More Libby Reactions From The Authoritarian Right

Here is more reaction from the authoritarian right.
The American Mind

According to their [liberal media]] logic President Bush should have looked away at what he saw as an injustice because Libby worked in the White House. Because Bush hasn’t commuted others that means Libby should be denied this action? How is that fair to Libby?

Power Line

The two most important factors are Libby’s public service and the fact that, at the time Libby made the false statements in question, the prosecutor already knew the answer to the question he had come to Washington to investigate. Indeed, it seems likely that but for the high profile and political context of the investigation, the prosecutor would not have asked Libby these questions.

Continue reading

Conservative Movement Sleeper Cells

Atrios links to Digby, who writes that the appeals court is likely to reverse Scooter Libby’s conviction because the particular judges are Federalist Society activists who have been working behind the scenes for years to reverse convictions of conservative movement operatives like Oliver North, while bending the law as far as possible to enable political investigations of Democrats like Bill Clinton.

And it does go back. Digby quotes from Robery Parry, writing about what Iran/Contra prosecutor Lawrence Walsh found himself up against – facing some of these same judges.

“Walsh recognized that many of the appeals judges held a “continuing political allegiance” to the conservative Federalist Society, an organization dedicated to purging liberalism from the federal courts.

“It reminded me of the communist front groups of the 1940s and 1950s, whose members were committed to the communist cause and subject to communist direction but were not card-carrying members of the Communist Party,” Walsh wrote.”

Atrios calls it a “conservative protection racket.”

And now we know from the Justice Department probe that these operatives are in place throughout the government – “sleeper cells” waiting to jump out and sabotage any attempt at actual positive governance. Digby writes,

Sentelle and Silbermann appointed Ken Starr, whom Robert Bork defended for his high minded, straight devotion to duty.

Sentelle is still on the court. Lawrence Silberman is now a senior judge. Rehnquist’s replacement, John Roberts was on that same court. The extremist Janice Rogers Brown is also on that court.

Perhaps the long term friendships, shared legal history and blind partisan loyalties among these people will not be relevant in this case. But let’s just say I wouldn’t be shocked if we get a surprising appellate decision based upon a novel, intellectually inconsistent theory set forth by a bunch of powerful wingnut legal enforcers. It happens.

A few years back in a post titled The Right Will Fight Dirty I wrote about the same problem (quoting the same Walsh quotes.) I wrote,

With The Party’s Federalist Society judges in place every special prosecutor appointed to investigate Republican wrongdoing was a right-wing Party operative, and those appointed to investigate Democrats was … a right-wing Party operative. Every motion before the Courts went against Clinton and the Democrats.

… And, finally, the 2000 election. The Supreme Court demonstrated the extent and power of Party operatives, positioned within the mechanisms of our government, whose loyalty is to an ideology and a Party rather than the country.

These years of this Bush’s hands on the controls mean that our government is now infested with ideological operatives, waiting for their opportunity to prove that their loyalty lies with The Party, not American democracy.

And here we are, sleeper cells planted throughout the government, just waiting to destroy any Democrat elected to the Presidency while blocking any efforts to hold even a single conservative movement operative accountable for anything.

Suppose a Democrat does win the Presidency in 2008. Will that President be able to accomplish anything? Or will these sleeper cells awaken and wreak havoc?

Plamegate – A Crime?

The right’s talking point on the “outing” of Valerie Plame is that there was no crime. They say that Fitzgerald would have brought charges for the outing if the outing were a crime.
I would like to remind everyone that Fitzgerald said that he indicted Libby for obstruction of justice BECAUSE Libby obstructed – “threw sand in the eyes of” – the investigation which kept it from finding out who committed the crime. That is what “obstruction of justice” means, and that is what Libby was convicted of. He blocked the investigation into the crime.
Transcript of Special Counsel Fitzgerald’s Press Conference

And what we have when someone charges obstruction of justice, the umpire gets sand thrown in his eyes. He’s trying to figure what happened and somebody blocked their view.
… This is a very serious matter and compromising national security information is a very serious matter. But the need to get to the bottom of what happened and whether national security was compromised by inadvertence, by recklessness, by maliciousness is extremely important. We need to know the truth. And anyone who would go into a grand jury and lie, obstruct and impede the investigation has committed a serious crime.

There are a lot of people trying to throw sand in everyone’s eyes now that Libby is convicted. Here is where we are today: A covert CIA agent was outed by the White House, and the Vice President’s Chief of Staff has been convicted of obstructing the investigation into who was behind it.
I suggest reading the entire transcript.