Don't ya just love that Catch 22 !!

Libby lied to impede a federal investigation. It's not a new crime, and there are guidelines for how such people are to be punished. There's already been some discussion of this here:

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/03/comparing_lewis.html

Bottom line: this felon needs to go to jail. The idea that "no particular good will come of his actually going to jail" is pretty confusing to me. I mean, a senior government official going to federal prison for lying to obstruct a federal investigation seems like a pretty strong message to others in similar situations in the future who might be tempted to do the same thing. Whatever you might think about deterrence in connection with the death penalty, I have to believe that the threat of federal prison is a factor amongst high-powered government officials with kids and mortgages and stuff.

And then there's the whole idea that people who are convicted of crimes should be punished in some way. Then again, I'm a prosecutor, so I sort fo feel strongly about that sort of thing... :)

I reiterate.

Eh, all I meant is that in the scope of injustices that happen every day, one person not going to jail when they should doesn't bother me at all (not a prosecutor, and one of the reasons I abandoned the idea of being one is that I have qualms (which are not particularly rational, and which I do not extent to other people's actions) about being the causative agent in anyone's imprisonment). Abstractly, you're entirely right.

I have to believe that the threat of federal prison is a factor amongst high-powered government officials with kids and mortgages and stuff.

Are there any follow-ups on what happens to such afterwards? I know about Chuck Colson but not the details, like what's his current standard of living? What about the others from way back and the current crop. From here it looks like doing a few years for a white-collar crime may not be fun but it doesn't seem all that traumatic.

Compare whatever sentence Libby gets to Jamie Olis. Then, we can talk about justice.

6: Yeah, I think the 72 months Olis ultimately got is probably appropriate, but he'll probably get somewhat less than that.

Of course Scooter should get a pardon - there'd be a certain irony to it. Guess who Marc Rich's lawyer was, all those years he was on the lam. Just guess.

Apparently Bush has repeated promised to abide by the DOJ regulations on pardons (summarised by a DKos poster here). He reiterated this committment to that process about a month ago, in response to that hullaballoo about the two border patrol guards convicted of shooting a fleeing drug smuggler.

Here's the catch: according to those procedures, a pardon won't be considered until five years after the final adjudication.

What a weird rule -- if the pardon was to correct a real injustice, why would you want to wait five years?

Bush has repeated promised to abide by the DOJ regulations on pardons

Bush also promised to fire anybody who was involved with leaking Plame's identity and Piggy Rove is still there. So, y'know, give his promises the appropriate credence.

Those DOJ regulations are purely advisory. I suspect that the five years wait period is there just to discourage people.

Bush's word is of course crap, but pardoning Libby and not those two border guards is going to annoy the living hell out of the Tancredo voters. Pardoning Libby will annoy a lot of independant voters, and not pardoning Libby will annoy the rabid base (and possibly a number of Washington insiders). I don't think he can win on this one.

Hence the trip to Latin America!

Libby will get a pardon from Bush, and then the effect of the admission of wrong-doing will be forgotten and Libby will come back in another administration advocating for nuking invading and democratizing some country with Muslims in it. OR he'll be a talkshow host.

See also, Elliot Cohen (or was it that Elliot Abrams? I forget. One of them sumbitches.), Oliver North, etc.

Please to note: I was not fond of the Sandinistas, but neither was I particularly fond of the contras; regardless of the merits of either (and the controversy surrounding them), given what he planned to do, Oliver North should have been stood against a wall and shot for treason.

m, that is all

Oliver North should have been stood against a wall and shot for treason.

It's never too late to do the right thing.

And a pardon confirms that: if Libby were acting criminally on his own behalf, there'd be no reason to pardon him. By pardoning him, Bush takes ownership of Libby's crime.

Nice try at preemptively construing any pardon as an admission of Bush's guilt. An alternative theory of a pardon would be that Bush thought Libby got railroaded for misremembering a conversation about a case in which there was no underlying federal crime. (Agree or disagree with that theory of the Plame case, Bush could rationally believe it, and so in giving a pardon he wouldn't be "taking ownership" of anything.)

"Please to note: I was not fond of the Sandinistas, but neither was I particularly fond of the contras; regardless of the merits of either (and the controversy surrounding them), given what he planned to do, Oliver North should have been stood against a wall and shot for treason."

Bill Moyers' film on Iran Contra is excellent. You can view it online for free. The Enterprise = anti-American. I remain amazed that North and Secord got to wrap themselves in the flag.

. An alternative theory of a pardon would be that Bush thought Libby got railroaded for misremembering a conversation about a case in which there was no underlying federal crime.

Another theory would be that Bush is little more than a meat puppet who signs what he's told to sign and says what he's told to say. Under this theory, Bush's responsibility, or ownership, is similarly limited. What's your fucking point, Red?

I remain amazed that North and Secord got to wrap themselves in the flag.

That's because, for hippie-theoretical (how's that, bob?) reasons, Democrats long seemed unwilling to wrap themselves in the flag.

17: Continuing in the proud Unfogged tradition of bothering to respond to right-wing trolls.

"I don't much care, really, if Scooter Libby is pardoned or not; while he certainly deserves it, there's no particular good that will come of his actually going to jail. "

I was so baffled by this that I decided to give it at least a day or so before responding.

I have. I'm still exactly as baffled. I don't understand how this doesn't translate into "I don't care, really, that all the Iran-Contra people who were convicted, or in danger of it, were pardoned or not, there's no particular good that will come of their actually going to jail," "I don't care, really, that Richard Nixon was pardoned; while he certainly deserved it, there's no particular good that will come of his actually going to jail."

And so on.

Hell, why should they have bothered to try Scooter Libby at all? Why the heck try anyone about any non-violent crime?

What's the point of the whole rule of law, anyway, besides locking up violent people?

"Abstractly, you're entirely right."

That would seem to mean that your statement was, in fact, completely, wildly, wrong, but there's no correction posted.

Naturally, I'm not arguing with your feelings, or what you care about: that's inarguable. I'm saying that "there's no particular good that will come of his actually going to jail" is wildly wrong.

I think that a major reason we've had all the crimes of G. W. Bush is because of the Republican history of President Ford pardoning Richard Nixon, and President G. H. W. Bush pardoning the Iran-Contra people. I expect that if Scooter Libby is pardoned, it will likewise greatly encourage future crimes by future Republican Administrations. Thus my furious, furious, furious, disagreement and outrage over the assertion that "there's no particular good that will come of [Scooter Libby] actually going to jail."

I have the wacky idea that there should be some deterrent to White House officials (or anyone else) committing crimes. I have plenty of problems with our "justice" system, but not with that basic premise. (I'm willing to consider lashes, or some other punishment, as an alternative to imprisonment; I'm not willing to consider "I don't care.")

I don't feel at all abstractly about this, but mileage often varies.

15: "Nice try at preemptively construing any pardon as an admission of Bush's guilt."

However, this is not how George W. Bush's construes pardons.

Moreover, in weighing whether to recommend a pardon, U.S. attorneys are supposed to consider whether an applicant is remorseful. "The extent to which a petitioner has accepted responsibility for his or her criminal conduct and made restitution to ... victims are important considerations. A petitioner should be genuinely desirous of forgiveness rather than vindication," the Justice Web site states.

"Agree or disagree with that theory of the Plame case, Bush could rationally believe it, "

Sure. But he couldn't pardon Libby with it, according to his own policy.