Thanks Jack, He used his constitutional powers. What can Clinton or Obama do about this? The correct answer is jack squat. Why is this a surprise? If he didn't do something Libby would have spilled the beans on Cheney's office. They couldn't have that happen. Pile this one onto something we're going to find out the facts about after Bush is out of office. Until Republicans like our own Gordo Smith start making an issue about Bush's abuses of power its a complete waste of time and energy raising a big stink out of something that was completely expected and unfortunately constitutional.

Seriously, Martha Stewart can handle doing time, but Scooter Libby can't? It's not excessive for Martha Stewart to do time, but it is for Scooter Libby. Oh. He was supposed to spend one and half years longer in stir than she did, in a nice white collar facility no doubt. I suppose that would have been cruel, just excessively cruel.

I was looking forward to the day to day accounts (at least for the first few days)of how Scooter adjusted to prison life, and how he, like Ms Stewart when she did time in the facility where she was imprisoned, found constructive, and in her case creative, crafty ways of improving and enlightening the weighty burden of imprisonment for her fellow felons, as well as her own self.

I guess now we'll just have to wait until the notorious Ms Hilton gets thrown into the clink again for a chance at this kind of uplifting account. Maybe this next time around, she will follow in the footsteps of Ms Stewart, taking up her example of working to improve the lives of fellow inmates. The public loves that sort of thing. Makes for really good spin. Ask Martha. See Scooter? What you're missing out on? Go boy! Got to prison like a good boy!

Mr. President, don't you see what you've done here? You could have really polished your tarnished image by giving your faithful aide some badly needed training. Mr. President, sorry to have to tell you this, but you can't seem to do anything right.

ANYBODY REMEMBER AGENTs JOSE CAMPEAN AND IGNACIO RAMOS? WHERE IS THEIR "JUSTICE"???

Frank and Jack:

Impeachment happens in the House; the Senate acts as jury during the trial. Senators Obama and Clinton have no more power than you do when it comes to impeachment. All they have is a bigger megaphone.

Scooter's fine will be paid for by Bush cronies as well. I think we are seeing that the rule of law has no application at the highest levels of government. Bush's father pardoned Casper Weinberger and Richard Perle. And being a pardoned criminal didn't disqualify Perle from serving in the current administration. My guess is we will see a flurry of pardons at the end of this administration for participants in the high level approval of torture and other war crimes.

Oops. It wasn't Perle, it was Elliot Abrams that Bush pardoned. I can't keep the neo-cons straight. They are all peas in a pod.

No surprise here. Bush knows he’s lost all but those citizens who get they marching orders from right-wing Christianists or have serious fascist leanings (about what? 25-30% of the country).

In other words – nothing to lose.

He now has a (titular) hostile congress and poll numbers lower than spit. He’s playing defense everywhere – pretty effectively too – and simply needs to bob and weave for the remainder of the term. He’s last act will be to pardon anyone who clamed up, whack those who didn’t, and that will be that.

We will never know the full extent of just what was going on in this White House – and then if they win in ’08, the Republicans will start the whole thing all over again.

God Bless America, indeed – what’s left of it anyway.

I believe that the sentence was 30 months, not 30 years as stated in the post. That actually makes the commuting of his sentence ever more shocking, since Bush called this "excessive" for lying to a Grand Jury. Perhaps, the 30 years thing was just wishful thinking. That would be an apt punish me if he were actually convicted of outting a CIA agent.

The only person Bill Clinton didn't pardon that he wishes he could have was himself.

If Joe Wilson was so concerned for his wife's anonymity, maybe he shouldn't have claimed he was sent to Niger by VP Cheney in the first place. Wilson and Plame are total frauds...for a couple so upset about having Plame's cover supposedly blown, they sure seemed to lavish their swift transition into the spotlight ala the Vanity Fair cover, and lucrative speaking circuit and book RELEASES (yes, plural).

Libby was found guilty for lying in a case for which no crime was established. He was found guilty for having a bad memory and trying to do more than simply say "I don't remember."

Instead of wasting your outrage on the Libby nonsense, you should be blasting Bush for not halting the trial of our hero Marines for the Haditha Hoax and granting them a full pardon. But you won't...because that would require you to admit that this trial is nothing more than the Duke lacrosse case of liberal Time magazine and anti-war/anti-Bush poster boy Jack Murtha.

The Democratic majority in the Congress should convene joint hearings into The Shrub's contempt for rule of law with this as but one example. Whether he exercised "constitutional power" depends in fact whether he did so to uphold the rule of law and constitutional principles, or to undermine and subvert the rule of law and constitutional principles. Since the very theme of his administration is the latter, the Congress is well within it's purview to pursue whether his is a legitimate exercise of constitutional power. Even if they don't impeach, this would be an important step in the people getting our country back in the 2008 election.

Libby was found guilty for lying in a case for which no crime was established. He was found guilty for having a bad memory and trying to do more than simply say "I don't remember."

There are two outright falsehoods, which just also happen to be sleazeball right-wing talking points, in this statement. First, in the sane world and the court record, the facts are clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that a crime was committed in the outing of an undercover NOC operative. Second, Libby was actually convicted for willfully, repeatedly, and provably lying under oath. His defense after he was caught in those irrefutable lies was a post hoc claim he didn't remember.

First, in the sane world and the court record, the facts are clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that a crime was committed in the outing of an undercover NOC operative. P'OD - Who was charged? Where is the conviction?

Second, Libby was actually convicted for willfully, repeatedly, and provably lying under oath. P'OD - Do you share equal disdain for someone who claims under oath not to know what the meaning of the word is, is? No, I don't suppose you do.

This event, timed during this week, brings to mind another set of circumstances and a declaration that was made. While the importance of the document is obvious, the applicability of many sections to today's circumstances - to our own King George - are notable. Two selected passages that jump out at me for today:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

• and -

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

Whether with the 2008 election alone or coupled with impeachment (start with impeaching Gonzalez - http://impeachgonzales.org - then Cheney, leaving Bush as a powerless figurehead abandoned by his party to slither to the end of his term) it is our duty to throw off such Government.

One final thought - isn't this "Amnesty" under another name? I thought Republicans believed Amnesty for law breakers was a moral outrage. Maybe if Scooter had been picking vegetables for $1 an hour instead of covering up federal crimes, the right wing would be upset.

One final thought - isn't this "Amnesty" under another name? Duke - yes, if a full pardon is eventually granted, that's exactly what it is - amnesty for one person. To equate a pardon for one person to an amnesty for an illegal invasion count of 12 million is to not understand that national sovereignty ceases to exist without borders, common language, and assimilation of culture.

DJ wrote: "P'OD - Who was charged? Where is the conviction?"

Uh, I hate to point out the painfully obvious, but Scooter committed perjury and obstruction of justice to ensure that no one (i.e., Dick) would be charged or convicted in the Plame case. That was kinda the whole point of all this.

I'll agree with RKM that Bush's polls are so low that he has nothing to lose by this decision. But the ones who DO have something to lose are his fellow Republicans, who are being dragged down by their association with him.

So what we're now seeing is the fascinating dance of all the Rs who've never had to think for themselves: They've spent their careers wrapping themselves in the flag, the President, the War, etc., and loyally voting according to marching orders from Rove and the RNC. The key for the weeks and months ahead is how successful they are pretending that they were never really Bushies. Our job is to make sure they fail.

But we should never underestimate Republicans' capacity for mass delusion... It's what got them their wins in '00 and '04.

-John

Glad to see that GWB doesn't believe in federal sentencing guidelines. Perhaps his next initiative will be to overturn them or at least make some sane modifications, like treating power cocaine and crack cocaine the same. (Maybe if Scooter had only had a couple of rocks on him)

Also, does anyone need to point out that under the Governorship of GWB Texas executed 131 people and he issued not a single commutation of the death penalty. Not talking being released here with a $250,000 fine, just life in prison instead of a hot shot. Several of the condemed by the way were mentally retarded while others diagnosed with schizophrenia (and in at least one case mental retardation as well).

Yet he didn't see a person who was treated too "harshly" and deserved a commutation until he met Scooter???

Seems at least one of those executed may have been treated a tad too harshly, especially with their attorneys sleeping or under the influence during the trial.

Calling this a double standard is an insult to the term double standard.

Typical emotional fact-free arguments from Bush-hating liberals:

1) Coyote writes: Scooter committed perjury and obstruction of justice to ensure that no one (i.e., Dick) would be charged or convicted in the Plame case. That was kinda the whole point of all this.

Coyote - so let me get this straight...when it is determined that a key prosecution witness is lying, prosecutors in high profile cases throw up their hands and just give up, even though everyone "knows" a crime was committed. Do I have that right? Let me set you straight by quoting from none other than the liberal Washington Post: But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage. It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue.

2) lestatdelc writes: DJ, you are totally wrong on the facts. Wilson never claimed the VP's office sent him. All your bloviating and arm waving proves is that you either are staggeringly uninformed about the FACTS of the matter, and/or you are a kool-aid drinking fool who is either willingly or unknowingly buying a pack of lies for partisan/ideological reasons.

lestatdelc - oh really? Here is an excerpt from the July 6, 2003 Wilson NYT editorial that set all of these events into motion: In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office. Looks like you're the one with kool-aid in hand. Keep on chugging my friend.

3) Jenni, either minimizing or totally misunderstanding the national security risks inherent in the Lewinsky scandal writes: And it's not something little, like oral sex, he lied about.

Jenni -Clinton himself admitted under oath, "I had put myself at risk," referring to the suspicions he conveyed to Lewinsky that a foreign embassy was tapping White House phone lines. Even John Kerry had questions as to whether Clinton's behavior had made him a national security risk. Something little - NOT!

It never ceases to amaze me how uniformed yet vocal and opinionated some people are.

Progressives should keep this issue very simple. Scooter Libby went before a federal grand jury, swore an oath to tell the truth, then lied repeatedly. He was prosecuted by a Republican prosecutor. He was given a hard-fought, fair trial with a Republican judge, and he was convicted of multiple felonies by a jury of American citizens. He was sentenced according to the federal sentencing guidelines by the same Republican judge, who noted that the evidence against Libby was overwhelming. The system worked exactly as it is supposed to work.

If you or me or anyone not connected to President Bush had gone through the same process, we would be getting ready to serve time in prison. People routinely serve time in prison for similar offenses. President Bush simply decided to keep his friend out of jail, with no principled reason for doing so. In fact, he did not even follow the established guidelines for commutations and pardons. He just disagreed with Judge Walton's decision and, like a king, simply swept that decision away.

That's the story progressives should be emphasizing. Set aside all the stuff about the leak and Joe Wilson and Dick Cheney. Set aside all the stuff about Marc Rich and the Clinton pardons. Conservatives bring up those red herrings because they do not want to talk about the basic facts. President Bush commuted the sentence of a convicted felon solely because that convicted felon was a member of his Administration. Even though he has the constitutional power to make such a move, he should not have done it.

Beyond Bush, progressives should use the Libby commutation (and eventual pardon) against all Republican candidates who are on record supporting this decision. If this issue is argued in simple terms that people can understand, then the issue can have legs for a long time and become one reason why a Democrat takes the White House in 2008. Make the Republican Party, not just George Bush, own this decision.

torridjoe - you're rambling again...you should heed John's post.

John - awesome and smart comment. Your talking points emphasize logical argument vs. rambling. The only glaring weakness that a conservative will spot is that your commentary is motivated purely by political advantage, just as Wilson's NYT editorial was.

If, on the other hand, your comments are NOT politically motivated, then go ahead and prove it by doing the right thing for more than just the Dems. Go ahead and verbalize your disdain for Bush's failure to pardon our Marine heros charged in the Haditha Hoax. Point out this present-day example of Bush pardon hypocrisy and dually expose the lies of Jack Murtha and liberal Tim McGerk of Time Magazine. Go ahead, we'll be watching for your principled nonpartisan response. In fact, maybe you or someone else on BlueOregon.com would like to create a new post dedicated to this topic.

Don't taunt the loonie. It's like barking back at a chained dog. It's unkind.

You guys can disrespect me all you want. But have a little respect for the Marines we honor tomorrow who give you the right and freedom to do so. If you do nothing else to mark Independence Day, read and understand Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani's story.

Just go to this web site and see how many people Clinton Pardoned. Amazing, and I don't hear anyone yelling about Clinton...?

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

Yamhill county - you are so correct. With that longggg list of Clinton pardons in mind, here again is how Hillary reacted to yesterday's news: "This case arose from the Administration’s politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies.... This commutation sends the clear signal that in this Administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice." (This from the wife of a man who risked national security for an orgasm with his mistress).

torridjoe - the last thing a US soldier wants is your feigned sympathy and condescension. On Nov 12th 2005, insurgent propagandidts had three targets in sight: US Marines in Haditha, Tim McGerk at Time magazine, and useful idiots like Jack Murtha and you back in the US to gobble up their story hook, line, sinker. Why do you take the word of known insurgent propagandidts who hide among their own women and children to inflate body counts, but pass judgement on the account of US Marines awaiting trial? With judgement like that I'll have to assume you thought the Duke lacrosse players were guilty of rape just because a drugged out "victim" with no credibility said so.

adios torrid - thanks for all those informative links. Be sure to say hi to Jack Murtha for me.

Just go to this web site and see how many people Clinton Pardoned. Amazing, and I don't hear anyone yelling about Clinton...?

http://www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

This is a deflection from the issue at end. A logical fallacy, sign of a weak argument. Either Bush's actions stand on their own moral foundation or they don't. Clinton's malfeasance doesn't make Bush's malfeasance any better. Didn't your momma ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

As for DJ's claim about me being a "Bush hating liberal," ya got the first part right. I loathe this would-be king who grants pardons to his loyal toadies, with the stipulation, of course, that they keep their big fat mouth shut. Bush thinks he's royalty, and I tend to agree with that French guy who said we should hang the last king by the entrails of the last priest. I'm kinda Jeffersonian that way. But a liberal/progressive/Democrat/leftist I most certainly ain't.

Coyote - My momma taught me two wrongs don't make a right. She also taught me to take a principled stance. Much of what is spewed above by people fueling their hatred for Bush is no different than many actions by Clinton that haven't spoiled liberal love for him. The comparisons don't offer Bush an out - but they do 'out' the hypocrisy of the liberal argument...and hypocrisy my friend, is not principled.

If you don't want to be mistaken for a liberal, stop letting your hatred for Bush make you emotionally reason like one. For all his faults, to this day I like Bill Clinton. I disagree with him on most everything and think he was a cowardly Commander in Chief, but Bubba would be a blast to have a beer with. I can disagree with Bubba rationally because I could have a civil discussion with him.

Whoops, I meant "This is a deflection from the issue at hand."

Anyhow DJ, Bill Clinton was so 10 years ago, though I agree completely with your assessment (I'd have a beer with him, but I wouldn't trust my money or my wife with him).

In and of itself, Bush's commutation of Scooter's jail time would be a relatively minor thing, the kind of petty corruption one expects from a largely unaccountable behemoth government ruled by a greedy but incompetent cabal of pseudo-intellectuals.

But this was such a brazen, openly partisan display of contempt for the rule of law. I'm having a seriously hard time swallowing it. What actually worries me most of all is the open support displayed by party loyalists, who apparently value party politics over the rule of law. Not just you, but on the gun boards and other conservative boards I participate in. It's this kind of blind partisanship that leads to the inexorable erosion of liberty and constitutionally limited government. We need more patriots in this country, not partisans.

Scooter was tried by a lawfully convened jury of his peers and found guilty as all hell. Bush chose to toss this decision aside, like a king exercising his divine right to rule, in open contempt of the ideal of "justice for all" (I remember my Pledge of Allegiance, do you?). Again I say, last king by the entrails of the last priest.

I just saw KOIN's coverage of this issue --needless to say I was startled to see political news on local news.

They apparently caught up with DeFazio, Wyden and Smith at an event this afternoon and asked them about the Libby commutation.

DeFazio: It is not a good message to the American people about respect for the law and no one is above the law, because clearly this guy and this administration think they are above the law.

Wyden: I think it is a very troubling precedent to be setting with respect to what we need to make sure that we get top-flight people to go into the ever-dangerous area of intelligence-gathering.

Smith: And I think it would have sent a better message had the process fully been exhausted.

Who can even imagine how their comments were edited, but Smith's sounds like his typical needle-threading.

John

Yawn.

Ooooh, GWB pardon's one bad guy....stop the press!!

Where were you people when the Clintons granted clemency to 12 FALN Puerto Rican terrorists? Oh Im sure that was ok, right?

Oh and didn't Hugh Rodham have to give back about $400K because it turned out he sold 'favors' to get people pardoned by the Clintons? No memory of that either, huh?

You democRats have a very selective memory...

More liberal hypocrisy.

Compare this from the vindictive Joe Wilson today... "I would only hope that Americans now realize, with this subversion of our system of justice and the rule of law in this country, just exactly how corrupt they are."

...to this finding about the vindictive Joe Wilson three years ago: A bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger.

"Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

So, maybe it is possible to "confuse" facts and "misspeak" when under oath. And maybe Joe Wilson has his own sordid history with "subversion of our system of justice and the rule of law in this country." Lucky for old Joe that he was not under oath in a court of law, or he might have been slapped with a perjury charge of his own. Ultimately, Wilson's own overzealousness and dishonesty are the root cause that led to the public media disclosure of his wife's identity. Libby in jail while this sleazeball continues his smear campaign of lies? No, I'm afraid that's not justice. Bush has been an awful President, but this call he got right.

DJ, we have read your responses. You have had your say. It is obvious to those of us that have not drank the Kool-Aid, that you are clueless. Now please, STFU and let the grown-ups talk. Some of us have rational well thought-out opinions and concerns regarding this issue. Go listen to talk radio and foam at the mouth by yourself.

Everyone else, this seems to be yet one more straw this administration has piled upon the camel's back. Coming so soon on the heel's of the Gonzalez fiasco, are we finally nearing a Nixonesque tipping point where the American public will demand something be done? How much more does the average Joe need? Or will it require something on a grander scale? I am honestly curious as to how you all feel about this. I can say that in my various social circles, this incident has not been well received, to put it mildly. Everyone, from grandmas to bike messengers, is pretty pissed about it actually. What do you think?

JT writes: DJ, we have read your responses. You have had your say. It is obvious to those of us that have not drank the Kool-Aid, that you are clueless. Now please, STFU and let the grown-ups talk. Some of us have rational well thought-out opinions and concerns regarding this issue.

JT - this is a blog...your opinions are welcome. But try backing them up with more references and a bit less emotion. Not a single person on this board other than myself has offered a linked reference to substantiate the basis for their position. But since when do emotional liberals let facts get in the way of a good argument?

The Libby commutation and almost certain full pardon ought to underscore why Democrats should NOT choose Hillary Clinton for our nominee for President.

Since Senator Clinton benefited from the pardon President Clinton gave Marc Rich (who was a fugitive) she has little moral authority to take on this issue.

Democrats need to be smart enough to exploit this issue and to take it to the Republican nominee of which almost all favor a full pardon for Libby.

Unfortunately for Senator Clinton, she is the only Democratic candidate who can't do it.

Coyote--Blue Oregon's own Pat Buchanan. Thanks for the complement. I like Pat.

Let's set aside the Clinton red herring and the other "conservative" (I use that term very loosely) apologetics for this shameless act by Bush. What I'd really like to know from BlueOregonians is what the Dems are going to do about it? Are they just going to release furious sound bites, or are they finally going to get the impeachment ball rolling? Can we at least get a friggin' investigation or something? What are the chances that Bush will actually pay for this lawless action, or will it just be business as usual? I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'd really like to get some opinions on this.

Coyote asks: What are the chances that Bush will actually pay for this lawless action...?

Coyote - please cite the "lawless" action. Presidential pardon has been a part of US law since the days of George Washington. I think you meant "controversial" action.

Most Americans and the highest percentage of Republicans disagreed w/ Bush's commuting Scooter's sentencing for obstruction of justice, perjury, etc. It underscores this administration's outright contempt for the rule of law.

I need to note that Johnny Sutton is probably the most evil and corrupt of the federal prosecutors appointed by Bush. The Ramos and Campean case was a horrible miscarriage of justice. Johnny Sutton also presided over the railroading of Gilmer Hernandez, an Edwards County sheriff’s deputy who was prosecuted for doing his job. Is it a coincidence that Johnny Sutton likes to prosecute Hispanic law enforcement officers?

Johnny Sutton also refused to act to prosecute pedophile guards who operated at the Texas Youth authority for years despite reports from a Texas Ranger and others. The Justice department also refused to act. This link is to a conservative newspaper about the issue: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54861

Most conservatives are disgusted w/ the Bush administration.

Lets be clear that it is not clear that what outed Plame was a crime. The law requires the person doing it to be aware of Plame's status - i.e. doing it knowingly. Which is why no one was prosecuted, they lacked the evidence of intent.

Scooter couldn't have known that. So he was engaged in a very straight-forward obstruction of justice, whether there was a crime committed or not. He didn't just lie to a grand jury, he deliberately tried to prevent the prosecutor from catching and convicting people who he had every reason to think had deliberately damaged the security of the United States.

The rabid right who are defending him are really defending Scooter's willingness to betray his country to protect his cronies.

DJ,

Number of WMD found in Iraq= zero.

Number of Americans supporting George W. Bush's policies = all time low, Nixonian low.

Number of facts you have presented in your specious arguments = zero.

Real men go to Teheran. See you there, right, hon'?

A crime was committed in outing Valerie Plame. She was treated as covert and CIA officials testified under oath that she was covert. A former CIA official, Larry Johnson publicly offered $5,000.00 to anyone who could demonstrate her connection to the CIA before Novak's article. He also stated that in the post-mortem on the outing of Valerie Plame and the 20-year-old CIA front company "Brewster Jennings" caused a significant loss to the CIA. It included deaths, imprisonment, and exposure of agents and their contacts throughout the Middle East.

The Bush-appointed Fitzgerald operated secretly and on a budget less than 1/10 of the amount spent on "Monicagate". He could not prove the crime. Fitzgerald's excuse was that the lies and misleading statements of many precluded an effective prosecution. Although Fitzgerald could have been incompetent at his job. The public doesn't know.

Unlike the public hearings, reports, independent prosecutor, 200 FBI agents, and $60 million spent trying to find a crime in the Clinton administration, Fitzgerald was appointed by the administration to secretly investigate the administration.

Someone should have gone to prison for destroying this CIA network.

Here's a link to the letter written in Johnny Sutton's office explaining why they weren't prosecuting a case against guards with charter over youths aged 10 - 17 who were raped repeatedly while in state custody in response to the Texas Ranger's investigation: http://www.lonestarproject.net/files/DOJletter.pdf

Sutton's office excuses? It's not rape because it's "consensual" and there's "no bodily injury" and "prisoners have no credibility" and "their civil rights weren't abridged". Juveniles also had their release delayed.

Instead, Sutton's office prosecuted Deputy Hernandez for shooting at a car that tried to run him over and Ramos and Campean for an administrative offense. The judge didn't allow testimony about the drug dealer character or background. The judge excluded evidence and they delayed issuing transcripts for almost a year (a defendant can't appeal until transcripts are available). DHS officials lied in statements about the Customs agents. When the drug smuggler was shot, the supervisors were present and none of them were charged.

The entire thing is a travesty. I don't know what to call it but evil when a prosecutor ignores mountains of evidence that children are being pulled from their beds for nightly "sex parties" by guards. Instead, Sutton's office focused on prosecuting Hispanic Officers for doing their job.

Sutton's failure to act caused the delay of an investigation by almost two years. It took a public outcry to force the state of Texas to prosecute the pedophiles who'd operated under the color of authority for years while molesting children as young as 10.

I would call Johnny Sutton evil because I am not aware of any federal prosecutor who would ignore evidence of years of child rape and abuse with the feeble excuses his office made.

Yet Johnny Sutton kept his job when Bush fired other attorneys. So what are Bush's priorities?

There's plenty of information on the miscarriage of justice against these officers on the net. Both Democrats and Republicans have joined to sponsor a bill to release them from prison.

Let's all give Sid a big round of applause for his in-depth contribution to the thread.

Sid writes: Number of WMD found in Iraq= zero. Relevance? None.

Sid writes: Number of Americans supporting George W. Bush's policies = all time low, Nixonian low. Relevance? None.

Sid writes: Number of facts you have presented in your specious arguments = zero. Sid, you need to take a remedial clicking course. Can't help you if you can't click.

Sid writes: Real men go to Teheran. See you there, right, hon'? Sure, right, yeh, take another puff dude. Yikes.

Torridjoe>Go to congress.gov and look up the testimony in the case where DHS officials apologized for their "misstatements" It's available for anyone who cares to look. There's information all over the web for anyone who cares to look.

Are you excusing Sutton's prosecution after reviewing the evidence or just repeating what you've been told? Do you think it's okay to prosecute officers doing their duty while ignoring child rape?

Johnny Sutton is a disgrace as a human being and a prosecutor. Sutton is also a prime example of how corrupt this administration is and how dysfunctional our government has become.

The Libby commutation is another example of cronyism over country. Their actions killed and destroyed a twenty-year-old CIA operation chartered w/ finding WMD in the Middle East. The fact that the investigation was done in secret on less than 10% of the funds used to chase after Clinton is a disgrace.

torridjoe>You're asserting that the convictions of the border guards was just and correct. Congressional reps from opposite parties and viewpoints disagree w/ you. One stop shopping for information about their case is here http://ramos-compean.blogspot.com/

Deputy Hernandez is another Hispanic wrongfully prosecuted by Johnny Sutton.

The Texas Youth Authority case has had big play in Texas but in few other areas. Dozens of articles are referenced here: http://keyetv.com/politics/local_story_065153248.html

The courageous Texas Ranger who refused to stop trying to halt the abuse despite political pressure is named Brian Burzynski. A search under his name and TYA should give you more information.

The facts are that Johnny Sutton has repeatedly prosecuted Hispanic law enforcement officers by misapplying the law while ignoring child rape.

The Libby case is more of the same. Treason was committed against the USA by members of this administration. Someone deliberately destroyed a worldwide intelligence network without notifying the CIA or giving them a chance to extract agents or assets. Whoever leaked didn't care that it would risk the lives and freedom of agents and their contacts. Somebody colluded and decided that vindictive payback at Ambassador Wilson by outing his wife was more important than National Security.

Someone should be charged with this but again, nothing happens. Even the person convicted of lying and covering up to derail the investigation to this horrendous act is pardoned.

Koch on Libby: 'The politics of hatred rules the day'

Novak, in his column of July 5, 2007, wrote, "Even before he began his long investigation, Fitzgerald was aware that the leak to me that started the case was made by then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. No proponent of the Iraq intervention, Armitage did not neatly fit left-wing conspiracy theory about Iraq policy. Consequently, he disappeared from the Internet blather about the CIA leak constituting treason. Armitage was not indicted because the statute prohibiting the disclosure of an intelligence agent's identity was not violated. But Fitzgerald ploughed ahead with an inquiry that produced obstruction of justice and perjury charges against Libby though there was no underlying crime."

My own belief is that when Libby answered the question by saying it was Russert who told him about Valerie Plame's CIA status, he was providing information that he believed to be true. Surely, he knew Russert would be asked if that occurred. If Libby's recollection failed, that would not be the basis for charging him with a crime. Only if he deliberately lied could he be accused of perjury.

Would anyone, particularly someone in high government office with an exemplary record of public service and admittedly a high achiever under these circumstances, lie, deliberately misstate the facts where his testimony would be refuted by a popular television personality certain to be asked? It defies common sense. If he were deliberately lying, he would have said, "I can't recall," or "I think it was Tim Russert," leaving the opportunity to admit error, and in neither case could he, I believe, have been indicted and convicted.

Why is there such an enormous furor, particularly in Democratic political circles, demanding that Libby go to prison? I believe it is the kind of mob rage that has regrettably dominated American politics. The anger that existed against FDR, Truman, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and currently, the team of Bush and Cheney. That mob hate of Bush and Cheney for a host of reasons — the Iraq war, the two elections that elected and reelected them, their tax policies, their attitudes and policies directed at Islamic terrorism and a dozen other issues. They know they can't directly strike at Bush and Cheney whose terms of office dwindle with each passing day. They are striking at Libby as their surrogate. If they could in their lust for blood and vengeance, they would perform an auto de fe and burn Libby at the stake.

Some will respond, "A jury found him guilty, how can you question their collective judgment." Many of those people believe, as I do, that the jury that found O.J. Simpson not guilty was wrong and have no problem in questioning the verdict of that jury.

Regrettably, the politics of hatred rules the day. In this atmosphere of hysteria and rage, we should remember that the demons of yesterday — FDR, Truman, Clinton and Reagan — are hailed by many of their former critics as political saints of today.