"Politically Motivated"

Shockingly enough, there continues to be a substantial quality control problem with the blogging that occurs under The New Republic's banner written by the magazine's editor in chief. Today, for example, we learn this remarkable series of facts about the trial of Scooter Libby:

It was from the beginning a politically motivated case, as Dershowitz argues in this morning's Post, the appointment of the special prosecutor, the prosecutor's own obsessions, the case itself with the doubtful and understandably doubtful but diverse memories of many witnesses, including the defendant, the especially harsh sentence pronounced by the judge, the refusal of the appellate court to continue Libby on bail -all of these were politically motivated. And, thus, in and of themselves, unjust.

The prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, became a US Attorney when appointed to that post by George W. Bush on the advice of the Republican Senator from Illinois. The decision to name a special prosecutor was made by James Comey, who was appointed by George W. Bush to be a US Attorney and then appointed by George W. Bush to be Deputy Attorney General. Fitzgerald made the decision to prosecute. The jury undoubtedly had members of both political parties. The judge who offered the "especially harsh sentence" (actually: a sentence in line with federal sentencing guidelines) was appointed to his seat on the federal bench by . . . George W. Bush. The appellate court that unanimously rejected Libby's claims contains -- at last! -- a Democratic appointee. And also two Republicans.

This is the kind of patently absurd statement you expect to see published when the author of the statement, say, owns the publication in which it appears. Given that that's not the case, the existence of this paragraph is somewhat puzzling.

UPDATE: I see Andrew beat me to this.

Comments

Two words: David Sentelle.

If he approved this judgement, well, Scooter was in big trouble.

I'm guessing Marty reads this, and doesn't know who the hell David Sentelle is.

Posted by Andruw | July 5, 2007 9:40 PM

Given that that's not the case, the existence of this paragraph is somewhat puzzling.

Pictures. Pictures of Foer with goats. Or with him, which amounts to the same thing (what is he, 90?).

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 5, 2007 9:48 PM

Can-West is perfectly happy, delighted even, to own a magazine edited by a Raving Racist loon, as long as his racism and looniness is directed at the "right kind" of people.

The fact that the Raving Racist, and his minions (Orr, Zengerle, Beinart, et alia) are anything but objects of derision and mockery by those with half a brain is what is especially perplexing. Why not start quoting David Duke, or Avigdo Lieberman while you're at it?

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | July 5, 2007 9:55 PM

Clearly Bush was pursuing a politically-motivated prosecution of Bush. I guess the conservatives are right--he is a liberal. At least one of him is.

Does Marty the Smarty ever write while sober?

Posted by calling all toasters | July 5, 2007 9:59 PM

"This is the kind of patently absurd statement..."

Matthew, you're writing like some sort of senior pundit - "tissue of lies" is the phrase you want here.

Posted by Dave L | July 5, 2007 10:02 PM

Okay. Let's assume for purposes of argument that the whole proceeding was somehow politically motivated--whatever that might mean--and therefore unjust. Then what do the Marty Peretzes of the world make of the President's half measure of commuting the prison sentence but letting the multiple felony convictions and fine stand? Wouldn't the only just remedy for a politically-motivated and fatally-flawed criminal verdict be a full pardon?

There's only one conclusion to reach once we start following Mr. Peretz down his delusional road. President Bush is a Democratic partisan hack.

Posted by Pat | July 5, 2007 10:07 PM

What are the forces that are animating Dershowitz's take on this issue?

Posted by Rich | July 5, 2007 10:10 PM

Technically, he no longer owns the publication. Fortunately for him, he's found an buyer who will let him continue to indulge his fantasies without running the publication into the ground (financially). In all future post, I encourage you to refer to him as "the spectacularly disasterous and batshit crazy former owner of the New Republic."

Posted by BF | July 5, 2007 10:16 PM

"tissue of lies" is the phrase you want here.

Personally, I'm partial to "wanton mendacity."

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | July 5, 2007 10:22 PM

What are the forces that are animating Dershowitz's take on this issue?

An urge to defend anything having to do with bombing Arabs?

Posted by David Tomlin | July 5, 2007 10:30 PM

More and more, the pundits of the right seem to be abondoning objectivity and now just offer advice on the correct way to distort the truth to so you can maintain your worldview.

Posted by alphie | July 5, 2007 10:42 PM

What are the forces that are animating Dershowitz's take on this issue?

The size of the honorarium and the private jet would be my best guess.

Posted by milo | July 5, 2007 11:11 PM

Compare the Libby investigation, an investigation of a republican appointee conducted mostly by republican investigators to the Starr Chamber;

* Starr was appointed by a 3 judge panel of right wing judges, a panel put together by republican and partisan chief justice William Rehnquist.

* Starr was not just a republican but a conservative activist, a "movement conservative". He had almost accepted the job of Paula Jones personal lawyer suing the president. He was closely affiliated with right wing think tanks. His inner circle of close friends and associates were who's who of Clinton's political enemies.

* Appeals court and SCOTUS judges that made rulings on his case were majority republican.

* Starr was involved in republican politics, even campaigning for Bob Barr.

Posted by DonB | July 5, 2007 11:22 PM

Re; David Sentelle

He is one of the most partisan GOP judges on the courts. He was one of the judges on the appeals court that overturned Ollie North's conviction.

Sentelle is a hack. He was a protege of Jesse Helmes.

Posted by DonB | July 5, 2007 11:27 PM

Instead talking about Libby, which will be forgotten in a few years, we should talk about things that are more substantive and important. Should the President (any President) have the power to pardon or commute sentence? I say no. I would support a constitutional amendment taking that power away from the President.

Posted by Minh-Duc | July 5, 2007 11:30 PM

“It’s very hard to put your finger on the magazine’s ideological pulse, and that drives people up the wall, especially in this day and age,” Mr. Foer said

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/24/books/24repu.html?ex=1183176000&en=df3fe014b0d75d2e&ei=5070

Posted by otto | July 5, 2007 11:38 PM

The claim that all of these Republican-appointed officials are "politically-motivated" is so on-its-face absurd, that I can't understand why people like Dershowitz and Peretz (who, though obnoxious, aren't partisan nutjobs) would be making it. It's almost as if they are using the term "politically-motivated" as a euphism for something they think but don't want to come out and say. Could it be they think Libby is being persecuted because he is Jewish? That's the only think I can think of. Ashcroft, Comey, Fitzgerald, Walton, Sentelle, and Henderson are all Republican-appointees, but they are also gentiles. This has to be some sort of jew/gentile paranoia; nothing else makes sense.

Posted by Mike | July 5, 2007 11:58 PM

My failure to achieve sexual intercourse last weekend was politically motivated, from all the women who rejected me, the doubtful tastes of many beautiful ladies, the especially harsh sentence pronounced by the blonde with large breasts, the refusal of my genital organ to maintain an erection - these were politically motivated. And, thus, in and of themselves, unjust.

Posted by blah | July 6, 2007 12:52 AM

mike, i don't rule your interpretation out, but mine has been that these clowns truly think that all's fair in politics including outing a CIA agent and that investigating someone's behavior must, therefore, by definition be political.

i know it doesn't really make sense, but it is how these people think....

Posted by howard | July 6, 2007 12:54 AM

The appellate court that rejected Libby's request for bail pending appeal is made up of 2 Republicans and one Democrat. So on the face of it, one wouldn't think that the rejection would be political. But if you believe Stephen Kaus (Mickey's brother, who is a lawyer and liberal Democrat) in this BHTV episode, the appellate court should have granted Libby's bail request.

http://bloggingheads.tv/video.php?id=328&cid=1864&in=08:05

Posted by travis | July 6, 2007 1:36 AM

First it should be established that the outing of Valerie Plame was not in any way a political act. Cheney authorized Irv to shop her name and job as a CIA operative around to reporters only in the spirit of openness and truth telling, the hallmarks of , our beloved VP, or something like that.

Irv's persecution was of course a totally partisan political enterprise. Anyone who even begins to think that our leaders and their most trusted aides can break a law are necessarily partisan. It is impossible for them to break the law, since they are the law. There is nothing partisan about this fact. If you believe otherwise then you are a partisan and can not make a fair judgment.

Posted by rapier | July 6, 2007 2:15 AM

The investigation was carried out at the behest of the CIA, but Tenet had by that time turned into the worst kind of Bush flunkie.

Posted by bob h | July 6, 2007 6:24 AM

these clowns truly think that all's fair in politics including outing a CIA agent ....

You have to go back to the context in which Plame's cover was blown.

It was not 'politics' At the time, America faced a threat of immeasurable gravity -- the possibility of the GOP losing the White House.

Faced with two threats -- nuclear proliferation and losing a election -- and assessing their respective dangers, the choice was a wise one.

No one thinks rolling up Brewster-Jennings was a good thing, but the alternative -- higher marginal income tax rates and gay marriage -- was simply too horrible to contemplate.

Posted by A. N. Hack | July 6, 2007 6:45 AM

"Shockingly enough" means what? Hardly shocking? Surprisingly shocking? Whatever it means, it's ugly.

Posted by bjk | July 6, 2007 7:03 AM

if you believe Stephen Kaus (Mickey's brother, who is a lawyer and liberal Democrat) in this BHTV episode, the appellate court should have granted Libby's bail request.

I'm a criminal defense attorney and I do a lot of appellate work. Ordinary convicted criminal defendants do not get released on bond pending appeal. It never happens. The only reason anyone would think that Libby deserves different treatment is that Libby is politically well-connected and rich.

Libby's argument on appeal is apparently some quibble about the legality of Fitzgerald's appointment to prosecute him, although the last I looked, Fitzgerald was a properly-appointed US attorney. It's an argument designed for the news media rather than the courts, because it has no basis whatever in law. To a lawyer with experience in criminal law, it sounds like flat earth theory sounds to an astronomer.

Posted by rea | July 6, 2007 9:00 AM

"Politically motivated" is just another variant of "biased" -- bunkum that lets the speaker further numb his foetid conscience.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 6, 2007 9:08 AM

It is embarrassing what a right wing hack Dershowitz has become. To smear Judge Walton and the appellate panel as acting in a political way in this case is just beyond belief.

Libby was treated the way anyone convicted by a jury would have been treated. His sentence was in accordance with the guidelines and the chance of the conviction being overturned on appeal was virtually non-existent. In such circumstances, you go to jail.

I guess that Marty and so many others can't understand is the idea that Scooter would be treated like any other common criminal.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | July 6, 2007 11:25 AM

This is the kind of patently absurd statement...

If only this were limited to kooks like Crazy Uncle Marty on his blog. Unfortunately, Bobo Brooks is peddling a bunch of crap about Libby on prime dead-tree real estate. Is this some new trend, you can make patently false statements as long as it's on the opinion page?

Posted by ronin | July 6, 2007 9:51 PM