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.

Senator John Cornyn (Republican) is now asking President Bush (Republican) why he can pardon his friend Scooter Libby while allowing two border patrol agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, to serve 10 year sentences for shooting a drug smuggler. His statement today from National Review Online:

"I am deeply concerned with some of the information that came to light at today's Committee hearing today. Among other things, it would appear that the government allowed this drug dealer to violate the terms of his immunity agreement with impunity. Further, it would appear that this drug dealer was allowed to commit perjury with impunity. I would also note that several jurors have since come forward to state that evidence which they were prevented from hearing would have changed their verdict. I have serious concerns with the government's decision to suppress certain information from this jury. Finally, I am perhaps most concerned with the very excessive prison terms that were handed down to these two individuals.

"Agents Ramos and Compean were on the front lines; their duty was to enforce our immigration laws and protect this nation. The prosecutors had a duty to dispense equal justice under the law. It seems to me an open question whether Agents Ramos and Compean were treated differently because of their status as law enforcement officers. What I do know, however, is that if the Scooter Libby case is one which the President believes was excessive then I have a hard time understanding why these two individuals would not warrant a similar review."

This issue has been smoldering in the background of conservative ranks for awhile now, but I am surprised that a high profile Republican senator has been willing to challenge the administration on this. That's a good thing, but a little surprising that it's a Republican. Where are the Democrats on this issue? This is a golden opportunity for them to contrast the presidents pardoning of a friend of his while letting two hispanic federal agents rot in prison. Are the Democrats more concerned about the rights of illegal immigrant drug smugglers? I doubt it, yet so far only Dianne Feinstein has latched on to this issue. That should change and this issue may blow up at any time.

The Scooter Libby commutation, which most people acknowledge was going to happen at some point, is an obvious payoff: Keep quiet and we'll cover you. Republican presidential candidates were quick to praise and Democrats quick to pan. But there's more to it. When George W. Bush was governor of Texas he was proud of his record of not pardoning and sending more people than ever to the chair. Even in the case of Karla Fay Tucker, Bush didn't waver. But he said it was a tough decision

Mr. Bush described feeling "like a huge piece of concrete was crushing me" as he waited with aides for Ms. Tucker's execution. It was, he said, "the longest 20 minutes of my tenure as governor."

Really? According to conservative pundit Tucker Carlson who interviewed Bush in 1999

In the weeks before the execution, Bush says, Bianca Jagger and a number of protesters came to Austin to demand clemency for Karla Faye Tucker. "Did you meet with any of them?" I ask. Bush whips around and stares at me. "No, I didn't meet with any of them", he snaps, as though I've just asked the dumbest, most offensive question ever posed. "I didn't meet with Larry King either when he came down for it. I watched his interview with Tucker, though. He asked her real difficult questions like, 'What would you say to Governor Bush?'" "What was her answer?" I wonder. "'Please,'" Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, "'don't kill me.'" I must look shocked - ridiculing the pleas of a condemned prisoner who has since been executed seems odd and cruel - because he immediately stops smirking.

Hypocrite. It's what he is. Time and time again he has shown disdain and mocks the American people. He is the president of the rich and powerful but he is not the president of the United States. For those who want to trot out the Clinton pardons. The Rich pardon was wrong. Wrong then, wrong now. This is wrong and it involves betrayal of the country, that 's what Lewis and the whole gang did. This is about Bush and his never ending hypocrisy. I don't think the country wants another Bush or Clinton. It's one more reason the country wants change and is ready for a Democrat of standing to lead. I'm still undecided but I know we need a change.

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.

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.

Here is what Rudy Giuliani had to say when asked whether Scooter Libby should be pardoned for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice:

I think the sentence was way out of line. I mean, the sentence was grossly excessive in a situation in which at the beginning, the prosecutor knew who the leak was and he knew a crime wasn't committed. I recommended over a thousand pardons to President Reagan when I was associate attorney general. I would see if it fit the criteria for pardon. I'd wait for the appeal. I think what the judge did today argues more in favor of a pardon because this is excessive punishment.

Well, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to agree. Today they issued a ruling in a virtually identical case in which a defendant was found guilty of the same crimes as Libby, and given an even longer sentence. The judge in the case followed sentencing guidelines, and added time, just as in the Libby case, becuase the proven crimes hindered prosecutors from discerning whether the origial ones had been committed.

But for that matter, Guiliani himself doesn't seem to agree with Giuliani. That is, the Giuliani who was once a prosecutor. Back then (1987) perjury certainly was a big deal to Rudy:

As a young prosecutor and later as a U.S. attorney, Giuliani supervised many prosecutions for perjury, including several that flowed from a string of Wall Street insider-trading cases that helped make him a national figure and paved the way for his bid for New York Mayor. Giuliani saw perjury and obstruction as significant enough problems in pursuing white-collar crime that he urged Congress to impose a mandatory prison sentence to brokers who lie to investigators.

So, Rudy, the difference now is what, exactly? Never mind, we already know the answer.

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?

The AP has a new story up about one of the unintended consequences of the Scooter Libby show trial and conviction. There was no crime in Plamaquiddick, just someone who got caught with some inconsistent statements to the Grand Jury and the FBI. Had Scooter Libby pleaded the Fifth, the Democrats and the media would have had a field day if and when they found out about it (remember, the investigation and the Grand Jury was supposed to be secret), but since no crime was committed it would have ended with Fitzgerald and the Democrats holding absolutely nothing.

From the first few months of the Democrat Congress, we already know that they can't govern worth a .... at least not the way they've done so far. So, the only thing they have is Henry Waxman's and Patrick Leahy's show trials to appease the Left and the media. Well, here's what everyone who is called before either the Senate or the House should do. Call it the Libby Lesson.

Monica Goodling, a senior Justice Department official involved in the firings of federal prosecutors, will refuse to answer questions at upcoming Senate hearings, citing Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination, her lawyer said Monday.

"The potential for legal jeopardy for Ms. Goodling from even her most truthful and accurate testimony under these circumstances is very real," said the lawyer, John Dowd.

"One need look no further than the recent circumstances and proceedings involving Lewis Libby," he said, a reference to the recent conviction of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff in the CIA leak case.

With Libby being convicted, and especially in the way in which he was convicted, it just gives every person who is subpoenaed before the current Senate or House a great reason to just say nothing.