|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Exactly.
Come on, man....you know what the game was here. Can't get the big fish, get SOMETHING. It's the #1 rule for prosecutors. Fitzgerald could have (did?) summoned anyone in Washington DC to testify.
|
powerclown.... two questions....
This was happening in the same month as Libby was sentenced....how do you think Siegelman's experience with the federal criminal court system compares to Libby's? Do you really believe Libby, in comparison, was "railroaded" by the prosecution? Your argument seems contrived, baseless; extremely unconvincing, and without merit to me, even without the Siegelman example for comparison.....
Quote:
Comparing Scooter's Supporters'l Apoplexy RE:His Jailing vs. Treatment of Ex. Dem Gov
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=120276
Am I missing something here? I'm starting this with reporting on treatment by Bush appointed federal judge in Alabama, of ex-governor and democrat, Don Siegelman, after he was sentenced in federal court, yesterday, compared to treatment of republican Scooter, after his sentencingby a Bush appointed judge, and the treatment by federal judges of two former republican governors after sentencing.
Was Don Siegelman, more "high profile", than the three republicans? Isn't the case against Siegelman, the weakest of the four? No one accuses him of taking money for his own personal gain. Why the 30 year sentence recommendation from prosecutors, for his "crimes". Why was he taken into custody immediately after he was sentenced, put in leg shackles in public, stripped of his belt and personal effects, allowed no time to say goodbye to his family, and removed from the courtroom by US Marshalls, to an "undisclosed location"?
I then posted examples of the contrast between Siegelman's "treatment", and that of two former republican governors, by their sentencing judges, and you already are familiar with Libby's judge permitting him to go home for nine days after sentencing, pending the filing an review of his lawyer's motion to allow him to remain free, pending appeal, and the granting of a 45 day "grace period" by the court, before Libby is required to report to prison.
I ended with supporting articles of the fact that a republican attorney in Alabama, in good standing, with no known negative critiques of her reliability or reputation, has sworn in an affadavit that Karl Rove appears to have intervened with the DOJ to 'fix" Don Siegelman....to force him to back down from contesting his last governor's race, which ended in very close vote count
that should reasonably have been contested. The resulting prosecution of Siegelman was the second by the feds since 2004, after Siegelman was acquitted of all counts against him in the first trial....
Why was no respect or deference accorded a former governor, by the court....when it seems that he was not convicted of a crime of personal greed, and in a case where it seems that he had grounds for appeal at least as strong as those of former Ill. Gov., Ryan?
Why the push by prosecutors for a 30 year sentence on such convictions, or the approval of the judge to negatively take into account the majority of charges against Siegelman, when considering his punishment, since he was acquitted of most of the charges?
I see an alarming double standard in the way Siegelman was treated by the sentencing judge, compared to those of the high profile republicans, Ryan, Rowland, and Libby. Instead of affirming that "justice is blind", if that is what the judge really intended, this leaves me with the impression that Siegelman was treated in a highly partisan and vengeful way, more outrageous if Rove did use his power to target Siegelman in order to end his challenge of the vote count in the contested Alabama governor's race......
|
<b>If you continue to refuse to post sources that support your argument that Libby should not have been "singled out for prosecution, because "there was no underlying crime"....is it unreasonable for me to assume that you have simply embraced unsupportable conservative talking points...that that is all you've got?
....again....I get the information that sahpes my opinion from news reporting, court filings, cour transcripts, and public statements by officials like Comey and Fitzgerald....what is shaping your opinion?:</b>
[quote]
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=51
Page 1
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) CR. NO. 05-394 (RBW)
v. ))
I. LEWIS LIBBY, )
also known as Scooter Libby )
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, PATRICK J. FITZGERALD,
Special Counsel, respectfully submits the following sentencing memorandum:
........This memorandum addresses the seriousness of defendant’s
offense conduct and <b>responds to certain possible mitigating arguments identified in the
Presentence Investigation Report</b>.....
Page 10
<h3>The argument that Mr. Libby is an innocent wrongly charged</h3> because it was known
early in the investigation that others had leaked the identity of Valerie Wilson overlooks
critical facts as well as the jury’s carefully reasoned verdict. First, the evidence at trial
proved that Mr. Libby was guilty, not innocent. Mr. Libby learned about Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment in June 2003 directly from the Vice President, as well as from senior
government officials from both the State Department (Marc Grossman) and the CIA (Bob
Grenier) and Cathie Martin, who handled public affairs for the Vice President. <b>The evidence
showed that Mr. Libby was aggravated about Ambassador Wilson</b> and paid exceptionally
close attention in June and July 2003 to media stories about Mr. Wilson. Mr. Libby disclosed
information about Ms. Wilson’s employment <h3>to Judith Miller on June 23.</h3>
Following Ambassador Wilson’s Op Ed <h3>in the New York Times on July 6, 2003</h3>, Mr.
Libby inserted himself even more in the press response to Mr. Wilson. On July 7, he
disclosed the information <b>about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment to Ari Fleischer</b>, then the
White House press secretary, in what Mr. Fleischer described as a “weird lunch.” The next
morning, Mr. Libby disclosed the information about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment again
to reporter Miller. Mr. Libby provided information about Mr. Wilson and Ms. Wilson on the
condition that any attribution <b>disguise him as a “former Hill staffer.”</b> Later that week, Mr.
Page 11
Libby confirmed the information about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment to reporter Matt
Cooper, who had first learned the information from Karl Rove.
The evidence at trial further established that when the investigation began, Mr. Libby
kept the Vice President apprised of his shifting accounts of how he claimed to have learned
about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment. The evidence <b>proved that Mr. Libby invented a
conversation about Ms. Wilson’s employment with Mr. Russert, lied about other
conversations with other officials and reporters and claimed not to have known the
information</b> he was spreading to reporters about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment was true.
Mr. Libby even went so far as to claim that he was “surprised” and “taken aback” by what
Mr. Russert had told him about Ms. Wilson and the CIA on July 10, and to claim that Mr.
Libby did not even know at the time of his conversations with reporters that Mr. Wilson had
a wife. Mr. Libby also claimed to have a clear memory <h3>that the only topic he did not discuss
with the Vice President in the aftermath of the Wilson Op Ed was Ms. Wilson’s CIA
employment.</h3>
Second, it is <b>undisputed but of no moment that it was known early in the investigation
that two other persons (Richard Armitage and Karl Rove)</h3> in addition to Mr. Libby had
disclosed Ms. Wilson’s identity to reporters, and that Messrs. Armitage and Rove were the
sources for columnist Robert Novak’s July 14, 2003 column, which first publicly disclosed
Ms. Wilson’s CIA affiliation. The investigation was never limited to disclosure of Ms.
Wilson’s CIA affiliation to Mr. Novak; rather, from the outset the investigation sought to
Page 12
determine who disclosed information about Ms. Wilson to various reporters, including – but
not limited to – Mr. Novak.
From these facts, <h3>it is argued either that the entire investigation should have been
quickly terminated or that it was inappropriate that at the end of the investigation only Mr.
Libby was charged. We address both arguments below.</h3>
<b>1. Termination of the Investigation</b>
The assertion that the collective facts known at an early point in the investigation
warranted a summary termination of the investigation does not stand up to close scrutiny.
First, it was clear from very early in the investigation that <h3>Ms. Wilson qualified under the
relevant statute (Title 50, United States Code, Section 421) as a covert agent whose identity
had been disclosed by public officials</h3>, including Mr. Libby, to the press. Early in the
investigation, however, the critical issue remained as to precisely what the particular officials
knew about Ms. Wilson’s status and what the officials intended when they disclosed her
identity to the media. Moreover, in assessing the intent of these individuals, it was necessary
to determine whether there was concerted action by any combination of the officials known
to have disclosed the information about Ms. Plame to the media as anonymous sources, and
also whether any of those who were involved acted at the direction of others.
This was particularly <h3>important in light of Mr. Libby’s statement to the FBI that he may have
discussed Ms. Wilson’s employment with reporters at the specific direction of the Vice President.</h3>
Page 13
Finally, it remained to be determined whether the accounts of various persons who
disclosed the information to the media were truthful, and, if not, whether any false statement
made could be proven to be intentionally false. In that vein, it became apparent at an early
stage of the investigation that <b>Mr. Libby’s account was sharply contradicted by the accounts
of other witnesses, most notably Tim Russert. The investigation thus appropriately continued</b>
for several months after the October 2003 disclosures by Messrs. Armitage, Rove and Libby,
under the direction of then Attorney General Ashcroft, until late December 2003 when
Special Counsel was appointed.
The investigation then continued for the same reasons. It also bears note that <h3>although certain
of Mr. Libby’s supporters have suggested that it was improper for the investigation to continue
without publicly disclosing what Mr. Armitage, Mr. Rove, and Mr. Libby admitted in interviews or
before the grand jury, maintaining the confidentiality of witness statements and testimony was
not only required by law, but was an appropriate and routine investigative practice that protected
witnesses’ privacy, reduced the risk that witnesses would influence each others’ recollections and
testimony, and protected the reputations of uncharged persons.</h3>
To accept the argument that Mr. Libby’s prosecution is the inappropriate product of
an investigation that should have been closed at an early stage, <h3>one must accept the
proposition that the investigation should have been closed after at least three high-ranking
government officials were identified as having disclosed to reporters classified information
about covert agent Valerie Wilson, where the account of one of them was directly
Page 14
contradicted by other witnesses, where there was reason to believe that some of the relevant
activity may have been coordinated, and where there was an indication from Mr. Libby
himself that his disclosures to the press may have been personally sanctioned by the Vice
President.</h3> <h2>To state this claim is to refute it.</h2> Peremptorily closing this investigation in the
face of the information available at its early stages <h3>would have been a dereliction of duty, and
would have afforded Mr. Libby and others preferential treatment not accorded to ordinary
persons implicated in criminal investigations.</h3>
<b>2. Prosecution of Mr. Libby for Obstruction of Justice and Perjury in
the Absence of a Prosecution of Any Person for the Underlying
Disclosure of Classified Information</b>
Nor is it of any consequence to Mr. Libby’s conduct – perjury and obstruction of
justice – that others may have engaged in similar disclosures of classified information for
which neither Mr. Libby nor they were charged. At the end of the investigation, after all the
information was gathered – including testimony of the reporters and relevant documents –
a decision was made not to pursue substantive charges for the disclosure of classified
information about Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment.
This fact does not support the logical leap
that investigators knew at the beginning of the investigation that no such charges would be
brought, nor does it have any bearing on the propriety of Mr. Libby’s prosecution for perjury.
While not commenting on the reasons for the charging decisions as to any other
persons, we can say that the reasons why Mr. Libby was not charged with an offense directly
relating to his unauthorized disclosures of classified information regarding Ms. Wilson
Page 15
included, but were not limited to, the fact that Mr. Libby’s false testimony obscured a
confident determination of what in fact occurred, particularly where the accounts of the
reporters with whom Mr. Libby spoke (and their notes) did not include any explicit evidence
specifically proving that Mr. Libby knew that Ms. Wilson was a covert agent. <b>On the other
hand, there was clear proof of perjury and obstruction of justice which could be prosecuted
in a relatively straightforward trial.</b> As Judge Tatel noted in his concurring opinion in In re
Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller, 438 F.3d 1141, 1182 (D.C. Cir. 2006), “insofar as false
testimony may have impaired the special counsel’s identification of culprits, perjury in this
context is itself a crime with national security implications. What’s more, because the
charges contemplated here relate to false denials of responsibility for Plame’s exposure,
prosecuting perjury or false statements would be tantamount to punishing the leak.”
Finally, the suggestion that there is something unusual or inappropriate about pursuing
a prosecution for a crime of obstruction where the underlying crime is not prosecuted is a red
herring <h3>(and oddly suggests that Mr. Libby’s prosecution would not have been “wrongful”
if only the government had brought more charges against him or others).</h3> Such perjury
prosecutions are hardly unusual; indeed, <b>as the Supreme Court noted in Mandujano, our
system of justice would break down if witnesses were allowed to lie with impunity.</b> This is
especially true where the lies at issue succeeded in preventing the investigators from
determining with confidence what had occurred.
Page 16
In light of the foregoing, the assertions offered in mitigation are <h3>consistent with an
effort by Mr. Libby’s supporters to shift blame away from Mr. Libby for his illegal conduct
and onto those who investigated and prosecuted Mr. Libby for unexplained “political”
reasons.</h3> The assertions provide no basis for Mr. Libby to receive a reduced sentence.
The record should be clear that the grand jury investigation was conducted fairly and in
appropriate secrecy; <h3>Mr. Libby had ample legal resources and talent available to him to raise
all appropriate legal challenges and mount a legal defense</h3>; the Court provided Mr. Libby
substantial opportunity to follow through on the defense he proffered; and the jury carefully
and dispassionately weighed the evidence over the course of many days and convicted on
four counts and acquitted on another. <h3>While the disappointment of Mr. Libby’s friends and
supporters is understandable, it is inappropriate to deride the judicial process as “politics at
its worst” on behalf of a defendant who, the evidence has established beyond a reasonable
doubt, showed contempt for the judicial process when he obstructed justice by repeatedly
lying under oath about material matters in a serious criminal investigation.</h3>....
|
powerclown, on this, the 231st anniversary of the first "we the people" declaration.... we have, on display here....your unsupported faux cycnicism about Libby "the victim", in all of it's tiny "parroted talking point" seeming....splendor...alongside the worst example of the presidential "screwing" of the actual victims in this case; "we the people":
Quote:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/bench.../gonzales.html
Libby, the President and a 1,000-Year-Old Song
....So, ultimately, you will have to judge whether you agree with President Bush's assessment that the interests of fairness and justice have been served by allowing this convicted felon, Libby, the sort of leniency that eluded Martha Stewart and hundreds of other folks who have been convicted of obstructing justice and committing perjury during a federal investigation. Me? All I could think about when I heard Libby's good news was the old spiritual song "Dayenu," sung at Passover dinners for more than 1,000 years. "It would have been enough for us" is the theme. Here goes......
|
<b>You've got "balls", powerclown....I'll give you that....but that's all I'll give you. A Happy & Safe July 4th, to You !</b> |