Paris Hilton did more time than Scooter Libby

[solarbird]

DC is the Court at Versailles:

"Under Bush, some people are imprisoned forever without due process of law while others who receive due process of law and are found guilty are set free. Do I have that right?" - a commenter on TPM.

Yes, you have that right. And these discrepancies often happen in a monarchy where the elite is above the law and decide, based on their own interests, who is and is not subject to the criminal justice system. Paris Hilton did more time than Scooter Libby.

--Andrew Sullivan

And the DC press corps is as useless and enabling as the fawning nobles seeking Kingly favour in pre-revolutionary France:

And over the last six years, that "principle" has been extended to its most extreme though logical conclusions. This administration expressly adopted theories -- right out in the open -- which, as it its central premise, states that the President is greater than the law, that his "obligation" to protect the nation means that nothing and nobody can limit what he does, including -- especially -- the laws enacted by our Congress, no matter how radical and extreme that conduct is.

In response to this most audacious declaration of Presidential Omnipotence, our Sober Guardians of Political Wisdom shrugged. Those who objected too strenuously, who used terms such as "criminal" and "lawlessness" or who raised the specter of impeachment -- the tool created by the Founders to redress executive lawbreaking -- were branded as radicals or impetuous, unserious partisan hysterics. The only crime recognized by official Washington is using impetuous or excessively irreverent language to object to the lawbreaking and radicalism of the Leader, or acting too aggressively to investigate it. That is the only crime that triggers their outrage.

--Glenn Greenwald

I don't even care about the pardon itself. (And before anybody says it: no, it wasn't illegal. Wrong, but not illegal. I particularly like how commuting the sentence rather than issuing a complete pardon allows Mr. Libby to know he's not going to jail, yet preserves his ability to protect the administration himself by taking the 5th. Plus, by specifically not ruling out a later pardon, Mr. Bush is telling Mr. Libby to relax; it doesn't matter what the courts do.) I care about the raw accumulation of lawless power. I care about the ending of habeas corpus - the ability to seize anyone, at any time, and hold them forever. I care about the overtly illegal domestic spying and the overt overruling of Congressional law, on a massive scale, by the Executive branch. I care about the raw use of raw torture. I care about the invention of new branches of government responsible to no one at all. And I care very, very much that somehow, all the defenders of this insanity, so many of the people who screamed RULE OF LAW! RULE OF LAW! about former President Clinton, are apparently somehow convinced that this is just fine now, because it's done by one of theirs. And I am made breathless by the sheer stupidity of the apparent idea that none of their political opponents will use this lawless, unchecked power in ways they don't like, ever.

I mean, I just want to slap these people. Do they think President Hillary Clinton would undo this damage? How about President Rudy Guliani? President Fred Thompson? Anyone? If you're reading this and you do, you are out of your fucking mind. Impeachment is only the beginning of the solution, not the end of it. The Democrats are thus far showing (yet again) that they are certainly not up to it; so at least two new parties are apparently needed. The Press Corps are degenerate in their worthlessness, so new media are, apparently, also needed, and bloggers - though useful - are not enough. And, as much as anything, it must be realised that the DC establishment - the Beltway Class - has made itself irrelevant except as a cheerleader for power for its own sake, and as a defender of its own, separate, political class interests. Their commentaries are worthless, and those elected to power must be told what these voices are and that they should be ignored.

[White House Press Spokesman Tony] Snow was asked by a reporter if anyone in the administration would ever apologize for what prompted the entire investigation - public disclosure that Valerie Plame, the wife of sharp anti-war critic Joseph Wilson, was an undercover CIA officer.

"Yeah, it's improper to be leaking those names," Snow said. Pressed on whether someone in the administration owed the American public an apology, Snow said, "I'll apologize. Done."

-- reported by The Guardian

Mmmm, naked contempt.

ETA: Click through to the comments; risu makes an interesting point that I think is valid about the political situation this commutation reveals.

Comments

[risu.livejournal.com]

This is showing weakness.

I am disquieted in a kind of weird way, because it's not disgust or anger or anything like that. As important as this is, it feels---weird.

Like the President---

The PRESIDENT---

is so scared that Mr. Libby will flip that he can't let him do a day of time, and can't let him lose his 5th amendment blanket.

It's showing weakness, and I think that it's going to break something in the corporate and faithful base.

It feels wrong in the sense of broken, failed, out of control, as opposed to just morally wrong.

(Which it is, but it's nowhere near the high-water mark.)

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

argh, I had a big long post in the works when my browser crashed.

Summary: I agree that this is contemptible. The commutation itself is not illegal, but it's covering up for illegal actions that endangered key US intelligence assets related to nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The underlying crime is incredibly serious, and now no one will be held accountable.

The only remedy is impeachment, followed by every possible action to bring accountability and prevent this kind of thing from happening again. In the context of the larger trend by this administration to claim, act, and get away with being above the law, something has to be done.

Ah, but impeachment is just for high crimes, and the crime is now unknown. Of course, impeachment is a political remedy designed for exactly this situation, when normal criminal prosecution is not an option and the danger to the republic of doing nothing is severe.

Check out this article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/watergatedoc_3.htm), (to me via Dailykos via the Angry Bear blog):

"George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to 'pardon crimes which were advised by himself' or, before indictment or conviction, 'to stop inquiry and prevent detection.' James Madison responded '[I]f the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty...'"

In other words, James Madison agrees that the only remedy for the abuse of the pardon power in the case of Scooter Libby (or any similar case) is to impeach Bush. I don't think you can find a clearer indication of original intent as it applies to current events.

In fact, I think I owe Nancy Pelosi a letter.

[solarbird]

argh, I had a big long post in the works when my browser crashed.
You might check to see whether LJ autosaved it.

[wrog]

The Democrats are thus far showing (yet again) that they are certainly not up to it; so at least two new parties are apparently needed.

ummm...

which parties might those be? The Bloomberg-Lieberman Unity Party? The Reform Party? The Green Party? please.

I also like how the Democrats finally, after six years in the wilderness where the Republicans could do absolutely anything they wanted and did, get back control of one half of one branch of the federal government (*) and everything is supposed to be magically fixed now.

Which is not to say there aren't a fair number of clueless/stupid/corrupt Democrats in DC, but it is possible to elect better ones (or at least far easier to elect better Democrats than it is to elect better Republicans). Donna Edwards may well take down Al Wynn next time. Jefferson is almost certainly going to jail. Lamont almost knocked out Lieberman.

(*) yes, I know they theoretically control the Senate, too, but that's a 51-50 vote with Lieberman (a de facto Republican -- elected by Republicans, spouts Republican talking points every chance he gets, stabs Democrats in the back every chance he gets, and explicitly uses his chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs to block any and all attempts by the Senate to investigate anything) in the catbird seat. He cannot be dislodged without revising the Senate operating agreement, and attempting to do that will allow another vote, giving Joe the opportunity to switch sides and give control of the Senate back to the Republicans. All the while the media continue to portray him as a "nice guy" and a "centrist". You may reasonably argue that Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, et al were idiots for not throwing Lieberman under the bus when they had the chance, but one has to play the hand one's been dealt.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I don't think the Democrats should be expected to fix everything when they don't have the numbers to actually enact their agenda and the president can block them at every turn, but I am disappointed that the Democratic leadership has unnecessarily closed down the possibility of impeachment hearings.

I understand all the contrary arguments. There's a thought that it's not practical to impeach and that it's better to put energy into the 2008 campaign. I understand that Pelosi can't be seen leading a dual-impeachment drive that would make her president if it succeeded. There's a danger the public will just see this as partisanship and not appreciate the underlying constitutional issues and the severity of the current crisis in government.

But ultimately, I disagree with these arguments. The Democrats should not assume the outcome of impeachment hearings, but they should hold the hearings, and initiate an investigation. Even with their current numbers, impeachment hearings provide advantages that don't exist otherwise. The White House has fewer options for obstructing impeachment investigations than other Congressional investigations. Congress needs to gather all the facts, make those facts public where they do further degrade national security, and then see where things stand publicly and legally in terms of making a case for impeachment at the conclusion of their investigation. All of this keeps the crimes of the White House on the top of the political agenda.

I don't think Congress will take a political hit because the corruption of Republicans in general was one of the main factors people cited in exit polls for voting for Democrats in 2006. It is reasonable to suspect that the currently low approval ratings for Congress are a combination of dissatisfaction over their inaction on the abuses of the Bush administration (and even more, the war, but the abuses of the administration mostly relate to the war), and a dissatisfaction specifically with the Republican members of Congress. Clinton's popularity increased during impeachment because the public sided with him against the Republicans. Bush's popularity would not increase because the public disapproves of him and will not side with him. Congress will likely gain public support by being seen as decisive--remember that even the GOP Congress that impeached Clinton against the wishes of the public barely paid a political price for that stand. To claim that Democrats will pay a price when impeachment is warranted in this case is not credible.

I've been against impeachment in the past for all sorts of pragmatic reasons, but I just don't think the argument against really applies anymore.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

er, that should read "where they do NOT degrade national security."

[solarbird]

I speak, of course, to the national party in this discussion. The DC party. That lot.

which parties might those be? The Bloomberg-Lieberman Unity Party? The Reform Party? The Green Party? please.
I said new parties. There has not been a major party turnover since the Civil War and the collapse of the Whigs. Clearly, one is long, long overdue. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath; hence, my mood of "pessimistic."

I also like how the Democrats finally, after six years in the wilderness where the Republicans could do absolutely anything they wanted and did, get back control of one half of one branch of the federal government (*) and everything is supposed to be magically fixed now.
I am not a simpleton; please do not treat me as one. I've watched the national Democratic Party be useless in both power and in opposition for a lot more than the last six months. I've watched then play power-calculations against actually taking positions over and over again, and lose, over and over again, and keep doing it anyway, trying to protect the power of those still elected to Congress above all else. I've watched them be incapable of framing a debate. I've watched them be unable to hold a party line - not win! just hold a party line - against blanket amnesty for extraordinary rendition and torture out of Ph33r of the Great and Terrible Rove. I've watched them be utterly unable or unwilling to say why that might be bad. I've watched them be unable, even as a minourity, to take coherent stands against the end of of the Great Writ.

And I've watched as their leading "credible" candidate - Senator Hillary Clinton - made a point of not saying she would renounce the abuses of the Bush administration regarding habeas corpus were she elected president. She said whether a President should have the power to grab people - anyone - and hold them indefinitely without recourse would "depend." On what, I do wonder.

There are times when you need to stand and lose. It is a test of character, I suppose. They have not, collectively, bothered standing, preferring to duck and wait. Some few have stood, certainly; more than have Republicans. But not enough to form an actual opposition. If pushed, I must assume the national party is split between incompetence, cowardice, and a desire to use those same powers themselves, when they think it'll be their turn.

That is why I think we need new parties. Not because I think "everything is supposed to be magically fixed now."

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

I'm being a chorus tonight, but . . . I really liked this, as well.

Also? I missed Hillary saying that. Ick. Tho out of curiosity, have Obama or Edwards stated they'll ditch it?

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone expects the Democrats to magically fix things. I think everyone expected them to try a little harder than they have to fix *something*. Thus far, I can't think of anything worthwhile they've done other than shine a small spotlight on Republican corruption.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Before going off on the deep end on Scotter Libby I think this article says it best:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22014570-601,00.html

Remember, no one was ever charged with an underlying crime. Because there wasn't one. Fritzgerald -knew- that Armitage had been the one who 'outed' Plame long before he questioned Libby. And Libby's crime? He disagrees with Chris Matthews on a phone conversation some three years ago.

Fitzgerald was simply evening an old personal score for his boss. This entire thing was a farce. And giving Libby two years for something our last President did knowingly and got away with scott free? Please.

[zedness.livejournal.com]

Remember, no one was ever charged with an underlying crime.

Er, yes: that's the sort of thing that happens when justice gets obstructed. Funny how the whole "obstruction of justice" charge on which Libby was convicted doesn't appear anywhere in the article you linked. Instead we get the whole "liberal witch-hunt" myth.

Because there wasn't one.

Due to Scooter's lying and obstruction of justice, we'll now never know whether or not that is true.

[banner.livejournal.com]

What? HAVE YOU BEEN PAYING ANY ATTENTION?

Obviously not. Dick Armitage was the one who outed Plame. He confessed to Fitzgerald and the Justice Department within a week. Novak and everyone else said that they got it from HIM. Libby's only crime was he couldn't remember the details of a phone call. The person on the other end of the phone btw, is not only a major critic of Bush and Cheney, but did lie in court on something himself. And was caught at it. Funny how HE wasn't prosecuted.

And what about Sandy Berger? He was caught stuffing classified documents down his pants and in his socks, documents he destroyed so no one could investigate what Clinton did or did not know about 9/11 prior to its happening (or more importantly, Clinton's staff). He got away with a fine, yet his crime is a lot more major than Libby's.

For justice to have been obstructed, there has to have been a crime. Show me the crime, then show me how Libby obstructed it. Good luck.

[zedness.livejournal.com]

For justice to have been obstructed, there has to have been a crime.

Wrong. Here's the statute (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001503----000-.html). The mere act of obstruction of a grand jury is sufficient to convict. That's a fair attitude in my opinion, otherwise you'd have the absurd situation of criminals hiding the evidence of their own crimes and then using the lack of evidence of a crime as "proof" that the coverup wasn't an obstruction of justice.

Like I said, thanks to Libby's lying and obstruction of justice, we'll now never know if there was a crime or not.

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

Armitage wasn't the only one who outed Plame; a number of Republicans were running around trying to. Also? It matters if Cheney or someone else or some string of someone else's outed her.

The initial crime? Outing Plame. Bush Sr. described the outing of a covert agent as treason. I'll even agree. Doing it to get back at someone who tried to keep you from lying the country into a war? Makes it even worse. The further crime? The second crime, which Libby was convicted on three counts of? Obstruction of justice; deliberately impeding the investigation as to who outed Plame and who ordered it. He doesn't have to have outed her himself. And also perjury. To counter what you're likely to say next, Libby's lie under oath, unlike the Clinton lie under oath which the Republican asswipes like to bring up, was actually about a material fact relevant to the case.

If you missed all this, you haven't been paying attention.

note to Solarbird: I really am trying to be as non-inflammatory as I can here if I'm gonna say anything; apologies if this was too harsh.

[banner.livejournal.com]

1) Armitage 'outed' Plame. Of course Plame wasn't being very secretive, what with her husband being in Who's Who (which is where Novak said he found her). 2) Plame was not a covert Agent. Her boss said so. Furthermore no one who works at Langley is covert as the doors and parking lot are under survailience by pretty much every other intelligence agency out there.
3) No one 'lied' to get us into war.
4) Wilson LIED in his claims to the public that Iraq wasn't trying to buy yellowcake, as his report clearly stated there were. If anyone lied, it was Wilson.
5) CIA employees (especially those who are convert) are NOT allowed to take place in Politics. It's a crime. Yet Plame was a Democratic operative attending (by her own admission) democratic party policy meetings. Funny how she hasn't been charged on that. Of course she also lied to Congress, but hey, she's getting free rides all over the place.
6)Libby did not impede any investigation, Fitzgerald's sole reason for being appointed was to find out who told the press about Plame. He knew that within a week. But he swore everyone to secrecy (because his appointment was legally over at that point when he decided not to prosecute the Armitage).
7) Libby's crime is disagreeing with a reporter (who himself lied to the court on a related matter) about the sequence of a phone conversation over two years ago. One for which -niether- man took notes. Libby may very well have forgotten, the other reporter may be lying (he is a Bush Admin critic after all, one of the nastier ones). But it does not constitute as 'willful obstruction' or 'willful perjury'.

Clinton's perjury was about as willful as it gets. Please don't try to claim otherwise.

And I -have- been paying attention. You're the one drinking the cool-aid here. Plame was so out there in the public eye with her socialite hubby that there is no way that people didn't know. Several sources have said it was an open secret. But the media didn't want to report on it because then people would find out that the whole Wilson story was a shame, that he was lying to the public, and that CIA operatives were engaging in politial actions against the law.

You see, unlike you, I followed the whole case because I was curious as to what really happened.

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

Good grief. I get some wackjob trying to claim wildfires are because environmentalists won't let the timber industry cut down enough trees, and responds to me mentioning multi-thousand acre, home destroying wildfires that occur amidst barren scrub around here by telling me that these, too, are caused by the failure to cut a sufficient number of trees, and now this.

(1) Plame was not listed as a CIA agent in who's who; I doubt even Novak would tell that obnoxiously stupid and obvious of a lie. If you mean that she was that she was known to be married to her husband? Err, so? There no law or even any reason that CIA agents can't have prominent family members.
(2) Yes, she was covert, and the CIA said so. Your info is wrong, assuming you aren't just spouting shit for the hell of it. They also said she had been working under a cover job that hid what she was really doing--why do you think the CIA freaked out about this? They are (or were) for the most part conservative-leaning (sometimes very, very conservative leaning)(at least before the Bush administration).
(3) I try not to be too impolite in other people's journals, so I must refrain from replying to this.
(4) Wilson was hailed as a hero by Bush Sr. during and after the first Iraq war. He was an assistant ambassador then and while nearly everyone else left as soon as war started stirring, he volunteered to stay around and help get people (Americans, so you might actually care about them) out of the country. That war may also have been an evil, counterproductive thing involving much deceit, but during it Wilson risked his ass to save people. During the second one, he risked (and lost) his career trying to stop us from going to war. You not only have your facts so wrong I'm wondering if you kept your head in Sean Hannity's ass so long you asphyxiated and are having near-death hallucinations, you are slandering someone who seems like a genuinely good and courageous person on behalf of a bunch of chicken hawks who don't have the guts to put themselves in the line of fire but don't mind getting other people shot, or taking shots at other people who did do heroic things (if Wilson isn't good enough for you, how 'bout Cleland, or Kerry? Gore volunteered for Vietnam. So did your fave whipping boy Oliver Stone. Clinton didn't go, but he opposed it. Your happy little Bush people were all for it but managed to duck getting shot at. You sure you want to run interference for these guys, or believe a word they say?)
(5) Unlike you, I admit when I don't know the facts. Given the rest of your efforts, I'm guessing this is wrong in one or more places, but honestly, I dunno. If so, tho, openly taking part in politics when you're not supposed to vs. outing a covert agent? Bush Sr. again, said this was one of the worst crimes possible for anyone to commit. I suspect this is because it could get lots of people connected to that agent killed. Doesn't quite seem equivalent even if you're right on this one.
(6) We already covered this. Armitage confessing doesn't invalidate that various reporters named other people, and that other reporters refused to state who told them, and for all we know there Cheney was calling people himself and just hasn't got caught yet. That last is unlikely, but to assert that one person's confession on this means he was the only person involved is just sad.
(7) Good god, goddes, and wood nymphs! Your factual understanding of the case aside, this further info probably means nothing to you, but the Republican prosecutor appted by Bush, the Republican trial judge appted by Bush, and even the Republican judge who let out Oliver North all disagreed w/you, and refused to let him out on bail because he had no grounds for appeal.

post ran too long, one more bit

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

Clinton's perjury was about as willful as it gets. Please don't try to claim otherwise.
Clinton lied. I never tried to claim otherwise. If you thought so, I'm starting to get how you misunderstood the case so badly. The judge in the Paula Jones case ruled the Lewinsky matter wasn't material to the former case, what w/her openly pursuing him and all those recorded phone calls indicating that there was no harrassment there which could indicate a pattern of behavior that would affect the Jones situation. The Libbey lies were relevant to his case. That's the difference I was referring to.

[banner.livejournal.com]

Wow, a lot of rambling there, and not much sticking to the point. That you are totally unfamiliar with the facts of the case is self evident. You keep bringing up things that have no relevance to the matter at hand and seem to think they do.

When you can make a coherent argument, we'll discuss this further if you wish. But if you're just going to ramble on and toss out strawmen, well to be honest, you're not worth the time.

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

you're just going to ramble on and toss out strawmen

You've been watching Fox News too much; it's permanently etched its image in your thought patterns.

[risu.livejournal.com]

Mr. Libby's also an esper from the future, and, frankly, I think Mr. Fitzgerald was trying to interfere with his destiny.

[king-chiron.livejournal.com]

As a practical matter if Bush is impeached he won't be convicted, that said, is there still a symbolic value in impeaching him? It would be a stain on his reputation and might slow him down, but frankly it could also create sympathy for him among some who are in the middle of the road.

My personal opinion is that it would be a giant time sink with little real value and there are much better ways for Congress to be spending their time.

[solarbird]

What's not happening right now are the investigations. Above, llachglin discusses it. All this needs to be taken apart and put on display for the good of the country. It needs to be dissected and laid very, very bare.

It is possible that even after all that is shown in the bright glare of a spotlight - and, sadly, I do not actually trust the Democrats to do this - that the Republican party will continue to defend torture, the unitary executive, destroying a thousand years of Anglo-Saxon law and tradition via the elimination of right to redress in court, and so on. At point, we will have an explicitly authoritarian party; there won't be any way to weasel about that. If they proceed to gain popular support on that basis - well, then the American experiment is probably over, and limited government power will be officially dead. The United States may still be in some (if not many) ways democratic, but it will not be republican in nature.

On the other hand, if the status quo stands unchallenged - either by the current Congress or the immediate presidential successor - that choice will have been made anyway, passively rather than actively. The precedents set by this administration will be allowed to stand - power is rarely, if ever, surrendered - and authoritarian rule will already be in place. By this, I mean that the executive will be granted to be above the law and immune to it, as long as it is done in the name of "security" or "defense" or "war" or some other form of the ever-expanding "executive privilege." The officeholder will be able to edit and/or ignore laws to their satisfaction, as this administration has done, and make similar claims against judicial actions, as this administration continues to do, and start wars, as a variety of this administration's most ardent supporters have claimed it can do without going to Congress, in this age of the unending war against terror. The courts have been significantly packed with people who are generally supporters of this privilege, but hopefully not entirely - and even if not, the courts, by themselves, are no way to maintain a republic: they are necessary but not sufficient. Tradition alone would have to be enough to keep such rule from becoming too uncomfortably harsh over time.

And it probably would. But as we have seen over these last few years, tradition is not so powerful a force as all that. Not when power is concerned; particularly not when this much power is concerned.

That's why I think it's important. That's why I think it's vital. It's too bad it almost certainly won't happen. Acting on this is scary; it's much easier than doing nothing and letting things just drift on along. But we get the "bad" result - or what I see as the bad result, certainly - that way. For free. Discretion can be the better part of valour - but not here. Not now.

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

This? A damned awesome post.

[solarbird]

Thanks ^_^

[mojave-wolf.livejournal.com]

You are welcome.

Apologies for some of the stuff I said to the other guy, since he was on your friends list. I was trying to be civil but I kinda lost it in the middle there; remembered I was trying to be polite after I posted it. Ummm, please tell me that guy isn't your dad or best friend or something? In other words, w/out knowing more, I shoulda just stuck to the facts w/out the insults. Sorry. Would e-mail this but I can't find one for you. But your IM stuff? Cool. Kiki is one of my pet names for my s.o. =)

[solarbird]

Try to keep it civil, but otherwise, go to. This is a tiny fraction of the mail I actually receive.