Politics TV brings you the final v-log from Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake and Marcy Wheeler (Empty Wheel) of the Next Hurrah.

I'm going to miss them both. They provided invaluable coverage of this trial. At the end, they talk about the impact of bloggers on the trial and credit all of us who blogged from the courthouse.

Now that Scooter Libby has been convicted of four of five counts, what sentence is he likely to receive?

First off, for non-lawyers, the 25 years you hear about are not what he will get. They are the maximum sentence authorized by statute. The maximum sentence for obstruction is 10 years; false statements and perjury, 5 years.

In reality, sentences are based on the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Until a few years ago when the Supreme Court decided Booker v. United States (argued in the Supreme Court by TalkLeft blogger TChris), the guidelines were mandatory. Now, they are given serious consideration or even great weight, but they are not binding and the Court must consider the factors in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). That could result in a lower sentence for Libby -- or not.

On to the Guidelines, below the fold:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) of the Progressive Caucus on Iraq:

Our soldiers are dying in Iraq because President Bush refuses to recognize that it’s time to bring our troops home, his is a position that has been overwhelmingly rejected by the American public. Democrats were elected in November in conservative districts across the country so that we could find an end to the war, and now the majority of the American public supports a time-bound withdrawal plan that ensures that our troops return home in a safe and orderly fashion.

It’s time to end our military occupation of Iraq, and it’s time to fully fund our withdrawal.

Taylor Marsh and Matt Stoller demonstrate their commitment and focus on ending the Iraq Debacle is there. But I think they also demonstrate their understanding of the issue is not quite there.

Marsh and Stoller take Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to task for saying, as Marsh describes it:

Mr. Reid will continue to fund the Iraq war. Period. He said so emphatically last night on "Charlie Rose." Of course, he did give a verbal nod to senators wanting to "look" at the funding issue, but he said the Senate will continue the "tradition" of funding war. Simply stated, Harry Reid will not be the first majority leader in U.S. Senate history to break with that "tradition." Constitutional checks and balances on a runaway commander in chief mean nothing to the senator. So on the war will rage until Mr. Bush decides to end it. That is our fate as it stands today.

Can Harry Reid singlehandedly fund the war? Or stop funding the war? Can the Senate? The answer is the Senate can singlehandedly stop the funding of the war but it cannot singlehandedly fund the war.

It's 5:00 in Denver and I haven't left the computer since 7:30 am. I'm taking a break to replenish my groceries and libations. With all the Scooter Libby excitement today, I'll never sleep tonight without a little Grand Marnier.

I know there's other news, so here's a place to discuss it.

Courtesy of Connecticut Blog (also My Left Nutmeg): Part 1 of Scooter Libby juror Denis Collins' interview after the verdict

Part 2 below the fold

I think a lot of the interest in the Libby trial has been the repercussions to Vice President Cheney if Libby was convicted.

During closing arguments, Fitzgerald said there was a cloud over the White House and the Vice President.

At the press conference today, Fitzgerald was very clear that he does not expect to bring additional charges in the case. They are all going back to their day jobs. The investigation is now inactive.

Joseph Wilson's statement, through his lawyers, is here.
He will be on MSNBC's Countdown and CNN's Larry King Live tonight.

Guilty on count 1 - Obstruction
Guilty on count 2 - False Statement, Russert/>
Not Guilty on count 3 - False Statement, Cooper
Guilty on Count 4 - Perjury
Guilty on Count 5 - Perjury

Update: The transcript of my Washington Post live-chat on the verdict is here. I've also done a bunch of radio interviews today. I'm about to start one with Michael Signorile on Sirius and at 6:30 ET with Air America (Rachel Maddow) and after that, KTSA in San Antonio with Jack Riccardi. (Thanks to CBS radio Los Angeles for having me on twice today and also Denver's Caplis and Silverman on KHOW radio.)

Update: Dennis Collins, juror. "I am not excited to be here," but because he was a reporter for years, he felt he should speak. Will talk about the evidence. The primary thing that convinced us on most counts was the alleged conversation with Russert. It was either false, or if it did happen, Mr. Libby saying he was surprised to hear about Mrs. Wilson didn't add up. We had lots of post-it notes, we took a week just to get these building blocks, and we came up with that Mr. Libby was told about Mrs. Wilson 9 times. Mr. Hannah's testimony was contradictory on Libby's memory. References Marc Grossman's testimony and Vice-President Cheney's notes.

Partial video of juror's news conference is here.

More below the fold:

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has an excellent idea:

... automatically restoring voting rights to felons who complete their sentences. In a recent speech, Mr. Crist pledged to lead the movement for the restoration of voting and civil rights for ex-offenders in Florida and hinted that he might do so by issuing an executive order.

Why is it such a good idea?

It would take the restoration issue out of the hands of a sluggish bureaucracy that has clearly failed to do its job and vault Florida to the forefront of a national movement that aims to extend democracy to ex-offenders. It would also help put an end to one of the most shameful episodes in American electoral history.

This editorial explains why disenfranchisement of ex-offenders is shameful.

Why did Thomas DiBiagio resign as the U.S. Attorney in Maryland? He explained to the NY Times that "he was forced out in early 2005 because of political pressure stemming from public corruption investigations involving associates of the state’s governor, a Republican." DiBaggio says he experienced "direct pressure not to pursue these investigations."

“The practical impact was to intimidate my office and shut down the investigations.”

While DiBiagio was being pressured to ignore Republican corruption, former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias was being pressured to pursue corruption charges against a Democrat.

More on the political mess the Bush administration has made of the Justice Department here and here and here.

Marcy at Firedoglake is back in court at the Libby Trial. These are the questions the jurors submitted yesterday afternoon:

Is the prosecution alleging that Mr. Libby did not make the statement to Cooper as presented to us in the Indictment OR is the allegation that Libby did know Mrs. Wilson worked for the CIA when he spoke to the FBI on 10/14/03 or 11/26/03?

Is the prosecution's allegation in Count 3 that Mr. Libby DID know that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA when he made statements to the FBI on 10/14/03 OR 11/26/03? (Page 74/75 …"that Mr. Libby did not know if this was true.")

In determining Count 3, are we allowed to consider Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony?

Both sides have agreed on how the judge should respond and the Judge has so advised the jury. The judge's written response is here.(pdf)

More....

Matt Yglesias writes:

Joe Klein names a few characteristics of right-wing extremists, including:

*believes that homosexuals are condemned to hell. *believes that there are inferior religions.

. . . I don't really think it's fair to condemn people for holding them. To me the belief that gay sex acts are immoral is false and hard-to-justify. It's not, however, politically objectionable unless the believer goes on to believe that government policy should be aimed at criminalizing gay sex acts or discriminating against gays or lesbians. After all, there are tons of religious prohibitions (Muslims don't drink alcohol, Hindus don't eat beef, Jews don't eat pigs, Pentacostalists don't dance) that I don't agree with, but that I also don't have a problem with unless the believers want to turn them into legal prohibitions.

Matt's objections seem limited to political ones. I think the bigger objection is Constitutional. The First Amendment and the Separation of Church and State, that much maligned phrase.