Snow: Why SHOULD Libby serve time?

Video here via HuffPo.

Reporter: "Why not SOME jail time served?"

Snow: "Tell me why."

BushCo philosophy laid bare: Conviction by jury? Three judges rule against bail pending appeal? Not good enough. You have to explain to US why he should serve a day in jail.

And if you try to do that:

Reporter: "He was convicted of obstruction of justice!"

Snow (in kindergarten teacher voice): "Passions are running high in the press room today!"

BushCo philosophy laid bare Part II: You're upset that we think breaking the law is cool? Gee, you've got a real problem with anger there.

Reporter: "You're insulting our intelligence."

Well, it's kind of sad it's taken you that long to figure it out, but yes - yes he is. What are you going to do about it? You've got serious power if you actually decide that using it won't cost you party invitations.

We'll see.

•  In some ways

  I wish they'd have let him finish his sentence that starts with "So you think ..." I can't imagine what he would've come up with. Maybe something along the lines of "So you think that a man should be sent to jail before his appeals are exhausted" or some such antihistorical, antireality crap.

  by RickMassimo on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:10:53 PM PDT

  •  Classic shifting of presumptions

    Before you are convicted, there is a presumption of innocence.  Libby lost that one when the jury returned its verdict.

    Then came the sentencing.  There are guidelines, which are not binding (used to be but that's a different story) but sentences within the range indicated by the guidelines are presumptively reasonable. Fitz sought a sentence of 37 months -- the high end of the range set by the guidelines. Libby thus bore the burden of persuading the judge that the sentence should be lower. He failed to do so. Libby was sentenced to 30 months in jail -- a sentence at the LOW END of the range indicated by the guidelines -- making his sentence was presumptively reasonable, and he would bear the burden in any appeal that sought a reduction of that sentence to show that the sentence was unreasonable despite being within the guidelines range.

    Then came the application for a stay of the jail sentence pending appeal.  Again, the presumption is that you begin to serve your time before appeals are exhausted. In order to rebut that presumption, you have to show that your appeal has a "substantial chance" of success. Not that its a "slam dunk," but that it has a "substantial chance." Libby bore the burden of making that showing, and again he failed -- the D.C. Circuit ruling that he has not shown that his appeal had a substantial chance of success.

    So, at every stage after Libby was convicted, and no longer was entitled to a presumption of innocence, Libby failed to bear his burden of showing that the presumptions AGAINST him were unreasonable. Tony Snow must hate America, because he still seems to think that the burden is on US to show why a sentence within the guidelines, and the affirmance of a denial of bond, were reasonable, instead of the other way around.

    God. Sometimes I wish I was a member of the White House Press Corpse.  People would think that Helen Thomas was a sweet little old lady compared to me.

    by litigatormom on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:18:03 PM PDT

    •  Well, that's how they've been

      ever since 1999, when Fucko W. McDickhead spent a year saying "Why SHOULDN'T I be president?"

      The presumption is the fundamental basis of everything they (and most alcoholics) (and most assholes) do. Why shouldn't I do whatever I want? I'm not going to explain - YOU explain.

      by RickMassimo on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:07:05 PM PDT

•  Well, if you think about it,

  George W. Bush has never had to pay for any of his indiscretions.  The scum keeps rising to the top.  And these people don't believe in evolution!

  by theark on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:14:16 PM PDT

  •  Of course, it's unjust

    to send a rich, white, Republican male to jail. On the other hand, it's ok for "zero tolerance" and draconian mandatory sentences for poor, black youth nabbed with a few joints. The entire American justice system is in such tatters it's not even a joke. Frankly, it should be leveled and rebuilt -- or else the entire Bush administration be impeached as one great big festering unit.

    I am in SUCH a bad mood today over this.

    by anastasia p on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:48:50 PM PDT

•  God I so hate those guys

  They make me sick.  They are pure evil - all of them.

  by MadAsHellMaddie on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:15:24 PM PDT

•  he shouldn't have to go to jail

  alone. he should be accompanied by the people he perjured himself protecting.

  by rasbobbo on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:16:02 PM PDT

  •  You got that right

    I've long said they should just put prison fencing and barbed wire around the entire White House.

    by anastasia p on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:50:44 PM PDT

    •  That Would Be Too Nice For Them

      Besides, we wouldn't want them trashing up the place since our side will be taking up residence in January '09.

      by FLDemJax on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:51:47 PM PDT

•  That reporter

  is going to be on Hardball shortly to talk about the exchange.

  by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:16:36 PM PDT

  •  re

    Did Chris fawn over bush yesterday or was he angry?

    by cookiesandmilk on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:18:59 PM PDT

    •  I am sure

      he filled up several spittle cups yesterday.

      by MadAsHellMaddie on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:20:28 PM PDT

      •  re

        Yah I kinda assumed that but I was wondering, if he did yesterday how he is going to feign outrage because I am sure this turd has put his finger in the wind this morning and realized everyone save for bush cod piece enablers are against it....

        by cookiesandmilk on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:23:22 PM PDT

        •  I heard

          that at one point, one of the producers wrapped a bib around his neck during a commercial break as the was soaking in it.

          by MadAsHellMaddie on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:45:22 PM PDT

    •  I would say he was relatively neutral yesterday

      still trying to figure out what the game was.  Tonight they led with a really killer report by David Schuster complete with footage of Papa Bush's empassioned statement about the leak all those years ago.  Then he gave Joe Wilson quite a long format interview in which Wilson laid out the real question of quid pro quo - which was implied in the Schuster piece.  Now has the Bennet brother that represented Judy Miller who isn't giving out rave reviews on the subject since his client is the only person who has spent any time in jail.

      That is what has happend so far.

      by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:23:32 PM PDT

    •  Update:

      Bennett said something about if Libby gets a full pardon that if he was filling out a job application he could probably answer the question of whether or not he had been convicted of a felony - Libby could say no.

      Matthews responded by saying, "I don't think that would disqualify him at a place like the American Enterprise Insitute."

      by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:30:29 PM PDT

      •  re

        Zinnngggggg!

        by cookiesandmilk on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:35:07 PM PDT

      •  Ka-ching!

        So its Good Tweety on tonight?  It was Good Tweety on the Today Show too.  He told Meredith Veiera in no uncertain terms that this story mattered, and the issue was that Bush was continuing to protect Scooter from the consequences of not telling Fitz the truth.

        by litigatormom on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:21:08 PM PDT

    •  Wasn't there, Al Sharpton was filling in. n/t

      by Gorette on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:32:17 PM PDT

      •  Earlier but Matthews came on later

        for commentary - he is on vacation.  Schuster actually took over the 7pm hour and hosted Matthews.

        Tonight Matthews is hosting because this story is his baby and he had the Joe Wilson interview.

        by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:43:34 PM PDT

        •  Oh, okay. I quit watching at a certain point,

          You know how it is, you just get too too irritated to go on listening.

          Thanks.

          by Gorette on Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 12:51:42 PM PDT

  •  I am at work

    I hope it shows up on You Tube or C & L.  Post video if anyone gets it.

    by litigatormom on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:18:48 PM PDT

•  Why should Scooter serve time.....

  answer a question with a question?  Why should Bush still be president?

  by murrayewv on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:17:59 PM PDT

•  He's been insulting their intelligence since he

  took that job.  Nice of them to finally notice.

  by darthstar on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:18:41 PM PDT

  •  re

    In other news...

    The WH Poodle Core just realized, water = wet, earth not flat and Tony Fucking Snow lies to them with every atom in his body, day in and day out...

    by cookiesandmilk on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:37:45 PM PDT

    •  Ha! I just realised that was the first Tony Snow

      post I have made that didn't have the subject: "Tony Snow is a fucking prick"

      by darthstar on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:48:19 PM PDT

•  Well, Snow could have been told about sentencing

  minimums that are built into the law, but that would be one of those things Congress did and therefore nothing that an employee of the executive branch would understand as important.  So you'd get another blank stare and a "why, why would a convict go to jail?"

  by Inland on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:19:10 PM PDT

•  Why should Scooter serve time

  Umm, how about because he broke the fucking law you asswipe. WTF?

  by mpc 12 on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:23:11 PM PDT

•  I agree with not sending Libby to jail

  Everyone knows that prison is for poor people. Rich people shouldn't be in jail. That's flying in the face of nature! A more appropriate punishment would be to have him attend every perfomance of Wagner's Ring cycle for the next 10 years. And no rest breaks. You probably think I am pretty tough for saying that, but felonies are very serious things and should meet with the most severe punishment allowed under the Metropolitan Opera rules.

  by Batfish on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:23:42 PM PDT

  •  Hey now.

    I already covered the bashing of classical musicians here.

    I'm poor (less than $1,000 in the bank at the moment), a flaming liberal, and I shelled out $250 for crappy seats to see the Ring Cycle at the Met this month.  Assholes like Libby shouldn't get the privilege of seeing a good Wagner performance.  Anyways, if Libby was sentenced according to Wagner's rules, he'd get a spear in the back.

    by Arturo52 on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:31:47 PM PDT

    •  as a chickenhawk

      he wouldn't be eligible for Valhalla, though. I think he'd have to be frozen into the ice of the Rime Mountains, called Helheim and ruled over by the goddess of death Barbara of the beautiful mind Hel.

      by dougymi on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:39:01 PM PDT

    •  Mark Twain once said

      "Wagner's music is better than it sounds."

      by GTPinNJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:40:02 PM PDT

      •  Bah.

        I'm listening to the end of Act I Walkure as I type, and there is no music that better depicts impetuous, passionate love.

        by Arturo52 on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:46:46 PM PDT

    •  Then sentence him to the opera but

      seat him in front of someone with a wet cough.  How's that?

      by Inland on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:50:18 PM PDT

      •  My problem isn't the coughers.

        It's the bastards who get up and leave during the applause.

        by Arturo52 on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:04:18 PM PDT

•  Snow has been very dismissive of the press

  This administration is at the point where it feels it can shamelessly flaunt its criminal activity. Who is going to stop them? Congress? Not a chance. The press? They've been a great help. The courts? They can commute or pardon anyone who hasn't been impeached. They must feel pretty invincible at this point. How else do you explain such a cavalier attitude in the face of what is going on?

  by MagisterLudi on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:26:56 PM PDT

  •  "Who isn't impeached"

    cough cough hint hint.

    by RickMassimo on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:47:13 PM PDT

  •  Flaunting it, indeed:

    it's trying to score points for sheer balls and for sneering at the usual targets of right wing hate.

    If you were a person who thought that the real problem with the US was that the president didn't have enough power, that the press has too much free rein, you'd love this stuff.  It's the protofascist wet dream.

    by Inland on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:52:35 PM PDT

    •  Except that

      someone might ask you why we've been living under such a regime for the past six years and no one's life is any better.

      by RickMassimo on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:55:35 PM PDT

  •  And there's always Blackwater

    to back them up, seize our guns, march us off to detention camps, and shoot us dead. And Bush's own special immunity, for him and his buddies, thanks to the Military Commissions Act.

    by marina on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:54:40 PM PDT

•  It'd be capital if his doctor asked Snow...

  ...why he should treat his cancer.

  by The Termite on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:27:38 PM PDT

•  they can disrespect anyone they want (and will)

  until someone pushes back.

  by A Handsome Man on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:29:41 PM PDT

•  For anyone interested,

  Here is the link to the WH press briefing today where this exchange took place.

  There is a lot of good stuff in there.  For once, the press corps did a pretty good job.  My favorite exchange:

  Q How does the President justify this commutation when there are thousands of others in jail with a similar request?

  MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that -- thousands in jail with similar requests?

  Q Three thousand.

  MR. SNOW: Three thousand in jail with similar -- I'm not sure that you can take anybody who has a perjury count and say that they're all the same. Every count has to be considered differently. The President, as you know, looks very carefully at these things. And furthermore, not every one of these cases comes before a President, as you're well aware. Attorneys quite often petition for these and that is one of the procedures by which they do it.

  Q Can I follow on that? There are more than 3,000 current petitions for commutation -- not pardons, but commutation -- in the federal system under President Bush. Will all 3,000 of those be held to the same standard that the President applied to Scooter Libby?

  MR. SNOW: I don't know.

  Q Tony, I'm trying to get a handle on it -- are you saying this White House handled this case in an extraordinary manner, or in a routine manner?

  MR. SNOW: I think it handled it in a routine manner in the sense that the President took a careful look. But it is an extraordinary case by virtue of the fact that not only do you have the extreme level of publicity, but also that in many ways, the hand was called by a court decision to go ahead and send Scooter Libby to jail while he was still in the middle of his appeals process.

  Q But how could it not be extraordinary to grant something to someone who didn't even ask for it?

  MR. SNOW: I just think that's the President, again, using his commutation power to do what he thought was necessary to address what he thought was an excessive punishment.

  Q But absent a request, he wouldn't even have known about this case if it didn't involve his former aide.

  MR. SNOW: Well, no, I think you probably would have reminded him of it. The fact -- you talk about, if it had not involved a former aide -- this is a thing that has been in the headlines for quite a while.

  by GTPinNJ on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:38:45 PM PDT

  •  Here's a nice exchange

    Q Tony, does the President think that Scooter Libby did, in fact, lie; that a member of the White House staff was, in fact, guilty of these crimes?

    MR. SNOW: What he believes is that he was convicted of a jury of his peers. The President was not sitting in as a fact witness on a very long case, and he does think that it's important to respect what the jury concluded, because the jury really is the group that counts here.

    Snow to self: Must.not.slip.must.not.let.Cheney.think.Prez.agrees.with.verdict.must.confine.statements.to.lip.serv ice.

    Q Why not respect what the judge said, then?

    MR. SNOW: Well, keep in mind that there is still -- he does respect what the judge said, but he also respects what -- I think if you took a look at the trial record, at what the parole commission recommended, that what the parole commission recommended was highly consistent with what the President thought was an appropriate punishment here.

    Q Well, no, they talked about 16-plus months.

    Snow to self: Shit, why didn't Perino brief me on this?

    MR. SNOW: No, that is -- there's a range of -- what you're taking a look -- this gets very complicated. You have obstruction of justice, and then you have mitigating factors that bumps it down. And the bump down gets you, according, again, to the parole commission, to an area where it would be appropriate, it would be within acceptable guidelines to have such things as home detention or probation. Probation is something that is going to be required in this case.

    Snow to self: Hope I didn't mess up to bad, I was really making it up there.

    Litigatormom to Snow: Sorry Tony. You totally fucked up. The probation office recommended 15 to 21 months EVEN AFTER taking mitigating factors into account, and you don't HAVE to take mitigating factors into account.  They are entirely discretionary.  No one but SCOOTER made an argument that the guidelines could be applied to let him get off with home detention -- because the guidelines can't be read that way.

    Q Tony, it's my understanding that this administration has advocated allowing judges the discretion to sentence within guidelines, and that this sentence was, in fact, within customary guidelines. So how does the President square that view with his decision to commute the sentence?

    MR. SNOW: Look, first, he thinks that -- I would suggest you go back and read some of the trial pleadings, because there is real controversy over what the proper guidelines are. What you're referring to are guidelines under the Espionage Act, which was never brought up as a possible violation by Mr. Libby or anybody there. But I don't want to get into the business of trying to -- I know you're trying to get into the business of having an abstruse legal argument with Patrick Fitzgerald; not going to do it. I will simply tell you that the President, after long consideration, weeks and weeks of consideration, came to the conclusion that 30 months in jail was excessive, and that he is comfortable with the punishment, which is still quite severe, of $250,000, a felony conviction, and two years of probation.

    It's not just the Administration that thinks that sentencing within the guidelines is appropriate, its your own fucking reactionary Supreme Court!  They just affirmed a sentence within the guidelines for a diabetic military veteran, saying that sentences within the guidelines are PRESUMPTIVELY REASONABLE!  IMAGINE THAT!

    Snow to self: Whew, I nailed that one.

    Litigatormom to Snow: You nailed yourself, dickhead. You're basically saying that Bush, a non-lawyer, disagreed with a presumptively reasonable sentence because he went back to the pleadings and the briefs and decided himself that Scooter's ridiculous intepretation of the guidelines was correct? And then you have the nerve to say you're not going to be drawn into abstruse legal arguments?

    Man, I wish I could have one day in the Press Corpse room, just one day.....

    by litigatormom on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:34:38 PM PDT

    •  And another

      Q Tony, I want to go back to the issue of an apology, and I want to stay issue-focused and not blaming. Are there -- is the American people owed some kind of apology from someone in this administration for the leaking of a CIA person's name, personnel's name?

      MR. SNOW: Yes, it's improper to be leaking those names.

      Q You say it's improper, so you're saying someone in this administration owes the American public an apology?

      MR. SNOW: I'll apologize. All done.

      Q No, it's not. That's flippant, that's a very flippant way of doing something very serious -- it was a very serious matter. That was very flippant.

      MR. SNOW: Well, no, I think in some ways the characterization -- because there are so many complex issues involved in this, including the provenance of it, and furthermore, the fact that in the Washington culture things get leaked all the time. And I'm not aware --

      Q Does that make it right?

      MR. SNOW: How many of you have apologized for a controversial name appearing under tough circumstances in a news story? I daresay the answer is zero.

      Hijo de puta.

      by litigatormom on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:45:56 PM PDT

      •  "Complicated"

        = lie coming up in 5, 4, 3, 2 ...

        by RickMassimo on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:10:10 PM PDT

•  This is what I'm learning to admire about repubs

  They've got guts. They've got principles (ok, not principles, but ideological loyalties and patience).

  They choose a side, take a stand, refuse to back off regardless of ANYTHING, and then look at you like you're stupid if you don't agree with them.  In the end, they get away with everything.  Its like the Eddie Murphy skit where the wife finds the husband cheating in their own bed, and he says "wasn't me" until she says "well... maybe it wasn't you".

  I mean, how can you not look at Tony Snow and say "damn, he'll really just say anything, whereas my conscience won't let me be a lying shill.  He's at the top of his game!  I kinda admire his slimyness!"

  Meanwhile, somewhere in Washington, Nancy Pelosi is sitting back, knitting a sweater, acting regal and motherly, and allowing the media to bash her about the size of her plane, a head-scarf, or a trip to Syria.  

  PS:  There's a bit of snark in here somewhere.

  by PJ Jefferson on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:39:30 PM PDT

•  Wilson on Libby

  On this mornings NPR Morning Edition

  Listen In

  by jimstaro on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:42:03 PM PDT

•  They all should serve time.

  Question is can we make it happen.

  by arcana on Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:29:28 PM PDT