“Was there a quid pro quo at work? Was Libby being repaid for falling on his sword and protecting his bosses from further scrutiny?”
– Dan Froomkin, Washington Post, today

Hey, you remember how in the opening statement in his defense, Libby’s attorney told the jury that his client was being scapegoated by the White House? Think that was an accident, Jay? It was a flag. And Bush got the message, and paid that rat off like the frightened bitch that he is. This decision is already 60% unfavorable — imagine what that number will be when people find out more about it!

Kiss ’08 good bye, Cons. We’re going to make this a burning tire around the neck of every Republican candidate and officeholder in the land.

“Seeking to rebut Fitzgerald’s contention that Libby had lied about his knowledge of Plame’s CIA employment in order to save his job with Cheney, Wells shot back: “Mr. Libby was not concerned about losing his job in the Bush administration. He was concerned about being set up, he was concerned about being made the scapegoat.”

According to Wells, the chief culprit, or at least the beneficiary of the plot was Rove, described by the defense lawyer as “the president’s right-hand man,” whose survival was essential for the president’s re-election. As related by Wells, his client was so worried that Rove’s fate was taking priority over his that Libby went to his boss, Cheney, in October 2003 and complained: “I think people in the White House are trying to set me up. People in the White House are trying to protect Karl Rove.”
– Newsweek, Jan 23, 2007

Click Here

You can read the sentencing memo for yourself. And then if you still find fault with the way Mr. Fitzgerald conducted his case, you can at least argue from an informed position.

You’re very welcome.

But of course, you must be among those who still believe Bush is doing a good job, and we should get behind our President, and the WMD were shipped to Syria, am I right?

Maybe, but I doubt it. For Mr. Fitzgerald’s explanation of the seeming inconsistencies you cite, you could read his pre-sentencing memo to the trial judge.

Or you could just keep distributing the taffy you collected at some other blog.

2) He lied about the exposure of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative.

3) Which occurred in response to her husband’s article.

4) Which revealed that we were being lied into a war.

5) So Bush paid him off to keep him quiet.

I don’t think you grasp how bad this is for Bush. Living in the Instapundit/LGF/Malkin bubble has made you soft and delusional. I smell impeachment.

From Brad DeLong, back in June:

“If Bush were to pardon Libby, he and Cheney would no longer have such a rationale for evading the press’ questions – nor would Libby be able to claim the right against self-incrimination to resist testifying before Congress about the role that Cheney and Bush played in directing his conduct.

But if Bush simply commutes Libby’s prison sentence without effectively vacating Libby’s conviction, the appeals process goes forward and Bush and Cheney continue to have their rationale for not answering the press’ questions. This strategy would also have the added benefit for Bush of eliminating the chance, however remote, that under the pressure of prison time away from his family and abandoned by the White House he served loyally, Libby himself would tell the true story of his own and others’ conduct.”

If Mr. Libby has not been pardoned or immunized, he certainly may invoke his Fifth Amendment rights in response to that question.

Patrick Fitzgerald: “First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that Ms. Wilson qualified under the relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, SEction 421) as a covert agent whose identity had been disclosed by public officials, including Mr. Libby, to the press.”

On matters of law, I’ll have to go with Mr. Fitzgerald.

“He would not be in danger of incriminating himself.”

Questions like “why did you lie to Fitzgerald” would be unanswerable due to Scooter’s pending appeal, thus he would take the 5th. If he’d been pardoned, that option wouldn’t be available to him. Congress could subpoena him, and if not satisfied with his answers, hold him in contempt. When you have an answer to this basic point other than stamping your foot and turning red, please provide it.

In the meantime, let’s all have a laugh:

“If there is a leak out of my administration I want to know who it is — and if the person violated the law, the person will be taken care of.”
– George W. Bush, Feb. 11, 2004

Taken care of, indeed.

In a grand jury proceeding, youi don’t get to selectively invoke the Fifth. Either you invoke it for all questions or none. If the prosecutor is going to ask questions only about someone else’s actions, the witness would have no problems. But prosecutors have a troubling habit of not letting witnesses know the questions in advance.

Yes, he can, on the grounds that such testimony would impact his current appeal.

No he cannot because the question has nothing to do with him or actions by him. He would not be in danger of incriminating himself. It’s not that complicated but you seem to have a hell of a time understanding it.

As I wrote above, if Libby were pardoned, Congress could force him to testify about the specific lies he told in court.

No, they could not.

Stop with the deflections. Your theory is asinine, so quit while you’re ahead.

Yes they do. Subpoenas and contempt of Congress are but two of their tools to compel truthful testimony.

“If Libby is asked the question, “Did you ever hear Mr. Cheney ask anybody other than yourself to leak Ms. Plame’s name to the press?” he cannot turn around and say, “I plead the 5th” because the question doesn’t put him in a position of incriminating himself.”

Yes, he can, on the grounds that such testimony would impact his current appeal. It’s not that complicated, Jay. As I wrote above, if Libby were pardoned, Congress could force him to testify about the specific lies he told in court.

As it stands now, pending appeal, Congress can’t compel him to do that.

Are you ever going to say anything that addresses this simple point?

Let’s go backwards.

4. All proven true? Only to you true believers. Not even Wilson talks about that any more, because his conclusions (per your favorite Iraq study group)were at best neutral, and more likely prove the opposite of his NY Times op ed. Hmm- Iraqi envoy sent to establish trade with Niger- a country with Uranium and Yams. Maybe Sadaam wanted Yams,

2 and 1. If Libby DID leak Valerie Plame’s name then why wasn’t he prosecuted for that? I mean you insist she was a covert agent, and that under federal law? And why isn’t Dick Armitage in jail? (Obviously related to 3.)

Because no law was broken because Ms. Plame was not undercover on foreign soil, as per the federal statue, regardless of whether you want to call her covert or not.

But you just keep waiting for Fitzmas.

Do you understand this basic concept? The accusation by Anatole – whatever the hell his name is – Handjob is that the commuted prison sentence protects others because he won’t be able to testify. The problem is, he cannot assert his 5th amendment rights TO PROTECT OTHER PEOPLE!! That includes Barry Bonds! If Libby is asked the question, “Did you ever hear Mr. Cheney ask anybody other than yourself to leak Ms. Plame’s name to the press?” he cannot turn around and say, “I plead the 5th” because the question doesn’t put him in a position of incriminating himself.

Jeebus H. Christ.

There are four circumstances under which a sentence can be delayed pending appeal. Bush’s decision fits one of them nicely.

Actually, Congress could not ‘force’ him to testify about anything. They don’t have that power.

Another non-starter.

You mean you don’t want it to.

No, that’s not the case at all Ringo. If you have any other information, please share it. Or can we just expect another helping of your useless snark?

Sufferin’ catfish, Jay. Are you trying to miss the point?

When you invoke the Fifth, you’re not obliged to explain why. If Mr. Libby is being questioned and is under legal jeopardy, he can invoke the Fifth to protect himself or anyone else, including Cheney, you, me, or Barry Bonds! because he does’nt have to explain why he’s invoking it. (Yes! It has been known to happen!!)

If there is no legal jeopardy for Mr. Libby related to his past acts in this case, he can’t invoke the Fifth.