Which Of These Things Is Not Like The Other?

by hilzoy

So I asked myself: self, if George W. Bush is so worried about excessive sentences, how has he acted in previous cases in which a sentence might seem excessive? Herewith, some examples, which I'll put below the fold. Here's the short version: Serving twelve years for a rape that DNA testing shows you didn't commit does not get you a pardon. Being represented by a lawyer who slept through large chunks of the trial does not get you a pardon. Being convicted of murder in proceedings that a court-appointed special master describes as ""a breakdown of the adversarial process" caused by the incompetence of your lawyer does not get you a pardon, even when someone else confesses on tape to the murder you were convicted of. Likewise, when someone else confesses to the murder you were convicted of and you ask for a stay of execution in order to conduct tests that will establish your innocence, no dice. And when you are unquestionably incompetent to assist in your own defense but no one seems to take that fact into account, or tells the jury, that's just too bad. None of these sentences are in any way excessive, as far as George W. Bush is concerned.

But when you are Scooter Libby, convicted of four felony charges, and you face thirty months in jail, that's excessive.

If anyone wants to do their part to reduce sentences that really are excessive, you can make a contribution to the Innocence Project here, and think of Scooter while you give.

(1) Kevin Byrd: convicted of rape, spent twelve years in prison, cleared by DNA, not pardoned.

"In February 1985 an African-American woman was raped in Harris County, Texas. She told investigators that her assailant was a white man. Four months later in an east Houston grocery store the victim spotted Kevin Byrd, a soft-spoken carpenter, and claimed that he had raped her. Oddly, Kevin Byrd is a black man. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime, no circumstantial evidence, no history of violence or sexual misconduct by Byrd, and no explanation as to how the primary suspect had changed color: Byrd isn’t even light-skinned. Still, he was arrested.

Suddenly, the evidence began to change. The assailant’s pubic hairs, recovered from the victim, were first deemed those of a white man, and then those of a black man after Mr. Byrd’s arrest. The victim had been face down in a dark room throughout the encounter, but was dead certain that Mr. Byrd was the perpetrator. Police officers Donald Duke and K.A. McDonald each wrote reports describing a white assailant; then testified that “white” meant “Latin American” and “light-skinned” black. On the stand a crime lab chemist admitted that the African-American pubic hairs discovered were actually those of the victim, and that the other hairs were probably from a white person. Mr. Byrd’s father and stepmother testified that he was home during the attacks.

After deliberating for two hours, the jury found Mr. Byrd guilty and sentenced him to life in prison. He appealed three times, but all his appeals were turned down. Routinely, Harris County destroys rape kits after all appeals are exhausted, but a clerical error preserved the evidence from Mr. Byrd’s case beyond its expected life span. A friend hired a lawyer and paid his own money for a DNA test for Mr. Byrd; DNA testing did not exist at the time of his original trial. The results came back negative; it was not his semen on the victim’s clothes.

Mr. Byrd was released on bail after 12 years in prison. District Judge Doug Shaver, Sheriff Tommy Thomas and District Attorney John B. Holmes all petitioned Governor George W. Bush to pardon Mr. Byrd. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles voted unanimously for a pardon, and it appeared that Mr. Byrd was about to be officially cleared.

But Governor George W. Bush decided not to grant a pardon."

Byrd was eventually freed by a judge.

(2) Carl Johnson, represented by a sleeping lawyer, convicted of murder, executed:

"The first execution of Bush's tenure occurred two weeks after he was sworn in. The 12th execution under his watch took place nine months later, on Sept. 19, 1995. The inmate, Carl Johnson, 40, had been on death row for 16 years since a Houston jury convicted him of fatally shooting a security guard during a food store holdup. Johnson was less than ably represented at his 1979 trial by Calvin Burdine's future lawyer, Joe Cannon. Same story: Cannon slept.

In an interview, David R. Dow, a University of Houston law professor who took over Johnson's appeal in 1988, recalled being aghast as he read the trial transcript.

"It was like there was nobody in the room for Johnson," said Dow, who was thwarted by the Strickland rule in trying to save Johnson's life. He noted that the transcript "goes on for pages and pages, and there's not a whisper from anyone representing him."

Cannon's court-appointed co-counsel in the trial, Philip Scardino, was two years out of law school. "It was frightening, the whole experience," Scardino said recently. "All I could do was nudge him sometimes and try to wake him up."

Like Melamed, Scardino said he eventually asserted himself in his client's trial and did his best, but he was a novice. Cannon, on the other hand, had been practicing law since 1950. Today, two years after his death, he remains a courthouse legend in Harris County, which does not have a public defender office. By Dow's count, a dozen of Cannon's indigent clients went to death row in a span of about 10 years, before judges stopped assigning him to capital cases in the late 1980s."

More on this case:

"David R. Dow, a law professor at the University of Houston (...) was habeas counsel for another of Cannon's clients, Carl Johnson, who was executed in 1995. He says that Cannon, who is now deceased, was "a drunk who showed up tanked" and fell asleep at a number of trials, including Johnson's."

(3) The reference to "Melamed" above concerns the case of George McFarland, whose attorney also slept through his trial. (Melamed was an inexperienced public defender who assisted on the case.) I do not believe Bush would have had to pronounce on this case, but he certainly never lifted a finger either to help McFarland or to do anything about the problems with the Texas judicial system that it revealed, even though the case was quite publicly winding its way through the appellate courts while he was in office. Instead, as governor:

"Bush vetoed a bill that its supporters said would have improved the quality of legal representation for poor defendants. He has defended the prerogative of elected judges to appoint lawyers for indigent capital defendants, despite evidence that some appointments have been tainted by patronage. And in 1995, he signed a law hastening the death penalty appeals process, leaving condemned prisoners even more dependent on court-appointed attorneys."

Back to McFarland (Houston Chronicle, August 14, 1992):

"Seated beside his client -- a convicted capital murderer -- defense attorney John Benn spent much of Thursday afternoon's trial in apparent deep sleep.

His mouth kept falling open and his head lolled back on his shoulders, and then he awakened just long enough to catch himself and sit upright. Then it happened again. And again. And again.

Every time he opened his eyes, a different prosecution witness was on the stand describing another aspect of the Nov. 19, 1991, arrest of George McFarland in the robbery-killing of grocer Kenneth Kwan.

When state District Judge Doug Shaver finally called a recess, Benn was asked if he truly had fallen asleep during a capital murder trial.

""It's boring,'' the 72-year-old longtime Houston lawyer explained. (...)

""The Constitution says everyone's entitled to the attorney of their choice, and Mr. Benn was their choice,'' the judge said.

""The Constitution doesn't say the lawyer has to be awake.""

During that case, the defense presented no physical evidence, failed to question any witnesses or visit the crime scene before trial, did not try to impeach the sole eyewitness even though on the day of the crime she "described a black man about 5 feet 7 inches or 5 feet 8 inches tall and weighing about 140 to 150 pounds. McFarland stands more than 6 feet tall, weighs more than 200 pounds and has a much darker complexion" (Houston Chronicle, June 15, 2003), and basically didn't put on much of a defense at all. Too bad, though: despite it all, McFarland's request for a retrial on the grounds that he had not received effective legal representation was denied. (928 S.W.2d 482)

Here's Bush's take on this:

"Several Texas lawyers are notorious for having slept through much of their clients' trials. The Wall Street Journal noted that when Bush was asked in the spring about the sleeping-lawyers problem, he laughed awkwardly before deflecting the question."

(4) Anthony Ray Westley:

"In retrospect, Anthony Ray Westley seemed destined for a life of crime. Raised by his grandmother, he had an IQ of around 70. In his early twenties, he took up with a couple of other men from the Fifth Ward: John Dale Henry, described by friends as "street-smart," and Tyrone Dunbar, who'd served a stint in state prison. Along with Dunbar's wife and children, the three men shared a house in northeast Houston.

On April 13, 1984, Westley and his two friends spent the morning drinking and drugging. They then drove to Eileen's Bait and Tackle, a little shop near the entrance to Lake Houston. Once inside, the three men told the clerk that they were going fishing and wanted night crawlers for bait.

The woman later testified that Westley put a gun to her head and told her that this was a robbery. After he knocked her to the floor behind the counter, she thought she was about to die. But instead of the expected gunshot, she heard the jingling cowbells signaling that someone had walked through the bait shop door.

Chester Frank Hall, the shop's owner, had apparently sensed that something was wrong. He entered with his .22-caliber revolver already drawn. Gunfire erupted.

When it stopped, the clerk looked up from behind the counter and saw Westley and Henry run out the front door, leaving Dunbar lying in a pool of blood. Then the clerk saw Hall. Bleeding from the mouth, he slowly walked toward her, then fell to the floor.

Both Hall and Dunbar died at the scene. Henry had also been shot during the robbery; Westley dropped him off at a hospital, where he was arrested.

The next day, Westley surrendered to detectives from the Harris County Sheriff's Department. He signed a confession saying that he'd participated in the robbery and that he'd carried a .22 during the hold-up.

Later, ballistics experts found that Hall had been killed by a bullet of that caliber. Westley maintained that he'd signed the confession because detectives had told him a bullet from a .38 had killed Hall. The detectives denied that they'd said so.

But other evidence indicated that Westley was telling the truth. Though the bait shop clerk had not been able to see which of the robbers fired the shot that killed Hall, she said in her original statement to the police that Westley had been armed with a large-caliber handgun, something more akin to a .357 or a .38 than a .22. The clerk later repeated that assertion at Henry's trial.

None of that information was known by Ron Mock, the court-appointed lawyer who represented Westley at his murder trial. Though the attorney had requested all exculpatory evidence, the prosecutors did not inform Westley's defense team of the woman's original statement or of her testimony at Henry's trial. Nor had Mock dispatched an observer to sit in on the trial."

Westley was assigned a notoriously slipshod lawyer whom he says only met with him once before his trial on capital charges, and whom he tried to have replaced, but his request was denied. Here's his habeas attorney on the subject:

""I frankly entered the case assuming that he had been given adequate counsel [by Mock]," said Abrams. "I didn't go into thinking that we would find all the problems that we did find. But his trial was so bad, and what we uncovered on Mock is so bad, that I was horrified. I think everybody who has touched this case has been horrified."

In the application for a post-conviction writ of habeas corpus Abrams has filed in federal court, Abrams wrote that, "Westley's appointed trial counsel consisted of a lead lawyer engaged in a high-volume trade of appointed cases who had been cited five times during the period of Westley's representation for failing to meet required court deadlines, had been arrested for contempt of court during the jury selection, maintained no library regarding capital or criminal law legal developments, claimed to keep abreast of current legal developments by reading in the wee hours of the morning, failed to conduct any meaningful investigation into the key factual issues in the case, failed to consult with any expert regarding key issues on which he was uninformed, and was well-known to drink daily after work on an "above-average" basis.

"Against this backdrop," the appeal continues, "it is hardly surprising that the counsel failed to perform their responsibility in capital litigation competently or, as Mr. Mock so colorfully put it when questioned about the number of times that the courts have found his legal representation lacking, "Sh*t happens; it just happens.'""

Another take on Westley's counsel:

"Henry went on trial first. The evidence in Henry's trial, including the clerk's testimony, suggested Henry was the robber with the .22-caliber pistol, with Westley carrying a different gun. The prosecutor told jurors that all signs pointed to Henry as the victim's killer. But Henry was not sentenced to death.

Five months later, at Westley's trial, a different prosecutor gave the case a new slant, tailoring the presentation of evidence, and eliciting testimony from the clerk in a way that pointed to Westley as the robber who fired the fatal shot. Westley was sentenced to death. "I did the best I could for him," Mock recalled in an interview.

Except he did not take the basic step of attending Henry's trial or reading a transcript for a preview of the state's case against Westley. Had he done so, a judicial report later concluded, he would have been well-equipped to undermine the spin that Westley's prosecutor put on the crime. That was just one of many mistakes Mock made in the case, according to a 100-page report by a court-appointed special master, Houston lawyer Brian Wice. Wice reviewed the case in minute detail as part of Westley's appeal. He wrote that Mock's preparation for Westley trial was so lax, and his performance in court so inept, that "a breakdown of the adversarial process" occurred."

So: a recanted confession by a suspect who has consistently maintained that while he was at the scene of the crime, he did not kill anyone, inconsistencies between the confession and the eyewitness testimony, no eyewitness testimony about who actually pulled the trigger, exculpatory evidence withheld from the defense, an incompetent lawyer, and a defendant with an IQ of 70. But wait, it gets even better: in the fulness of time, the actual killer (not Westley) tells his daughter what he did, she records the conversation, and turns the tape over to Westley's lawyer, Barry Abrams, who calls a press conference and asks George Bush to stay the execution. Surely, one might think, under the circumstances a stay might be in order, so that this new evidence could be considered?

Sadly, no:

"On the gurney, Westley turned to face the one-way mirror on his left, the window behind which Hall's family had gathered. He directed his last words to Hall's widow.

"I didn't shoot your husband," Westley said. "I really didn't. I want you to believe I didn't kill him."

Hall's wife would say later that Westley's last words angered her, and that she felt justice had been served.

But Abrams believed him. Since beginning work on this case, the lawyer had grown convinced that another man shot Hall. And in the previous 16 hours, he believed he had found new evidence to support that theory. Since early morning, the lawyer and his staff had worked feverishly to win Westley a last-minute stay of execution. But only hours before, his request had been turned down by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court -- and last by Governor George Bush, who said he denied the stay of execution "reluctantly."

The drugs began flowing through Westley's IV line. The prisoner made one last gasp for air.

Abrams had never felt so powerless."

So much for Anthony Ray Westley.

(5) Jerry Lee Hogue:

"Hogue had been convicted of capital murder in 1979, after the jury deliberated for one hour. The trial was a case of two against one: A man and a woman testified that they saw Hogue tie the hands and feet of twenty-seven-year-old Jayne Markham with wire, stab her and set fire to their house in Arlington, Texas. Hogue was also alleged to have raped Markham. Hogue always maintained that he was innocent and that the man who had testified against him was the actual killer. But the only evidence to back up his version was a small detail: After the fire, the other man, Steve Renick, had burns on his face and Hogue did not. When a fire is ignited with a gasoline can, as in this case, the arsonist often has facial burns.

All at once, in the week preceding Hogue's execution, Renick was indicted on a charge of burning down his own house in Wichita Falls, Texas, and a woman came forward saying Renick had bragged about setting the fire in Arlington. Joseph Stewart, the fire inspector who investigated the new arson, became suspicious when he learned that Renick had been present at the fire in Arlington. Stewart wrote in an affidavit, "I noticed significant similarities between the Arlington, Texas, fire and the Wichita Falls, Texas, arson." Stewart was concerned enough about the possibility that Hogue was innocent that he called Bush's office. "I told them, 'I'm not a defense attorney. I'm a Texas peace officer. This isn't some kind of last-minute finagling around by an attorney to try to get this thing stopped,' " Stewart said later.

On the day before Hogue's scheduled execution, a woman named Gayle Morgan went to the Wichita Falls police and told them that Renick had bragged in front of her about getting away with setting a fire that had caused a woman to die. Morgan said she had only learned on that day, March 10th, 1998, that someone else had been convicted of killing Jayne Markham.

Stewart faxed Morgan's statement to Bush's office. On the basis of the new evidence provided by Stewart and Morgan, Hogue's attorneys asked the CCA for a thirty-day stay to conduct two tests. They wanted permission to test the fingerprints on the gas-can cap that had been found in the fatal fire, and they asked to be allowed to commission a DNA test on a swab taken from the victim so it could be compared with the DNA of Jerry Hogue and Steve Renick. (The arson charge against Renick was later dropped as part of a plea bargain.)"

Bush: sorry. Hogue was executed.

(6) For a change of pace, let's consider someone who actually seems to have done what he was convicted of doing. Meet Terry Washington:

"I thought of a conversation I had had with a mentally retarded and brain-damaged Texas man in May 1997, moments before his execution. I had heard the same childlike focus on the last meal. Because I had represented that man, Terry Washington, in his final appeals, it fell on me to report to him, when he had already been moved to the execution chamber, that neither the United States Supreme Court nor Gov. George W. Bush would stop his execution. I was concerned with how Mr. Washington would take the news. He told me the new guards were real nice and they gave him real good food. Within a half-hour he was dead.

Texas prosecutors and judges had all agreed that my client had the mental functioning of a 7-year old child. The jurors who sentenced him to death, however, never knew about his condition because his appointed trial attorney, who specialized in divorce law, never thought to tell them. But none of this was considered an obstacle to his execution.

The life of Terry Washington was doomed even before he was born. It was fetal alcohol syndrome that probably caused his brain damage, the experts said. He grew up in extreme poverty, one of 11 children living in a two-room shack with no running water or electricity. The children were beaten often, their mother was hospitalized in a mental institution and their father abandoned them for the bars. Mr. Washington's mental retardation was recognized when he entered school, and tests throughout his short life (he died at 33, after 10 years in prison) showed an I.Q. ranging from 58 to 69. His reading never advanced beyond the second-grade level. His communication skills were at the level of a 7- year-old and his social skills at that of a 5-year-old.

The brain damage was separate from the mental retardation and affected Mr. Washington's speech and his ability to understand and order concepts. His ability to put events in sequence was impaired, so that he was unable to recall the happenings in a given day in the order in which they took place. Imagine such a person sitting in a courtroom attempting to follow his own trial. (...)

I spent time with Terry Washington at the Huntsville prison and received many letters written in his childlike scrawl. I learned later that he dictated these letters to a fellow prisoner, then copied them into his own handwriting. He dotted his i's with little hearts. During my last visit, he proudly announced that he could spell my whole name. He made me boxes with Popsicle sticks. He told me that when they let him go he wanted to come to visit in New York City so he could see the tall buildings."

And:

"Terry Washington's lawyer made no attempt to explore his client's mental capabilities or his background. Washington's trial attorney later conceded that he was unaware of a US Supreme Court decision that allows funding for defence attorneys to hire mental health experts for conducting pre-trial examinations. Medical evaluations conducted after Washington's trial concluded that he would have been unable to assist in his own defence and that he was totally unaware of his surroundings during his trial.

The overwhelming evidence that Terry Washington was mentally incompetent to stand trial was presented by new lawyers for the first time during his "habeas corpus" appeal, filed on 14 June 1993. The very next day, the state court held a "hearing" and the following day issued a ruling denying the petition. On that same day, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence of death.

Terry Washington was executed on 6 May 1997."

***

As I said above: give, and think of Scooter.

Comments

[Ugh]

And the band, played, on...

[nsaid]

Speaking of really excessive sentences...

AQI seem to understand the meaning, even if others don't.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bless-the-beasts-and-children.htm>http://www.michaelyon-online.com

[publius]

depressing. I'd like to think this will be another moment of clarity - a sort of second Katrina that shoves a clear reality in their face, thus altering the political landscape.

anyway, the research here is impressive.

[hilzoy]

publius: sublimation is a wonderful thing.

[OCSteve]

sublimation is a wonderful thing.

That is how you always get me. Damn it. Not fair. Just not fair.

[OCSteve]

Hilzoy: To clarify: I almost never agree with you on first reading. But then your words bounce around in the back of my head. It is not always a pleasant feeling. It is kind of like wasps looking for a place to nest. Sometimes it hurts when they actually touch down.

I can not give a writer any more credit than that.

[hilzoy]

Wasps. Now they're buzzing around in my head.

Thanks.

[Jesurgislac]

An article in the Boston Globe makes a similar, and similarly devastating, comparison:

Milt Romney claims that Patrick Fitzgerald went after Libby even though Fitzgerald "knew no crime had been committed". This is of course blatantly false, but Romney apparently went on to say at a campaign stop "isn't it reasonable for a commutation of a portion of the sentence to be made?" The Boston Globe points out:

As governor, Romney twice rejected a pardon for Anthony Circosta, who at 13 was convicted of assault for shooting a boy in the arm with a BB gun -- a shot that didn't break the skin. Circosta worked his way through college, joined the Army National Guard, and led a platoon of 20 soldiers in Iraq's deadly Sunni triangle.

In 2005, as he was serving in Iraq, he sought a pardon so he could to fulfill his dream of becoming a police officer.

In his bid for the Republican presidential nomination, Romney often proudly points out that he was the first governor in modern Massachusetts history to deny every request for a pardon or commutation during his four years in office. He says he refused pardons because he didn't want to overturn a jury.

It's not just Bush who has no shame.

[johnt]

Hilzoy, I almost never agree with you on a first reading, actually I never agree with you at all. But then your words bounce around in the bottom of my intestines. It is not always a pleasant feeling. It is kind of like a rock looking for a place to fall, from a wooden seat. Sometimes it hurts when it actually touches down, but good things never come easy.

I can give a writer more credit than that, but oh, the relief!

Shall we turn off the lights and leave you two alone?

[Phil]

I'd like to think this will be another moment of clarity - a sort of second Katrina that shoves a clear reality in their face, thus altering the political landscape.

Yeah, because if there's one thing people generally, and Republicans specifically, care deeply about, it's the plights of black and/or retarded people in jail for violent crimes.

[cleek]

18 months to go

[OCSteve]

johnt: Shall we turn off the lights and leave you two alone?

Setting aside the fact that I’m happily married (thank you very much) – I think Hilzoy averages about one marriage proposal per month on this blog. So she has a lot better to choose from than a (somewhat) reformed Republican.

If you really have an issue with me complimenting her on her writing, well, that is your issue now isn’t it?

[john miller]

Bravo, OCSteve.

Well said.

[johnt]

It's alimentary my dear Steve, it's what you compliment, not that you compliment and it's redundant to say it's my issue, who else's would it be? Steve, there's a pun there somewhere.

The crowd here at ObWi seems fit to be tied in knots due to that hobgoblin "inconsistency" connected naturally to unproven but dark hints of further corruption to be hidden by a pardon.

There are a few problems with this.
1] Both before and after Bush left Texas that state was almost always at the top of the list in executions. The presumption therefore, among others, is that other Governors would not do what Bush did with Libby, that is pardon someone they knew personally. Given the political history of Texas, I might add and emphasize Bush's predecessor in that office, that is a shaky assumption at best. For charity's sake I'll limit myself to Texas.

2] As Hilzoy is put out by improper judicial proceedings and the perversion of justice, and having already mentioned by reference Ann Richards, a reminder of what Richards and Clarance Darrow Earle attempted to do to Kay Baily Hutchison is not entirely out of line. Especially for one who is so concerned with consistency in law. Hi Hilzoy!

3] The point made over and again by ObWi's various personifications of Justice, blindfolded and scales in hand, is that the ugly head of pure politics was raised from it's lair. Politics, can you believe it, and in Washington of all places!

4]But the problem with #3 is that the investigation and trial were completely political from the start. You see you're caught in a conundrum, Fitzgerald knew from the beginning who the leaker was, therefore either Plame was not a secret agent, she wasn't, or she was and Fitzgerald choose to ignore it. He therefore and either way was derelict in his duty and assignment.
Please, no tiresome reminders that he is a republican. So was Lowell Weicker, Lincoln Chaffee, and God bless him , Lawrence Walsh.

Knowing who the leaker was Fitzpatrick set out after the White House, where the pot of gold was. He only came up with Libby.

I'll close by noting that there is some irony on Hilzoy commenting on justice denied. As the jury was denied the admittance of Armitage's identity and role we may at the least wonder at the validity and justice of the perjury conviction. Might not any number of jurors wondered at the nature of a perjury over facts that were already public and with which Libby had no part in revealing? But so be it.

Add in Joe Wilson with the dishonorable Fitzgerald and you are left with the fact that the whole thing was a farce founded in lies and proceeding on the basis of lies.
For your consideration while you thrash the Administration.

[Ara]

Johnt: (1), (2), (3) simply are not arguments that what Bush did was right. If you can't see that, then I can't help you. If you want to question the integrity of posters and the whole ObWi, then lovely. But even if we were the vilest hypocrites since Cesare Borgia, none of that makes when your man Bush did any less rotten.

As to (4), I do not know why you would believe that *even if Fitzgerald knew the truth*, then that somehow nullifies Libby's obligation to tell the truth before the court.

Of course, Libby lied not to FBI investigators alone, but to the grand jury. So I'm puzzled by why you think it is relevant that lying before the grand jury is no biggie as long as Fitzgerald knew the truth. Maybe you mistook Fitzgerald for judge and jury.

You are not arguing that Libby did not in fact perjure himself, just that it didn't matter because the investigation was a "farce".

So give me a rundown of the other cases in which you think that telling the truth is optional, after you've sworn an oath to tell it.

[john miller]

Oh, and johnt, please don't point out that Bush is a human being. So were Ghenghis Khan, Lucretia Borgia and even, so it is rumored, Dick Cheney.

If you are going to make an argument, at least make a relevant one.

[Angry One]

Bush Commutation Flashback - Karla Faye Tucker:
when his allies on the religious right pressured him to spare murderess turned jailhouse born-again Christian Karla Faye Tucker, Governor Bush displayed his trademark resolve - and compassion. As Time recounted in 1999:

Tucker Carlson of Talk magazine described the smirk Bush wore as he mimicked convicted murderer turned Christian Karla Faye Tucker begging, "Please don't kill me," something she never actually did.

For the details, see:
"The Consistent Inconsistency of George W. Bush."

[whl]

johnt @ 8:46 pm---"Fitzgerald knew from the beginning who the leaker was, therefore either Plame was not a secret agent, she wasn't, or she was and Fitzgerald choose to ignore it."

Valerie Wilson (Plame) was a covert NOC. Your comment that she wasn't is a clear marker that your opinions are useless. In 5 different legal venues, under 5 different sets of conditions, it has been established beyond any shadow of a doubt (more than reasonable doubt) that Mrs. Wilson was a very highly protected intelligence asset.

You are probably a complete fool.

Yes. Fitzgerald knew who gave Novak the top secret information about Wilson (Plame): Richard Armitage at the State Dept. The prosecutor also knew that Armitage generated a mea culpa long before the grand jury convened & was found to be not subject to prosecution.

Armitage got his information from a memo via a guy named Ford in the INR branch of the State Dept.

The information in this memo was the leak, the actual crime of revealing the covert agent's name & her work unit in the CIA & her cover front company, Brewster-Jennings.

Libby attempted to "give up" Wilson (Plame) to Judy Miller on June 23, 2003, before any other rats had started their efforts. He failed because Miller could no longer get anything into print because of her previous stooge-level publishing.

Libby's perjury prevented the FBI & the grand jury from discovering who surfaced the information in the Ford memo. Libby's obstruction of justice precluded Fitzgerald from identifying the paper & electronic trail back from the memo.

You are probably far too challenged to follow this line of reasoning, which was presented at the trial & generated Libby's conviction. And, without exception, everything I've posted here is supported by printed documents projected on a screen at the trial. They are widely available on the internet.

[gwangung]

]But the problem with #3 is that the investigation and trial were completely political from the start.

Don't be an idiot and don't treat us like idiots. Makes us a night irritated.

[gwangung]

By the way....

Fitzgerald knew from the beginning who the leaker was,

Generally, most prosecutors know they lay of the land before they dive in. It's not much of a rhetorical point--try not to treat us like idiots by trying to make much of it.

[hilzoy]

johnt: if you don't trust us, you might consider famed lefty Orin Kerr's explanation of why Fitzgerald didn't close up shop. While you're at it, check out his post on why he thinks it's bizarre to call the investigation and prosecution of Libby 'political'.

[CharleyCarp]

Although DNFTT is the better part of valor, I'll add just a couple of questions.

Police knew just who the Watergate burglars were on the night of the break-in. Why'd anyone ever investigate anything else?

We knew who the 9/11 hijackers were pretty quickly, and that they were dead. Why'd anyone bother even trying to catch OBL and KSM? (They did try to catch OBL for a while there . . .)

[Hartmut]

Oh, and johnt, please don't point out that Bush is a human being. So were Ghenghis Khan, Lucretia Borgia and even, so it is rumored, Dick Cheney.
I protest this defamation (by association) of L.Borgia. There is not the slightest proof that all the stories about her alleged depravity have any truth in them (comparable to claims that Hillary Clinton has committed murders).

[dutchmarbel]

(They did try to catch OBL for a while there . . .)

Oh, come on Charley, it took at least six months before Bush jr went from "we'll catch him dead or alive" to "we are not interested in OBL".

[obscure]

johnt, if you think of yourself as a person of character would you kindly check back with us after reviewing--with care--the Orin Kerr material hilzoy referred you to.

Show us the sort of person you are.

[johnt]

Gee whiz, I seem to have touched a sore spot, ruffled a few feathers, and in a couple of cases drawn out the invective that gives liberals their reason for being.

So to handle a few, if not all, the protestations and fulminations, here goes;

Ara, having given me proof that you can follow numerical sequence and to clarify what was already clear let me emphasize that nowhere do I assert that what Bush did was right, or for that matter Libby. I do not claim that Libby didn't commit perjury though for good reason I have doubts. The Bush part of your response is easy, no one knows precisely what if any role Bush played in the non-leak of already leaked information.

The Borgia reference is catchy but unless you are willing to ignore your own moral ground in this mess, which I've touched upon, then and with due reflection you will realize that you are dismissing any moral responsibility for how and what you judge & what you are willing to ignore. There are pertinent items in my post which you may wish to read again and regard as an opportunity for self reflection.
Do you have something against the Borgia family?

whl, from one fool to another, being a fool I can relate to the problems a fellow fool has, my sympathies. But as I said there is a problem here with Fitzgerald. If as you say she was covert and her status leaked to the media, which my foolish mind tells me was what this was all about, what does your foolish mind tell you, then and tiresomely again, it was Fitzgerald's obligation, does your foolish mind know what an obligation is, to pursue just that course.

Although your cited " mea culpa" touches the heart it is legally irrelevant. If it is relevant then doubtless you would forgive Libby if a mea culpa had been forthcoming, would you not?

As to what Ford sent to Pontiac or whomever, useless eyewash & so I'll pass.
Never wise up whl, your foolishness is endearing.

gwangung, did I get that right? Thanks for the contribution.

CharleyCarp, johnt's rule #7, when drawing analogies or comparisons first pause and seek the differences. Pin this over your army cot and make sure it's the last thing you read before drifting off to dreams of a Hillary presidency.

Hartmut, I understand that no one sits down for dinner with Cheney without having a suicidal food taster along for laughs. Good point.

A brief hiatus for coffee and cigarettes and I'll return

[J Thomas]

Shorter JohnT:

let me emphasize that nowhere do I assert that what Bush did was right, or for that matter Libby.

You won't miss anything important if you skip the rest.

[john miller]

johnt.

Just a few points.

1. This apparently started out as a critique of the original post and the response from OCSteve. Yet nowhere do you make any comment that is relevant to that post.

2. You keep refering to Fitzgerald's obligation, yet nowhere do you provide any evidence that he did not meet his obligations,

3. You refer to non-leak of already leaked information. Apparently you are not aware of the fact that more than one leak can exist without there being a contradiction in terms.

4. Your arrogance, IMO, is virtually unmatched, except maybe by Bush and Cheney.

With that I have already violated the DNFTT rule.

[Carl from L.A.]

I just want to add one fact to the above discussion of Bush's record in capital cases when he was governor of Texas.

Bush's decisions were, as some may remember, based on summaries of the cases written for him by a person going by the name of Alberto Gonzales.

It would be interesting to see if anyone knows whatever became of him.

[Carl from L.A.]

I just want to add one fact to the above discussion of Bush's record in capital cases when he was governor of Texas.

Bush's decisions were, as some may remember, based on summaries of the cases written for him by a person going by the name of Alberto Gonzales.

It would be interesting to see if anyone knows whatever became of him.

[johnt]

Hilzoy & whatshisname, Having returned from the valley of death, no, not the cigs & coffee, Orin Kerr's utterly devastating argumentation, it is with sorrow that i must inform you that I have failed the test of integrity, the crucible of virtue.
I remain unrepentant in both sin and obstinacy.

As to the "political" thing. In passing I touched on this in my earlier, discomforting post. Let's try it this way, does opportunism exist, can it lead to the easier and more rewarding path, does it, can it, exist in republicans, have any republicans in the past just possibly resorted to this, is it conceivable a republican would recognize the danger in returning a clean bill of health on the WH or VP's office and conversely the approval from sources of considerable public power if a scalp is shown?

I contend and after weighing Fitzgeralds actions that he considered, regardless of length, which was the more advantageous path and took it. The personal outweighed the political, whatever the strength or weakness of the political. Unheard of ?

The close up shop thing; please Hilzoy, please. Read Kerr's remarks while considering why a little verification took over three years, just to be certain of course. That all he wanted, amomg a few other mundane things, was"verifying the facts", post Armitage. Or he wanted to know if there were "other leakers" to Novak, or other leakers to other reporters", little things like that.

But that in no way explains why Armitage, despite whl's heroic efforts, walks or why Fitzgerald pursues Libby with such dedication knowing of Armitage and at some point knowing that here was and can be only one initial leaker. Especially after the Novak column when the whole world knew.

Hilzoy I did make a few points here and there about your concern for justice, no
answer. As mentioned the whole mess was founded in lies, Wilson's and Fitzgerald's.

Obscure, sorry I forgot your name, but that's the price of being a nonentity.

For simplicity's sake and as a remembrance, this entire exercise is merely what one might regard as a reminder of a universal human frailty, whatever it's expression or location. A thought which has not yet touched down at ObWi.

Sorry I couldn't spend more time but like Diogenes I must carry my lamp elsewhere.

Hilzoy, explain to them who Diogenes is, not Laertius but Sinope, thanks.

[Steve]

Especially after the Novak column when the whole world knew.

There were no fewer than ten leaks to reporters before the Novak column was published, including multiple leaks by Libby to Judy Miller and Matt Cooper.

Please, there are enough strawmen in this debate already without pretending like anyone cares about "leaks" that occurred after Novak's column was already published. None of the leaks at issue in this investigation fit into that category.

[Ara]

Does anyone else find johnt as funny as I do?

His casual defamatory style, the self-congratulations, the way he seems to believe he is making these devastating points when he is hardly making any sense at all.

[dan]

Mostly I just find him to be completely incoherent. It's kind of funny actually.

WHL, thank you for that rundown of the facts of the investigation, which should be of help in the rebutting of future trolls.

[matttbastard]

Shorter johnt: 'Hooray, people are paying attention to me!'

[Ah]

Sadly, johnt is an horrific example of the madness that infects a people when Power and Consequences are divorced. An inconsistent and unaccountable leader will inevitably drive the weakest of their followers mad. Johnt is a sad casualty of the failure of our revolutionary will.

[whl]

johnt 7/05 @ 11:11--- Although your cited " mea culpa" touches the heart it is legally irrelevant. If it is relevant then doubtless you would forgive Libby if a mea culpa had been forthcoming, would you not?

Your foolishness is only exceeded by your lack of IQ. Stupidity is incurable. The mea culpa negates the applicable law because the statute (which Toensig claims to have written, but can't comprehend) requires that the traitor (Armitage) must know that the covert agent is actively undercover & the treasonous bastard seems to have convinced the FBI, Judge Tatel & Judge Walton that his numbnutziness (an Asst. SecState, jeebus!) didn't know that Valerie Wilson was a covert agent.

Fitzgerald had NO obligations. He was given plenary powers by Comey, agreed to by Ashcroft. Fitzgerald was given the same status as the Attorney General, himself--he was not a special prosecutor nor an independent counsel. That you think otherwise is silliness to the 5th power. What an ass you are--at least read the stuff in some factual wingnut paper. Even the moonie Times of DC described Fitzgerald's actual status.

It's clear that you've not read any of the primary documents about the Libby trial, or even cursory newspaper coverage. You blather out drivel like a reichwing tool or fool.

You are also far too stupid to arrive at an understanding as to why Armitage was not prosecuted. Asserting your asinine, stupid, ignorant, unread opinions is of no use to the discussions on this website.

For example: you state that "she wasn't" as to Valerie Wilson's status as a protected, classified covert intelligence agent. Three different CIA directors have asserted & presented written "proof" to the FBI, Judge Tatel, Judge Walton, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence & the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform. And there's your stupid comment laid over against a mountain, a metaphoric massif centrale, of absolute contradictory evidence available from every medium in existence.

Wow! Your stupidity is vast.

Valerie Plame Wilson was soooooo covert & undercover that the CIA will not even describe her work history prior to 2002. The agency is attempting to preclude Mrs. Wilson from putting her resume in evidence at the civil lawsuit against the traitors who jeopardized her life & destroyed her program of counter-proliferation in the Middle East.

At least the readers here can see how you arrive at your stated opinions: you quote them from Karl Rove's daily fantasy fax.

[hilzoy]

whl, and everyone: I probably should have said earlier in this thread that it is out of line to slam commenters on this site, including johnt. However, this: "You blather out drivel like a reichwing tool or fool" and this: "your asinine, stupid, ignorant, unread opinions", and so forth, are way over the line. Please don't do it again. Thanks.

[Ara]

Clearly, people feel an urge to converse like this. Maybe there should be an ObWi Zoo... And when tempers flare on the main threads we can "Take It To The Zoo", where the only posting rule is that there are no posting rules.

The benefit of this is that posting rules on the main threads can be made even tighter.

[Jesurgislac]

Ara, we used to have a whole blog for that exact purpose: Taking It Outside. Unfortunately, it crashed a few days ago and right now (as far as I can tell) no one can comment there until it's fixed.

[OCSteve]

johnt: Gee whiz, I seem to have touched a sore spot, ruffled a few feathers, and in a couple of cases drawn out the invective that gives liberals their reason for being.

Again, I am far from being a liberal. The reason you ruffled my feathers is rather obvious. You could have argued against any of Hilzoy’s points without that crap. Your response was offensive to me, and IMO offensive to any lady, which Hilzoy certainly is.

The screwy thing is that I agree with you for the most part. I just gave up arguing those points here. So you ended up offending someone on your “side”.

At this point I would rather associate with reasonable liberals I disagree with 90% of the time than so called conservatives.

[liberal japonicus]

Ara, we used to have a whole blog for that exact purpose: Taking It Outside. Unfortunately, it crashed a few days ago and right now (as far as I can tell) no one can comment there until it's fixed.

I've been putting it off until the weekend, and, if both the Japanese weather gods and the software installment gods smile, I hope to set up the temporary blog then. Really sorry that I haven't been able to do anything about it earlier.

[The Habman]

I am all for the death penalty for ANY public official that is found to have broken the public trust. This is tantamount to treason! So Impeach away!

History will not look kindly on The Shrub no matter what he and his a$$hat cronies think.

[gwangung]

For people's amusement, an amicus brief filed by the Bush Department of Justice, arguing against commutation of a perjury sentence.

[okidoke]

Points for consistency: The Boston Globe published an article about Fred Thompson that shows he has always believed that loyal Republicans can (and should) leak secret information to hold onto power.

It was Thompson (according to The Boston Globe, but their source for this is Thompson's own memoir) who picked up the phone in July of 1973 (in secret, without anyone on his committee's knowledge) to leak to Nixon's lawyer that the Watergate Committee had stumbled across the infamous Oval Office "tapes."

Nixon resigned and Thompson became a Senator (albeit a lackluster one-term Senator) a movie actor and a man pretending to have principles on TV.

There is no ethical reason for doing what Thompson did in July 1973. Just as there is no ethical reason for giving Scooter a get-out-of-jail-free card today. In the 1970's, Thompson was a loyal Republican campaign manager with a law degree who inexplicably found himself in possession of information that was potential dynamite under the Nixon presidency. Today, Thompson has an exploratory committee and people listening to his blather about Scooter Libby and justice. None of his core values have changed.

Personally, I think he earns his pay on TV every time he utters the word "justice" without smirking.