Well, so much for that hazy “people convicted of perjury and lying to federal agents during the course of an investigation didn’t really commit crimes and oughtn’t go to jail, and they never prosecute that anyway” talking point malarky.  And it comes from the US Supreme Court, too:

The case that the court decided yesterday, Rita v. United States, No. 06-5754, was meant to help define “advisory.”

Victor Rita, convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice, asked for a lighter sentence based in part on his past military service. But the judge gave him 33 months, as suggested by the guidelines. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upheld the sentence, saying that penalties within the guidelines are “presumptively reasonable.”

What did defendant Rita do, you ask?  (H/T to 2strange for the link)

He made two false statements to a federal grand jury. The jury was investigating a gun company. Prosecutors believed that buyers of a kit, called a “PPSH 41 machinegun ‘parts kit,’ ” could assemble a machinegun from the kit, and that the company had not secured the necessary permits to import machine guns.

Rita had purchased one of the kits and when he was contacted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, he agreed to let the agent inspect the kit. But, before, meeting with the agent, he sent back the kit and, instead, substituted a kit that did not amount to a machine gun. The government contended that he lied to the grand jury about his actions and he was convicted for making false statements and committing perjury.

Hmmmm…he committed perjury while under oath before a federal grand jury which was investigating his allegedly criminal actions and he also lied to federal agents. And federal prosecutors brought this case against him, tried him in a court of law and a jury of his peers convicted him, and then a federal judge sentenced him under the federal sentencing guidelines applicable to his conduct, with a bump up for an enhanced penalty for the underlying crime related to the investigation.Now why does that sound familiar, I ask myself?

They keep this up, someone is going to have to write Victoria Toensing some new talking points. Because the “they never prosecute these types of perjury cases” bullshit has just been exposed for the fraud that it is in an 8 to 1 opinion.   

(More to come on the Walton Memorandum Opinion — am working fast as I can, gang…)