| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/26 |
| 2007/7/2-5 [Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:47149 Activity:low |
7/2 Three more judges (two of them Republican) join the
MSM/Karl Rove/Dick Cheney conspiracy to put Libby behind bars:
http://www.csua.org/u/j2h
\_ 'The three-judge panel of the appeals court rejected Libby's
request in a one-paragraph order, ruling he has not shown that
his appeal "raises a substantial question."'
\_ Hell, even John Dean called this one:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070615.html
\_ "...as are the steady stream of personal threats the judge
has received from the right-wing nuts who have called and
written him." Remember, they aren't terrorists, just good
patriotic Americans who are trying to correct an error.
\_ No one here said it was a conspiracy. They said he got screwed
which has happened to many innocent people in our justice system.
Why is it so hard to believe it happened to Libby?
\_ 'Cos he's an evasive scumbag who worked for a man who redefined
moral ambiguity to mean "anything I want to do"?
\_ Covered this a dozen times already. He didn't evade and he
didn't even have to talk to the grand jury. He volunteered
to do so. But don't let facts get in the way of your bias
and agenda. Carry on.
\_ Why would a panel of 3 judges, 2 of them Republicans,
then say there was "overwhelming" evidence to his guilt
if he's innocent? The fact is he lied about the events
surrounding the outing of an undercover CIA agent.
If you think committing perjury
when it comes to treasonous activity is not a big deal
then say so. For instance, I admit 100% Clinton lied
about his relationship to Lewinsky under oath. I just
don't think lying about your sex life under oath is a
big crime.
if he's innocent?
\_ Why do you keep bringing up the political affiliation
of the various parties? If this is about real justice
then it shouldn't matter. If this is political then
justice and truth has nothing to do with it. As far as
treasonous activity and outing agents goes, *HE DIDN'T
DO THAT*. The guy who did do that was *known to the
prosecutor* _before_ Libby testified. This never had
anything to do with finding who talked about Plame.
If it did why was Armitage never prosecuted? Because
she wasn't undercover and no crime was committed re:
Plame's identity. Even if Libby lied his ass off, it
is no more a crime to lie about something that wasn't
a crime than it was to get nooky in the Oval Office
and lie about that. Sheesh, you really don't know
anything about the details of his case, huh? I guess
that never stopped anyone from posting to the motd.
\_ There were (at least) three leakers. Armitage,
Libby, Rove. Armitage didn't know plame's name
until it was brought to him. They (bush? cheney,
more likely. he likes [mis]using intel) wanted
the name out there. They got it. Libby took
the fall to protect "them". And now he's getting
his kickback, with the side bonus that he can still
plead the 5th if called before congress.
\_ Uh huh, and where is the prosecution of Armitage,
again? Riiight. The rest is just conspiracy.
\_ I guess you know more about the law than those
judges?
\_ Yummy, arguing from authority. I know the case
better than anyone here seems to.
\_ Lying to a Grand Jury is always a crime.
\_ Have you been with us today? That is exactly
what I've been telling you he didn't do.
Whatever.
\_ Perhaps your psychic powers could help us to find
Jon-Benet Ramsey's killers as well?
\_ I strongly encourage you to post your theories about
the "true Libby case" to The Economist's View blog
where they can be examined more thoroughly.
\_ I don't have theories. I followed the case which
no one else here apparently did. I've only
repeated documented facts about what happened in
front of the Grand Jury.
\_ They asked him about conversations and know-
ledge. He told them he couldn't remember. They
didn't believe him, and his own notes, memos,
and such indicated otherwise. Hence, they
charged him with perjury, and a jury of his
peers found him guilty. The Judge reviewed the
basis of the case and didn't find it wanting
enough to grant dismissal. He now has a chance
at appeal, but he still has to go to jail just
like anyone else who has been convicted. |
| 11/26 |
|
| www.csua.org/u/j2h -> www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-crime-libby.html Skip to next paragraph Reuters WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby on Monday lost his bid to delay serving his 2 1/2-year prison sentence while he appeals his conviction in the CIA leak case. George W Bush to pardon Libby before he serves any time in prison and Monday's decision could increase that pressure. A White House spokesman said last month Bush was not going to intervene for now. Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, was found guilty in March of lying, perjury and obstructing justice during an investigation into who blew the cover of a CIA analyst whose husband criticized the Iraq war. A federal judge last month ruled Libby would have to report to prison in six to eight weeks. His lawyers then asked a US appeals court to keep Libby out of prison while he appeals his conviction, a process that could take months. The three-judge panel of the appeals court rejected Libby's request in a one-paragraph order, ruling he has not shown that his appeal "raises a substantial question." The ruling was issued by all three members of the appeals court panel. Judges David Sentelle and Karen LeCraft Henderson were appointed by Republican presidents while Judge David Tatel was appointed by a Democratic president. Libby's lawyers said they plan to argue on appeal that the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, was improperly appointed and that the trial judge should not have excluded witnesses and classified material Libby had hoped to use in his defense. Valerie Plame, has said her identity was disclosed in retaliation after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of manipulating intelligence to build its case for the Iraq war. Tips To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry. |
| writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070615.html A week earlier, Judge Walton had stated that he did not believe there was any legal basis for Libby to remain free on bond under current law. The headline, of course, is that it appears that Libby is headed for jail in just four to six weeks, unless either the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit stays Judge Walton's order during the appeal process, or President Bush pardons Libby. I'll turn to that question, but first I'd like to cover an interesting change in Libby's legal team and its approach. Robbins specializes in criminal case appeals, taking them all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Robbins is well-regarded within the small circle of appellate lawyers in Washington, and he is a friend of Chief Justice John Roberts, with whom he worked in the Solicitor General's Office. Firedoglake, it seems Robbins did his job aggressively, if not especially well. Libby now has four firms that are among the highest priced in the nation representing him. A Washington attorney who travels in these circles estimated that Libby's legal team is costing no less than $2000 per hour, and those hours add up very quickly, between writing briefs and arguing in court. Proceedings relating to Libby's sentencing alone could have cost $50,000 to $75,000. new fundraising letter, seeking money for Libby's Defense Fund. Robbins showed up on Libby's last brief and in Judge Walton's courtroom for a sparring match over Libby's bail. Needless to say, it is a nicely-done brief, but given the erudition of typical appellate specialists, I was surprised by its tone and style. This may be the result of Robbins's addition to the team, or simply a hint of growing desperation. Following the events leading up to Judge Walton's decision, I was delighted to see his no-nonsense responses. Column continues below -v According to the live-blog transcript, Judge Walton handled this meaningless string of names just as one might have anticipated. The brief supplied absolutely no information whatsoever about the issues involved in each of the cases. The Judge therefore sensibly asked: "Is the argument that I am obligated to offer release on a white collar case just because other judges have done so? Just throwing out these names does not override the law, that's not being suggested here, is it?" To these questions, Robbins gave a non-answer answer, saying "these cases illustrate that how close the question is on appeal is important." Judge Walton pressed: "But the footnote does not identify the issues, and just because these people cited are high- profile people, this does not mean a judge should override the law." When Robbins again had no real answer, the discussion moved on. It is remarkably aggressive to add such a laundry list to a brief -- unless every one of those high-profile defendants had raised issues similar to those Libby planned to present on appeal. So too did the filing of an amicus brief by a dozen law professors. a weak effort, and I was surprised that all who signed on indeed had done so. I have to wonder if they were each given a copy before it was submitted. The brief addressed Libby's claim that he should remain free during his appeal because it was "a close" question of law whether or not Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's appointment was constitutional. had added a footnote that clearly indicated he thought it was an over-the-top effort to intimidate him by invoking the opinion of academic heavies, that included Robert Bork (a former Yale Law professor), Alan Dershowitz (a Harvard Law professor) and Douglas Kmiec (a Pepperdine Law professor). Given the Judge's caustic footnote, it is surprising that Robbins waved this red-cape before him. No one following these proceedings was surprised by the Judge's response: "With all due respect, these are intelligent people, but I would not accept this brief from a first year law student. I believe this was put out to put pressure on this court in the public sphere to rule as you wish." apparently kept pushing, suggesting that the fact that twelve scholars "who couldn't agree on the best way to give change for nickel" had come to some consensus should itself be significant. "I guess if I'd gotten smarter submissions, maybe," Walton replied, with his third putdown of the academics' misplaced efforts. Based on the live-blog transcript, Robbins did not perform up to his heavyweight reputation, Rather, his showing was more like that of a punch-drunk lightweight who did not know with whom he was dealing, and was out of his league. All these aggressive efforts with Judge Walton were very misplaced - as are the steady stream of personal threats the judge has received from the right-wing nuts who have called and written him. Libby's best chance to get away with his crimes has always been the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which is overwhelmingly Republican and has no shortage of judges who will let their politics influence their decisionmaking. Unsurprisingly, Libby plans to file an emergency appeal with this court. A Test for the Rule of Law: Will Judge Walton's Well-Reasoned Ruling Stand? Judge Walton, it bears remembering, was appointed to the US District Court of the District of Columbia by George W Bush. The law under which he is sending Libby to prison, rather than allowing him to remain free on bond, is a hardnosed statute that the Reagan Republicans pushed through Congress, the Bail Reform Act of 1984. online treatise, places the burden on the defendant to show that it is a "close question" whether or not the trial judge might be overturned on appeal. Congress made it clear that the presumption is that once convicted and sentenced, the defendant starts serving time. On June 14, the Washington Post nicely summed up the issues Libby believes he will win on appeal: "whether Special Counsel Patrick J Fitzgerald had the constitutional authority to prosecute Libby; whether Walton was correct in prohibiting an expert on human memory from testifying for the defense; whether the defense should have been allowed to introduce more detailed evidence of the classified national security matters weighing on Libby's mind at the time of his conversations about Plame; Will the DC Circuit agree with any of these appellate issues? And more immediately, will the DC Circuit stay Libby's sentence pending his appeal, given that trial judges are seldom overruled on such matters? News reports indicate that while the court is closed for a summer recess, there are judges available to form a panel to hear Libby's emergency appeal. How they respond to these issues will be something of a litmus test for the federal judiciary, which is now dominated by conservative Republican judges, from bottom to top. It will tell us all if the rule of law still prevails in a Republican judiciary, or if party loyalty can truly trump all. There are ten active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of whom seven are Republicans and three are Democrats. In addition, there are four senior status judges of whom three are Republicans and one is a Democrat. this court is composed of ten Republicans and four Democrats. It does not require a statistician to appreciate that the probability of Libby drawing a three-judge panel composed of at least two Republicans (a majority) is therefore extremely high. If this court stays Libby's sentence, that will be a grievous mistake. Judge Walton has taken care to scrupulously follow the law, and he has clearly set aside the fact he was appointed by a Republican president. If the panel deciding upon the stay should overrule Judge Walton, that result ought send shudders through the land -- because it will mean the rule of law has become secondary to party loyalty. I would be stunned if a GOP-majority panel or, indeed, any panel gave Scooter Libby a pass. |