Comments (30)

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 4:48 PM:

The House should give him immunity and haul his sorry ass before them for testimony. Libby will be pardoned eventually anyway, so it is idiotic to allow him to use this dodge.

But the Congress, in all its wisdom, will wring their hands and let him get away with it.

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 4:54 PM:

This Libby story reminds me of the buildup for the war. Anyone paying the least bit of attention knows where the lies are, the scoundrels barely try to conceal them, but the decision makers pretend to have no idea of the time of day.

If I knew Saddam didn’t pose a threat, the President and Congress knew it. If I know why Libby was not given a full pardon, Congress and the President know it. It’s not rocket science.

What I’ll never, ever, neverever understand is why so many of our representatives play along. The rational part of my brain tells me the answer could only be that they support the actions; the emotional part of my brain won’t allow me to believe the deception is as large as it must be.

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 5:06 PM:

Libby still has an active appeal, and cannot therefore be compelled to testify. That's the whole point.

henry Ehrlich wrote on July 9, 2007 5:07 PM:

Does this mean they have given up on their appeal? I doubt it, but if so, is he still subject to restrictions on tesitifying because a legal case is pending?

Glenn wrote on July 9, 2007 5:14 PM:

I like that Fitz made it a point to note that he couldn't find any case law on point because there was only ONE other time in which a President had commuted a sentence prior to the defendant serving any time. Even then, as noted, the commutation by Clinton was to 3 years of home imprisonment, not a get-out-of-jail free card.

shipwreckedcrew wrote on July 9, 2007 5:25 PM:

This is really just a silly semantical issue raised by Judge Walton.

A term of "supervised release" follows a sentence of imprisonment under Sec. 3583, which begins: The court ... may include as a part of the sentence a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment ..."

That is what Walton imposed.

A sentence of probation, on the other hand, does not follow a term of imprisonment, it is imposed in lieu of a term of imprisonment, as authorized by Sec. 3561.

Walton did not imposed a term of probation.

But, what the WH simply pointed out is that the imposition of the term of imprisonment hasn't evaporated by virtue of the clemency, its just been discharged -- in other words the effect of the clemency is to simply put Libby in the same position as he would have been the day after his his last day in custody.

End of story.

Too many electrons spent on this issue already.

Hoppy wrote on July 9, 2007 5:40 PM:

The interesting part of this is that Libby can violate any laws he pleases and not have to be returned to prison to serve out the remainder of his sentence, since he has already done that. I'm not sure that there is any penalty at all if he violates his probation. Therefore, he won't actually be under probation, other than that he will not be able to vote.

tom wrote on July 9, 2007 5:48 PM:

I agree that the House should grant him immunity to secure his testimony -- if it is possible to grant immunity after a conviction has been delivered.

I don't see how it's clear that clemency does not make the sentence of imprisonment evaporate but rather puts Libby in the position he would be in if he had already served. Since the guy never went to prison, to me it smacks more of making the sentence evaporate.

Powkat wrote on July 9, 2007 5:54 PM:

Does this mean he can't go hunting with Dick anymore? Because isn't it illegal for a felon to possess a firearm? Will he have to check in with his probation officer every week? Does he have to ask his PO for permission to leave town? And will they put out a warrant if he violates his probation by doing any of the above?

Wouldn't it be fun to see him pulled over on 'Cops' and watch him hauled off when they find he has warrants?

nellieh wrote on July 9, 2007 5:57 PM:

Supervised Probation means nothing. It is merely a vehicle to keep Libby from appearing before Congress. He can hide behind his appeal. His heart is as black as Cheney's because he knew what he was doing. All this slobbering over him and his family because of shit he stepped in knowingly(and knowing nothing would happen to him. For sure he and his lawyers thought he would beat it.) and nothing for Valerie Plame. Why this congress won't TRY! to impeach Cheney is beyond my comprehension. SC: push. Congress needs pushed toward impeaching Cheney.

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 6:00 PM:

He can't be immunized from a conviction pending appeal.

Mehitabel wrote on July 9, 2007 6:00 PM:

What would Libby have to do to violate his probation? Lie to a grand jury again? Is probation meaningful? If he violates probation will he have to go to jail?

Anonymous wrote on July 9, 2007 6:46 PM:

The issues on appeal are unrelated to what he would say before Congress, aren't they? Is the court allowed to consider new information not in the record.

Frank Nelson wrote on July 9, 2007 8:01 PM:

I am waiting for a definitive statement on the legal consequences
of Libby's probation period. My understanding is that without
the court having the option to impose a prison sentence for a violation of one of the conditions of probation, in the reality based legal world, the probation term has no meaning, it is merely a empty word.

Jane wrote on July 9, 2007 10:10 PM:

It is not clear that this is a silly semantical issue. It is a technical legal issue.

The writers of the Pardon used the term 'supervised release' from Sec. 3583 which may include as part of the sentence a requirement that the 'defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonmen." Hence the debate as to whether any imprisonment has occurred for the 'supervised release' to be after.

A term of "supervised release" follows a sentence of imprisonment under Sec. 3583, which begins: The court ... may include as a part of the sentence a requirement that the defendant be placed on a term of supervised release after imprisonment ..."

That is what Walton imposed. If he now follows
Sec. 3583 there is a logical problem as to whether that section requires imprisonment before 'supervised release.' If the White House obliterated the prior requisite of time in prison, this may indeed 'evaporate' the ability of the court to place Libby on 'on a term of supervised release after imprisonment.'

The term probation while logically almost identical is not available because it is dealt with by a separate section Sec. 3561 and Judge Walton did not use that section in sentencing Libby.

The White House's first response was that probations was up to the Judge leading to the suspicion that they wanted the conservative troops to blame it on the Judge if Libby got probation and wanted the liberals to blame it on the Judge if Libby did not.
A greater precision with their statutory analysis and use of language would have avoided the problem
but with this White House it is hard to tell if sloppiness is simply sloppiness or a deliberate devious attempt to evade responsibility.

Frank Nelson wrote on July 9, 2007 10:57 PM:

I get the technical leagal issue raised by sec. 3583.
My question goes to an underlying issue:
Given that the prison sentence has been commuted,
what consequence remains for a "supervised release"
if the sentencing judge does not retain the option to send the defendant to prison should he fail to comply with any of the terms of the release?
If, because of the commutation, there is no threat of prison
then doesn't the "supervised release" become empty words?
Maybe this will become moot if the Judge decides that Sec. 3583, given the commutation, does not allow for a supervised release after imprisonment in this case.

SadButTrue wrote on July 9, 2007 11:35 PM:

What would be really nice would be if the judge could just tack on another thirty months, since "Libby's sentence, which Bush judged "excessive," had been on the 'the low-end of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range.' "

Force Bush to contemplate yet another politically unpopular commutation of sentence. Alas, I don't imagine that's possible.

John wrote on July 10, 2007 8:34 AM:

Scooter must remember that as a federal probationer, he has lost his civil rights. We need to remeber that Scooter cannot vote or possess a firearm. It would be horrible if the "Just-us" Department opened an investigation on Scooter for voting irregularities.

Ryan E wrote on July 10, 2007 11:11 AM:

I'm thinking that if Libby is given immunity, he immediately confesses to everything under the sun and says he acted alone to shield Cheney/Bush from any legal action that could lead to impeachment.

ResusciAnnie wrote on July 10, 2007 11:46 AM:

Um.... what's the point of calling a convicted perjurer to testify? Just asking.

SC: glove, as in take 'em off, Congress.

Richard Cownie wrote on July 10, 2007 11:56 AM:

"I'm thinking that if Libby is given immunity, he immediately confesses to everything under the sun and says he acted alone to shield Cheney/Bush from any legal action that could lead to impeachment."

It's not that easy for him. There's now a lot of
evidence on record about what happened. If Libby
lies again, he can be prosecuted again. Once you
grant immunity, he can't take the 5th. If he
refuses to answer, you hit him with contempt of
Congress; if he lies, it's another perjury rap.
Most likely he'll just be evasive and claim he
can't remember. And he can probably get away with
that - but in the long run, it's a disaster for
Bush, the Republican Party, and especially the neocon faction if we keep asking difficult
questions on camera and they keep having to claim
that they didn't know what was going on, or that
they can't remember anything. They can look evil,
or they can look like idiots - either way is fine
by me and has the same political effect.

Karin Byars wrote on July 10, 2007 12:32 PM:

"They can look evil,
or they can look like idiots - either way is fine
by me and has the same political effect."

70 percent of the polling pool already know that they are evil idiots, the other 30 percent do not read newspapers or watch C-span, they read the bible and watch Nascar. The only way to get their attention is to have their boy (and his enablers)removed from office.

Having the likes of Gonzales and his cohorts make fools of our senators by giving the same lying answers over and over is not good for Congress (note the ratings). Congress needs to display some muscle.

AR wrote on July 10, 2007 1:55 PM:

Once again people in our justice system are willing to ignore key parts of the law to satisfy this bush world mentality. It just means one thing: our system is corrupt and a crook is set free no matter how the system tries to spin it.

AR wrote on July 10, 2007 1:55 PM:

Once again people in our justice system are willing to ignore key parts of the law to satisfy this bush world mentality. It just means one thing: our system is corrupt and a crook is set free no matter how the system tries to spin it.

AR wrote on July 10, 2007 1:57 PM:

Once again people in our justice system are willing to ignore key parts of the law to satisfy this bush world mentality. It just means one thing: our system is corrupt and a crook is set free no matter how the system tries to spin it.

molly wrote on July 11, 2007 12:58 AM:

Meanwhile a black boy in La. is getting a life sentecce for getting in a fight with a white boy. Cause...nooses hung payfully from a tree in a school yard. Maybe they could use a little democracy down there. Fascism is an awful way to govern. Seems as though nobody is really happy.

molly wrote on July 11, 2007 12:59 AM:

Meanwhile a black boy in La. is receiving a life sentence for getting in a fight with a white boy. Cause...nooses hung payfully from a tree in a school yard. Maybe they could use a little democracy down there. Fascism is an awful way to govern. Seems as though nobody is really happy.

molly wrote on July 11, 2007 1:02 AM:

Meanwhile a black boy in La. is receiving a life sentence for getting in a fight with a white boy. Cause...nooses hung payfully from a tree in a school yard. Maybe they could use a little democracy down there. Fascism is an awful way to govern. Seems as though nobody is really happy.

Jake D. wrote on July 11, 2007 12:01 PM:

No, if you are referring to the Jena, Louisiana incident, I believe the "cause" for the convictions on attempted second-degree murder was a group of black kids, specifically Robert Bailey, Mychal Bell and Theo Shaw, attacking a white kid. The "noose" (even if the victim was a friend of the boys suspended for the noose) was NO justification for such an attack.

drstrangelaw wrote on July 11, 2007 7:37 PM:

This whole affair with "Scooter" is really pointless. Who thinks that Gonzales is going to honor any subpoena put forth by Congress? This is the same guy that claims tapping phones without a warrant is legal. Count on Judge Walton to throw out the probation as "meaningless" since no penalty can exist for noncompliance. The whole lot of them need to be in jail. They are a blight on humanity. They do illustrate an important point, however: The checks and balances put in place by our founding fathers no longer exist. We don't really live in a Republic anymore-let alone a Democracy. Our freedom exists on the whim of our government. Tomorrow you or I could vanish into some prison for the rest of our lives with no recourse to the law.
Welcome to the "new" American police state.