASE forward that to all the Democrats ASAP.

RICK JONES wrote on July 5, 2007 10:39 PM:

Question (and I haven't seen this raised by any of the early reports or commentators):
If I. Lewis Libby is appealing his conviction, and therefore also his sentence, WHY did he pay the $250,000 fine plus $400 costs that were part of his punishment (the "excessive" part of which punishment was commuted by President Cheney, er...Bush)? Does Libby agree that his conviction and sentence were proper? Is it just to stop the running of interest on a fine he knows would be upheld? Comments from any who have insight or experience on this issue?

johnnydoughey wrote on July 6, 2007 3:02 AM:

We'll probnably never know if the legal defense team paid the fine or not. I believe if you look closely at the law, this information is covered under the "Friends of the Executive Privilege" statutes... or soon will be.

aprilaire humidifier wrote on December 20, 2007 2:49 PM:

wzh5p5m3ih1d aprilaire humidifier aprilaire humidifier