Shorter Abu Gonzales: Throw Libby in Jail for at Least 30 Months

I’ve been meaning to point out a little hypocrisy among the Republican faithful. You see, the Republicans are celebrating Alberto Gonzales’ recent call to crack down on federal convicts. They want to reverse the SCOTUS decision that allows judges to treat sentencing guidelines as a suggestion, and return to the era of required minimum sentencing. And they think this is a good campaign issue.

The Bush administration is trying to roll back a Supreme Court decisionby pushing legislation that would require prison time for nearly allcriminals.


In a speech June 1 to announce the bill, Attorney General AlbertoGonzales urged Congress to reimpose mandatory minimum prison sentencesagainst federal convicts — and not let judges consider such penalties"merely a suggestion."

Such an overhaul, in part, "willstrengthen our hand in fighting criminals who threaten the safety andsecurity of all Americans," Gonzales said in the speech, deliveredthree days before the FBI announced a slight national uptick in violentcrime during 2006.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but this Republican party talking about making this a campaign issue … it’s the same Republican party led by people threatening retribution because Scooter Libby, federal convict, might have to go to jail, right? And the same Republican party that thinks Steven Griles, also a federal convict, should get to do community service–for non-profits he set up–rather than jail time?

Call me crazy, but I suspect there are going to be more Republicans begging for those "merely a suggestion" guidelines between now and November 2008. With the leaders of the party solidly behind them.

  1. P J Evans says:

    If there were mandatory minimum sentences in place, how long a sentence would Libby have gotten? Maybe they should have to answer that question, before they can speak about how we need those (and the many more prisons that would be necessary – are they volunteering to pay for those?)

  2. marksb says:

    Ok, you’re crazy.
    Nah, you (and I and many of the rest of us reality-based clear-thinking progressives) are quite sane.
    But these people are crazy as F’ing bedbugs. Nuts. Two sandwiches short of a picnic. Etc.
    You’re dead on here and in the Horowitz post, who I think, BTW, didn’t have anyone in mind for his threat. He’s standing out in the schoolyard, pissed off ’cause he’s not getting his way and no one’s paying any attention to him and the rest of the bullies, and he’s just screaming his generic threat: We’re going to GET you! Somehow! Someday! Just like we got Clinton! (It’s the only thing he has left, other than bombs, and I hear the military brass is asking thorny questions and getting in the way…)
    One more thing you nailed EW: they’re not just crazy, they’re criminally crazy.

  3. Anonymous says:


    If you buy Reggie’s argument–that he was required to apply an upwards enhancement because of the seriousness of the crime which Libby obstructed–then the minimum suggested by the guidelines would be … 30 months. Precisely what Reggie sentenced him to.

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    This is pure KKKarl. Scream bloody murder to get Libby off, prosecute the hell out of Democrats for bogus crimes, don’t touch Republicans guilty of flagrant corruption, and fire prosecutors who think otherwise. But advertise the GOP as the party that’s tough on crime and the savior of the American Way of Life. Never mind, of course, that anything semi-permanent, like legislation, will come back to haunt the GOP in two or three years, as potentially dozens of Congress Critters and administration hacks are prosecuted.

    I realize that Shrub might prefer just to ride his exercise bike for eighteen months, but KKKarl has to build his post-administration consulting business. But this sure looks old school, as if the public and the Democrats still can’t tell the difference between a WH talking point and the truth. Tim Russert may still act as if he can’t because it pays well, but my guess is that the ’06 election and disappointment in the polls over how slowly the Dems are cleaning up Washington suggests that the public is way ahead of KKKarl on this one.

  5. mighty mouse says:

    What can they be thinking? To whom will they pitch this initiative? Who on earth would benefit? Incarceration is a dubious proposition at best–without education, drug treatment, etc. I’m sure they’re not advocating bringing back Pell grants for prisoners. And, as you point out, so many criminals these days are Republicans. Oh! the new housing industry is stalled–maybe contractors to build new prisons? But Halliburton is outsourcing its headquarters to Dubai? Oh,what a web they are weaving…

  6. Jodi says:

    Ok, I am going to jump into the fire pit again.

    1. I will agree that Libby lied. It was all about one (1) thing. Talking about Plame to reporters and others. Supose he had spoken about her to 100 reporters, to 1000 reporters? Is that 100 counts, 1000 counts?
    Does he get 100 or 1000 sentences? No.
    And granted the Judge only gave him two sentences one for perjury, and one for lying (I assume to the FBI)

    2. The obstruction charge though is different! THere was no proven or even charged (at court before the jury) that there was a crime to obstruct. No evidence was presented. No witness. No body. No broken windows and such. As a matter of fact no one anywhere at anytime has been charged for that supposed crime!

    If Mr Libby had said â€Hell yes, I talked about Plame,†it would only have been politically embarassing, and he might have even lost his job though I and most here doubt that would have been the case. He never would have been charged for IIPA or â€outing a covert agent.â€
    I believe that is why he lied.

    There are two kinds of â€covert†being discussed here. One is covered under the special law, and one isn’t.

    The sentence for the obstruction charge is the longer one and shouldn’t be there.

    As for the matter of whether Mr Fitzgerald is legal in his appointment and his investigation, as well as CIPA, well that is as they say a technicality and those are crazy things.

  7. freepatriot says:

    gee shitstain, you really ARE amazingly fucking stupid

    there was an investigation about government officials who talked to reporters about Valerie Plame

    scooter libby, a government official who had talked to reporters about Valerie Plame, told the investigators he HAD NOT talked to reporters about Valerie Plame AND concoted a FLAT OUT FUCKING LIE about a reporter who told him about Valerie Plame

    you’ll admit that much, right shit stain ???

    and WHY would scooter lie to those investigators ???

    to make their job easier ???

    so shit stain, as long as you avoid the question about why scooter lied to those investigators, your little â€belief†is safe from facts

    now we’re gonna try the hard part shit stain

    please explain to me why scooter would lie if his intention was NOT to obstruct the investigation

    can’t do it, can you shit stain ???

    that’s why you’re a shit stain

    and shit stain, I really wonder why a mouth breather like you, who accepts any illogical talking points as fact with any critical evaluation would spend your time hanging out in a place where the whole point of the exercise is critical evaluation of information

    if you want to be a stupid shit stain all your life, why do you hang out here, where the people are exactly the opposite of you

  8. Mimikatz says:

    The crime is obstruction of justice. That means interfering with ascertaining the truth>/b>, not with prosecuting a crime. Example: Withholding evidence that would exonerate someone and show that, in fact, no crime was committed could be an obstruction of justice.

    And IIRC Libby’s sentences all ran concurrently, not consecutively, though others woould know better than I.

  9. freepatriot says:

    any time a person lies to an official investigating a crime, that person has OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE

    that’s the part mouth breathers like the shit stain don’t understand

  10. freepatriot says:

    what more needs to be said:

    If you buy Reggie’s argument–that he was required to apply an upwards enhancement because of the seriousness of the crime which Libby obstructed–then the minimum suggested by the guidelines would be … 30 months. Precisely what Reggie sentenced him to.

    oh yeah, there’s one more thing to say …

    Woh … Woh … Woh …

    karma is a bitch, and she’s got scooter’s number right now …

  11. Anonymous says:

    Mimikatz – All sentences run concurrent on Libby, so the timeline of the 30 month sentence on obstruction, being the longest of the respective sentences, controls the incarceration. Having made the determination that the category cross-reference enhancement on the obstruction charge was legally compelled by the facts (not a discretionary decision; if the facts are found to support it, it applies) that resulted in a guideline presumptive range of 30 to, I think, 37 months. Irrespective of the actual number on the maximum end of the range, Walton sentenced Libby to the low end minimum of the suggested range.

  12. litigatormom says:

    These fuckers really have no sense of the ironic, do they? If the guidelines were mandatory, rather than advisory (as they are now in light of several Supreme Court decisions), then there wouldn’t even have been a possibility of arguing that poor, family-values, honest and hard-working Scoots should get probation or house arrest.