Reggie's Got Mail--But We'll Have Mail, Too, on June 5

by emptywheel

First the bad news: we're not getting the letters sent in support of sentencing until the hearing. I had hoped to send a letter urging for their earlier release. The media and the blogosphere, after all, are going to be in a much better position than Judge Walton to determine whether some of Libby's letter-writers have real conflicts and should be ignored completely. But the damn WiFi in Hartford airport stank and I couldn't get the letter done. Not sure what a little old blogger could have done anyway, given Walton's very pragmatic reasoning behind the timing of the release of the letters:

...the sheer volume of these letters also means the Court will not have an opportunity to fully review each of the letters, let alone to assess what role, if any, they might play in its consideration of a just and reasonable sentence, until the evening before the June 5, 2007 sentencing hearing. The Court cannot conceive of any justification, legal or otherwise, for disclosing the sentencing letters to the media before it has even had the opportunity to read and evaluate them itself. [my emphasis]

Ut oh, Jeffress, Judge Walton appears not to like spam. As I've always said: two rules about Reggie, don't waste his time or the government's money.

But the rest of Walton's order is full of very interesting details. First, Walton gives us a number:

The Court has received more than one hundred and fifty sentencing letters in this case, some urging for leniency for the dependent and some expressing opprobium at the defendant's actions and calling for the imposition of a substantial prison sentence. [my emphasis]

Looking more and more like spam every day. If you're keeping score on the disgraced former public official count, there were nine letters sent in support of a harsh sentence for Bob Ney, and about ninety-five pages of letters (didn't count the actual number) in support of leniency for Ney. So Libby is more popular, not surprisingly, than a two-bit bribery recipient.

Then, look at the language Walton uses to describe this crime:

This large number of letters sentencing letters ... is indicative of ... the weightiness of the underlying charges. [my emphasis]

Ut oh, Barbara Comstock. Walton must not read the WaPo editorial page, if he's talking about the weightiness of the underlying charges. Who's going to tell Fred Hiatt?

Finally, there's the language Walton uses to support expansive disclosure:

Especially in a case of this nature, the Court must strive to be as transparent as possible without compromising the fairness of the system or the ability of the Court to acquire information relevant and helpful to the sentencing process.

And then in a footnote modifying a statement that the Court will redact "private details concerning the letter-writers themselves--including, but not necessarily limited to, the letter-writers' home addresses and telephone numbers," Walton notes:

To the extent that the defendant believes that the sentencing letters contain private information about the letters' authors (other than home addresses and telephone numbers) that should, in his estimation, be redacted before the letters are publicly disclosed, he should immediately, but no later than 9:00 a.m. on June 4, 2007, identify this information to the court in an ex parte submission. However, the Court advises the defendant that it will not be inclined to redact such information unless it is plainly sensitive or confidential.[my emphasis]

Thank you, Judge Walton, for keeping this process transparent.

Update: From TheOtherWA, apparently Abramoff got 262 letters in favor of leniency. Which puts the count at Ney ~70, Libby 150, and Abramoff 262.

Comments

[Kagro X]

A sound ruling. There's no reason in the world why the court should be bothered with the task of shielding public figures who want to coddle convicts.

[emptywheel]

Or those trying to curry favor with public figures who want to coddle convicts.

[Loo Hoo]

Wow, Marcy! This is great news. Only 150 letters? I'm surprised at how few there are...

[John Casper]

"Walton must not read the WaPo editorial page, if he's talking about the weightiness of the underlying charges. Who's going to tell Fred Hiatt?"

ROTFLMAO.

[Mr.Murder]

Would susp[ect Scooter to release fully unredacted stuff as to creat controversy and play the victims' card...

[AZ Matt]

The 150 letters number is both for and against Libby. I am just as curious to see who wrote letters asking for the book to be thrown at Libby.

[tbsa]

the weightiness of the underlying charges.

It's nice to know that Judge Walton understands he is about to sentence a traitor.

[merciless]

It pays to increase your word power. Opprobrium. Had to look it up; what a great word!

Fabulous work, Marcy, as always.

[albert fall]

tbsa

hear hear.

The underlying charge is treason

[emptywheel]

merciless

Yeah, I was going to comment on opprobium. Sure makes those ready to throw the book at Scooter look real smart.

[Newspaperbrat]

Doing the Snoopy Dance of Joy for Joe and Valerie Plame Wilson and Patrick Fitzgerald and our beleagured nation. ;~)

[arthur]

I don't understand why they aren't made public sooner. Ordinarily, documents filed in a court are public immeidately, in part to permit others to respond to whatever they say before the hearing.

[RC]

So if Fred Hiatt turns out to be one those writing in favor of leniency, we should start a campaign to get him out of WaPo.

[JEP]

"Not sure what a little old blogger could have done anyway..."

Your modesty becomes you, Marcy... However, you are one of the best examples of just how influential, directly and peripherally, a "little old blogger" can become in a new medium like "the blogs."

Keep after em', and thank you for keeping all of us laymen informed, your perspective helps cut through the spin.And as for the "weightiness" of some of these charges, no doubt there are many neocon operatives living under the sword of damocles cliche' "heavy, heavy hangs over thy head..."

What do you suppose they KNOW already, and hope to hell that none of it ever comes out? And all the while, everything is falling in around them, they must have more dirty little secrets than we could ever imagine.

Like the home-alone kid who figured, if he really was slick, no one would ever know he stole a cookie... except that during this burglary, he broke the cookie jar... Now he's just waiting for Mom or Dad to show up with a switch, 'cus the evidence is pretty conclusive...

Which begs a couple simple questions...How many powerful R's KNOW something they aren't telling? and just how many cookie jars got broken over the last six years?

JEP

[Barry Champlain]

Just so I'm clear, EW: you're saying that, in all likelihood, Walton has telegraphed that a glut of Republic astroturf, gushing about Scooter as a pillar of the community and a patriotic American, is NOT likely to sway him?

[JEP]

Unless I am mistaken, the Hiatts partially OWN the WaPo, so there's no "gettin' rid of him" unless we were to organize a grassroots investment wave to buy up some of these stresses media outlets...

HMMMM.... now there's a thought... Bloggers buying up the LA Times and some other poorly managed mainstream rags???

Something to chew on for a while...

[TeddySanFran]

Were I Irve, that "weightiness of the underlying charges" business would have me getting my affairs in order.

[emptywheel]

Barry

Dunno. I suspect he will dismiss anything he perceives to be astroturf, pro or contra Libby. But hopefully he read my letter on the benefits that accrue to Dick with leniency.

[JEP]

"The underlying charge is treason"

We should be hearing that basic, undeniable truth much more often, as the results of the passing Republican stranglehold on all our branches of government is uncovered...

Call it what you want, so much of whatever we see here IS treasonous and there's no other word to define it.

[Phoenix Woman]

So, the righties pushed the spam campaign because they said that there was no underlying crime -- except that there WAS an underlying crime.

Have they no shame? At long last, have they no shame?

[QuickSilver]

I wrote a 'throw the book at him' letter in my head—and then sublimated it into a thousand comments on The Next Hurrah, Daily Kos, and Firedoglake. I guess that will just have to do.

[Frank Probst]

Shorter Judge Walton: If you cut a deal by Monday morning, it'll save me the trouble of reading all of these horseshit letters before I have to come in on Tuesday and fry your ass.

[Hank Essay]

What are the chances that Judy Miller wrote Scooter an Aspen Turning 2.0 letter?

-

[Frank Probst]

How many people do you think are going to try to get their letters back?

[JEP]

"Have they no shame?"

No, PW, they don't.

Garrison Keillor said once "Republicans made their peace with hypocrisy long ago..."

And once you've signed one of those pernicious contracts in blood,(Iraq), there's no erasing it, after the war went bad.

Their only choice now is patent deception and even more patent denial. Their desperation grows ever more transparent. And I have blogged before "beware the cornered beast..."

Toensing's their best/worst example; no matter how many real experts say Plame was covert, she repeats her "not-covert" lie, simply because there is no longer any alternative for them but r them but to create and promulgate an alternative truth.

Since Truth knows no alternatives, it is simply frantic spin.