Tag: Libby Trial (page 4)

John Dean writes about Bush's dilemma in granting Scooter Libby a pardon and Fred Thompson's role in Libby's pardon-seeking process.

I have to take issue with one sentence. Dean writes,

Criminal defense attorneys with whom I have spoken expect that Judge Walton will choose a sentence of roughly 30 months (two-and-a-half years), and to give Libby at most a couple of days to get his affairs in order before surrendering to the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Self-surrender doesn't work that way. There's no question the Judge will grant Libby a voluntary surrender to the designated institution. But, it's a matter of weeks, not days. Libby has to first be designated to a particular institution and that will be done by the Bureau of Prisons. They will consider any recommendation the Judge makes (which, if he makes one, will be based on wherever Libby asks to go) and then make a final decision.

More...

Forget the sentencing letter issue. There's a bigger one.

Team Libby filed its two sentencing memoranda today (here and here.)

Turns out, the Probation Department calculated Libby's guidelines at 15 to 21 months, before applying any departures. And, it found at least three grounds for departure from the guidelines:

In this case, the PSR identifies at least three mitigating factors that are present to such a significant degree to warrant downward departure: (1) Mr. Libby’s outstanding record of public service and prior good works; (2) collateral employment consequences for Mr. Libby, including the expected loss of his license to practice law; and (3) the improbability of any future criminal conduct by Mr. Libby.

The Probation Department also found that the aberrant behavior departure warrants consideration:

More...

Judge Reggie Walton ruled today that following Scooter "I. Lewis" Libby's sentencing, he will release the more than 150 sentencing letters received in the case, both those asking for leniency and those asking for a harsh sentence.

The order is here (pdf).

Personal information such as home addresses and phone numbers will be redacted from the letters.

The Judge gave Libby's lawyers a little wiggle room. If they think additional personal information should be redacted from specific letters, they have until June 4 to identify that information in an ex parte submission to the court. The Judge says that he will only consider those further redactions that contain "plainly sensitive or confidential" information.

There's a sentence in the Order that indicates to me the Judge thinks the charges Libby was convicted of are quite serious. He writes that the number of letters received are indicative not only of the high public interest in the case but "of the weightiness of the underlying charges."

Team Libby can't be happy with that sentence.

Update: Marcy weighs in.

Things are heating up in the Scooter Libby sentencing. The Judge today ordered "that the media and, to the extent they have position on the issue, the parties shall submit to the Court by 5:00 p.m. on May 30, 2007, their legal views regarding what right, if any, the media has to access the sentencing letters prior to the June 5, 2007 imposition of the defendant's sentence."

Jane Hamsher and Marcy Wheeler, as credentialed bloggers for Firedoglake and Daily Kos, have submitted their letter. More from Jane here and Marcy here.

My view on the letters is here.

The Judge also ordered Team Libby reply to the government's sentencing memoranda (here and here, pdf) by 5:00 p.m. on May 31, 2007.

Update: Here is Team Libby's response.

Marcy (Empty Wheel) argues that the sentencing letters written on behalf of Scooter Libby should be made available to the public.

Team Libby disagrees (brief here), asserting that the letters are not judicial records because they haven't been filed with the Court (they were submitted in camera through the Probation Department) and aren't subject to the First Amendment, and because the privacy interests of the authors outweigh the interest of the public's right to know. Also, Libby argues, since courts have discouraged or prohibited the disclosure of such letters in the past, a change in this case might have a chilling effect and deter supporters of defendants in future cases from writing candid letters of support.

Team Libby is particularly concerned about bloggers:

Given the extraordinary media scrutiny here, if any case presents the possibility that these letters, once released, would be published on the internet and their authors discussed, even mocked, by bloggers, it is this case.

More...

The Government filed an 18 page sentencing memorandum for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby today. You can read it here. In the memorandum, the Government says Libby's guidelines are 30 to 37 months and asks the Court to follow the guidelines. The Government said it will follow-up with a filing explaining how it arrived at the guideline range later today. As of now, it has not been filed.

My initial calculation of the guidelines, with links to the specific provisions, is here. Christy at Firedoglake provides her take and Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun reported today. (Both were written before the Government's memorandum was filed.)

Points of interest. The Government did not say it agreed with the Probation Department's calculations of the Guidelines, it said it believed the guideline range to be 30 to 37 months. It may be that the Probation Department calculated the guidelines to be lower than that.

Also, Libby has not filed a Sentencing Memorandum, at least as yet. There are a few explanations for this.

More...

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby filed court documents today saying he will not be requesting a new trial in the trial court. He's going to make his arguments in the Court of Appeals.

His sentencing is set for June 5, 2007.

I read Max Frankel's 7,800 word article on the Scooter Libby trial last night. It left a bad taste, and I didn't write about it. Marcy Wheeler has a terrific analysis of the article and what's wrong with it at Firedoglake.

However, my problem with the article was not so much Frankel's embrace of Judith Miller, but his implication that no real crime was committed and Fitzgerald should not have compelled the journalists to testify.

This wasn't a case of whistle-blowing. This was a case of Administration officials using the media to discredit a war critic by outing his CIA agent wife through allegations that his trip to Africa was the result of nepotism and therefore his findings on that trip were not worthy of belief.

Since when are perjury and obstruction of justice not really crimes?

Max Frankel disappoints with this article.

NYU Journalism Professor and blogger Jay Rosen has high praise for the team Firedoglake put together to cover the Scooter Libby trial:

"What happens? One blog puts more boots on the ground than any commercial news operation. The writers bring more background, savvy and commitment to the case. And they dominate in coverage of a big news event. Journalists themselves use it to keep up and get their bearings."

How did they do it? With help from their readers.

More...

I have an op-ed today in the Rocky Mountain News, Scooter Libby Takes One for the Team. It's about why I was rooting for both sides in different ways, and why, although I think the verdict was correct, I feel cheated. Hope you'll read it.

David Corn has a new article in The Nation, "Cheney on Trial."

Using testimony from the Scooter Libby trial, Corn shows:

....beyond resolving whether Libby had mounted a criminal cover-up to hide his--and perhaps Cheney's--involvement in the leak episode, the trial exposed the inner world of Cheney's crew. The proceedings also proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Bush White House was neck-deep in the Valerie Wilson leak (even if Novak's original source was then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage) and that the White House lied when it claimed otherwise.

While Cheney wasn't on trial, he was often front and center.

More...

Robert Novak, the columnist whose July 14, 2003 article outed Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA operative, has a new pro-Scooter Libby column.

Among his disclosures:

Actually, in my first interview with Fitzgerald after he was named special prosecutor, he indicated that he knew Armitage was my leaker. I assumed that was the product of detective work by the FBI. In fact, Armitage had turned himself in to the Justice Department three months before Fitzgerald entered the case, without notifying the White House or releasing me from my requirement of confidentiality.

Novak also complains that while Valerie Wilson's status wasn't an issue at trial,

....in his closing argument, Fitzgerald referred to Mrs. Wilson's secret status, and in answer to a reporter's question after the verdict, he said she was "classified."

Ted Wells, though, in closing argument, brought the subject up (from the transcript, not available online):

More...