Re: OT ~ NOBODY saw this coming... right?!

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 00:26:48 -0000, Julia <jpchick83@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

It is precisely on the subject of my assertation.... that judge who
determined the sentence of Libby seemed to do so out of political
motivation

You never cited evidence. You cited opinions of other people. That
is logical fallacy.

making the commutation of the sentence well within the
rights of the President..

I do not dispute that a president has the power to grant pardons and
commutations.

. in fact, Dershowitz went further, saying
that the President was the only person involved that did act within
their rights.

He stated his opinion, but that is all it is, an opinion. It can not
be verified.

No doubt politics is involved. It has to be, because it involves the
vice-president's closest advisor at the time, and allegations that
Libby acted at the VP's behest for political motivations. These
decisions set precedents, so the consequences have to be considered.

That doesn't mean that the prosecutor and judges did a bad thing.

.... are you going to start calling him a Bush apologist
now, too?

No. Dershowitz is his own man. I don't like him when he defends OJ
and Mike Tyson, but I respect his legal abilities.

I appreciate your citing Dershowitz, it is an interesting opinion. He
believes that Libby will win on appeal, and that accordingly he is
entitled to bail. Dershowitz gives his opinion that it was political,
but that's an opinion.

Apparently you didn't read all of the article... it says almost
*exactly* what I did, that the sentencing was politically motivated.
He also believes that Libby will win on appeal, but that is irrelevant
to this thread.

It was central to his thesis. He said that if Libby is jailed while
his appeal pends, and wins the appeal, he doesn't get his year back.

The relevant point is that you asked me to cite
examples that show discussion has taken place over the political
motivation behind the sentencing, and I did. Of course it is his
opinion, but it is the opinion of many, from both sides of the aisle.
I just cited one from the left, figuring that would satisfy you more
than one from the right.... apparently, not.

Bail pending appeal is pretty rare.

that's a bunch of BS, and you know it...

I challenge you to prove your statement: 'you know it."

I am an attorney. I practiced criminal law in state courts for a few
years, and I've read newspapers and newsmagazines since I was able to
read.

Profanity does not shore up a weak argument.

. but it's also completely
irrelevant to the discussion at hand, so I will let it go.

Dershowitz said it was wrong to deny Libby bail pending the appeal.
You brought it up, now you say it is irrelevant.

edited out stuff

But Libby's case isn't like those where the "average defendent
receives 70 months" nor is it similar to the case of the soldier that
you cited. In Libby's case the perjury and obstruction charges
stemmed from an investigation where no charges were ever brought.

Like Martha Stewart. She was prosecuted for lying to the
investigators, not for the stock sale.

Perjury and obstruction are rarely prosecuted when the related
investigation doesn't lead to an indictment.

When they are prosecuted,
the sentences are generally much lighter than those whose obstruction
was found as an attempt to cover up a crime.

The case that you cited,
along with the averages that you mention reflect the sentencing of
those who perjury and obstruction charges were related to crimes.

Do you have facts to back this up, or are you repeating what you have
heard others say? You may be right to a certain extent.

Here's my problem with that reasoning. Perhaps there *would* have
been an indictment and prosecution and conviction if Libby had not
perjured himself.

Follow my logic:

1. I am the sole witness to an act committed by someone I can
identify

2. The act may have violated a law

You may believe that it was not illegal to disclose Valerie Plame's
employment by the CIA, but lets leave that issue aside.

3. I go to the grand jury and say I did not see the act take place

4. The grand jury does not indict the suspect due to lack of evidence

5. The suspect will not be prosecuted.

By your reasoning, I should not be prosecuted for perjury, or if I am,
I should be given more lenient treatment than if the prosecution had
other evidence and was able to obtain and indictment and conviction.

Of
course, if charges had eventually been filed in the investigation, it
is far more likely that Libby's sentence would have been longer and
far less likely that anyone (including myself) would have seen it as
politically motivated.

Here is a website that tells how sentences are determined in federal
courts, for anyone who is interested:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2007/3/6/215613/4042

LMFAO.... "TALKLEFT".... and you expect any independent thinker to
accept it as objective.... honestly, you can't be that naive.... well,
apparently you can be and you are.

I noticed that, but I also noted that it explained how federal courts
determine sentences. That is why I cited it. I ran a google search
looking for the trial judge's order, and found a pretty good
explanation of how the guidelines work.

Just because you have "chick" in your email address, I don't think you
have feathers.

My opinions are both informed and objective but you've just moved so
far away from the center that you just can't see it anymore. Getting
your information from a website that is clearly politically motivated
and will only present information that will support their point of
view shows exactly how misinformed you truly are, Liz.

I already knew how the federal sentencing guidelines work. You
asserted that the trial judge abused his discretion in determining the
sentence. Again I ask, tell me how he abused his discretion if he
followed the guidelines.

In his July 3rd press conference, Tony Snow did speak extensively on
how the President determined that the sentence was excessive. Why not
try looking that up? He very clearly stated the reasoning, and much
of what he said was backed up by Dershowitz, who clearly has nothing
to gain politically by backing up the White House.

I listened to it live, though I came in late. You perceived a clear
justification for the commutation. I remember a reporter telling Mr.
Snow that he was insulting the reporters' intelligence, so I guess
they didn't think he was clear.

You seemed bound and determined to make this a politcal debate

It is a debate about politics, is it not?

I have challenged you to cite facts, not opinions. The validity of
your opinions depends on whether they are supported by facts.

and
assign me as the Bush apologist..... not only is that incorrect, it's
a waste of my time.

So stop wasting your time. I am enjoying thinking like a lawyer.

You're determined to see this as another crime
committed by the Bush administration, and no amount of reason or logic
will convince you otherwise.

Correct me if I am wrong. You believe that the following acts were
wrong, because they were motivated by antI-administration politics,
and therefore due to be corrected by President Bush:

1. That the prosecution of Scooter Libby by a US Attorney

2. His conviction by a jury

3. His sentencing by a judge,

4. The denial of bail pending an appeal by the trial judge

5. The affirmation of that decision by an appellate court.

Cite some reason or logic, Julia. You have cited opinion, and to back
it up, you have cited the opinions of others. You haven't persuaded
me that Bush is justified in commuting the sentence of Mr. Libby.

MsLiz
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Obama birth certificate conspiracy theorist.....
    ... recent deliberate murder by one of their minions only confirms it. ... If you would like a truly honest *opinion* I'll give you mine. ... After obama won I really got disillusioned ... it is to find answers in politics. ...
    (alt.true-crime)
  • Re: Um, Nob, heres what the army says...
    ... I'm not a member of the GOP and have only voted for one GOP ... I don't think your opinion in this case is ... >>He's not, he's just reacting to the politics of that moment, where the ... Whic the Democrats have a history of rying to subvert, ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • History is written by the winners
    ... opinion; Regardless of what you think, beleive, or ought to beleive - ... working with this agenda regardless of minute barriers; ... in lebanon, people marched for a greater inner achievement, which at ... My interest in politics hardly sparks when you read the daily 'dull' ...
    (soc.culture.lebanon)
  • Re: Um, Nob, heres what the army says...
    ... You state several times that what I said is "An opinion get to ... >He's not, he's just reacting to the politics of that moment, where the Dems ... second and third deployments, they come back and their jobs are gone. ... The old 'blame Clinton' conservative saw. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • OT - Libby going down, taking Cheney with him
    ... The newly released pages were part of a legal opinion written in February 2005 by Judge David S. Tatel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. ... His opinion disclosed that the former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby Jr., acknowledged to prosecutors that he had heard directly from Mr. Cheney about the Central Intelligence Agency officer, Valerie Wilson, more than a month before her identity was first publicly disclosed on July 14, 2003, by a newspaper columnist. ... "Nevertheless," Judge Tatel wrote, "Libby maintains that he was learning about Wilson's wife's identity for the first time when he spoke with NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert on July 10 or 11." ...
    (alt.sports.basketball.nba.la-lakers)