One of the greatest, most positive things that has come from the Libby trial is some understanding for all of us who are not lawyers that the law is, or should be, impartial. It is hard, sometime, for a lay person to be sympathetic with the plight of a criminal, but if the Prosecutor makes mistakes in law, even a criminal is entitled to redress at appeal. Libby had the best in both prosecution and lawyers, apparently no legal mistakes in the arguments, and his first appeal was denied. How anyone can be angry about that can only be attributed to extreme political bias or total dumbness. The only legal mistake, here is that Libby, himself made the mistake of treason and lying, and enabling the President and Vice-President to break the law without consequences(so far).

EW

Thanks for â€holding up the lens of justice†these past years, months and especially days. I appreciate the blogesphere’s efforts in uniting their insight on these matters and have been reading Jeralyn closely the last few days. I sent a true story of something that happened to me on July 3rd to Christy. It involved an old aquaintence who served on jury duty the past two weeks only to come home to the President commuting Libby’s sentence. She WAS as far a right REP as they come. Let me emphasize WAS. You would love the story. It’s one that will keep you fighting for We The People and the rule of law.

In terms of uniting the power of the more intelligent and thoughtful blogs, it would be good to

look at this data

A posting on this info might be helpful to inspire what the â€We†can do.

Waiver of executive privilege is a great response to the GOP talking point about Mark Rich.

By all means, let’s make it exactly like Mark Rich!

Although I would agree with all of the above comments let us not forget that the justice system is still a very inhospitable place at certain times and for certain people. Prior to 9/11 if you happen to lite up a cigarette in a bathroom of an airliner the most you probably would have received is a slap on the wrist. One week after 9/11 a middle eastern individual lite up while flying from LA to Toronto. Found guilty at trial he received 33 months. He was not a terrorist of any kind just another person who lite up at the wrong time. So, lets not go too far overboard about the equality of justice outside of the Libby commutation.

emptywheel,

your posts have been excellent … i just got back from a meeting with my congress critter’s (denny rehberg) field rep., larry watson, who was at the library to get feedback on what was on people’s minds. i asked him what rehberg’s position was on the commutation of libby’s sentence, especially since the justice dept argued against reducing another’s 33 month sentence before the supreme court last week, and their pushing of mandatory minimums. he stated that as far as he knew, rehberg has not stated a position. i further questioned him about NSL to librarians, the MCA and the loss of habeas, the US Attorney firings, the patriot act, illegal wire tapping and the lies that were sold to the public by the republican administration that got us into iraq and outed a CIA agent in the process of trying to cover their lies… in other words all the topics that you, jane, jeralyn, chrisie, trex, pach, glenn and other concerned citizens have been writing about for years … no answers from mr. watson … i told him i wanted a comprehensive response from rehberg … that selling montana wheat to china is meaningless and unimportant in light of the assault on the constitution … he took copious notes and promised a response â€shortly†…

thank you all for do for all of us who care about the constitution … now, off to read jeralyn …

Ishmael – I agree. In some regards, I don’t care that rich people can afford more thorough and better representation as much as I care that there is not a uniformly competent baseline level and quality or representation for everyone, including the poor and indigent. And that the court system and government doesn’t demand the same. For instance in Mr. Bush’s Texas, an under substance influenced contract scrub lawyer working for $30.00 an hour and literally sleeping at the defense table for much of a murder trial is considered acceptable. Now that gets me mad. Median level earnest prosecutors can beat great defense lawyers with all their resources if they play things straight. Everybody likes to talk about the OJ Simpson case. I personally think OJ did the crimes, but that the charges should rightfully have been bounced on a motion to dismiss because of the absolutely inexplicable and heinous 4th Amendment search and seizure violations coupled with custody of evidence chains that made swiss cheese look solid. In spite of that, the reason he was acquitted by the jury, in my opinion, was the pitiful job done by the prosecution, not the so called â€brilliance of the best money could buy dream defense teamâ€. The prosecutors, Clark and Darden, were literally pitiful. I guarantee that I could have convicted Simpson, and done it with a state’s case less than half as long as they put on. I have seen hundreds of municipal prosecutors that would have done a better job. If justice is done right, justice gets done.

People who get Presidential Pardons are unique in the justice system.

I would assume they would only be about 1 tenth of a percent or probably much less. Someone should know! Perhaps a one thousanth or a one hundred thousanth? Or less.

I would also assume that their circumstances are much different from the average general population. Perhaps a friend of a friend, or a friend of an associate, or a relative or an inlaw. Perhaps they are from a favored cause or a favored group.

Probably many of them have someone vouching for them that is connected, and carrying the ball in what is essentially a political process with a quasi-legal basis (to avoid stupid errors, or gross blundering.)

Here is an URL to the Department of Justice, and a partial list of the pardons by President Clinton on one day.
January 20, 2001.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

You will notice that for only a few of the men
there are categories left out in particular the crime, and in a few instances even the address.

CLINTON, Roger
Marc Rich

See also:

http://www.american-partisan.c…..1/0227.htm

I think that Hugh Rodman, related to you know, who was pardoned.

And a little further removed from Mrs Clinton was two men that her campaign manager represented to be pardoned.

There were also some Jewish people that we can get into, but the one big Israeli spy is still inprisioned fortunately.

And then of course we can get into State Governor pardons.

Some more interesting testimony from Scoots:

LIBBY: Let me say that the president’s pardon is unfettered–the president’s power to pardon is unfettered, so technically it would be proper for him to do it without consulting with anyone and it would be not questioned. I believe…

SHAYS: Again, I know my red light’s on, but when you guys do this to me it just blows my mind. Having an absolute power, if anything, means, doesn’t it, that they should do an even more thorough job to make sure they have vetted it properly?

LIBBY: Yes, sir. I was about to finish by saying…

SHAYS: I’m sorry.

LIBBY: … while he has that absolute power, it would seem to me he should exercise it by bringing in all the possible information that would be relevant to him and thereby have a process which would be fair and have very high standards.

SHAYS: Mr. Libby, interrupted you when I asked you about absolute power because I anticipated an answer that I had no right to anticipate. It was your testimony that an absolute power, because it’s an absolute power, needs to be exercised more carefully.

LIBBY: I would agree with that statement, sir.

SHAYS: And the question I now wonder, because one of the issues that this committee does is we look at waste, fraud and abuse, and we don’t legislate, we don’t appropriate, but what we do do is recommend changes. Now, obviously an absolute power can be exercised by this president any way he chooses to, but one of the hopes that I have is that this committee will recommend to this administration that they don’t do all the stupid things that we heard happened in today’s testimony. And I would make the assumption that your people are looking at what happened in the last few months and are hopefully saying, â€We’re not going to do the same thing.â€

LIBBY: President Bush has stated, sir, that he believes that the power is a virtually unfettered power but that he would exercise it fairly and with high standards.

Jodi??

Whoever you are, go back to the Protocols I’m sure everything you need to know is in there somewhere.

Executive Privilege

Emptywheel: â€I think it’s significant that President Clinton waived executive privilege for the hearing and allowed his aides who participated in the Rich pardon discussion to testify, no holds barred.â€

Marcy,

You mentioned executive privilege, and some thing’s been gnawing at me: Bear with me, please. Notice the contrast between the following, which I will expand on:

1. Destroyed Illegal Backups

We know the WH has a backup e-mail system with the RNC; and this e-mail was destroyed; and

2. WH Counsel Privilege Claims

When counsel invoked privilege, they should have had a reasonable basis for that claim of privilege.

In my view, the problem is the disconnect: _If_ counsel had a â€genuine†basis to â€believe†that their invocation of privilege were real, _then_ [1] they should have reasonably assumed privilege would have shielded all documents; and [2] there would be no reason to [a] create a secondary e-mail system; [b] ignore the archivist’s audit; or [c] destroy the e-mails in that backup system.

Counsel’s conduct is at odds with its assertions. To restate: It makes no sense that the backup email would have been destroyed if, as we were to believe, counsel â€believed†that the privilege claim was genuine. Rather, it appears the opposite:

A. Counsel feared the privilege claims would fail, prompting the use of the RNC e-mail;

B. Realizing the privilege would fail, and that specific documents were being requested in the RNC e-mails, someone directed specific RNC e-mail destroyed

Conclusions

1. Alleged Obstruction of Justice: Current, former WH Counsel Recollections in 2007 of beliefs in 2001 are Manufactured, and Have Been Unlawfully Coordinated Through Destroyed E-mails

The existence of the backup email system supports the conclusion counsel _at the time of the development of this backup e-mail_ did not then believe privilege would work as a shield because they feared something would be detected about illegal activity. Yet, today, they would ask the opposite: That they â€always†believed privilege was valid. Their conduct does not support their current claims about what they believed. IT does not appear that they believed their claims would prevail; but their assertions of their â€beliefs then†have been adjusted, and are misleading.

2. Alleged Reckless, Fraud Upon Court: Knowingly False Affidavits By Counsel To DC Federal Court

All assertions of privilege are dubious: They are not linked with a subsequent expectation that the documents would be preserved; and the conduct of counsel and WH-DOJ staff shows they did not expect privilege to succeed; yet, despite the conduct showing their assertion of privilege was dubious, they continued to assert privilege on issues likely mentioned in the deleted RNC e-mails: Rendition, FISA violations, Geneva violations, prisoner abuse, and other planning actions related to Iraq WMD, Plame, and the Fitzgerald Grand Jury obstruction.

3. Allegedly, Current and Former WH Counsel Involved With Evidence Destruction, Witness Tampering

If the privilege claim was one counsel really believed, they have no explanation why those shielded documents would have to be hidden in different databases; or why they were subsequently deleted. It appears the motivation to hide, destroy, and tamper with the evidence was not because it was related to privilege or a bonafide die state secret, but because of evidence the GOP was involved with illegal activity;y and the RNC e-mails were used to coordinate obstruction of justice, Geneva violations, and other cover ups related to FISA violations.

Going Forward

Given the above, and recalling there is no statute of limitations for war crimes, and legal counsel can be adjudicated with war crimes [precedent Nuremberg] my questions are:

A. Dubious Claims of Privilege: Grand Jury Examination of Current, Formerly Assigned WH Counsel

Has the above been raised as a legal issue by Fitzgerald to the Grand Jury, as reported in any open deposition of affidavit;

B. Evidence Destruction, Missing Data: Members of Congress Making Reasonable Adverse Inferences

How has the above problem with the claims of privilege been factored into the Judiciary Subpoenas: When does Congress say, â€We’re going to make adverse inferences about the missing RNC e-mails; and attach that adverse inference not just to the President on FISA violations, but to legal counsel broadly on issues of Geneva violations, and violations of Atty standards of conduct;

C. Targeting Current, Formerly Assigned WH Counsel For Disbarment in re Their Alleged Active Contribution and Planing For FISA Violations and Geneva Violations

Which legal counsel are at risk of facing disciplinary issues because their assertion of privilege does not appear to be linked with subsequent and precedent conduct consistent with the expectation that the documents should be shielded;

D. WH File Sharing Systems Other Than RNC E-mails

To what extent have the above issues been factored into the Judiciary Subpoenas in re requests for outside file sharing information connected with MicrosoftOutlook? [Recall the Rove_K format found on one of the DoJ printout: That format of that file matches the Microsoft Outlook, suggesting that if the RNC, instead of using e-mail, was using the MicrosoftOutlook-compatible SharePoint file sharing system to coordinate planning, then the Judiciary Request for e-mails narrowly focus on evidence which has been destroyed; but fails to look at the broader file sharing systems and other readers (outside EOP, DoJ at outside legal counsel)?

E. Loss of Atty-Client Privilege, and Unreasonable Expectation that Atty_Client Privilege Would Shield Illegal Activity

To what extent can the apparent WH-EOP-OVP-DoJ _legal counsel_ apparent complicity with the illegal activity [evidence destruction, dubious claims of privilege, non-compliance with Hatch Act, blocking the archivist audit] [a] implicate legal counsel in the illegal activity; and [b] tear down any claim legal counsel have about attorney-client privilege?

When does the â€legal counsel-half†of the atty-client privilege lose a reasonable expectation privilege Will be recognized when legal counsel is found to be a participate int he in the illegal activity; and the target of the prosecution in re war crimes, FISA violations, and other illegal activity?

When does the targeted legal counsel’s communications with their legal counsel get subject to review; or would their communications with other legal counsel be protected, even if it were proved the â€former WH counsel’s legal counsel†was also complicit with the illegal activity?

F. Dubious Claim: When does it become fraud upon court in re false affidavit by counsel who should know the claim of privilege was not bonafide?

Said another way, once legal counsel appears to have lied to the court and Congress in re Privilege on many legal issues [FISA, NSA, prisoner abuse, Geneva violations], when does the evidence of RNC e-mail destruction and backup file systems trump the attorney-client privilege; and when does evidence of legal counsel complicity-involvement with illegal activity destroy any reasonable expectation that the attorney-client privilege will remain in tact?

G. Breadth of Adverse Inferences in RE Geneva, War Crimes Attached to Former and current WH Legal Counsel, Targets of the current Senate Judiciary Subpoenas

How many criminal issues related to FISA can we attach to these adverse inferences: Do we need to establish that specific legal counsel were involved, present, and did review specific briefings related to Geneva violations?

I would think that once legal counsel were implicated, they could not reasonable expect their communications through the RNC e0mail system or the MicrofostOutlook-compatible file sharing systems could be protected. Nixon reminds us that evidence of illegal activity does not have absolute privilege, which WH counsel knew or should have known would destroy their hope that their memoranda would be shielded.

In so many words, once it appears legal counsel is implicated with the unlawful activity, they lose a credible expectation that their communications would be protected by any attorney client privilege; and the destruction of RNC e-mails would be reasonably-adversely interpreted to be evidence of legal counsel’s involvement with Geneva violations, FISA violations, and other Grave breaches of the Supreme Law and Laws of war.

I’d be interested in your reactions: When will DC-bar affiliated counsel file reports with DC Disciplinary Board in re above alleged illegal activity by current former WH-EOP-DoJ-OVP Counsel?

Judgement/Opinion

The above relates to allegations of war crimes without any statute of limitations which Members of Congress, in fully asserting their oath, should have reviewed and investigated to enforce Geneva.

members of congress appear to have a motivating not to impeach: Members of congress do not want to have their alleged involvement with failing to enforce Geneva disclosed.

Assume WH-EOP will block US Atty prosecution of legal counsel; and members of Congress will not aggressively press for prosecutions if that prosecution might backfire into a broader investigation of their alleged recklessness in failing to assert their oath to enforce Geneva against their peers in Congress and the legal community.

Recommendation

Get the 50 State Attorney generals on the record:

Where do they stand on using State level prosecutions against a sitting President, Members of Congers,a and legal counsel in re allegations of war crimes, FISA violations, and failures to fully assert 5 USC 3331 oath of office?

Time for the blogosphere to engage with the State AGs: We’re not talking bout just impeachment, but of widespread legal action against Members of congress and current-former WH-EOP-OVP-DoJ staff counsel allegedly complicit with Geneva violations. There appear to be no mitigation’s, especially in light of the RNC e-mail destruction.

Hello everybody, except you, shit stain

I’m back

I just flew in from out of town, and boy are my arms tired …

what did I miss ???

bmaz:
That’s an understatement. If my connection had had enough bandwidth, I’d have reached through and strangled them.

Being a stupid mistake himself, I can see how Bush would sympathize…..