Though Scooter Libby is still fighting to overturn his jail sentence, regardless of the fact he was found guilty on four counts by a grand jury, the US Bureau of Prisons has issued Cheney's former Chief of Staff an inmate number. Libby will be :
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has notindicated how quickly it will rule. Lawyers in the case said Libby hadnot yet been assigned to a prison or given a date to surrender.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald opposes Libby's bid to delay hisprison term. He says Libby does not have a good chance of having hisconviction overturned and should begin serving prison time immediately.
If Libby does go to jail, it is still uncertain where he will serve out his prison sentence. Usually, according to this same article, inmates tend to serve within 200 miles of their home. So we're probably looking at him serving somewhere in Virginia or Maryland.
Still, this does not stop from asking the President to pardon Libby, and in even giving Bush advice on how to play it.
Immediately after the judge in the CIA leak trial read Scooter Libby's , speculation began over whether President Bush would pardon Dick Cheney's former Chief of Staff. The Bureau of Prisons says Libby must surrender to authorities within . So if Bush is going to step in before Libby sees jail time, he will need to do so in a matter of :
The White House publicly sought to defer the matter again yesterday, saying that Bush is "not going to intervene" for now. But U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Waltonindicated that he is not inclined to let Libby remain free pendingappeals, which means the issue could confront Bush in a matter of weekswhen, barring a judicial change of heart, Cheney's former chief ofstaff will have to trade his business suit for prison garb. Republicansinside and outside the administration said that would be the momentwhen Bush has to decide.
However, if you read the pardon law, it would be illegal for Bush to free Scooter Libby. The pardon rules specifically "require a petitioner to wait a period of at leastfive years after conviction or release from confinement (whichever islater) before filing a pardon application."
The only way around this is if Bush issues an Executive order overturning the law. That would really be pushing it.
Federal Judge Reggie Walton sentenced Libby to 2-1/2 years in prison for lying and a $250,000 fine, and 2 years probation once his sentence has been served.
also ordered I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby topay $250,000 in fines. Additionally, the former aide will be onprobation for two years following the completion of his prison term.Libby must report to a probation officer within 72 hours of sentencing,unless Walton allows Libby to be free on bond pending appeal of thecase. Court is still in session while the judge considers the request.
White House Aide to Convicted Felon
Libby was convicted in March on four felony charges -- claiming he liedto the FBI and a grand jury, as well as obstructed justice -- relatedto the CIA Leak probe, the three-year investigation that revealed thebehind-the-scenes workings of the White House's inner circle. ...
: Blogged trial and sentencing. ''
It's sentencing day today for I. Lewis Libby. Today, Judge ReggieWalton will sentence Libby based on his conviction on multiple felonycounts after a trial and conviction before a jury of his peers.
, , they continue through 8. They give a play by play.
As far as I'm concerned, they can continue to round up the criminals on the Hill and keep locking them up. And I'd really like to see the excuses stop by their party members. On that note, Jefferson should be rammed into a freezer with his money.
I may have overdone the images, but these type of issues really chap my ass.
At the moment, we find ourselves engulfed in a late-spring presidential campaign preview. The was last night. Today, the Obama, Edwards and Clinton will attend a . It all ends tomorrow with the Republican debate. But there is another important story going on tomorrow that is worthy of some notice (depending on how you feel about government officials that lie to a grand jury).
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was already in March, will be sentenced tomorrow. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wants Libby to serve in prison. Libby's lawyers want him to do instead.
As Time Magazine's reveals, last week Fitzgerald released proof of Valerie Plame's status as a trump card to convince the judge that Libby deserved a harsher sentence:
Thanks to Fitzgerald's brief advocating a stiff sentence for Libby, wefound out last week that the CIA did indeed consider Plame's identityclassified, at least for 18 months. The prosecutor has brought this upnow in apparent support of a remarkable claim: Libby should serve 30 to37 months in prison -- about twice what the federal probation officerecommends and way more than the probation favored by thedefense -- because the underlying (and uncharged) crime was so serious.
The Libby defense team issued one last for forgiveness:
"Mr. Libby is known for his fairness and generosity," the defense lawyers write, and "for his caring and unselfish nature."
One thing is for sure: there will be a lot of angry people at the CIA if the judge lets Libby off the hook. It will have sent a dangerous precedent that it is tolerable for the Executive to bully our agents in the field.
In court today, as Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked the judge to give Scooter Libby the maximum sentence, a document was made public for the first time that proves once and for all that Valerie Plame was a agent when outed:
An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employmenthistory at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in acourt filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates thatPlame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.
The nature of Plame's CIA employment never came up in Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice trial.
In 2004, President Bush promised to fire anyone in his Administration that was involved in the leak. We know for a fact that Karl Rove was one of the columnist Robert Novak used when he Plame's identity. Bush has yet to follow through and fire Rove.
'My side, your side and the Hidden side' should be the motto ofthe Bush administration. Its gotten to the point that if the administrationtells us its sunny out, you have to look for a backdrop stretched out above (ormaybe you can actually watch it being stretched). Political scientist PeterMoore, while studying the wartime economy of Iraq, downloaded somedocuments from the ,and stumbled upon some "hidden" information. Actually it was Peter's 8year old son that did the stumbling. While waiting to play a computer game on"dad's" laptop, his son was clicking around....
, check "Mark up," under MicrosoftWord's "View" menu. Then, in the "Tools" menu, choose"Track changes," then "Highlight changes," and check the boxmarked "Highlight changes on screen." (This is the procedureapplicable for Word 2004 for Mac; others may vary.)
In doing so, it brought up all . (thought to have been deleted)
If you are in a Word document where "Track changes" has been turnedon, hitting "Mark up" will reveal all the deletions and insertionsever made in the document, complete with times, dates and (sometimes) theinitials of the editors. When my son did it, all the deleted passages in adocument with the innocuous name "Administrator's Weekly EconomicReport" suddenly appeared in blue and purple. It was the electronicequivalent of seeing every draft of an author's paper manuscript and all thepenciled changes made by the editors. I soon figured out that with a fewkeystrokes I could see the deleted passages in 20 of the 42 Word documents I'ddownloaded. For an academic like myself it was a small treasure trove, and afterI'd stopped hooting and hollering it took some time before I could convince mystartled son that he hadn't done anything wrong.
Posting sloppily edited documents on an official Web site pales in comparisonto some of the CPA's other mistakes. Its worst miscalculation was probablydissolving the Iraqi military on May 16, 2003, which jump-started the insurgencyby sending 400,000 trained soldiers into the streets without jobs.
the author gives six theories for the decline in violence.
One explanation given for the downturn is called "Rounding Up the Bums."It suggests that the U.S. military might have successfully quelled theinsurgency. Maj. Gen. Charles H. Swannack, who commanded the 82nd Airborne inIraq until May 2004, was well known for using aggressive tactics.
A second explanation hinges explicitly on an old ethnic stereotype about howArabs only understand force. The "Crossed the Line" argumentinsists that violence is intrinsic to Arab culture: "[It] is a form ofpolitical discourse as well as being culturally acceptable for settling disputesand scores.
A third explanation, "Occupation Ending," says that theinsurgents are backing off because they think the U.S. is about to depart. Moore'snote: (Four years later, the Bush administration often says any deadline fortroop withdrawal would increase attacks.)
A fourth argument, "ProjectMoney Flowing," embraces an enduring pillar of American foreign policy inthe Middle East. Economic development and free trade, according to the moneytheory, would solve political disputes.
A fifth theory,"Engagement," says that Iraqis have begun to have hope thanks tosustained contact with Americans. "We'll take some credit here. We havebeen engaging widely with ... ex-Baathists, ex-Army. While many are tiring ofthe refrain that if you stay with us things will get better, for some theyactually have improved and that many have given hope to entire groups." Theauthor calls these people "the various groups of losers in the NewIraq."
A final argument for the downturn in attacks offers what brieflylooks like a flash of reality. The "Operational Pause" theory surmisesthat reduced attacks may be a statistical blip. They may increase again as"terrorists" regroup for future fights against the Americans and"other Iraqis." But then the author calls this "a boringtheory," and notes, "There are very few persons we have met whosubscribe to this."
Nowhere in any of these theories, including the "boring" one, doesthe author address the dissolution of the Iraqi Army as a major contributor tothe violence. Nowhere, in fact, does the author seem to know which"bums" or "losers" are attacking the Americans or why.Indeed, the most remarkable passage in the entire deletion is a simple statementby an Iraqi businessman, whom the writer quotes in passing while explaining whyAmerican-induced economic prosperity will end the fighting. "It is nothingpersonal," the Iraqi says. "I like you and believe you could bebringing us a better future, but I still sympathize with those who attack thecoalition because it is not right for Iraq to be occupied by foreign militaryforces." In the world of the CPA circa 2004, first one American glossesover this Iraqi's prophetic words, and then another tries -- unsuccessfully, asit turns out -- to delete them.
As the new way forward continues, so does the never ending billows of smokebeing blown up our asses.
If you would rather go directly to the stories....
For anyone that didn't get a chance to see Bill Moyer's Documentary "Buying The War", you can view it online . It's a "Two Thumbs Up" (the admins. thumbs up America's ass).
You can go to and scroll to see the Fox nut jobs wrongly "bash" (and lie about) Moyers.
Four years ago on May 1, President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Lincolnwearing a flight suit and delivered a speech in front of a giant"Mission Accomplished" banner. He was hailed by media stars as a"breathtaking" example of presidential leadership in toppling SaddamHussein. Despite profound questions over the failure to locate weaponsof mass destruction and the increasing violence in Baghdad, many in thepress confirmed the White House's claim that the war was won. MSNBC'sChris Matthews declared, "We're all neo-cons now;" NPR's Bob Edwardssaid, "The war in Iraq is essentially over;" and Fortune magazine'sJeff Birnbaum said, "It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraqreally was in the broadest context."
The last couple of days have brought us some insight on the controversysurrounding , and how t. We're also reminded of what .
In an interview with ESPN.com, Kauzlarich said: "When you die, I mean,there is supposedly a better life, right? Well, if you are an atheist and youdon't believe in anything, if you die, what is there to go to? Nothing. You areworm dirt. So for their son to die for nothing, and now he is no more- that ispretty hard to get your head around that. So I don't know how an atheist thinks.I can only imagine that that would be pretty tough."
Asked by ESPN.com whether the Tillmans' religious beliefs are a factor in theongoing investigation, Kauzlarich said, "I think so. There is not a wholelot of trust in the system or faith in the system
. So that is my personal opinion, knowing what I know."
That statement pretty much speaks for itself. I wouldn't besurprised if the lovely Lt. Col. was a secret member of the (CAUTION: this is a very offensive site, and the membersprotest soldier funerals and "thank God" for their deaths)
Mike Fishof Espn.com wrote a great article about Pat. .
This is a great article. It begins....
Early in the eveningof April 22, 2004, a heavily armored vehicle in the trailing half of a splitplatoon came under attack from enemy fire in the rugged mountainous terrain ofsoutheastern Afghanistan. Soldiers in a Humvee opened fire in retaliation butinstead shot at fellow Rangers positioned ahead, killing Pat Tillman and anAfghan soldier standing 10 feet off Tillman's left shoulder. The former NFLsafety — the Army's most celebrated volunteer — took three bullets to theforehead.
Stop by the . "The Pat Tillman Foundation seeks to carryforward Pat's legacy by inspiring and supporting young people striving topromote positive change in themselves and the world around them".
Everyone when the Walter Reed scandal broke. Then Everyone saidthey will get to the bottom of the issue. Well it seems that of the soldiers in 2004 . The administration justbullshitted us again and simply neglected to prepare for the woundedsoldiers.
April 25, 2007 | WASHINGTON -- When the Walter Reed scandal exploded in themedia in February, bringing wide attention to inadequate care for veterans atthe Army's flagship hospital, Defense Department officials expressed shock andclaimed ignorance. Dr. William Winkenwerder Jr., the assistant defense secretarywho oversees military medicine, declared at a press conference on Feb. 21:"This news caught me -- as it did many other people -- completely bysurprise."
But Salon has learned that the Defense Department had been conducting monthlyfocus group discussions with soldiers treated at Walter Reed since before thewars in and had evenbegun, and that it continued to do so as wounded veterans of those conflictsarrived at the facility. The interviews with outpatients were set up to monitorArmy healthcare and provide military officials with direct information about it.
"They were trying to find out the good and the bad and theugly," said a former Defense Department official familiar with the DoDfocus groups. "That is the good-news story. The bad-news story is they didnot do anything about it."
Until last week, the leaders of the Force Health Protection and Readinessoffice, which ran the interviews, reported to Winkenwerder. During his Feb. 21press conference, Winkenwerder suggested that money was not the source of theproblems at Walter Reed. "Let me just say, this is not a resourceissue," he told reporters. The next day, the White House announced thatWinkenwerder would be leaving his post. (His replacement, Dr. S. WardCasscells, a vice president of biotechnology at the University of Texas HealthScience Center, took over last week.)
Read the complete story at : "The Pentagon's Chronic Neglect of Iraq Vets"
So, if you don't agree with the war, you don't support the troops, but if yousupport the war you DO support the troops, just not the injured ones becausethey don't count? This would be a good question to ask the decider, because hecan straighten anything out!
uncovered another issue to add to Attorneygate: adult pornography
April 19, 2007 | Facing a torrent of criticism that the Department of Justicehas been tainted by partisan politics, Alberto Gonzales is poised for thedefense argument of his life. The attorney general must explain to Congress anaccumulation of embarrassing partisan e-mails and inaccurate statements by topBush officials, which have helped transform the quiet firing of eight U.S.attorneys last year into an explosive Washington scandal.
Gonzales will be grilled about alleged Republican meddling on issues fromcorruption to cronyism, widely documented in the four months since the purge.But a Salon investigation has uncovered another partisan issue dirtying the scandal: adult pornography.
. I'm keeping this post to a minimum to get readyfor the live blogging of the Gonzales hearing will be hosting at 9:30 AM EST / 6:30 AM EST.
Recent Comments