I mentioned in my celebration of Jeralyn my friend whose clients never get the luxury of Presidential commutations. Well, he says this is an accurate quote, so I thought I’d let him have his say on Libby’s commutation.

David Moran, associate dean of the Wayne State University Law School,said Libby’s commutation directly contradicts the Justice Department’sposition in the case of Victor Rita, a highly decorated veteranimprisoned for perjury under circumstances strikingly similar toLibby’s.

U.S. Supreme Court justices recently upheld Rita’s prison sentence, andit’s that decision, not Bush’s commutation rationale, that federalcourt judges are bound to follow.

Still, Moran said, "Defense lawyers would be stupid not to latch onto the contradiction.

"The president made an elaborate argument for leniency, and I’d besurprised if we don’t see judges who want to hand out more lenientsentences citing the president’s statement specifically," he said.

I’ve heard a lot about the folks Dave represents. I suspect he’ll be making those elaborate arguments with little effect. Not that he’s not smart as all get out–and persuasive too (and since we’ve been talking about ultimate frisbee–he’s got a mean lefty huck that I used to be able to put to good use). But his clients, generally, are not protecting the President. Which, I suspect, still makes all the difference.

In my post on the felon of considerable means, rhfactor noted that Libby’s check paying his fine was dated July 2–the same day Bush obstructed justice commuted Libby’s prison sentence. What a coinkydink, huh?

But I checked with the good folks at the Prettyman Courthouse, and at least on the surface, there’s nothing untoward about the date. Libby’s sentence included the following deadlines for his fines:

Total amount due for special assessment $400.00 due within 30 days of the 6/5/07 date. Fine in the amount of $250,000 imposed, due immediately.

In other words, the $400 was due on July 5 anyway. And, well, it looks like Libby’s got the same lackadaisical approach to the word "immediately" as he has with classified information. Because I’d say "immediately" is probably not the same thing as 30 days.

But if you’ve got the President in your back pocket, who cares about deadlines!?!?!?!

Let me say straight out. Punishing Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence with censure would be like punishing Libby’s obstruction of justice with just 400 hours of community service. It would simply reinforce the notion that Bush’s Administration is above the law. It would be a punishment wholly unfit for the crime that has been committed: Obstruction of Justice. Bush’s obstruction of justice piled up on top of Libby’s obstruction of justice, all to prevent the American justice system from holding this Administration accountable for its actions.

I love Swopa. But I am astounded that he misses this fact: in a post arguing against getting lost in the minutiae, he presents the issue as one of Bush "coddling criminals," and not as one of Bush using his pardon power to hide his own (and Cheney’s) involvement in a crime. It was not Libby who came up with the idea of leaking Valerie Wilson’s identity to Judy Miller, it was Cheney, and he did so with the authorization of Bush.

This is not a mistake Wexler makes. Indeed, his resolution defines in clear terms what Bush’s commutation amounts to:

[Bush’s] decision to reward the perjury of Mr. Libby … effectivelyprotected President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and otherAdministration officials from further scrutiny.

Given that Wexler has such a clear understanding of the issue here, it is unfortunate that he stops at censure. Sure, it’d make for bad press for the President. On Tuesday. But by Thursday, Bush could rest easy that he had ended all scrutiny into his actions, once and for all. Censure would amount to a closing off of inquiry; it would provide a way for the Republicans to defeat any effort to get the grand jury materials that Fitzgerald and his team spent so much effort putting together. It would end this thing, at precisely the moment when the country is finally beginning to understand the magnitude of what Bush and Cheney did.

In fact, our forefathers gave us clear instructions what to do at a time like this, when a President uses his pardon authority to cover up his own crimes.

In the same convention George Mason argued that the President mightuse his pardoning power to "pardon crimes which were advised byhimself" or, before indictment or conviction, "to stop inquiry andprevent detection."

James Madison responded: [I]f the President be connected, in anysuspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe hewill shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; theycan remove him if found guilty..

It doesn’t take minutiae to prove that Bush has "sheltered" someone whose crime was "advised by himself." It takes Libby’s notes and grand jury testimony.

The punishment for the abuse of the pardon power is clear: impeachment. Just as the punishment for Libby’s obstruction was clearly 30 months. If we’re going to complain about the commutation itself, we have no business letting Bush off with nothing more than censure.

I’m with Howie and Josh. I think we ought not assume that, because two GOP Senators mired in scandal jump ship, it reflects widespread dissatisfaction with Bush’s failing war in Iraq.

The two rats in question are Senator Domenici, who will have a real challenge for re-election next year. Reid  has effectively challenged Domenici to put his votes where his mouth is next week, at which point Domenici might cave.

More interesting still is John Doolittle. Given the number of close Doolittle staffers who have been interviewed by the FBI of late, I expect the seemingly inevitable indictment against him will be very aggressive. Now perhaps this Doolittle trial balloon (ha!) is going to be about as effective as the similarly legally threatened Ted Stevens’ vote of present on the no confidence vote against Alberto Gonzales: that is, not a voice in favor of Bush’s guy, but not effectively a vote that does the same thing anyway.

The most interesting thing about this, though, is not any real dissatisfaction from Republicans with Bush’s imperial war (I’m not holding my breath). But the use of the war as currency with which you can get distance from Bush–or pressure him.

Just to put a little perspective to Scooter Libby’s little get out of jail almost-free check today, I remind you of this quote from the government’s filing on Libby’s PSR:

Any suggestion the defendant is entitled to leniency based onthe loss of income he suffered as a result of his decision to work ingovernment rather than in the private sector should be rejected out ofhand, particularly in light of the fact that, in spite of hissacrifice, defendant remains a man of considerable means.

Just in case you were worried that Libby has paid too steep a price for outing Valerie Wilson.

The BoGlo has a great story out today about what a slime Fred Thompson is. While he served as a minority counsel on the Senate Watergate Committee, Thompson was feeding Nixon’s lawyer information so Nixon could take "appropriate action."

"Even though I had no authority to act for the committee, I decidedto call Fred Buzhardt at home" to tell him that the committee hadlearned about the taping system, Thompson wrote. "I wanted to be surethat the White House was fully aware of what was to be disclosed sothat it could take appropriate action."

Armstrong said he andother Democratic staffers had long been convinced that Thompson wasleaking information about the investigation to the White House. Thecommittee, for example, had obtained a memo written by Buzhardt thatDemocratic staffers believed was based on information leaked byThompson.

The story confirms a lot we already know about Thompson–he’s the kind of corrupt thug that BushCo could well choose as their chosen successor.

But I’d like to ask a different question. Is Senator Jeff Sessions–or one of his staffers–the Fred Thompson of the Bush Scandals?

Remember the way that Thor Hearne tried to hide any traces of his American Center for Voting Rights, just as the media started to realize that it was a Republican front group designed to popularize ideas with no basis in reality, but which would be key tools to Republican dominance?

Well, the same is happening with Italia Federici’s organization,  Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy. The Hill reports that the organization is all but disappearing.

But, if the council’s website is any indication, it couldn’t surviveher guilty plea in federal court last month for obstruction and taxevasion. Federici’s sometime-boyfriend, former Deputy InteriorSecretary J. Steven Griles, was also sent to prison last week for 10months.

A visit to the group’s site now yields: “This site is temporarily unavailable.”

Foryears, the site had served as a source of talking points for those outto defend the environmental record of President Bush and Congress, whenit was run by Republicans. It cited philosophical ties to TheodoreRoosevelt and proclaimed, “President George Bush has made great stridesin protecting and improving the quality of America’s land, air andwater.”

For those who like to track disappearances, here’s the website. I think Sierra Club ought to see if it can buy the domain name–just as ACORN was gifted Hearne’s old site.

Say, did you notice who wrote the talking points for Tony Snow’s press briefing yesterday? The Probation office (only Snow makes the same mistake I did when I first talked about this, calling it the parole office–though I guess if you work for the guy who simply disappears all prison sentence, parole might come more easily to the tongue).

MR. SNOW:  Well, keep in mind that there is still — he doesrespect what the judge said, but he also respects what — I think if youtook a look at the trial record, at what the parole commissionrecommended, that what the parole commission recommended was highlyconsistent with what the President thought was an appropriate punishmenthere.

Q    Well, no, they talked about 16-plus months.

MR. SNOW:  No, that is — there’s a range of — what you’re takinga look — this gets very complicated.  You have obstruction of justice,and then you have mitigating factors that bumps it down.  And the bumpdown gets you, according, again, to the parole commission, to an areawhere it would be appropriate, it would be within acceptable guidelinesto have such things as home detention or probation.  Probation issomething that is going to be required in this case.

[snip]

MR. SNOW:  What I said was with the jury system.  But also, whatthe President did is also consistent with guidelines.  You need tounderstand the guideline argument better.  The question is, what are youusing as your baseline?  And the parole commission, which does this fora living, had recommended guidelines —

Q    But they recommended —

[snip]

Q    Does he think prison for perjury is excessive?

MR. SNOW:  — as did a parole board.

Over and over, Snow claims the "parole board" recommended precisely the same punishment that Bush ultimately decided upon, probation (though, as the surprisingly spiney press corpse point out, Snow has to assume that Libby would have been granted every single downward departure floated in the presentencing report).

I find it unbelievably suspicious that Snow is relying so heavily on the PSR to justify Bush’s action–because it appears to have been a complete hack-job, making arguments that embarrassed even Libby’s lawyers. So I’d like to call for publication of the PSR (with redaction of all the personal information save the financial information used to support some of its arguments, as noted below) so we can see the embarrassing logic behind Bush’s current justification for wiping away Libby’s prison sentence.

I found something nifty today when I was playing around in all my Libby Trial evidence. It’s either evidence that Libby knew Plame was covert … or it’s evidence that OVP went to some lengths to protect Dick and Bush. This involves a rethinking about the exchange from the Libby trial when Fitzgerald questioned Addington about the bogus stamp OVP used on lots of Libby’s notes. Here’s the passage in question:

Q Now, I wanted to talk now focus on the stampabove it that says "treated as crossed out, declassified." Now, is there such, first of all, I want to come back to "treated as," but do you know what it says underneath treated as?

A It says treated as top secret/S.C.I. all in caps…

[snip]

Q What does S.C.I. stand for?

A Sensitive Compartment Information is information that deals with intelligence sources and methods in the President’s executive orclassification. Executive Order 12958 authorizes the Director of NationalIntelligence to put specially sensitive information in a Sensitive Compartment Information. It has entire controls for dealing with that type of information. Fewer people have access to it.

Q Now, the words "top secret" or "S.C.I." are those classifications that are assigned to classified documents?

A Top secret is a classification, and the Sensitive Compartment Information is special accessrule. It is not technically a clearance.

Q What about, have you seen documents, can they be properly classified as treated as top secret/S.C.I.?

A I had never seen a stamp treated as top secret/S.C.I. beforedocuments were produced to me with that stamp on it.

Q Is that in fact a proper classification?

A The present Executive Order on classified national security information doesn’t use that phrase. [my emphasis]

This part I’ve treated before. Fitzgerald has basically gotten Addington to admit that this "treated as" stuff is a bogus classification. Fitzgerald then points out that, on the letter he wrote accompanying this document, Addington explained that the note came to him with the stamp, "treated as Top Secret/SCI" on it.

Q When you transmitted this document to the Government, if could bring up Government’s Exhibit 507, Page 2, Page 1, sorry. If we could focus down to the last paragraph of the page and just, and does that describe the document we just looked at Page 002919?

A I think that was the document number on it, yes.

Then, Fitzgerald tries to get Addington to quantify how many of the documents turned over to investigators included the treated as Top Secret/SCI stamp. Addington refuses to do so.

Q Do you recall seeing any other document in that production that said "treated as topsecret/S.C.I.?"

A I don’t recall, but I don’t know how many documents. I wouldn’t necessarily remember sitting here.

Reverting back to his prior line of questioning, Fitzgerald gets Addington to provide details about who was stamping these documents with the bogus stamp.

Q Just a question yes or no, did you put that marking in there?

A No, sir.

Q Do you know when, how and who did from personal knowledge?

A On this particular page, no. ButI can say that, in the course of production, there were situationsin which I received in production copies of handwrittennotes of Mr. Libby’s that were marked treated as top secret/S.C.I. or treated as secret/S.C.I., various stamps saying treated as someparticular classification. That one, the government came back later and said giveus the originals and the originals were produced. They would not have that marking on it. From that I would conclude that the documents were taken from his file, provided by his staff, Xeroxed and stamped. However, this onelooks like it was stamped right on the original by someone. [my emphasis]