http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8PIN78O0&show_article=1
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former White House aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s hopes of avoiding prison in the CIA leak case began to dim Tuesday as a federal judge ruled he could face a longer sentence because the investigation he obstructed was so serious.
Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the highest-ranking official convicted of a crime since the Iran Contra affair.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wants to put Libby in prison for up to three years because the investigation he was convicted of obstructing—the leak of a CIA operative’s identity—was so serious. Libby’s attorneys are seeking no jail time and argue that it’s unfair to increase the sentence simply because the investigation was serious.
“No one was ever charged. Nobody ever pleaded guilty,” attorney William Jeffress said. “The government did not establish the existence of an offense.”
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton didn’t accept that. By that reasoning, Walton said, witnesses benefit if they aggressively obstruct investigations so prosecutors can’t make their case.
“I just can’t buy in on that being good social policy,” said Walton, who has a reputation as a tough sentencing judge. “It’s one thing if you obstruct a petty larceny. It’s another thing if you obstruct a murder investigation.”
Walton’s preliminary ruling doesn’t necessarily foretell Libby’s sentence. But it does make it harder for Libby’s attorneys to argue for no jail time because it raises the seriousness of his offense.
Having determined what the guidelines should be, I’ll move to what the actual sentence should be.
Fitz: whatever sentence Your Honor imposes, needs ot make a clear statement that truth matters, when we think about how truth matters, as eloquent as SCOTUS is, your honor sees that every day, when people walk into a court room, the whole system depends on truth. If we lose truth in judicial system, then judicial system is lost. That is true in every case, but especially true in this cse. High level person,he knew he was going to be questioned, he had time to meet with an attorney, extended period of time, from October, instead of saying, you know what, I lied, he persisted in that lie. He walked into GJ, he raised his hand and lied again. When I read the sentencing letters that are quite eloquent, they describe someone who would not do such a thing. But the truth is, he did do such a thing. In a case such as that, we need to make the statement that truth matters ever so much.
[Libby looking off into wilderness. ]
Fitz: One’ station in life does not matter. Many defendants are first offenders, most defendants have family. We need to make clear that the truth matters and one’s station in life does not matter.
Fitz: We need to make sure we don’t make a special category of person who is not liable for their behavior. That is a terrible precedent, when we talk abotu govt corruption, if he doesn’t have to tell the truth, that is dangerous. I don’t think we should make a decision based on the policy decisions has made. We put that out the window and say, whatever policy decision he did in good faith, but many others have sacrificed for govt, but they all have to follow the truth. I don’t think it’s appropriate to consider impact of prosecution on him. No doubt it has impact on him, no defendant has stood before court, no defendant has better prospects for employment, even wihtout a law license Libby has many people who wrote letters who would said he would trust him. He has better employment prospects than any other defendant, and he has means.
Fitz: I don’t think he qualifies for aberrant behavior. The record here shows someone who lied in Oct, lying precisely about critical issues. Persisted in lies despite training as lawyer, has shown absolute no contrition. We’re not going to recommend any sentence. I do think the sentence has to make clear and loud that truth matters and one’s station in life does not.
10:57