March 6, 2007
Breaking: Scooter Libby Found Guilty
A trial that has captivated Washington has come to an end. From CNN:
Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been found guilty on four of five counts in his perjury and obstruction of justice trial.
Libby, 56, faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison and a fine of $1 million.
The five-count indictment against the former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney alleges perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to the FBI and a grand jury investigating how Valerie Plame was outed as a CIA operative.
Did you follow the trial? Are you surprised at all at the verdict?
UPDATE: The Associated Press says the one count Libby was acquitted on was lying to the FBI.
UPDATE: More from the Washington Post:
The WaPo also says that Libby's prison sentence will likely fall somewhere in between 1 1/2 to 3 years.As the jury forewoman read each guilty count in a clear, solemn voice, Libby was impassive, remaining seated at the defense table, gazing straight ahead and displaying no visible emotion. His wife, Harriet Grant, sat in a front row seat, where she was embraced by friends.
The trial's outcome may have been a repudiation of the strategy that Libby's attorneys chose by not calling either Libby or Vice President Cheney, his former boss, as a witness.
Illustration by swaters.
|
That's one neo-con down. Who's next? I say Rove.
Is this the official beginning of the W43 lame duck era?
As much as it pains me to defend any member of the current administration, this illustration strikes me as in poor taste. I mean, come on, dude's just been found guilty.
He got justice, however, the illustration was in bad taste.
Impeach Bush NOW.
The illustration is great and keeps with the "Mario Paint-Snow Emergency"-style theme of dcist. Leave it be.
I know you guys are happy one of W's boys got nailed, but that photo? C'mon. What's the average age of the DCist staff? 12?
Moral of the story: It is particularly stupid to obstruct justice in order to cover up behavior that was *not criminal* - all you do is create a crime where there wasn't one.
Good God I just hope I don't have to see that asshat Wilson again.
Bad taste? Yes, please, let's discuss issues of taste when talking about the fact that the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States committed multiple felonies in service of deceiving the public about a war.
Yes, must mind our manners above all.
Impeach Bush NOW.
Why bother? W43 is now on a slide towards becoming one of the lamest of lame duck Presidents IMHO; he's got zero accomplishments to stand on, a Democratic Congress, and both debt and deficit up to the sky. Impeaching Bush now is like a kicking a man when he's down, months of public flogging during impeachment hearings could potentially earn the GOP sympathy and votes in '08. Allow W to wallow in the mess he's made.
Impeaching Bush now is like a kicking a man when he's down
No, I'd say that having veterans living in squalid conditions in and around Walter Reed after they've already had body parts blown off is like kicking a man when he's down.
No, I'd say that having veterans living in squalid conditions in and around Walter Reed after they've already had body parts blown off is like kicking a man when he's down.
You'll get no argument from me, but I was speaking more in the electoral/political sense. The Walter Reed situation is a disgrace, too bad our current leadership is immune from feelings of shame or regret.
Is the subtext of the illustration that Libby is a macrocephalic wetbrain? If so, as a wetbrain, I find that offensive.
That said, I wouldn't pee in is face if his head was on fire.
Since when it is offensive to make a silly photo illustration about a convicted felon? I didn't realize that a conviction means we're supposed to treat them with complete respect. It's not as if DCist posted a photo of him eating babies.
And if you're going to defend Libby and tell me it's because perjury is not that bad of a crime, compared with murder or drunk driving, then please tell me that was your view of the Clinton impeachment. Otherwise, no practicing relativism only some of the time.
Anyone else find it funny how Clinton did the same thing but got off for it? (Yes, I do know it was a different trail system ... impeachment v. criminal process).
As to the Walter Reed issue, I don't think the Bush administration is to blame for that. Although they should have done something, there are others equal or more at fault. The Clinton administration slashed the Pentagon's budget (with no complaint really coming from a Republican Congress (95-01)) and from 01-07 there has been no congressional oversight into how our troops are taken care of. Congress should have been on top of this. Word of warning ... don't trust gov't no matter who is running it.
Well, of course there wasn't as much of a shooting war going on when Clinton was in the White House, so there was a little less reason to fund the Pentagon - and through it, Walter Reed.
So, arguably, somebody should have been paying a little more attention when they started committing more troops.
Jim,
Walter Reed would have needed attention with or without a war. Upkeep costs is what these hearings are really about. These rooms and buildings would have been crappy no matter if we had three wars or no wars going on. This is a system wide problem that neither a Democratic or Republican president should be blamed for. Many, many, lower levels a-holes passed responsibility on this. Again, the primary reason why you shouldn't trust gov't. People at Walter Reed were suppose to fix things ... but that didn't happen. Same thing is happening at our (DC) local schools. With both cases, the problems don't start a year or two before, but more like 10 or 20 years back. It takes time to let a room or building to get run down like Walter Reed or our cities schools.
Here is the number one reason why Bush should be impeached: if Bush is not impeached Libby will be pardoned at the end of Bush's presidency. How is that for justice?
"I don't think the Bush administration is to blame for [Walter Reed]."
No dice. The Veterans Administration and Department of Defense, last time I checked, are still Executive Agencies (along with FEMA). Bush wants to be "the decider" but with none of the responsibilities, it seems. You and the other ~35% are all too willing to let him skate by.. just like he has his whole life.
Pardom Me,
It is sad to say that there are even more horrible people that have been pardoned by presidents than Libby. If a Libby pardon is the bar for impeachment then most of the presidents in the last 35-40 years should be impeached and removed (starting with Clinton).
Poliburo:
I said that because I believe that if you are against the Unitary Executive school then you also have to, at least a bit, support the idea that the president isn't responsible for everything that goes on in the executive branch. If not, then you give in to a horrible ideology that makes the president all powerful (war power, appointment power, etc.) and allows for little outside influence from Congress (no oversight).
Google the Unitary Executive articles. Some crazy stuff. Esp. the one's by John Yoo.
Oh, this theory isn't just supported by right wing nut jobs...the Clinton administration bought into it as well.
BTW. I never supported the war in Iraq. Didn't support the war in Bosnia either. And I do think Bush should be impeached, but not for the stupid reasons that alot of people on DCist mention (i.e., lying about the War in Iraq, potential pardon of Libby, etc.).
Two (or 100) wrongs don't make a right.
I was just discussing on another board.. the pardon power should be restricted so that last-minute pardons (a la Marc Rich, Caspar Weinberger, etc.) are impossible.
I should add I don't really think a Libby pardon would rise to an impeachable offense, especially compared to the whole list of other issues that do rise to impeachment.
I'm curious-why is that photo in bad taste? Yes, it's ugly, but caricatures like this are done all the time. He was just convicted of a crime. Are we supposed to feel sorry for him or something?
"I said that because I believe that if you are against the Unitary Executive school then you also have to, at least a bit, support the idea that the president isn't responsible for everything that goes on in the executive branch."
I don't think this has much to do with Unitary Executive theory (and pretty much every President buys into the theory, for obvious reasons.. the "Clinton did it" line just won't fly). Unitary executive says that the Congress can't regulate the Executive Branch. If you don't believe in that theory, it doesn't mean that Congress is suddenly responsible for failures of the Executive Branch.
You said "I don't think.. Bush.. is to blame." That's very, very, different from saying something like "Not all of the blame should go to Bush, Congress failed in their oversight role," etc.. but you only applied blame to Clinton and Congress, for some reason.
Poor taste? Really? What do you think this is, The Post? I was disappointed they didn't photoshop in a little black-hooded executioner holding a shiny axe behind him.
Then again, I also served a thick red punch at my Halloween party last year with those little plastic fetuses like they had in Jesus Camp floating around in it.
Someone's been spending a little too much time in sensitivity training.
dear dcist readers,
the aspect of bush pardoning libby is not an impeachable offense by any means, however, if bush is not impeached (he has lied to the american people) libby will ultimately be pardoned by bush at the end of his reign of terror. thus justice will be subverted, unless, of course, justice is brought to bush next.
Not to point out the obvious, but if Bush is impeached, Cheney is much more likely to pardon Libby. So I take it you all want to impeach them both simultaneously, even though a tenth of the Senate will be living in Iowa and New Hampshire for the next 11 months?