quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy It was largely expected because this administration has, time and time again, shown just how corrupt it is and how much it tries to distort the legal standards of this country to fit its needs. For a group of individuals that complains about lawyers and what they're doing to this country (wrongly, I might add), they seem to find them useful quite frequently. And now they've shown that even after using the best of the best, when they lose, they'll just disregard the conviction altogether because they have the power.

Oh come on. Unless you were born yesterday, this is nothing new for this or any administration. I'm not arguing two wrongs making a right, I'm laughing at the moral outrage at something that people have been expecting for months. The day of the conviction the blogosphere was awash in speculation that a full pardon would shortly follow. Now we have a combative 5 page thread that wreaks of shock and outrage that the obvious actually came to partial fruition. Your beef isn't with me. I'm sorry if I don't share the same outrage as others, I just saw this as a foregone conclusion. No need to get so worked up. There are a lot of panties in a big wad.

quote:

Also, why is everyone making this a "Bill Clinton pardoned so and so" issue? Why do some of you live in a world where one side is always right and one side is always wrong? Many people complained about the Marc Rich pardon (represented by Scooter, btw), Roger Clinton's pardon, etc. If you complain about those, how can you support this one? Did I miss the day when two wrongs started making a right?

No you didn't. Did I miss the spot where I specifically mentioned Bill Clinton? I've got plenty of beefs with him but I was careful not to pinpoint one person or one party. To the contrary I said many past administrations. It doesn't make it right, it makes it par for the course.

quote:

Oh, and BTW, why aren't people mentioning that Marc Rich had to pay $100 million in fines to the government (not to Clinton) for the pardon to be finalized. Scooter gets off with $250K which will be covered by Fred Thomspon's buddies that raised millions for his defense bills.

That don't exactly make it right now, do it? And as you say, two wrongs don't make a right. Sheesh. Everybody take a deep breath.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Oh come on. Unless you were born yesterday, this is nothing new for this or any administration. I'm not arguing two wrongs making a right, I'm laughing at the moral outrage at something that people have been expecting for months. The day of the conviction the blogosphere was awash in speculation that a full pardon would shortly follow. Now we have a combative 5 page thread that wreaks of shock and outrage that the obvious actually came to partial fruition. Your beef isn't with me. I'm sorry if I don't share the same outrage as others, I just saw this as a foregone conclusion. No need to get so worked up. There are a lot of panties in a big wad. No you didn't. Did I miss the spot where I specifically mentioned Bill Clinton? I've got plenty of beefs with him but I was careful not to pinpoint one person or one party. To the contrary I said many past administrations. It doesn't make it right, it makes it par for the course. That don't exactly make it right now, do it? And as you say, two wrongs don't make a right. Sheesh. Everybody take a deep breath.

Sorry, that wasn't all directed at you, it's just that your post had the most for me to piggyback off of to start with. I haven't been on much, so I was trying to get the most out of my quick post. I have been listening to what's been said in response and the Clinton attacks have been plentiful all over the web if you're checking any site that isn't exculsively left wing.

And regarding the money, I was as offended as the press staff during Tony Snow's briefing. The fact that anyone mentions the fine as a penalty to Libby is insulting the intelligence of the listener. No one in their right mind thinks that $250K is anything to this guy considering the connections and the partisan support. $100 million is a lot to Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and Marc Rich is neither. That pardon, while bought and corruptly paid for, was much more difficultly paid for than Scooter's.

Hell, Scooter probably could pay for the whole fine just off of the bonuses that he made representing Marc Rich during his appeal to the President. Good thing Scooter didn't even have to bother asking his President, otherwise it'd have cost Fred Thompson more of his campaign money.

___________________
"Go back to bed america your government is in control
Here's American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it,
Watch these picturary retards bang their fuckin' skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom,
Here you go America you are free to do as we tell you
We want your soul
Your cash, your house, your phone, your cash, your house, your life" -Adam Freeland - We Want Your Soul

Wow, a small slice of the neocon pie just fell on the floor:

quote:

Perjury is a serious crime. This newspaper argued on behalf of its seriousness in the 1990s, during the Clinton perjury controversy, and today is no different. We'd have hoped that more conservatives would agree. The integrity of the judicial process depends on fact-finding and truth-telling. A jury found Libby guilty of not only perjury but also obstruction justice and lying to a grand jury. It handed down a very supportable verdict. This is true regardless of the trumped-up investigation and political witch hunt. It is true regardless of the unjustifiably harsh sentence. Had Mr. Bush reduced Libby's sentence to 15 months, we might have been able to support the decision. Alas, he did not. http://www.washingtontimes.com/arti.../1013/editorial

Moonie Times somewhat in agreeance? Geez, I think my nipples got hard.....

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you people are so stupid

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo shut up

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo if Opus wants chime in to them otherwise, f**k him. i'm gonna tell him to get f**ked.

Is this your idea of "debating", Q5echo?

Really, we're here to debate and have our ideas criticised regardless of who the critic is (otherwise, why bother? You could even pm other users if you don't want anyone to "join in"). Furthermore, if you think all other users are stupid, there's no reason why you should expose your ideas here, is there?

In case you think your ideas are too sexy for this board, the solution to this problem is just one click away

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Is this your idea of "debating", Q5echo? Really, we're here to debate and have our ideas criticised regardless of who the critic is (otherwise, why bother? You could even pm other users if you don't want anyone to "join in"). Furthermore, if you think all other users are stupid, there's no reason why you should expose your ideas here, is there? In case you think your ideas are too sexy for this board, the solution to this problem is just one click away

whatever dude, i'm the least of your worries. go threaten some kid high on nitrous callin someother kid's mom a sh*teater. k?

till then i will continue to contribute to this thread accordingly.

noted and thanx

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So as long as you make the comparison in full context, I'm game.

i only bring up Clinton in the context of a comparison. i figured it would be familiar enought to the both of us, but forget it.

by it's own definition of Obstruction of Justice, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice.

NO CRIME COULD HAVE BEEN OBSTRUCTED BECAUSE NO CRIME HAD TAKEN PLACE FROM THE BEGINNING. as evidenced by no criminality in this case.

Fitz can say anything he wants to in his summation whether during the trial or the sentencing phase. those statements cannot be objected by the defense.
the prosecution says these things in order to sway the court or the jury. but we know from the prosecution's own case there was no underlying criminalty deemed relevant to their prosecution.

let me ask you since there was no criminality involved in the prosecution of Libby, why then did the Probation Department reccomend to the Judge 10-16 months?

what i'm getting at here is you and the crazies on the left have convinced yourselves of criminality and are using anything yall can to keep convincing yourselves of that regardless of how much the Law has spoken.

watch Libby's appeal now and you might see what i'm getting at.

So point 1: There was no underlying "crime" behind Clinton getting a blowjob so why the fuck did you "conservatives" care so much about the issue? Bear in mind that the the Republican led congress failed to find him guilty in his impeachment trial. Oh wait, but I guess you "conservatives" don't consider lying to prosecutors and congress to be a crime. Congratulations on your standards of ehtics. God I wish for the day when exectuive fuckups were relegated to sexual misconduct .

Second, if this was an issue truly rewarding of pardoning, why the fuck did the Bush administration prosecute a veteran marine, who won 35 medals in his service, actively push for sending him to prison for the same crimes as Libby?? Oh that's right because libby is rich, wealthy, and connected as oppsoed to the rest of us .

quote:

Bush Filed a Motion Last Year to Uphold the 33-Month Sentence of Victor Rita, a 24-Year Marine Corps Vet Convicted on Same Crimes as Libby Posted by Jon Ponder | Jul. 4, 2007, 4:41 pm Last month, the Supreme Court agreed with the Bush Justice Dept., ruling against Rita’s appeal for a reduced sentence based his exemplary military service. Tony Snow said that President Bush decided to commute Scooter Libby’s two and a half year-prison sentence for perjury and obstruction of justice, because it was “excessive.” Yet last year the Bush Administration filed a “friend-of-the-court brief” with the Supreme Court, in an attempt to uphold a lower court’s ruling that a 33-month prison sentence for Victor Rita, who was convicted of the same exact charges, perjury and obstruction of justice, was “reasonable.” Pres. Bush cited Libby’s “years of exceptional public service” in commuting his prison sentence. But Libby is the classic Bushie chickenhawk — a neocon bureaucrat with no service record whose fingerprints are all over the worst military planning in American history. Conversely, Victor Rita is the real deal: Victor Rita is a very sympathetic defendant: he served 24 years in the Marine Corps, had tours of duty in Vietnam and the first Gulf war, and has received over 35 military metals and awards. Also, he is an elderly gentleman who suffers serious health problems. The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that criminal sentences within guidelines set by a federal commission are generally entitled to be upheld on appeal, a decision that limits legal options for defendants who feel that they have been punished too harshly. By a vote of 8 to 1, the court held that, even though it recently ruled that the sentencing ranges set by the U.S. Sentencing Commission are no longer mandatory, judges who follow them may be presumed to have acted reasonably… The case that the court decided yesterday, Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754, was meant to help define “advisory.” It is customary in the pardoning process for the president to contact the Justice Dept. for input. But the White House is adamant that Bush did not speak to anyone at Justice about the Libby pardon. If he had run it past them, it’s possible he could have avoided what appears to be a spectacular blunder. http://www.pensitoreview.com/2007/0...-rita-sentence/

Hey I'm glad to know that crimes committed by this administration don't apply to them whereas they apply to veteran troops.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Jul-06-2007 at 05:56

quote:

Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Oh, and BTW, why aren't people mentioning that Marc Rich had to pay $100 million in fines to the government (not to Clinton) for the pardon to be finalized.

source? i don't think so.

Clinton made him waive his right to statute of limitations but thats it.
thats why he's still in exile because he can still be ass-raped in civil court here in the US.

i don't give a damn about Clinton either way. i was just trying to make a seperate point to Bubble.

but since you brought it up, Clinton's Marc Rich pardon is easily one of the dirtiest on record. Clinton was a dirty mutherfukker in more ways than you can shake a stick at.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider So point 1: There was no underlying "crime" behind Clinton getting a blowjob so why the fuck did you "conservatives" care so much about the issue? Bear in mind that the the Republican led congress failed to find him guilty in his impeachment trial. Oh wait, but I guess you "conservatives" don't consider lying to prosecutors and congress to be a crime. Congratulations on your standards of ehtics. God I wish for the day when exectuive fuckups were relegated to sexual misconduct .

EDIT> i'm trying not to be mean, but my patience with people getting the facts wrong about Clinton is wearing thin.

first, Clinton lied in a deposition concerning the sexual harassment lawsuit he was involved with Paula Jones that got the go-ahead from the Supreme Court, which he later settled.

second, no one gives a damn. the only ones drawing logical comparisons are the ones on the left in some sort of baseless defence mechanism they think they need to bring up. all of the smart conservative commentators i've seen have made consistent and intelligent distictions between the two cases.

quote:

Second, if this was an issue truly rewarding of pardoning, why the fuck did the Bush administration prosecute a veteran marine, who won 35 medals in his service, actively push for sending him to prison for the same crimes as Libby?? Oh that's right because libby is rich, wealthy, and connected as oppsoed to the rest of us Hey I'm glad to know that crimes committed by this administration don't apply to them whereas they apply to veteran troops.

you can drop that Victor Rita crap like a dirty shirt. next

quote:

What happened in the Rita case was that Rita had purchased a gun kit that the federal government deemed might be used to create a machine gun. Rita agreed to allow the feds to inspect the kit. But between the time of the request and the time that the feds came to inspect the kit, Victor had contacted the gun company and exchanged the kit for a different one. He then proceeded in lying under oath about his original purchase, his conversation agreeing to the inspection, and his subsequent exchange. Now to tie this together and to debunk the misleading nature of the left... Victor Rita had been convicted in 1986* of making false statements about a purchase of guns. In THAT case, he was sentenced to five years probation. Not 33 months. So contrary to what the left is telling you, Victor Rita was not a good citizen with no brushes with the law. He was in fact a guy with a history of purchasing guns and lying about those purchased to the federal government. What would seem to be "more" relevant to this case was the five years probation that Rita received the first time he was convicted of making false statements to the government. Secondly, the judge in that case correctly bumped the level from the base level of 14 (15-21 months) to 20 (33-41) because in fact Rita's false statements and perjury were directly related to the outcome of the federal investigation. By trying to mislead the federal government about which kit he purchased, he was indeed thwarting the main focus of the investigation. In fact, Rita himself (and his kit) was pretty much the entire basis of the investigation. On the flip side... Scooter Libby was never the focus of the original investigation into the leak. Fitzgerald knew (or should have known) upfront that the original leak came from Richard Armitage. Scooter Libby's testimony regarding his conversations with Russert and Cooper had little or nothing to do with the main goal of the investigation (if there even was one). I was (as were many legal experts) amazed that Walton deemed these conversations so important to the case that they needed to be classified as extraordinary to the point of nearly doubling the sentence. Maybe the most significant difference however was the federal sentencing office suggested a lesser (not higher) punishment then the level 14 (15-21 months) for a first time offender in the Libby case. This office is an objective third party who work with sentencing guidelines full time. They felt Libby deserved a break. I will also note that the USSC findings in the Rita case suggest that there are indeed 6th amendment issues with a judge who uses specific "facts" in determining sentencing that were not presented to the jury during the course of the trial. They only found that in this case (Rita) that the issue did not apply. One could certainly argue that they would apply in the Libby case since Fitzgerald came out after the trial to make certain arguments (such as the status of Plame) that he never proved during trial. Walton's ruling on sentence clearly took some of these Fitzgerald arguments into consideration with his sentence. The rest is pure nonsense. Of course Rita's attorneys will argue that he was a good guy in bad health who should be given a break. But unlike the Libby case, there was no sentencing board recommending a shorter sentence than the level 14 (15-21). There were no cries that the Machine Gun investigation became politically motivated. There were no letters from prominent people on Rita's behalf. There were really no extenuating circumstance for the judge to consider in the case of Victor Rita.

typical of the left to appeal to emotions of a decorated Marine for their own selfish purposes rather than FACTS.

>HERE< is the SCOTUS opinion. it's all there in a 59 page PDF. read it.

Last edited by Q5echo on Jul-06-2007 at 08:30

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i only bring up Clinton in the context of a comparison. i figured it would be familiar enought to the both of us, but forget it. by it's own definition of Obstruction of Justice, no actual investigation or substantiated suspicion of a specific incident need exist to support a charge of obstruction of justice.

True, but that does not entail that an investigation was occurring as to who leaked the information, does it?

quote:

NO CRIME COULD HAVE BEEN OBSTRUCTED BECAUSE NO CRIME HAD TAKEN PLACE FROM THE BEGINNING. as evidenced by no criminality in this case.

Uhh, what?

So he committed perjury and obstruction for the sake of, what, lying just because he lied? What?

Why the fuck did he lie, Q? What was the underlying rationale for him to obstruct? You have never, not once answered this question, and the rest of your neocon bloggers have willfully ignored it as well (or at least tried to use the "got tripped up on his own memory" bullshit line). As Fitz stated, and as the Republican judge AND Republican-appointed court of appeals agreed by proxy with their upholding of Libby's sentencing, Libby's lies prevented the prosecution from determining whether the leak violated federal laws.

Plain and simple. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

quote:

Fitz can say anything he wants to in his summation whether during the trial or the sentencing phase. those statements cannot be objected by the defense.

Those statements are in direct line with what a jury of Libby's peers convicted Libby on to the "T". The defense had all their time in the world to try to object and state otherwise. Instead they relied on a "faulty memory" bullshit line of defense that the jury easily saw right through.

Furthermore, they can be judged by your Republican judge and Republican court of appeals to see if they agree with his statements in the sentencing, and they most certainly did versus Libby's fallacious argument.

quote:

the prosecution says these things in order to sway the court or the jury. but we know from the prosecution's own case there was no underlying criminalty deemed relevant to their prosecution.

Because why, Q? From the prosecutions own words, come on, fill in the blanks for me:

"_____ _____ ______ _____ ______ _____ _____ ________ ___ _ _ ______....."


Again, it's not just what Fitz was stating his opinion to sway the judge - those opinions are directly supported by the CONVICTION of 4 counts of perjury and obstruction of justice that the jury upheld.

quote:

let me ask you since there was no criminality involved in the prosecution of Libby, why then did the Probation Department reccomend to the Judge 10-16 months?

Yes, they inaccurately calculated it on the lowest end without taking into consideration how Libby's obstruction and perjury interfered with the administration of justice, to which the judge did take into account and doubled it as a consequence. He could have received much, much more in accordance to the guidelines:

http://www.ussc.gov/2005guid/2j1_2.htm

http://www.ussc.gov/2005guid/2j1_3.htm

You can also read Debra Bonamici's correction of the Probation Officer's recommendations here:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/th...encing_memo.pdf

Some specifics as to why Bonamici and Fitz believed the Probation officer was incorrect were because of the following reasons why the Probation officer took into consideration:

1. The Probation Office argued that Libby's Obstruction did not entail a substantially higher cost for the investigation because he signed a waiver to encourage journalists to testify, and the journalists' delays were done to protect themselves. Bonamici says in reply:

quote:

Defendant included in a letter authorizing her to testify comments that suggested that he expected or hoped she would testify that he did not disclose information regarding Mrs. Wilson's employment to her prior to the publication of Bob Novak's column.

2. The Probation Office suggested leniency because of Libby's big legal bills!!! (And it appears that the ProThe Probation Office suggested leniency because Libby might lose his legal license. Bonamici's response:bation Office even suggested leniency because of Libby's potential civil bills!!) Bonamici's response:

quote:

A downward departure based in whole or in part on the substantial legal expenses the defendant may incur would be completely unjustified. ... In order for the Court to assess whether the defendant has incurred, or may incur in the future, substantial legal expenses in connection with this case, the Court would have to know the amount of money that is, or may become, available from the legal defense fund to pay defendants legal expenses.

3. The Probation Office suggested leniency because Libby might lose his legal license. Bonamici's response:

quote:

f anything, however, the fact that defendant is a highly-trained and experienced lawyer, sworn to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States as a condition to holding a license to practice law, would support an upward, rather than a downward departure. Who, if not a licensed lawyer, may be expected to fully appreciate and respect the need for truth in our system of justice?

4. The Probation Office suggested leniency because of Libby's record of government service. To which Bonamici retorted:

quote:

Unless we are prepared to provide sentencing discounts to all those who are privileged to serve their country but nevertheless break its laws, a downward departure is unwarranted. (1) (1) Any suggestion the defendant is entitled to leniency based on the loss of income he suffered as a result of his decision to work in government rather than in the private sector should be rejected out of hand, particularly in light of the fact that, in spite of his sacrifice, defendant remains a man of considerable means.

5. The Probation Office suggested leniency because Libby committed a single criminal act of short duration--it was aberrant behavior for an otherwise law-abiding citizen. Bonamici responds:

quote:

First, the offenses of conviction represent a series of four separate offenses ... over a period of five months, a period that cannot by any stretch be considered a "limited duration." ... Indeed, the evidence showed that defendant's offenses were committed following significant deliberation.

And then she goes on to show that Libby warned Cheney of what his story was going to be before he told it, showing clear planning.

(all ripped from http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/th...books.html#more)

quote:

what i'm getting at here is you and the crazies on the left have convinced yourselves of criminality and are using anything yall can to keep convincing yourselves of that regardless of how much the Law has spoken.

It's pretty obvious that the criminality of Libby's actions speak quite well for themselves really.

But again I find it highly amusing how you label everyone who doesn't agree with you or Bush's actions as the "crazies on the left". How is it, then that there are sooooo many crazy lefties out there, including some in YOUR own party:

quote:

60% say the prison sentence should have been left in place. • 21% agree with the commutation. • 17% say Libby should have been pardoned entirely. http://www.surveyusa.com/client/Pol...d0-160d8ddcd52e

That includes 40% Republicans (versus 58% who wanted a full pardon or agreed with Commutation), and 56% Independents?

Or how about these numbers a few months back who agreed to have Bush pardon Libby (and let's face it, a Commute has a nearly similar outcome, if not a better one for inability to testify reasons):

http://www.pollingreport.com/whprobe.htm

Gosh, once again it seems like there's soooo many crazy lefties out there. Must be another darn "librul" conspiracy. Like I said, your little neocon island continues to shrink, but it's almost like you keep drinking the salt water and convince yourselves that everyone out there is on your island.

quote:

watch Libby's appeal now and you might see what i'm getting at.

Sure thing, champ.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo EDIT> i'm trying not to be mean, but my patience with people getting the facts wrong about Clinton is wearing thin. first, Clinton lied in a deposition concerning the sexual harassment lawsuit he was involved with Paula Jones that got the go-ahead from the Supreme Court, which he later settled.

Involving a blowjob

vs.

Involving a national security investigation involving a leak of classified information from the office of the Vice President exposing an undercover covert CIA operative who's operation and cover was completely blown and exposed by those leakers.

Just a little "perspective" for you.

quote:

second, no one gives a damn. the only ones drawing logical comparisons are the ones on the left in some sort of baseless defence mechanism they think they need to bring up. all of the smart conservative commentators i've seen have made consistent and intelligent distictions between the two cases.

Oh wait, you were being serious when you said, "smart conservative commentators." Sorry.

quote:

you can drop that Victor Rita crap like a dirty shirt. next

Let's take a look (again you seemed to avoid linking this, why is that?):

quote:

What happened in the Rita case was that Rita had purchased a gun kit that the federal government deemed might be used to create a machine gun. Rita agreed to allow the feds to inspect the kit. But between the time of the request and the time that the feds came to inspect the kit, Victor had contacted the gun company and exchanged the kit for a different one. He then proceeded in lying under oath about his original purchase, his conversation agreeing to the inspection, and his subsequent exchange. Now to tie this together and to debunk the misleading nature of the left... Victor Rita had been convicted in 1986* of making false statements about a purchase of guns. In THAT case, he was sentenced to five years probation. Not 33 months. So contrary to what the left is telling you, Victor Rita was not a good citizen with no brushes with the law. He was in fact a guy with a history of purchasing guns and lying about those purchased to the federal government. What would seem to be "more" relevant to this case was the five years probation that Rita received the first time he was convicted of making false statements to the government.

What your conservative commentator is conveniently leaving out is the fact that the 10 year timeline on his felony record ran out from his prior history and his most recent conviction. As a consequence, such prior history cannot be held into account in accordance to the sentencing guidelines. Thanks to your SCOTUS link, we see that:

quote:

Rita was convicted in May 1986, and sentenced to five years’ probation for making false statements in connection with the purchase of firearms. Because this conviction took place more than 10 years before the present offense, it did not count against Rita [for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines]. And because Rita had no other relevant convictions, the Guidelines considered him as having no criminal history points. Ibid. The report consequently places Rita in criminal history category I, the lowest category for purposes of calculating a Guidelines sentence. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opini...pdf/06-5754.pdf

So any past history from 10 years ago on this man is irrelevant to his sentencing.

You did know that, right? You want to make a bet that your conservative commentator knew that?

quote:

Secondly, the judge in that case correctly bumped the level from the base level of 14 (15-21 months) to 20 (33-41) because in fact Rita's false statements and perjury were directly related to the outcome of the federal investigation. By trying to mislead the federal government about which kit he purchased, he was indeed thwarting the main focus of the investigation. In fact, Rita himself (and his kit) was pretty much the entire basis of the investigation. On the flip side... Scooter Libby was never the focus of the original investigation into the leak. Fitzgerald knew (or should have known) upfront that the original leak came from Richard Armitage.

On the contrary, Scooter Libby quickly became the focus BECAUSE he was lying to the grand jury and FBI as to who and when he leaked Plame's name and status to reporters, as well as who he heard it from. OTOH, Armitage was indeed the original leaker, but not enough evidence was presented on him or Rove to demonstrate deliberate intent for leaking classified information. This was not the case for our dear Libby.

quote:

Scooter Libby's testimony regarding his conversations with Russert and Cooper had little or nothing to do with the main goal of the investigation (if there even was one).

See above.

quote:

I was (as were many legal experts) amazed that Walton deemed these conversations so important to the case that they needed to be classified as extraordinary to the point of nearly doubling the sentence.

See my previous post as to why Walton did EXACTLY what he did and why the probation officer apparently overlooked and had flat out unsupported statements for his lower sentencing.

quote:

Maybe the most significant difference however was the federal sentencing office suggested a lesser (not higher) punishment then the level 14 (15-21 months) for a first time offender in the Libby case. This office is an objective third party who work with sentencing guidelines full time. They felt Libby deserved a break.

They were terribly wrong for the reasons listed in the previous post.

quote:

I will also note that the USSC findings in the Rita case suggest that there are indeed 6th amendment issues with a judge who uses specific "facts" in determining sentencing that were not presented to the jury during the course of the trial. They only found that in this case (Rita) that the issue did not apply. One could certainly argue that they would apply in the Libby case since Fitzgerald came out after the trial to make certain arguments (such as the status of Plame) that he never proved during trial. Walton's ruling on sentence clearly took some of these Fitzgerald arguments into consideration with his sentence.

Jesus Christ here we go again. This author damn well knows as you damn well know that the focus on the status of Plame was inadmissible in the court - Walton would not allow anyone to address it because IT WAS NOT THE FOCUS OF THE CHARGES OF PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, PERIOD.

Enough with the bullshit straw man arguments, FFS. It could not be brought up at any point throughout the trial by the defense OR PROSECUTION. However, in order for the sentencing, Fitz did bring it up with evidence to support it (i.e. CIA memo) in order to demonstrate the seriousness of the crime and the underlying motive. The defense could have easily brought up a counter-claim in arguing for their sentencing, but to my knowledge did not viably demonstrate otherwise (nor could they - the CIA including director Hayden probably have a good idea on who is covert or not).

So this blogger's point is both irrelevant and moot.

quote:

The rest is pure nonsense. Of course Rita's attorneys will argue that he was a good guy in bad health who should be given a break. But unlike the Libby case, there was no sentencing board recommending a shorter sentence than the level 14 (15-21). There were no cries that the Machine Gun investigation became politically motivated. There were no letters from prominent people on Rita's behalf. There were really no extenuating circumstance for the judge to consider in the case of Victor Rita.

And none of those things should have mattered either in accordance to the guidelines. I'm not arguing for Rita to have a lowered sentence, but if we are going to compare backgrounds, let's consider 25 years in the armed services, was technically a first-time offender (in accordance to how the guidelines examines it), received 35 commendations, medals and awards, and tours of duty in Vietnam and the first Gulf War. The guidelines again do not provide any breaks for any government service or for good works, and the lies Rita committed were over gun registration versus a national security leak of classified information to reporters.

But yet for some strange reason, no neocon believes his friend Libby should be receiving the same strict guidelines as Rita.

Is this really your defense for the comparison? Very weak.

quote:

typical of the left to appeal to emotions of a decorated Marine for their own selfish purposes rather than FACTS. >HERE< is the SCOTUS opinion. it's all there in a 59 page PDF. read it.

The facts speak very loudly for themselves. You should try them every now and then.

Speaking of which, thanks to Bush's actions, a litany of new files for defenses are now on their way:

quote:

When Mr. Bush commuted that prison sentence on Monday, he made particular note of the alleged unfairness in how Libby’s sentence was calculated. “Critics say the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury,” the president wrote. […] “It applies to an even greater extent in Mr. Salah’s case,” Mr. Deutsch said. “In our case, these allegations were presented to a jury and he was acquitted.” Mr. Deutsch also noted that while Libby was convicted of lying to the FBI and a grand jury in a criminal investigation, the lies Salah was convicted of telling were part of his defense to a civil case brought by the family of a victim of a Hamas-sponsored bombing. http://www.nysun.com/article/57843?page_no=1

More here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/w...sRxQefewJ5iFyoA

It really does beg the question why Bush acting in such an atypical and unprecedented manner did what he did. The attempts at justifying his actions of completely wiping out his jail time rather than lowering it down to those faulty Probation Office recommendations is baffling, to say the least. If indeed Bush "respects the jury's decision," why show such contempt for even a minimal recommendation of jail time, especially from such a hard-nosed "tough on crime" background that Bush and his Administration comes from?

He wouldn't, by chance, be trying to help cover his own tracks by allowing Libby's commute which effectively protects him from testifying further, would he? Of course not, because surely there's more logical explanations that the 26% neocon island community can give us all. We'll all just keep waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting,

and waiting,

and waiting,

and waiting..........

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...