Comments on: Libby Sentencing Two

By: nolo

nolo — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:40:02 +0000

nolo @ 107

i’ll put his up, too — in two secs!

nolo, does one need a pacer account to see ALL the letters? Is there a link to it? I’m looking for a letter from a less notorious writer.

thesmokinggun”dot”com now has images,
but you have to wade through 373
pages of them — i did download, direct
from the PDF on PACER — and
will set the interesting ones,
stand-alone, on my site. . .

hope this helps. . .

By: blue e

blue e — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:28:02 +0000

click on nolo’s name for website

By: james

james — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:10:35 +0000

spinoza @ 149

Hugh @ 127

That General Peter Pace the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote a letter is very interesting, and a little disturbing. The military should keep its nose out of civilian affairs and I don’t buy for a second the “writing as a private citizen” meme. As with his anti-gay statements, this seems to be another example of conduct inconsisent with his office.

Peter Pace and Lee Harvey Oswald, two marines who have damaged this country (and oddly enough look alike).

As a former Marine I take offense to the Oswald remark…George H. W. Bush was just as involved in that coup, perhaps even more so, than Oswald, the ONI flunky.

And if you’re looking for Marine Corps traitors, Ollie North is a good place to start.

By: Peterr

Peterr — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:07:06 +0000

Lisa Lockwood @ 151

Hello, anyone… not a regular here, so don’t know all the principles, but can anyone direct me to a link or website where nolo has posted the letters?
Thanks.

Nolo’s apparently keeping all the fun away from us. . . .

Nolo, you’ve been asked politely and repeatedly for links. To borrow a phrase, either put up or shut up. You’re driving us nuts.

By: Sebastian Dangerfield

Sebastian Dangerfield — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:06:08 +0000

Prof: your query and observations are good ones. Especially in the days when the guidelines were considered mandatory, the use of related conduct by prosecutors to up a sentence was often problematic. Many prosecutors appeared to adopt a strategy of “charge light and sentence heavy” whereby a defendant would be charged with an easily provable offense (say, possession with intent to distribute x grams of cocaine) but during sentencing the government would then link the possession charge with other conduct not proved at trial, say a conspiracy to distribute 100x grams of cocaine. The government would then be in a position to prove the broader conspiracy at sentencing (by a lower standard fo proof and not before a jury) and end up with a sentence tied to the much higher quantity of drugs — even though the government knew it couldn’t prove the defendant’s involvement in the conspiracy by a reasonable doubt. This is the scenario that the defense bar and others concerened with basic fairness were concerned about.
Now that the Supreme Court has determined that the guidelines are not mandatory, this problem has been avoided, at least as a matter of constitutional law. The guidelines are now discretionary, so a judge is not compelled to impose the higher sentence even if the judge finds, by a proeponderance of the evidence, that related conduct occurred.
Now, Fitz’s invocation of the “cross-reference” is of an entirely different, and in my view entirely legitimate, order. If cross-referencing to other possible crimes is legitimate, then this seems to be the perfect use of it. It is however highly amusing to see the wingnuts — at JOM for instance — suddenly becoming raving pro-defendant due-processaholics. Let them see a Democrat in the dock and their “delicate sensibilities” — in the immoral words of their hero, Dick — will fall away.

By: wigwam

wigwam — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:05:54 +0000

kathleen @ 78

Jeffress “Govt has never provided proof that the offense was committed”

The IIPA require that the perpetrator have knowledge of the victim’s covert status:

Whoever, […] intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

And, Fitz has not been able to proved that Libby had such prior knowledge. But the fact that Fitz can’t prove that Libby knew is quite different from Libby not knowing.

By: Adie

Adie — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:05:54 +0000

{{{{{{Christy}}}}}}

thanks! hope yer havin’ a good day

long wait for this, eh? ;->

By: Christy Hardin Smith

Christy Hardin Smith — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:03:32 +0000

Fresh thread of liveblogging, up for everyone.

By: Lisa Lockwood

Lisa Lockwood — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:03:27 +0000

Hello, anyone… not a regular here, so don’t know all the principles, but can anyone direct me to a link or website where nolo has posted the letters?
Thanks.

By: Sparkles the Iguana

Sparkles the Iguana — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:02:58 +0000

Is there a letter from Abu Gonzales?