Say Anything Blog

Oh no… a couple more hankies and I’ll have none left.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

When Scooter Libby gets 30 months for having a hazy memory and
“I don’t remember” Bill,
“I can’t recall” Hillary,
and Sandy Burglar are walking the streets… yeah! There ain’t no justice! (TANJ!)

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Dude,
Its Ashcroft’s sentencing guidlines that fucked him over. Perjury sentences are related to the severity of the original crime lied about, whether or not the original crime has been determined to have occurred. I am against federal sentencing guidelines myself, but I suspect many of you support things like that… which makes his sentence kinda bittersweet if you ask me.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Its Ashcroft’s sentencing guidlines that [expletive deleted] him over.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Perjury sentences are related to the severity of the original crime lied about, whether or not the original crime has been determined to have occurred.

Sparkie,

Perhaps you should re-read your own cited article… carefully, this time.

Former Attorney General Ashcroft had nothing to do with the Libby sentence.  The sentencing guidelines, re-written to comply with SCOTUS ruling, make the guidelines, and thus any sentencing “enhancements” optional to the judge.

In January 2005, the high court finally gave an answer: enhancements required by the federal guidelines also violate the right to a jury trial, but the constitutional fix is to make the guidelines optional. So a judge can use his traditional discretion to determine sentences, while consulting the guidelines, and so long as the sentences are reasonable, they won’t violate the Sixth Amendment.

The discretion to “enhance” the sentence rested solely with the judge.

(Judge Reggie) Walton apparently bought it, declaring before he announced the sentence that Libby could be considered an accessory to the underlying crime because, at least in part, his obstruction of justice made it all but impossible for the government to make the case for that crime.

Judge Walton, in sentencing Libby, has ruled that because of Libby, the government couldn’t prove the crime which the government never even asserted to have happened in the first place.  Never mind that both the prosecutor and the judge were well aware that Armitage was the one who gave Plame’s name to Novak, and that no “leak” or violation of IIPA ever took place.

Libby’s conviction will be overturned on appeal!  Bet on it.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat.

Oh. I just know that I read a bunch of Ashcroft memos on sentencing guidelines going out to all the prosecutors. I have some friends in the Fed public defenders office who got piles of them for me to look through from the Fed prosecutors. The content I encountered in those memo/letters makes me think it has a lot to do with Ashcroft. His angle was through the prosecution though, not the judge.

Maybe its thirty months to drive home the absurdity and guarantee an appeal.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie,

The Supreme Court guidelines referred to above which directed that sentencing discretion be restored to the trial judge, were from two cases, U.S. v. Booker and U.S. v. Fanfan, which were combined and the decision(s) announced on January 12, 2005.

Former Attorney General John Ashcroft’s letter of resignation from the Bush cabinet was dated November 3, 2004.  Alberto Gonzalez began his tenure as Attorney General on February 3, 2005.

My money is still on the overturning of this conviction on appeal.  It is ludicrous that Mr. Libby should have been convicted for “mis-remembering” events which the FBI agents who interviewed him and testified against him remembered with less accuracy and acuity than Mr. Libby, and then to be sentenced for obstructing a crime which was never alleged, never proven, and for which the “perpetrator” was acknowledged well before the investigation began.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

My money is still on the overturning of this conviction on appeal.  It is ludicrous that Mr. Libby should have been convicted for “mis-remembering” events which the FBI agents who interviewed him and testified against him remembered with less accuracy and acuity than Mr. Libby, and then to be sentenced for obstructing a crime which was never alleged, never proven, and for which the “perpetrator” was acknowledged well before the investigation began.

Its very tough to get a jury verdict overturned based on the facts.  I’ll take your bet.

Hawk,

Fair enough, but if Judge Walton rules that Libby may not remain free on bond pending appeal, and the White House steps in to do the right thing by Mr. Libby before his appeals are exhausted, all bets are off.

Name your poison.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

What was that bit at the end of the jury deliberations where their question to the judge showed they had no clue what the case was about.  It seems to me that was a fair cause for appeal.

What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.

My money is still on the overturning of this conviction on appeal.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

No way Scooter gets pardoned
till after the 2008 elections.

No way Scooter gets pardoned till after the 2008 elections.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

WOOF,

Those of us in/on the Right still cling to the notion that Mr. Bush is a principled individual.  For him to wait until the very end of his term in office as you suggest would be positively Clinton-esque… even without the payments… uh… contributions to the library, the legal defense fund, etc.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

B1: Bush may have to balance his principles with the lack of principles in the MSM. They would spin the pardon to the detriment of the Republicans in general and in favor of the libs at every opportunity. It’s not necessarily a burden he may wish to impose upon his party before an election.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Proof,

I have not doubt that you are Right… about the MSM too.  But if one were to be as un-principled as WOOF suggests, one might also want to consider how many on the Right would be more inclined to get out and vote on election day if he HAD issued the pardon to Mr. Libby.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

B1: I’d bet on the pardon, but not the timing. Bush has been known to do the right thing for the right reasons but then sometimes he does dumb shit like signing McCain-Feingold. I couldn’t call it at this time.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.