Quote:

Quote:

Oddly I agree with Bush-the-lesser on this one - what Libby was accused and convicted of doesn't merit such a harsh sentence.



You've fallen for the talking points.



No, I'm saying that the guidelines are much too harsh, or that there aren't nearly enough differentiations in scale of the offense available.

And, I have some doubts about proof that Libby was really guilty - that his memory really was so good that when questioned much later he was knew he was wrong in saying which date he learned of Plame's status. Memory is a tricky thing - even the likes of Winston Churchill got the date of his appointment as PM wrong in his memoirs, and Churchill had a famously excellent memory.

Part of it too is being disgruntled at investigations that take it out on a bit player to avoid obvious failure. Think of Enron where a bunch of bit players got nailed but the real criminal, Fastow, got off almost free considering the scale of what he did.

The prosecutor in the Plame investigation failed completely. Not one person was charged in relation to that case. To me this looks like the prosecutor was desperate for something so the extent of his failure to get anywhere on the Plame investigation wouldn't be so obvious.
_________________________
"If they can't picture me with a knife, forcing them to strip in an alley, I don't want any part of it. It's humiliating." - windsock