quote:I think it is much more likely that Fitzgerald's statements are either about things they nkow/suspect he lied about, but cannot prove, or about the current statements that fit in in a way that I don't understand than that there was nothing more to be found.
I suspect it's the former. There's a theory of sentencing called "real offense sentencing" which allows sentence to be increased based on behavior not proved at trial. The federal guidelines are based on this (to the extent that someone convicted of selling 10-500 grams of cocaine had his sentence increased based on the amount of cocaine involved being over 500 grams) and it is greatly in vogue amongst a set of federal judges and prosecutors, with a surprising mix of liberal and conservative backers. The concept has been at issue in some of the most interesting cases concerning the substantive definition of what a crime is to come out SCOTUS in recent years, in which Scalia was a swing vote between a bloc of Thomas, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Souter and a bloc of Rehnquist, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Breyer.
I don't know specifics on either Fitzgerald's or the judge's opinion on this, but I suspect both subscribe to the theory. I have a fundamental problem with certain aspects of real offense sentencing, and it's my suspicion that this was involved that makes me think the sentence was a little too harsh on a comparative basis. (See previous caveats about this not supporting commuting the sentence.)
It's also possible that the actual lies Libby was convicted of prevented the investigation from tracking back to Cheney; I just haven't seen any coherent explanation of how that would be so.
Again, a prosecutor, grand jury, jury, judge, and probation officer all had input into the ultimate disposition of the sentence. Further, the legislature specifically allows conviction even when no underlying crime was committed at all. The vague descriptions of Libby's "innocence" don't amount to a hill of beans in light of this, absent some serious allegation that evidence was tampered with or wrongfully excluded. So I'm comfortable accepting a slightly harsh sentence with the knowledge that I don't (and can't) have all the facts those other entities did.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr, As you noted, the only people that the public seems to dislike or mistrust more than the Democrats right now are the Republicans. To me, your post is an example of the style of why this is.
For what appeared to me to be no reason, you jumped right down into the mud with them. You didn't, in my eyes, refute what was being said so much as lower yourself to - maybe not their level, but close.
I'm not so sure about the Democrats making the electoral gains that you are, because no one seems as good at screwing up having the high ground as they are.
If they do win, it looks like it's only going to come on the Republican's egregious badness, not through merit of their own. Maybe that's okay with you, but I'd suggest aiming higher.
posted
I curious as to what comparison you are using for this as a harsh sentence. I'm not at all well versed in the punishments generally applied (and also lean towards treating betrayal of their position by high government officials as potential capital crime), so I don't have the appropriate information here. However, the nubmers being quoted is that 3 out of 4 people convicted of obstruction in federal court serve hail time and that this jail time averages a little over 5 years.
Is this information misapplied/overly simplified here?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For what appeared to me to be no reason, you jumped right down into the mud with them. You didn't, in my eyes, refute what was being said so much as lower yourself to - maybe not their level, but close.
That was mud? You're pretty generous in your labeling.
On a scale of say, Ann Coulter to Mother Theresa, Coulter being 10 and MT being 1, I'd say I was at a four or five. If you're only talking about my observations on Laura Bush, well, frankly I think they are justified. She rarely speaks in public, and she does I think she comes off like she's hypnotized, and is either detatched from reality or just plain doesn't care. And considering what Republicans have to say about Hillary, I don't think I was off at all on my observations about their reactions to her actions in the 90's. So where exactly in there did I go for the Republicans' jugular?
As for the Democratic gains, I think you're half right. Half of the reason they are doing so well is the utterly inept governance of the Republicans, but I honestly think that despite their ability to put on a good public face, the Democrats DO have good ideas. They've been unsuccessful at getting them made into law, or in really getting the people to understand them though. I think their problem is PR and communication rather than bad legislation, whereas I think the Republicans are fantastically excellent at PR, but are horrible at legislating. Sadly it took this long for people to see through the smoke and mirrors.
But I still think my guesses for Democratic gains are going to be near the mark. Democrats are outraising Republicans by tens of millions in Congressional races, Senate races, and by leaps and bounds in the Presidential races. Sadly money can often be translated into a victory, but more than that, fundraising especially for Democrats is a sign of approval. Since we generally have a harder time coming up with the money, since Big Business isn't really our best friend, the fact that we're coming up with so much money is a sign of the energy in the country for Democrats. This is the first time in history Democrats have done this well at fundraising, especially compared to Repbublicans, and I think that's a big statement on potential gains. Plus, Republicans have a lot more seats to defend than Democrats, and a lot of them are in vulnerable states. Combine that with a lackluster field of Republican candidates, none of whom really inspire Republicans, and many of whom I think will force a lot of die hard Republicans to actually stay home, and I think you're going to have low voter turnout this year for Republicans.
Another factor is the equalizing force in the 2006 midterms of Democratic get out the vote efforts. Republicans are famous for their armies of volunteers, phone banks, and drivers to take little old ladies to the voting booths. And until now, Democrats have lagged far behind in these efforts, while Republicans have gotten high tech. But that has changed, and many credit that effort to some of the big gains for Democrats in 2006. Nullifying traditional Republican advantages, combined with general disapproval of the party, bad luck on the timing of seats up for election, and dissatisfaction with the GOP candidates I think will be a perfect opportunity for well funded, well backed Democratic candidates to make some big gains. Not as big as the 2006 Midterms probably, but still big.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I curious as to what comparison you are using for this as a harsh sentence. I'm not at all well versed in the punishments generally applied (and also lean towards treating betrayal of their position by high government officials as potential capital crime), so I don't have the appropriate information here. However, the nubmers being quoted is that 3 out of 4 people convicted of obstruction in federal court serve hail time and that this jail time averages a little over 5 years.
Is this information misapplied/overly simplified here?
The 3 out of 4 seems roughly right; the jail time averages don't include those who receive no jail time. So the average prison time for all convictions is at most .75 * 5 years, and this doesn't take into account prior criminal history or other factors. Also, 18 USC 1503 includes threats and intimidation of witnesses as well as actual violence against witnesses or court personnel, which I expect receives a harsher punishment than this form of obstruction.
One thing to keep in mind is that the sentences for the 4 counts is not additive under federal sentencing guidelines. So adding up the means for each count isn't an appropriate way to find an expected total.
I may be wrong - I think I've hedged and qualified this throughout - but the averages being used on blogs from the justice statistics don't give me reason to think so unless I know what else has been taken into account.
I don't expect that to convince anyone else, of course.
My sense that this was a little too harsh is based on the judge doubling the recommendation in the sentencing report, the lack of prior criminal record, and the quotes I've seen stating that the judge took into account behavior not proved to the jury (which I have philosophical problems with).
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had heard that the probation officers asked for 15-21 months, Fitzgerald recommended more than 30 months, and Walton went for 30.
That would be Judge Walton, the man Bush specifically appointed to be tough on criminals. Criminals that weren't in Bush's circle, anyway.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Libby's friends and supporters have raised more than $5 million to cover legal fees and were continuing to raise money but Libby paid the fine himself, according to someone close to the fund who spoke on condition of anonymity because details of the account are private. The cashiers check filed with the court was issued in Libby's name.
Of course, I don't know what that actually means. Money is fungible, after all.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
D.C. disbarred Libby. This should surprise no one. I suspect he will be disbarred in any other jurisdictions in which he holds a license to practice.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
