Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Bush Appointed Judge Orders Libby to Report to Jail

tecoyah · 07-03-2007, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

One, Fitzgerald did not bring charges against anyone for "outing" Plame. Hence, my assumption that he did not believe there was a crime involving her "outing".

Quote:

He tried to get the evidence required, and was kept from doing so by a combination of inaccessibility to witnesses, and stonewalling by those he did get access to. Thus his many comments explaining exactly that.

Two, Fitzgerald knew who initiated the leak.

Quote:

Knowing who committed a crime, and gathering the evidence to "Prove" such a thing are very different matters, as I am sure you are aware. Such weak and obviously questionable logic used to form a conclusion does not do you justice.

I assume I am in-part the target of this comment. Arguments for my views have been posted for all to read in several threads on this topic. I have included facts, asked questions, and have shared the basis of my opinions.

The truth is actually coming out about Bush haters as it relates to this case. In the minds of many this was some kind of a litmus test for the entire case for war and how many think Bush misused intelligence information. Many admit Libby is a scapegoat, but fail to explain how his trial conviction and excessive sentence relates to justice.

Quote:

The trial of Libby was directly tied to the issue of selective intelligence used to take us to war, this should be obvious:

1)Evidence is gathered that disputes a primary reason given for invasion.
2)Administration officials target the messenger to quiet the Data.
3)Investigation into the alleged details of said targeting is stonewalled.
4)One of the key witnesses Lies to the courts under oath, and is charged on multiple accounts.
5)Said witness is found guilty, and sentanced.

Seems like a cut and dry case of justice served, and in fact he was given a very small prison time when comparison is made.

It would be nice if Fitzgerald actually answered some questions like this honestly. All we can do is speculate at this point. I think his motives were political. I would like to know what the Bush haters think about why he did it.

Quote:

Because he didn't have sufficient evidence....and likely never will now. There is no longer any compelling reason for people to come forward other than conscience, and we all know how likely that will be. The individuals involved are not allowed to testify, and the power to hide information lies with the very entity that needs to hide it.

Ironically, if the sentence had been reasonable, Bush, in my opinion, may not have taken any action.

One case in millions:

Quote:

Defendant's Testimony=Perjury=Obstruction Enhancement. Today, in U.S. v. Barajas, no. 02-10668, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction and 210-month sentence of a criminal defendant convicted of aiding and abetting the cultivation of marijuana.

In a unanimous opinion authored by Arthur L. Alarcón, the court rejected the appellant's claims that (1) the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support his conviction, (2) the district court erred in not adjusting his offense level score downward based on his minor role in the offense pursuant to USSG sec. 3B1.2, and (3) the district court erred in adjusting his offense level score upward two levels for obstruction of justice pursuant to section 3C1.1 of the USSG.

The upward adjustment for obstruction of justice was based on the defendant's trial testimony, which the district court found perjurious.

Federal sentencing guidelines would suggest that anywhere from 1.5 to 3 years; some people take a more rigid interpretation and think that the time frame could be a little bit longer.