Libby wasn't convicted of outing a CIA officer, although if there was true justice in the world he would be. He was convicted of lying about what he did, under oath, which is illegal. It's called perjury.
So why should he get off while this guy doesn't, if there's no underlying crime and perjury isn't a huge
deal?
Quote:
[I]n a case decided two weeks ago by the United States Supreme Court and widely discussed by legal specialists in light of the Libby case, the Justice Department persuaded the court to affirm the 33-month sentence of a defendant whose case closely resembled that against Mr. Libby. The defendant, Victor A. Rita, was, like Mr. Libby, convicted of perjury, making false statements to federal agents and obstruction of justice. Mr. Rita has performed extensive government service, just as Mr. Libby has. Mr. Rita served in the armed forces for more than 25 years, receiving 35 commendations, awards and medals. Like Mr. Libby, Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.
The judges who sentenced the two men increased their sentences by taking account of the crimes about which they lied. Mr. Rita's perjury concerned what the court called "a possible violation of a machine-gun registration law"; Mr. Libby's of a possible violation of a federal law making it a crime to disclose the identities of undercover intelligence agents in some circumstances.
When Mr. Rita argued that his 33-month sentence had failed to consider his history and circumstances adequately, the Justice Department strenuously disagreed.
|
Both men were convicted of the EXACT same crime. The only difference I can see is that Rita was convicted of lying about a machine-gun registration law, while Libby was lying to cover his role (and almost certainly the role of Cheney, and maybe even Bush) in outing an undercover CIA agent for political gain.
Gee, I wonder who got off?