I couldn't help laughing at the following quote from Libby's lawyers:

"...asking the Court and Mr. Libby to take the government's word on Ms. Wilson's status, based on secret evidence, without affording Mr. Libby an opportunity to rebut it. Such a request offends traditional notions of fairness and due process."

Do you think these guys have read the rules that will apply to the trials of "enemy combatants" now held a Gitmo?

Regards

Bill Keane

The fact that he was shown to have lied under oath about matters material to the investigation shows he had, and still has, something to hide. He also is protecting someone from criminal prosecution.

This is exactly the sort of thing we cannot tolerate in a democracy, at the highest levels of government. By granting Libby freedom, we risk nothing less than our own. For if tyrants and authoritarians are not deterred by prosecution, who would disagree that they are made ever so bold by its absence? Witness Putin, who fears reprisal from no man, and the remarkable luck he has with reporters. The more vocal their criticism of him, the shorter their life span.

The material act which Libby aided in covering up will no doubt inflict grave damage to the United States, if it has not already done so. Its likely that many, many others were compromised in the leak. Even if this were not so, a message has been sent, that has been well heard around the world. Our word is no longer sacred, even when it comes to matters of national security. No longer is your principle worry other spies, or being detected by the enemy. Your ally may expose you, and can't be trusted not to, if the political climate makes it vaguely worthwhile to his narrow interests. You're expendable if the Prez is having a bad media day.

No, my friends, this is not a probationary offense. In my opinion, Scooter is very lucky he committed his crime in modern times. He is very lucky because we no longer seem to have a taste for prosecution of his real crime - treason, or at the very least accessory to treason.

Exactly what kind of message would a sentence of probation mean to the White House?

"We can do anything we want, we can get caught at it, and then we get to go home at the end of the day."

No. He committed a crime, he must pay for it with an applicable sentence. Going to prison is an message that everyone in Washington will get loud and clear.

Take heed, Mr. Rove, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Bush. The judge has the final say in this matter, and he doesn't always do as you might wish.

The gravity of the crime is always taken into consideration against the "good works and good character" of the defendant.

I just hope the judge doesn't buy it.

His lawyers don't seem to understand (or the hope the judge doesn't) that protecting someone who commited treason is an act of treason itself, even if that someone happens to be the Vice President (my personal front runner).

I especially liked the part about him having difficulty finding gainful employment because of all the negative publicity. I'm reasonably certain that there is a Haliburton sub-contractor out there keeping an executive chair and mid 6 figure salary warm for him.

He needs to do the 3 years, I'd vote for more but 3 years will have to do, and he needs to do them at Leavenworth. We have to at least show the next guy that protecting his boss will cost more than they can pay him.

If one reads the entire sentencing memorandum, Libby and his lawyers concede that the probation department's sentencing guidelines calculations, which result in an advisory sentencing range of between 15 and 21 months' imprisonment, are correct. They merely argue that the sentencing court should either grant him a downward departure under the sentencing guidelines or impose a below-guidelines sentence, which the court now has the discretion to do after Booker.

They are clearly putting their eggs in the "look what a good guy and committed public servant I am" basket. This is only one of the statutory factors to consider in choosing an appropriate sentence, which I believe is completely countervailed by the seriousness of his crimes, another factor the court must consider. Libby tries to poohpooh this factor by pointing out that he wasn't "covering up illegal activity" because he wasn't the one who outed Valerie Plame. By that I suppose he should say, he wasn't covering up his own illegal activity. Whatever his motive, his perjury is a serious crime, something of which he as a lawyer should have been especially cognizant.

Most laughably, Libby argues for a downward departure from the guidelines range because his future employment prospects have been "sharply circumscribed" because he's going to be disbarred. Can they seriously argue to the judge with a straight face that Libby isn't going to make millions off his book deals and speaking tours? I'm sure there's already a book deal in the works. And the judge should make sure he has 15 to 21 months of uninterupted time to get writing!

I would hope the blogs answering the articles in Salon.com do not represent the everyday democrat. How would these radical, name calling bloggers feel if all the major TV networks (fox excluded)and all the left wing major newspapers really went after all the corruption of President Clinton (and Hillary) as they do against everyone one even slightly conservative. The radical left is using rich vs poor, race, homosexuality, religion and on an to divide this country of ours. Most of the language and accusations are vicious in their language. I am tired of the character assination arising from the radical left. It goes back a long way, especially more vicious from the day President Bush was elected (yes, legally) back in 2000. It was a terribly loss to a party that pretty much controlled everything except for brief terms of a Republican President for at least 50 years of my life time. I know the left wing bloggers hate Fox News because they show both Democrats and Republicans and the left (who consider themselves such intellectuals) really don't believe in the free speech they constantly harp about.