Kondracke asserted that Libby's 30-month sentence was "over the maximum for perjury"
On the "All-Star Panel" segment of the July 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Roll Call executive editor Morton M. Kondracke argued that while he "thought that [former vice presidential chief of staff] Scooter Libby should serve some jail time," the 30-month sentence Libby received "was excessive" and "over the maximum for committing perjury." In fact, each of the two counts of perjury (18 U.S.C. 1623) for which Libby was convicted carries a five-year (or 60-month) maximum. Libby was also convicted of one count of obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. 1503) and one count of making false statements (18 U.S.C. 1001), for which the statutory maximums are 10 years and five years, respectively.
Even if Kondracke was referring to the maximum sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines, rather than the statutory maximum, he was ignoring the prosecution's argument that the sentencing guidelines provided for a sentence of 30-37 months. Judge Reggie Walton sentenced Libby to 30 months in prison, at the low end of the prosecution's recommendation. As The Washington Post reported, according to Libby's attorneys, the federal probation office, which also issues sentencing recommendations to the judge, "proposed a prison term of 15 to 21 months" based on its view of what the federal guidelines called for, while also "citing potential grounds for a shorter sentence." Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not challenge the attorneys' claims about the probation office's recommendation. As the Post also reported, the federal probation office's "suggestion is officially secret."
The panel was discussing President Bush's July 2 decision to commute Libby's prison sentence.
From the July 2 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, with Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume:
HUME: How will this play more broadly politically, Mort, in your eyes?
KONDRACKE: Well, I think the country is so polarized that everybody is going to flip the way they do.
Now, what independents are going to say -- I suspect that they're going to -- some of them are going to say that this was a good thing to do, and some of them are going to say that it was a bad thing to do.
Personally, I thought that Scooter Libby should serve some jail time. I mean, he was -- I think the sentence was excessive, 30 months, it was over the maximum for committing perjury. But it is perjury. It is a national security case, at least. And the even the White House, as you pointed out, had lawyers look at the full transcript of the case, and the president concluded, and his aides concluded on basis of that, that Scooter Libby did lie.
So a perjury was committed here, and it seems to me that he should have served some time for it --
HUME: So, you're an --
KONDRACKE: -- but not as much as he was sentenced to.
i was reading yesterday that rove's security clearance was recently renewed. apparently telling reporters the identity of a covert agent does not disqualify you. in this white house at least. and the entire republican party will stand behind you.
MMFA: You are correct, it is inside the maximum limit. But, there has been misinformation all over the board.
Furthermore, the media is acting like George Bush was the first President to ever pardon anyone. Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich. Rich was indicted in 1983 on more than 50 counts of wire fraud, racketeering, trading with Iran in violation of a trade embargo, and evading more than $48 million in income taxes. Rich was involved in the largest tax evasion case ever brought by the U.S. government and Rich could have been sentenced to life in prison if found guilty. Instead, he fled the Country.
What is more nefarious is that Clinton obviously pardoned him because Rich’s wife donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democrat party and his Presidential library. But, I guess you can take Bill Clinton at his word: "The fact that his ex-wife ... was for it and had contributed to my library had nothing to do with it." So, basically Bill Clinton gave a pardon for bribes.
On August 11 1999, Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States, convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations. Why did he do this? Well, I think it is not a coincidence that his wife was going to run for Senator in New York that has a large Puerto Rican population.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->Clinton also pardoned his Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros. Cisneros was convicted of misleading the FBI during a federal background check about payments he had made to a former mistress. By the way, I find it interesting that the Associated Press is objectively incorrect for saying that Scooter Libby is the highest ranking person in Government to be convicted of a crime since the Iran Contra Scandal. Cisneros has a superior rank to Libby. It has not even been a week since the AP’s last blatant falsehoods.Yesterday, I even heard a CNN “legal expert” make the asinine argument that Bush usurped the Department of Justice with his “semi-pardon” of Libby. This is hysterical since the President is given absolute power to pardon anyone he chooses for whatever reason. The CNN “legal expert” also said that George Bush went around the Department of Justice’s rules. What Department of Justice Rules??!! Bush is the head of the executive branch and the Constitution gives him absolute power to pardon Scooter Libby. The Department of Justice is subordinate to the President. The Constitution does not even mention the Department of Justice.
Lastly, Bush did not pardon Libby, he commuted his sentence. This means that Libby will have to pay $250,000 in fines, he will no longer be able to vote, he will be a convicted felon, and he will be disbarred. It is interesting that none of this happened to Bill Clinton. But, I guess Hillary Clinton said it best, "Taking such action for political purposes is simply reprehensible and should never be tolerated." In actuality, the only reprehensible thing is the double standard.
If nobody wants to go to blogspot.com to read this stuff, what makes you think MMfA wants to host your website for free?
Neon, if you've never visited the compliantconsent.blog funhouse it's quite a museum of gullibility.
I mean, the guy actually believes Libby's going to pay the 1/4 mil. Har!
Copious,
The commuting of a sentence is more poltically advantageous for Bush than the pardon would be. If Scooter was pardoned he may be forced to testify on this matter (since he cannot be retried), the commuting of the sentence allows Bush his favorite "no comment" because its an on-going investigation.
Also, what in the world could Bush do to make you disagree with him once? You seem to at least have a grasp of law judging by your posts about the Supreme Court. Are you a "rule of law" guy?
Also, if you are that upset about a double standard when it comes to Libby and are seriously going to use the "Clinton did it too" defense, didn't Bush and the Republicans run on the premise that they were going to "clean up Washington?" Why would you hold up Clinton as your standard for moral authority? I thought that the right-wing was "better" than Clinton and would never do the things he did. Am I wrong?
Here is what I will disagree with Bush about.
By now, most of us have learned the truth: "Compassionate Conservative" is newspeak for "Huge Liberal." Let us examine the facts: Bush has not vetoed a single spending bill while in office; he is for illegal immigration; he added the Plan D prescription drug bill putting our Country in greater debt; he refused to veto the McCain-Feingold bill; he nominated Harriot Myers to the Supreme Court; he created "No child left behind;" he defends affirmative action; he went on a nation-building campaign in Iraq instead of winning a war; he lied about changing the rules of engagement for our soldiers in a war zone; and today he blasted his base for being a bunch of fear mongers for supporting the rule of law. Since when was cutting taxes sufficient to make someone a Conservative? Take a look at John F. Kennedy; actually, on second thought, John F. Kennedy was more Conservative than Bush.
Thank you for at least adding some balance to your posts. I disagree with a lot of what you assert, but that is off-topic.
Here is my follow-up: Why do Clinton's actions make Bush's ok?
Thank you for stating an obvious point that nevertheless needed stating.
Two wrongs do not make a right, but they do make a rightwinger.
Randy
"Here is my follow-up: Why do Clinton's actions make Bush's ok? "
They don't. 9/11 changed everything. This rightwinger has obviously lost his way. We must gently and in the spirit of benevolence remind him - 9/11 changed everything.
as b.o'silly likes to say: Bad behavior by one individual does not justify bad behavior by another individual. Way back in 99 when I first saw baby bush and heard him speack I knew if he ever got into the white house, really BAD things would happen. As a professional salesperson I can pretty much read people and am seldom wrong. Unfortunately, I wasn't wrong then. Bush is a dimwitted miscreant and a chip off the old block... a liar.
Actually, CD, while you might see some of Bush's actions as being anti-Republican ( and by default, "liberal"), what you're really seeing is lying, which is standard GOP behavior.
But go ahead and vote for the next Republican who tells you he'll be a real conservative.And get mad when you figure out he's lying as well.
When will rightwingers get a clue and stop slinging their filth here, there, everywhere?
All one requires is a modicum of intelligence and Google to refute the spurious rightwing claims that slosh in, like so much washed up medical waste, to pollute the shore of rational discourse.
Randy
And I see that your post refuted....nothing.
how bout this. ALL of these politicians on both sides are LIARS. You think your side is better then the the other side(whichever side your on...)?
Think again. They're all asses. every last one of them. And as soon as a "political outsider" runs, guess what. Now they're just another politician too.
Back to point as to the excessiveness of the sentence. For a first offender with a long history of public service and no underlying crime (and don't tell me there was a crime when no ones been charged) I think probation would be applicable.
Went to court not long ago and committed perjury myself. Because the civilian witness against me and the police officer lied not once but four times. I wasn't going to be the only idiot telling the truth when I shouldnt have been in court in the first place.
"(and don't tell me there was a crime when no ones been charged)"
Alabama, July of '89, Gussie Mae Moody was found dead on a sofa in her front yard with a knife wound to her throat. No one was charged, therefore no crime was committed.
Anchorage, June of '03, the partial remains of 22-year-old Desiree Michelle Lekanoff were found in the waters near Baluga Point. No one has been charged, ergo no crime was committed.
Boulder, '96, Jon Benet Ramsey is found strangled and with a skull fracture in the basement of her home. No charges, so no crime.
How many more do I need to cite before the "no charges = no crime" crowd recognizes the illogic? And if you can't even get that right, what weight do the rest of your conclusions have?
You are regurgitating the stupidest meme in recent history with the incredibly dumb assertion that no crime was committed since no one was charged. It will fool no one, and the brainwashed dont need any more reinforcement. Give it up. Its dumb.
Of course a crime was committed. It's called perjury, and Libby was convicted in a court of law by a jury.
Libby lied to investigators while he was under oath, and his lies were germane to the case being investigated.
He was found guilty of a crime. Therefore, a crime was committed.
Only in some sort of special dictionary for the insane would your list of Bush's incompetent, wrong headed and willfully destructive decisions be considered "liberal." Only if one defines liberalism as "everything a conservative doesn't like at a particular moment," is any of that crap liberal. Then again these are the people who define judicial activism as "making any decision that the conservative crowd doesn't like."
BOSTON—Addressing guests at a $2,000-a-plate fundraiser, George W. Bush pledged Monday that, if re-elected in November, he and running mate Dick Cheney will "restore honor and dignity to the White House."
You cannot continue to compare Juniors action to Bill Clinton. Junior made a "promise" and proved once again unable to honor it. I didn't need him to "restore honor and dignity", it was not lost IMO. I did need him to tell the truth, which he seems unable to do.
So because Slick Willie didn't promise integrity he didn't have to have it?
Not at all, LH. Bush, and all of his party claimed to be "better" than Clinton regarding members of his White House. For his supporters to use Clinton as a guide stoop to a level they found reprehensible is pathetic.
"So because Slick Willie didn't promise integrity he didn't have to have it?"
You're living in a pre-9/11 world. 9/11 changed everything. Now, politicians have to have integrity even if they don't promise it.
Hey everybody don't look at the Libby stuff, go back and look at the old Clinton stuff! Yawn
"What is more nefarious is that Clinton obviously pardoned him because Rich’s wife donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democrat party and his Presidential library" (Compliantconsent)
(My italics and bold)
That's getting to be a really annoying habit of the Bush Faithful around here, the "obviously" and "we all know" framing.Give your opinions, but don't try to insult everyone's intelligence by telling us that we agree with you.Take charge of your gullibility, and be strong enough to have your own opinion.
And it's the "Democratic" party, that's the first step to being taken seriously.
You seem to forget that Marc Rich's lawyer was none other than I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
So will Bush be evaluating each and every convicted person's sentence from now on? Or is this review process implemented only for his pals?
Copious:
"...Furthermore, the media is acting like George Bush was the first President to ever pardon anyone. Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich."
Come on, Copious. "The media" have been all over the various pardoning precedents, as has been posted several times in this website.
...By the way, I find it interesting that the Associated Press is objectively incorrect for saying that Scooter Libby is the highest ranking person in Government to be convicted of a crime since the Iran Contra Scandal. Cisneros has a superior rank to Libby. It has not even been a week since the AP’s last blatant falsehoods."
Not true. Cisneros was not "found guilty." He pled guilty (to a misdemeanor, by the way, not to a felony) as part of a plea agreement. So the AP is not "objectively incorrect." You need to find some other kneejerk talking points.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff testified Thursday he believes prosecutors of billionaire financier Marc Rich "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they went after Rich on tax evasion charges.
The testimony from Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who represented Rich dating back to 1985 but stopped working for him in the spring of 2000, came during a contentious, hours-long House committee hearing into former President Bill Clinton's eleventh-hour pardons.
Earlier in the day, three former White House advisers all said they recommended that the Rich pardon be denied, but that they supported Clinton's decision-making process.
Facing intense questioning from Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pennsylvania, Libby hedged on whether he thought Clinton's pardon was justified, infuriating the congressman.
"Did you represent a crook who stole money from the United States government, was a fugitive and should never have been given or granted a pardon by the facts that you know?" snapped Kanjorski.
"No, sir," Libby responded. "There are no facts that I know of that support the criminality of the client based on the tax returns."
Libby then said prosecutors from the Southern District of New York "misconstrued the facts and the law" when they prosecuted Rich.
"(Rich) had not violated the tax laws," said Libby.
Also, Mark Rich was required to pay a $100 million fine.
None of the FALN members Clinton pardoned were convicted of violent crimes and were indeed sentenced to longer than average prison terms for the conspiracy and sedition charges they were convicted of. They were pardoned after serving 16 years in prison.
Bush didn't usurp the Dept. of Justice but he didn't consult with them, as is normal, or follow their guidelines for commutation of sentences which include prison time must have begun to be served and all appeals must have been exhausted.
CNN is correct. Libby was convicted, Cisneros entered a plea agreement hence Libby is the highest ranking CONVICTED member of an administration since Iran/Contra.
Anything else you care to throw against the wall to see if it sticks?
GEORGE H.W. BUSH: “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.” [Speech at CIA, 4/26/99]
So, what is Armitage doing these days? 20 to life in a federal pen for treason? Or???????
What would you like to see happen here?
didn't novak deliberately print her name? don't all the conservatives defend him? didn't rove and libby discuss classified info with reporters? did they not swear an oath to not discuss any such info without positively knowing it was declassified? didn't bush say he would fire anyone "involved" in her outing? didn't the white house deny rove and libby were "involved"? [cheat sheet, answers are yes.]
and further, fitzgerald was unable to prove anything because of armitage and novak both saying, hey it was just some innocent little mistake. they both have a reason to lie. what fitzgerald could prove is that rove and libby, in spite of numerous public denials, did in fact give her identity to numerous reporters. it was not the other way around as libby contended. [and as rove also contended initially until his memory improved after a reporter gave a head's up to his lawyer on what fitzgerald was asking. suddenly karl's memory got all sharpened up on a return trip to the grand jury.] if this was the clinton white house, the impeachment hearings would have started the day after novak's column. i'd like to see anyone deny that.
He could "prove" it, but there was no conviction on that charge. Why??????
armitage and novak said that armitage was the original leak, whether that was true or not. that was why fitzgerald was unable to charge rove or libby with the leak. but there was testimony by numerous reporters that rove and libby were telling them about plame's identity before novak's column. those reporters had no reason or incentive to lie, and there is no evidence that their knowledge of plame's identity came from anywhere but rove and libby. why don't you actually take a minute and read and analyze before you repeat your talking points for the umpteenth time?
So why wasn't Armitage charged? Why wasn't anyone charged with outing Plame?WHy? WHy? Why?
why why why can't you read. i said that armitage and novak testified that it was just some innocent little leak and therefore fitzgerald could not prove that it was intentional. since novak identified armitage as the original leaker, fitzgerald could not charge rove and libby with the leak. the question for you is why why why does rove, and libby before he was indicted, still have a security clearance to handle classified material. which is what plame's status was. why why why?
Armitage wasnt charged because he convinced Fitz that his exposing of Plame was unintentional. No one else was charged because Libby LIED about virtually everything so intent could never be proven. Since intent is part of the finding necessary to convict under this statute he convicted Libby of what he COULD prove perjury and obstruction. This is actually pretty simple.
You keep asking the same questions over and over as if to suggest they haven't been adequately answered. If you believe that is the case, you should be able to point out a flaw in the reasoning or statements of the posters who are answering the question.
If you can't find a flaw, then stop asking the question. It makes your argument look disingenuous.
It makes no difference if someone provided the information beforehand. Someone with access to the protected information can still violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act if one intentionally discloses that information knowing it is protected.http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.htmlArmitage did not qualify under the strict meaning of the act.
"
He could 'prove' it, but there was no conviction on that charge. Why??????"
Do you really not understand what "Obstruction of Justice" means?
If you are unable to comprehend even the most basic vocabulary of a debate, why should you even attempt to participate?
Who y'all gonna believe, a Federal Judge and Federal Prosecutor, or Fox News?
I'm going to believe the reality of what's happened and what's happened is that no one, despite all of these names being thrown around, has been charged with what this whole thing was supposed to be about in the first place.
It's not for a lack of spending our hard earned taxpayer money to make a case.
In case you haven't been paying attention, no one was charged because Libby OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE and committed PERJURY in his Grand Jury Testimony.
The Grand Jury is often an INVESTIGATIVE TOOL, used to get at the FACTS of the case at hand. Mr. Libby, PREVENTED the prosecutor from getting at the facts of the case by LYING, thus the perjury charges. IF he were to suddenly capitulate, and testify truthfully to what he knows of this matter, THEN perhaps Fitsgerald could CONTINUE this investigation and bring CRIMINAL CHARGES against the REAL criminals in this case, bush and cheney (lowercase intentional). By commuting Libby's sentence, (and most likely adding a full pardon in Jan 2009) the REAL crooks in this case are buying his continued silence and further obstructing this investigation.
It's time to impeach bush and cheney (again, lowercase intentional).
you also have to consider that armitage did not come forth until well after the leak and after fitzgerald was appointed, saying that he suddenly just realized that he was the source. [actually novak wrote "two senior administration officials" in his column on plame.] the whole armitage thing has a bit of a smell to it. it's very convenient cover for rove and libby.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
To those who say pardons given in the final hours of the Clinton Administration were an abomination in cases like Mark Rich, and others I would agree, and make no excuses for it!
I want to know what Mr. Rich or anyone else had to say to incriminate Clinton, or any of his leadership while they were prison?? Susan McDougall serve her time while she was tormented, if not tortured by the foul Ken Starr to spill lies against Clinton.
I want to know if Clinton gave clemency, or a pardon to somebody whom never even saw the prison gate?
I want to know how many of Clinton's pardons included people who put National Security assetts in mortal danger, and undermined critical intelligence gathering of nuclear proliferation?
I want to know how many of Clinton's pardons were while the defendant was waiting on an appeal that had so little merit that 3 federal judges appointed by Bush saw no reason to allow Mr. Libby to post bail until his appeal was resolved?
I want to know what the Republican is smoking that would call a Patrick Fitzgerald, appointed by Bush, a prosecutor out of control, and had nothing to say about Kenn Star???
I want to know why Republicans have to give themselves pardons when they leave office?
I want to know why so many Republicans have so little regard for the rule of law, our civil liberties, the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution?
Time has come that the Republican whom presumes to be a good American that believes in our form of representative democracy to do the right thing, and vote for a Democrat in '08!
If you find yourself voting for a Republican come November '08, please stop referring to yourself as a freedom loving American! You will have sold your country out to Fascism, and are a lot of things, just not patriotic!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Lovely work, Danny Boy. Happy Fourth.
Sláinte, Dan and Conchobar.
So the only patriotic Americans are democrats? Perhaps if you wish to be taken seriously you shouldn't make such blanket statements.
He didn't say that; he said those who vote Republican in the next election. Many years ago I might have argued with that contention, not any more.
The Republican Party today is seriously sick. The moderates of the party have no clout and the thugs and crooks are firmly entrenched. Hopefully that will change; we need opposing voices but they must be honest voices.
And if YOU wish to be taken seriously, you should not come onto this website of INFORMED people and spew thoroughly debunked right-wing talking points.
"So the only patriotic Americans are democrats? Perhaps if you wish to be taken seriously you shouldn't make such blanket statements."
Great. Just what I need. Someone who sees only black and white telling me how to paint a sunset...
Are you just pretending to have the reading comprehension skills of a 6 year old?
(LOLO might respond, if you would leave out the big words like "comprehension" and spell it "5K1LLZ".)
Well, well, well. How does it feel? Now imagine that your elected representatives said that and it has been repeated ad nauseam by every media outlet. Now you come close to what the Dems have had to endure for six years.
To those who say pardons given in the final hours of the Clinton Administration were an abomination in cases like Mark Rich, and others I would agree, and make no excuses for it!
I would not agree. What Rich wasw convicted of was not against the law when he did it. The law was changed so that Rich would be guilty retroactively. That was the reason for the pardon.