|
Banned
|
Elitist hypocrisy is the enemy of equal justice. I can understand why Bush and Cheney and Libby would embrace it....at least they get something out of it.....but you guys???? How can I ever respect your enabling approval of these criminals using their power to corrupt our system of justice
Quote:
http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/art...ArticleID=1286
A Bad Combination: Machine Guns and Lying to a Grand Jury
By Ralph Smith
The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected a challenge to a 33-month prison term by finding that the prison sentence was within sentencing guidelines. A former federal employee and a decorated Vietnam veteran had argued that a sentence of 33 months was unreasonable because of his special circumstances. (Rita v. United States, No. 06–5754 (June 21, 2007)
<h3>While some might argue that a former military member and federal employee should be held to a higher standard because of the public trust given to such a person, Victor Rita took a different approach.</h3> While his 33-month sentence was at the low end of the sentencing guidelines, he argued that as a former federal employee, he would be vulnerable in prison because he has been involved in government criminal justice work which led to convictions. Presumably, some of those convicted criminals are now in prison and would seek revenge against him.
He also argued that he was in poor health and that he had performance valuable military service and received numerous awards and recommendations during his military service. These three circumstances, he contended, should have led to a more lenient sentence.
But the court did not buy that argument. In an 8-1 decision, it found that a sentence with guidenlines is "presumptively reasonable." The decision by the Supreme Court will make it harder to get similar sentences overturned if they are within sentencing guidelines. The Court had previously ruled that sentencing guidelines were advisory and not mandatory. This decision will eliminate some of the confusion on the issue and is likely to reduce the success of similar appeals in the future.
And what did he do in order to receive a prison sentence?
He made two false statements to a federal grand jury. The jury was investigating a gun company. Prosecutors believed that buyers of a kit, called a "PPSH 41 machinegun ‘parts kit,' " could assemble a machinegun from the kit, and that the company had not secured the necessary permits to import machine guns.
Rita had purchased one of the kits and when he was contacted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, he agreed to let the agent inspect the kit. But, before, meeting with the agent, he sent back the kit and, instead, substituted a kit that did not amount to a machine gun. The government contended that he lied to the grand jury about his actions and he was convicted for making false statements and committing perjury.
|
....you know what, you guys make me sick...... my "hobby" is displaying the details, alongside your posts....the "devil" is in the details..... and, I think that it is effective, because we don't see much of your unsubstantiated opinion posted around here, anymore.....but your substantiated opinion always holds the potential of teaching the rest of us something....as I hope you would know....
Quote:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/06-5754.ZO.html
RITA v. UNITED STATES (No. 06-5754)
177 Fed. Appx. 357, affirmed.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
VICTOR A. RITA, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit
[June 21, 2007]
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court......
..... In the present case the sentencing judge’s statement of reasons was brief but legally sufficient. Rita argued for a downward departure from the 33-to-41 month Guidelines sentence on the basis of three sets of special circumstances: health, fear of retaliation in prison, and military record. See App. 40–47. He added that, in any event, these same circumstances warrant leniency beyond that contemplated by the Guidelines.
The record makes clear that the sentencing judge listened to each argument. The judge considered the supporting evidence. The judge was fully aware of defendant’s various physical ailments and imposed a sentence that takes them into account. The judge understood that Rita had previously worked in the immigration service where he had been involved in detecting criminal offenses. And he considered Rita’s lengthy military service, including over 25 years of service, both on active duty and in the Reserve, and Rita’s receipt of 35 medals, awards, and nominations.
The judge then simply found these circumstances insufficient to warrant a sentence lower than the Guidelines range of 33 to 45 months. Id., at 87. He said that this range was not “inappropriate.” (This, of course, is not the legal standard for imposition of sentence, but taken in context it is plain that the judge so understood.) He immediately added that he found that the 33-month sentence at the bottom of the Guidelines range was “appropriate.” Ibid. He must have believed that there was not much more to say.
We acknowledge that the judge might have said more. He might have added explicitly that he had heard and considered the evidence and argument; that (as no one before him denied) he thought the Commission in the Guidelines had determined a sentence that was proper in the minerun of roughly similar perjury cases; and that he found that Rita’s personal circumstances here were simply not different enough to warrant a different sentence. But context and the record make clear that this, or similar, reasoning, underlies the judge’s conclusion. Where a matter is as conceptually simple as in the case at hand and the record makes clear that the sentencing judge considered the evidence and arguments, we do not believe the law requires the judge to write more extensively.
_______________________ IV......
|
<h3>What was this guy's "underlying crime" ? What does Bush's commutaion of Libby's sentence, on identical, but more numerous conviction than Mr. Rita's convictions....convey to the SCOTUS, to Mr. Rita, and to the rest of us, watching this play out, but less admiring of Mr. Bush, than you guys are?</h3>
....and really, guys....for you, isn't this really what this is all about :
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19460029/
'Tucker' for June 26
Read the transcript to the Tuesday show
Updated: 10:43 a.m. CT June 27, 2007
Guests: Jonah Goldberg, A.B. Stoddard, Mort Zuckerman, Michael Chertoff
CARLSON:.....On his last full day as prime minister, it is reported that Blair will be become a special envoy to the Middle East. Will he make the difference in the world's most perilous region?
Plus, the most perilous region in Washington, D.C. this week is the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. Today's "Washington Post" featured the third in a series of four articles bent on exposing Mr. Cheney's sinister and alleged skirting of the Constitution, and reputedly dangerous influence on the rest of the Bush administration.
In today's episode, the vice president dictates economic policy and tax cuts, among many other things. The "Post's" scathing series has spawned editorials across the country, suggesting that Dick Cheney ought to be impeached, or otherwise forced out of office for the good of the nation.
Well, joining me now, one of Dick Cheney's very few remaining defenders and only a part-time defender at that, is nationally-syndicated columnist and editor-at-large at "The National Review Online," Jonah Goldberg.
Jonah, welcome.
<b>JONAH GOLDBERG, THE NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE:</b> Hey, thanks for having me, Tucker.
CARLSON: So, you are one of the very few people with the courage, the moxie to go into print, and say, you know, there is something good about Dick Cheney. Was this a parody or do you feel this way and if you do, defend it. Why are you defending Cheney?
GOLDBERG: No, I, I—well, first of all, I have—I just simply, I have always liked Dick Cheney. I think that he's, you know, as I put it in the piece, you know, everyone—everyone on both sides of the aisle, there's a lot of this you know, sort of talk about how we don't want politicians to go by the polls, who don't put their finger in the wind and go with just whatever the prevailing conventional wisdom is.
And yet, <b>Dick Cheney is really the only guy who doesn't bother talking the talk, he just walks the walk.</b> He does not care, and <h3>I think it's a sign of character and integrity on his part that he just doesn't care.</h3> There are a lot of people out there who worship the masses and Dick Cheney doesn't. He cares about history, he cares about the merits of the argument. He probably cares about power quite a bit, too.
But he's a serious guy, and the flip side to that is that I'm not sure that's the best thing to have in a vice president. It turns out that there's something to be said for having the only other nationally elected candidate, other than the president themselves, be a politician, as it were. Care about winning the Oval Office for himself....
........CARLSON: That's right, and I agree with you completely that whenever people say, we need a politician who doesn't look at the polls, we need another Harry Truman, they don't know what they're talking about or they're lying. <h3>People want to be pandered to, they want someone to suck up to them, they want a very democratic president—small D democratic,</h3> I agree completely.
GOLDBERG: That is what Michael Bloomberg is, right?
CARLSON: I am bothered though—that's right, that's exactly right.
GOLDBERG: I mean, he's sucking up to the vanity (ph) of the independents.
CARLSON: But I'm bothered by Cheney 's—but does—Cheney's secrecy, his penchant for secrecy. I mean, this is a cliche, a stereotype, but it's rooted, apparently, in truth. The guy really is secretive to a degree we haven't seen in a while. That is—I mean, we do have a right to know what our government is doing, don't we?
GOLDBERG: Yes, sure, although I think you would concede, even though you and I disagree about some foreign policy stuff, you and I would agree that there are some things that should be kept secret. We might disagree about what they are.
CARLSON: Right.
GOLDBERG: And you know, but I do think that what Cheney has learned after a lifetime in Washington as a power player, <h3>is that the person who holds the secrets has power.</h3> And he is using that for what I would say, or probably what he believes to be certainly good ends. A lot of people disagree on that, but he's trying to do best as he can and he sees holding onto power as a tool to do that.
I think it's got a real counter-productive side to it because it creates this kind of antibody reaction of such visceral dislike of the guy that it makes his policies that much less effective because he can't really get everything that he wants that way.
CARLSON: I think you're absolutely right.
Why is he so disliked? When you talk to—when you talk to liberals or just even garden-variety Democrats and Dick Cheney's name comes up, you're apt to see hyperventilation. People hate Cheney on this visceral level. What is so hateable about Dick Cheney?
GOLDBERG: I have no—I really, I truly have no idea. I like Dick Cheney, love to have a beer with the guy. I think he is a smart, serious man in American life. I think one of the things that bothers them is that he doesn't care. You know, there's nothing—you know, the opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. It drives stalkers and some hard-core lefties crazy. He just doesn't care what they think about him.
CARLSON: Have you ever seen Dick Cheney give a speech? I mean, the contempt for the audience is palpable. He doesn't, he doesn't—he tells a joke that's written into his speech, he doesn't wait for them to laugh, he just blows right through it.
GOLDBERG: <h3>I know, I—see, I love that. He looks like he should be eating a sandwich while he's doing it, you know. I mean, it's just this sort of like matter-of-fact, eating lunch over the sink.</h3> Oh yes, and by the way, here is my view of the world. I love that.
CARLSON: Every time he speaks, I have the same thought. I can just see him yelling, hey you kids, get off my lawn. I love it. And I'm glad to find someone else who will stand up for Dick Cheney. You are almost—you're almost alone in this nation of 300 million.
Jonah, I really appreciate you coming on, thank you.
GOLDBERG: You should come to our fan club meetings. There's lots of empty chairs.
(LAUGHTER)
CARLSON: Jonah Goldberg, thanks a lot.
GOLDBERG: Thanks, Tucker......
.....CARLSON: This is MSNBC, the place for politics.
|
....and this....?????
Quote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19226375/
'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for June 13
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show
Updated: 10:31 a.m. CT June 14, 2007
Guests Sen. Trent Lott, Joe diGenova, Richard Ben-Veniste, Eugene Robinson, Matt Continetti, Ana Marie Cox
(<b>Scroll down to the last quarter of the transcript.....</b>)
.....MATTHEWS: Gentleman, I agree with Joe diGenova. The president is going to pardon his friend. Anyway—maybe he should.
Well, thank you very much, Richard Ben—because I think it was...
(CROSSTALK)
BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: I think he was operating under the instructions of his government throughout this thing.
Anyway—I'm not sure you will agree with me on that, Joe, but I think he was doing the president's business.
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Anyway, Richard Ben-Veniste, Joe diGenova.
Up next: Why is Hillary passing Rudy in the latest poll that just came out tonight? And why is Thompson, who hasn't even entered the race, headed to the top already?...........
........MATTHEWS: You are too young to act like Jack Germond. You're acting like one of these old guys; I don't believe these early numbers. You people are all crazy. Let me ask you about Fred Thompson. If the Republicans party is so solid in who it likes as a leader, why does Fred Thompson go on Jay Leno last night and apparently continue his run, which has taken him right up to second place? Ana Marie?
COX: Well, right now he doesn't really have to run in any other way besides on television and through his blogging. I think the Republicans are not happy with their field. I mean, obviously all of the polling shows that. All of the polling shows that they are deeply dissatisfied and that Fred Thompson has a shiny new persona for them. He is shiny—
MATTHEWS: Shiny? He's Rip Van Winkle. I mean, come on. Where has he been?
COX: I think that he is the shiny new thing to them, to registered voters. They don't know much about him. And I think it is really interesting, if you look at the polling, you will see that where his support seems to be coming from—
MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a gender question, Ana Marie?
COX: You may.
MATTHEWS: Does he have sex appeal? I'm looking at this guy and I'm trying to find out the new order of things, and what works for women and what doesn't. Does this guy have some sort of thing going for him that I should notice?....
.......MATTHEWS: <h3>Gene, do you think there's a sex appeal for this guy, this sort of mature, older man, you know? He looks sort of seasoned and in charge of himself.</h3> What is this appeal? Because I keep star quality. You were throwing the word out, shining star, Ana Marie, before I checked you on it.
Something is going on here when this is the new Robert Redford here.
I mean I just want to know—or whatever—what's his name? Matt Damon.....
Go ahead
ROBINSON: Well, he has presence. I'll give you that, Chris. The rest of it, you and Ana Marie can decide, as to the sex appeal. You know, the numbers say he is more of a guy's candidate. He is doing well. Maybe he is a man's man. But, you know, it is interesting, what he said on Leno last night, which was essentially that he never really wanted to go after the presidency, but he kind of would like to have it.
MATTHEWS: Who wouldn't if it is offered to you? How many people get it offered to them.
(CROSS TALK)
MATTHEWS: <h3>Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's</h3> shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of—a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever.....
|
...Is that what it is, guys...in the face of facts, of justice, of fairness. you gravitate towards tje guy with the cowboy hat....the manly smelling, manwich, eating. beer drinking son of a gun who can say fuck you to the supreme court, to Victor Rita, and to the rest of us.....because he can????
<b>Not for fucking much longer</b>.....the pheremone sniffing don't want to hear this. but you can take that to the bank !
Last edited by host; 07-02-2007 at 08:29 PM..
|