Valerie Plame's lawsuit against members of the Bush administration was rightfully tossed today:

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove and former White House aide I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby.

The judge probably saw that Plame claimed "invasion of privacy" and when he stopped laughing decided that was enough to send the case to the dustbin where it belongs. It's amazing the ultimate media whores, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, even thought anyone would buy the invasion of privacy complaint. If Plame wants to sue someone for invading her privacy, she ought to start with the guy she lives with. She'll find solace in her private little world through profits on her book, movie and other intimate things.

I wonder if she'll sue Richard Armitage as he was the one who leaked her name to Novak.

This should bring a merciful end to the whole sordid mess in which a good man had his career ruined and the government spent untold millions prosecuting a case when the prosecutor knew full-well before the trial started who the leaker was. How sad for the sullen libs, no Karl Rove, no Dick Cheney and no Fitzmas after all.

Perhaps now it's time for the next prosecutor to aim their firepower at Valerie Plame who has lied more times than Scooter Libby.

With the shining hypocrisy and chutzpah that we would expect from a Clinton, Bill says his pardons were totally different. From the NYT (sub required):

In Iowa to promote the presidential candidacy of his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Mr. Clinton was asked by a radio host, David Yepsen, "You had some controversial pardons during your presidency; what's your reaction to what President Bush did?"

"Yeah, but I think the facts were different," Mr. Clinton said. "I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted. You've got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle."

"It's wrong to out that C.I.A. agent and wrong to try to cover it up," Mr. Clinton added. "And no one was ever fired from the White House for doing it."

Wow, that's pretty bold coming from Mr. "I did not have sex with that woman." Apparently in Bill's world, the power of the pardon is appropriate for campaign contributors, but not appropriate to reduce a sentence to be more in line with the punishment for stealing top secret documents.

The President said he was not pardoning Libby but commuting a portion of the sentence. Why? Supposedly because what Libby did was wrong but not that wrong, not worthy of jail time. Conservatives are saying Libby should have been pardoned and liberals are saying this shows Bush is thumbing his nose at the law and the American people. Some commentators are saying it shows Bush is in the middle. So, what does a lawyer say? (from an email)

by giving him commutation rather than a pardon it maintains his ability to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, which could also protect Bush and Cheney. If given a full pardon, he would not face any penalty and would be compelled to testify in any future hearings. With commutation, he is still on probation and subject to fine, so he can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. I'm sure Cheney and Bush were not aware of the difference and it had nothing to do with their actions!

That would explain things wouldn't it? I can see Bush saying something like, 'There's got to be a way to get Libby out while keeping a full pardon till the end of my term'. Cheney assigned someone to get an answer and then told Bush, 'Here's your best option'. If this Administration has shown us anything it's that we better be more careful about who we, the voters, elect to office.

And from Keith Olbermann

But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush-and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal-the average citizen understands that, Sir. It's the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one-and it stinks. And they know it.

Simply put, you cannot trust what George W. Bush tells you. When he ran for president, Bush skillfully worked the anti-Clinton sentiment to his advantage. Charged but acquitted of perjury, Bill Clinton played the perfect foil for a man who promised to deliver an ethical administration back to Washington. Bush puffed his chest and declared that, "politics, after a time of tarnished ideals, can be higher and better."

Fast-forward to the Scooter Libby case. After praising the work of Patrick Fitzgerald, a man Bush himself appointed, the president also gave the jury its props, while at the same time taking issue with the federal judge's sentence (another man Bush appointed). "I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive."

Then, on the same day that Bill Clinton made his debut on the campaign trail, Tony Snow took to the microphone and tried to assure us that a $250,000 fine and a couple of years probation are still a very harsh punishment for Libby. "No mere slap on the wrist," Snow said. Really? How much is left in that legal defense fund again?

But the president wasn't through with his bag of tricks. Today he announced that he might yet pardon Mr. Libby. No promises either way, you see, because there is a major catch. The snag? Scooter hasn't formally asked him to yet. Mr. Snow explained:

Here's a little thread to track the reactions to the president's commutation of Scooter Libby. While W. applauds the hard work of the jury, he found that the punishment that the judge (who Bush himself appointed, mind you) handed down was much too excessive. Never mind that the conservative Supreme Court most certainly does not agree, having recently upheld an even longer sentence in a nearly identical case. So here's the partisan rub. Repubs (those who are talking, anyway) are happy as clams. Dems, on the other hand, are fighting mad. Here then, a sampling:

Barack Obama:
"This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law. This is exactly the kind of politics we must change so we can begin restoring the American people's faith in a government that puts the country's progress ahead of the bitter partisanship of recent years."

Rudy Giuliani:
"After evaluating the facts, the president came to a reasonable decision and I believe the decision was correct."

It appears that unless President Bush does something, Scooter Libby is going to jail for real.

CNN:

A federal appeals court Monday rejected former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby's request to remain free on bond while appealing his March conviction on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

In an order handed down Monday, a three judge panel wrote Libby "has not shown that the appeal raises a substantial question" that regular appeals court will consider when its next term begins in September.

I believe that this means that Libby has run out of process options to stay out of jail. His last hope is a pardon or commutation from Bush. This would ignite an uproar among the usual suspects, but let's face it, Bush's popularity isn't going to go any lower, and it would be a strong signal that the president won't throw his friends and loyalists under the bus when the going gets rough.

On the other hand, letting his vice president's personal assistant sit for thirty months would send another signal, one of weakness and faithlessness. A pardon or commutation shouldn't surprise anyone.

I've spent untold time slamming the president I voted for twice for the issues of immigration and, tonight, support for Fatah. I've failed to hit him where I really should, the "Scooter" Libby prosecution.

Libby was indicted and convicted on vague charges and the president allowed it to happen. I fully believe that the reason we've not heard from Dick Cheney is the president has forbidden him to speak on this matter. Libby was a trusted aide of the veep and deserves the backing of the administration based on the weak charges and eventual conviction.

Christopher Hitchens, a man who is among the most brilliant polemicists of our time, spells it out better than I:

Does it not seem extraordinary that a man can be prosecuted, and now be condemned to a long term of imprisonment, because of an alleged minor inconsistency of testimony in a case where it is admitted that there was no crime and no victim?

Yes, it does.

Hitchens lays it out in exquisite detail as to the spurious nature of this case. No agent was "outed," a Democratic shill was responsible and a rabid and very partisan was the prosecutor. I would have copied more but I believe that the entire piece must be read and comprehended.

If you read nothing else this week, read Hitchens' defense of Libby and tell me if he does not indeed lay it out in a way that will make you rethink (or think for the first time) this whole affair.

Scooter Libby is going to jail in just a few weeks unless he wins an appeal from a higher court in that short time. It's not likely. Here's more from the NYT:

Mr. Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was temporarily released after surrendering his passport and completing forms. He will have to report to a federal prison sometime in the next several weeks to begin serving his sentence after his conviction in March on four felony counts for lying in a C.I.A. leak investigation that became part of an intense debate over the war in Iraq.

In effect, the ruling means that the only thing standing between Mr. Libby and prison is a pardon from President Bush, which Mr. Libby and his supporters are avidly seeking. But Mr. Bush has so far shown no inclination to intervene. In answer to a question about a pardon, Tony Snow, the presidential spokesman, said Thursday: "What the president has said is let the legal process work itself out. We're just not engaging in that right now."

Well, they'd better start engaging because in a few weeks every staffer in Bush's administration will start thinking, "make one wrong phone call, and that could be me."

A top lawyer for Barack Obama went off the reservation yesterday and published an article at HuffingtonPost.com calling for the pardon of Dick Cheney's assistant Scooter Libby, who was recently convicted in a perjury trap.

The Hill has a report:

Obama general counsel Robert Bauer did not ask his boss, a presidential candidate, for permission to write the article, published on HuffingtonPost.com.

But Obama's campaign said the senator would not ask for Bauer's resignation, adding that he is "still our lawyer."

Obama's campaign and Bauer told The Hill yesterday that Bauer was not speaking on behalf of Obama when he wrote the piece, and the blog entry carries a disclaimer to that effect.

So far it sounded like Bauer went out and became a GOP supporter, but then I actually read the article.

...So far.

Lots of folks have called for President Bush to pardon Scooter Libby after Mr. Libby's conviction for perjury. So far it appears that no pardon is coming.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino, traveling with Bush in Europe for the Group of Eight summit, said Bush felt sorry for the family of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who was sentenced to 30 months in prison for lying and obstructing an investigation related to the Bush administration's handling of the Iraq war.

"The president said that he felt terrible for the family, especially his wife and his kids," Perino said.

But she noted that the appeals process, which could prove lengthy, was just getting under way.

Interesting. Bush is not saying there will be no pardon ever, but no pardon now, especially in light of the appeals process. Which leads one to believe that a pardon might happen once real jail time is involved.

I stand by my earlier post. And now that the prospect of real jailtime is involved, I think it's even more appropriate. Scooter gets thirty months and a $250,000 fine while Bill Clinton lost his law license and paid a $50,000 fine for actions resulting from his perjury. But I guess that was just about sex so it was OK.

And the former aide to Dick Cheney must pay a $250,000 fine, as well. Score one for Patrick Fitzgerald. Judge Reggie B. Walton had no doubt about Scooter Libby's role in the cover-up, saying, "Evidence in this case overwhelmingly indicated Mr. Libby's culpability."

After it was clear that things weren't going to go his way, Libby even did the unthinkable, and actually spoke in the courtroom.

"It is respectfully my hope that the court will consider along with the jury verdict my whole life. Thank you your honor."

But, of course, Libby may not serve a day of this pending the appeal process and the almost certain presidential pardon (see Bush's reaction here). So go on, get it off your chest. Has justice been served? Lying to a Grand Jury isn't really such a big deal, is it? Didn't Bill Clinton get away with the exact same thing? The microphone is yours, America.

There are relatively few news stories about the very different accounts that Valerie Plame told different investigators about events surrounding the CIA leak. It's important, because Plame was apparently under oath during all of the interviews. Lying under oath is usually a big deal, except for Democrats. That's what Scooter Libby was convicted of, after all. Scott posted here last night about the unmistakable conclusion that Val lied to at least one of the investigators, and quite possible to all of them, but I don't expect anyone to pursue her for perjury or obstruction of justice, certainly not in this Congress.

There's another important aspect to this case that just came to light, however. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, in an exhibit to his sentencing memorandum for Libby, stated categorically for the first time that Valerie Plame (who he refers to as Valerie Wilson) was a covert agent at the time of Bob Novak's original column.

...When traveling overseas, Ms. Wilson always traveled under a cover identity--sometimes in true name and sometimes in an alias--but always using cover--whether official or non-official cover (NOC) --with no ostensible relationship to the CIA.

At the time of the initial unauthorized disclosure in the media of Ms. Wilson's employment relationship with the CIA on 14th July 2003, Ms., Wilson was a covert CIA employee for whom the CIA was taking affirmative measures to conceal her intelligence relationship to the United States.

He's essentially arguing that since that was the case, Scooter Libby should be sentenced not for perjury, but as if he did violate the law concerning the disclosure of covert agents. Remarkable.

As a result of the Valerie Plame "outing," Scooter Libby was convicted of no other crime than perjury. While serious, it was far from being malicious and the man who actually did "out" her is facing no trial, no media scorn and no time in jail.

Now certain facts are coming to light. Valerie Plame and her wretched husband and chief media face may have flat-out lied on several occasions:

Here are Plame's three versions of how Wilson was sent to Niger, Bond said:

•She told the CIA's inspector general in 2003 or 2004 that she had suggested Wilson.

•Plame told Senate Intelligence Committee staffers in 2004 that she couldn't remember whether she had suggested Wilson.

•She told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in March that an unidentified person in Vice President Cheney's office asked a CIA colleague about the African uranium report in February 2002. A third officer, overhearing Plame and the colleague discussing this, suggested, "Well, why don't we send Joe?" Plame told the committee.

CIA officials have been unable to verify Plame's March version, Bond said. Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman, said the "public record on the matter is extensive, and, at this point, I can't add anything to it."

So, in essence, Plame can't get her story straight, two of the three stories indicate that she was involved in at least the discussion of sending her husband and the third was she couldn't remember.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, of Scooter Libby fame, has made a big deal in the past about "finding the truth." But lately he's been pretty secretive about providing openness about his own investigation. Dow Jones and the Associated Press, among others, have requested the release of the affidavits he filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to justify compelling two reporters to testify about their conversations with Mr. Libby. After refusing to comply with his subpoena, Judith Miller spent 85 days in jail. Now that the trial is over, and Fitzgerald has gotten a conviction, there seems to be little reason to keep those affidavits under wraps. Unless, that is, Fitzgerald is hiding something.

His demand [to compel the journalists - pjc] and the D.C. Circuit ruling set a precedent that may well encourage other prosecutors to force journalists to betray their sources too. His effort also appeared, at least to us, to violate long-standing Justice Department guidelines concerning such pursuit of journalists. His pursuit is all the more puzzling in retrospect because we now know that Mr. Fitzgerald already knew--at the time he was demanding that the reporters betray their sources--that the real leaker was Richard Armitage, not Mr. Libby.

The two reporters he subpoenaed and their lawyers did not know this at the time, however, and if they had it might have changed their arguments or decisions. At a minimum, prosecutors and reporters deserve to know what evidence the D.C. Circuit found so compelling so we can all avoid such future collisions. Congress also has an interest now that it is contemplating a "shield law" to protect media sources.

Why the stonewalling? Could it be that Fitzgerald has told the courts he is still trying to find the leaker?

Representative Henry Waxman is responsible for the tax-money wasting circus sideshow that was Valerie Plame's testimony. The case is settled, "Scooter" Libby is going to jail and the actual leaker -- Richard Armitage -- is not. It doen't matter that Plame was or was not covert, she was not outed by Rove, Libby, Bush or any other part of the administration. She was outed by a bitter State Department employee who is no friend of the president.

Waxman, in his finite wisdom, decided that he wanted to milk this non-issue for all it was worth and to get his mug on TV for a few hours.

Enter Victoria Toensing, the woman who helped write the law that Waxman is adamant someone, anyone, in the administration broke. Watch the video and note that Waxman would not allow Toensing to answer even one question: