« My Name Is emptywheel and I Am an Oversight Hearings Addict | Main | Cross-References and Circular Arguments »

May 31, 2007


If that's the best the defense can come up with for arguments, I'd say Scooter is in for three years in orange jumpsuits. But IANAL.

Thanks again, emptywheel. You are on a roll. Actually you are always on a roll--this month justs seems like a faster and steeper hill. Glad you are the one navigating it for us.

SusanUnPC at NO QUARTER has copies up of the complaint submitted to court today by Valerie Plame Wilson along with her publisher Simon & Schuster, Inc. Valerie Wilson is suing the CIA to release her book or more officially she's filed a "complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief."

PJ Evans

The Defense may well be right on the cross-reference issue (also NAL), so it may still mean they get the lower numbers. My point on this is just that, all questoin of law, the first part of this document (before the cross-reference discussion) seems designed precisely to be a PR document, not a legal document.


I know lawyers, criminal defense lawyers, who do not seem to grasp the crossreferencing provisions of the guidlines as well as you do.

Shorter version of the post Marcy's gonna do:

If you obstruct an investigation into penny anti paper clip theft you do not get as big an enhancement as you do if you obstruct an investigation into large scale theft of thermo nulclear fissionable material.

Even shorter version: the bigger the crime you obstruct, the bigger the sentening guidelines enhancement you get.

I only got as far as page 8 before I was laughing so hard I had tears blurring my vision. So, I prointed it out to read before bedtime so I will have laughter in my dreams

Well, perhaps in your abundant spare time you can do a post on cross-referencing for FDL. Because it is too weedy ultimately to determine whether Bonamici (if it was her) is right or the Defense, based on the cites that Bonamici used.

In any case, we'll be treated to a nice argument between Bonamici and Jeffress next week, I'm sure.

They really don't see how foolish they look do they? This paragraph is worthy of a John Stewart episode.

The government repeatedly claims that Mr. Libby has stated that his “disclosures of information regarding Ms. Wilson’s employment may have been sanctioned by the Vice President.” Gov’t Guidelines Mem. at 6-7; see also Gov’t Sent. Mem. at 12, 14. This is a misleading characterization of Mr. Libby’s statements to the FBI and his grand jury testimony. Mr. Libby repeatedly told both the FBI and the grand jury that the Vice President had not instructed him to disclose any information regarding Ms. Wilson to the press, and his notes of discussions with the Vice President corroborate such statements and testimony. Only after repeated questioning by an FBI agent and the Special Counsel about whether it was possible that the Vice President had recommended such a disclosure did Mr. Libby allow that it was possible, although he had no such recollection.

Erm, Mr Wells and Mr Jeffress, you haven't forgot, have you, that your client is a convicted liar. So why should the Court give any credence to anything which Scooter told the grand jury or the FBI?

this is off-topic (I ain't read the post yet)

William Ockham may have just blown the palast story wide open on a past thread

see the tail end of the "Don't Let the Door Hit You..." thread

does anybody else know about this "Consent Decree" ???

sounds like a straight case of Contempt Of Court against the r n c and timmy grifith

book em danno

Walton to release sentencing letters?

Hey Miles,

No offense, but you might check the site before you provide a (Fox!) link to news that I posted about six hours ago.

Thank you--don't mean to be snide, but please do check the site first.

if the jury could see thru scooter's bullshit, what are the odds that Judge Walton is fooled

in fact, given that the Honorable Judge has been witness to scooter's "clown act called a defense" for a few years, how do we know Mr Walton isn't laughing as hard as we are ???

has a Judge ever had to recuse himself because he couldn't keep from laughing at the defendant's counsel ???

we might be seeing history here

is the ruling in O'Liely versus Franken usable as prescedent in a criminal trial ???

Wholly Without Merit


This is what they were 5 days late, without leave from the court, for? With a couple of exceptions, and yes, the cross-referencing of categorized crimes is one of them, they would have been better off submitting a one page statement with a caption and the words "Have Mercy on Scoots". Perhaps they were emboldened by the, apparently, slanted PSR. That is sure not a document I would ever have presented to this court, and certainly not five days late. For a couple of pretty well thought of and experienced defense lawyers, Wells and Jeffress have conducted an absolutely bizzare defense since they stood up to make their closing arguments. They are simply not THAT goofy, I am stumped as to what is going on.

lhp -- If I assume the defense attys are not incompetent, then why do the provide a filing that is so transparently PR and not a strong argument on behalf of the client. I the main point here that they no longer care about what happens at the trial level, because they have a solution to their client's problem outide the courts. I'm just having trouble with the idea that the entire defense team would be indifferent to the need for a strong, convincing filing.

Yo, bmaz, I think you're confused because your background is in Law

try studying "Stoogophilia" next time

don't ya know a comedy act when you see one ???

Moe pokes Curly in the eye. Curly swings at Moe but hits Larry. Larry tries to hit Curly but Moe slaps Larry first. Curly dances a few steps and says Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk

I knew all those years of watching Stooges reruns would come in handy some day ...

As EW notes, Libby's conviction relates to obstructing justice and lying to federal officers pursuing an investigation into a leak of national security information. Regarding his convictions, that should be case closed.

Assuming the issue of the leak of Ms. Plame's identity remains relevant, it shouldn't legally or practically matter if a dozen people told Bob Novak something they shouldn't have. Any release of national security information by Libby to anyone not authorized to receive that information is a separate violation.

The apparent ruse here is a kind of circle jerk that claims that because so many other senior WH officials also leaked the subject information, none of them did. That Three Stooges defense shouldn't distract a first-year prosecutor.

Further, any statement by Libby - one of the most important members of the Bush administration - that corrobates or disproves information leaked by others accomplishes a separate wrong. It makes the information more or less credible - assuming Libby is deemed credible - which is an important pointer in interpreting intelligence.

Libby's actions also violated his comprehensive non-disclosure agreement, which would justify his dismissal for cause - a circumstance that should lead to him losing his license to practice law. The only way off that hook is to prove that he was ordered to disclose what he did by someone with authority to issue that order, ie, Bush. (Not the NIE data, but Plame's identity.) But this WH apparently doesn't take violations of non-disclosure agreements seriously, unless you disagree with the Chief.

I think Libby's defense is in its last throws....

They just keep throwing stuff out there hopin' something makes sense.

"Further, it is not clear that engaging in temporary
duty travel overseas would make a CIA employee who is based in Washington eligible for protection under the IIPA. In fact, it seems more likely that the CIA employee would have to have been stationed outside the United States to trigger the protection of the statute. To our knowledge, the meaning of the phrase “served outside the United States”
in the IIPA has never been litigated."

Same old BS. They are grasping at straws with this.

If I were a suspicious person, I'd imagine they're just going through the motions. (IANAL but I made a law joke?)

Does this mean Libby's been guaranteed a pardon? And, that, said pardon will come before he steps foot in jail even if Bush has to do it now?

These guys are smart enought to know Walton won't buy their BS. This is material for Wingnuttia to cycle through brainwash radio. They want the pardon to go down with an easy swallow for the minority of the minority.

Their base needs a constant IV drip of disinformation. Otherwise they might get disoriented and see things they don't want to see.


For a couple of pretty well thought of and experienced defense lawyers, Wells and Jeffress have conducted an absolutely bizzare defense since they stood up to make their closing arguments. They are simply not THAT goofy, I am stumped as to what is going on.


If I assume the defense attys are not incompetent, then why do the provide a filing that is so transparently PR and not a strong argument on behalf of the client.

Boys, I just don't know. Both Wells and Jefress are supposed to be among the best of the best. I admit I have not seen much of it.

I think they might have stuck with a teary "send him back to me!", but what do I know. I almost never represent criminal defendants, and the few I do represent it's because they WANT to ccoperate with the government. I save the gov't the trouble of having to flip them and bring them in pre-flipped. My whole representation consists of getting them the best deal possible for their wholehearted cooperation and doing some serious kickass in the pre-sentencing phase.

I have no clue why this particular document could not be delivered on time considering the resources of the firms invovled. Maybe somebody critical had the flu?

It does seem that the interests being protected, as laways, are not necessarily Scooter's. But I don't see him filing an ineffective assistance of counsel motion. He is being screwed with his own active consent, that is obvious.

The Bush Mafia practices better omerta than La Cosa Nostra

I second what dismayed said. I think this IS just a piece of PR.

Perhaps they are assuming that they can keep Libby out of jail while on appeal. They know he will be sentanced but if they keep him out of jail then they probably think they can carry-on till Bush pardons him in January of 2009.

I have to disagree LHP

how could scooter NOT be tryin for an "Incompetent Council" appeal ???

I could do a better job of defending scooter without even trying

in the interests of full disclosure, I have to say that I predicted it was either an insanity defense of an "Incompete Council appeal waiting to happen" about 18 months back, so I got a betting interest here ...


[cross-posted to the
second thread, as well. . .]

okay -- i admit, like lhp -- that
trying to predict sentencing calculations
is an endeavour best left to experts. . .

but what IS NEW, and IS AVAILABLE,
already, from team-libby's OTHER
FILING, tonight -- is new details,
new tid-bits -- of what those support
letters contain. . .

like scooter's efforts on behalf
of another white house staffer
accused of leaking classified
information to a newspaper. . .

yep -- he's apparently been
here, before -- in the role of
pro-bono lawyer -- not client

the letter from which this was
quoted may well be one deserving
of some redaction, so i will not
speculate about identities -- no,
as to the incident, i'll patiently
wait to match the above-quoted, to
whatever is made available on, or
after june 5, 2007. . .

that said. . . i think it permissable
to speculate about how this incident
might have influenced the arc of scooter's
later trajectory -- and his life -- since then. . .

so, i cannot help wondering whether
scooter "went to school" in some
measure on this case, especially
insofar as it might have helped
him learn where the absolute edge
of "a policy disagreement" becomes,
well. . . "a leak to a newspaper". . .

do take a squint. . .

Come on people. You all seem to be missing something: the Probation Office made recommendations (or whatever they're called) very favorable to Libby's side, so of course Libby's defense, starting from a position of strength, is going to push things as far as it can. I'm not denying that any number of their assertions are completely ridiculous from the perspective of the real factual world. I'm also not saying that I have any sense of where Walton will end up. But Libby's defense is starting from a position of strength.

Jeralyn explains it better.

So what are the preditions?

I would say 2 years, about 1/2 a year less than Fritz requested.
After that 1 1/2 years.

So then we have another question? I am just going to apply a little logic to this since I don't know the histories of what usually happens.

Will Walton consider the length of time of the sentence with respect to of Libby's freedom during appeal?

I think that the shorter the sentence, the more likely of freedom during appeal. It would look funny if Libby went to jail, and the sentence was overthrown, and he had already done his time.

So if it is a 1 1/2 year sentence, he should stay free, and if a 2 year term, prossibly free, and with a 3 year term, maybe not.

Of course then we have to have the lawyers tell us about parole.

Libby maintains he is wrongly convicted and did nothing illegal. The defense presentencing memo re-asserts widespread PR talking points that support (somewhat) Libby's position.

Libby's stance and the defense presentencing memo point to positioning Scooter and the public (opinion) for a pardon. The defense presentencing memo was written for consumption by the public and the president's advisers, not to make a compelling argument to Judge Walton.

It is my hope Judge Walton gives Libby 36 months, instead I think he'll give Libby 33.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad