« Shorter Fitz: No One Is Above the Law | Main | Random Details from the Presentencing Memo »

May 25, 2007


I should say, there are probably some public servants who don't qualify as "officials," whose identity might need to be protected so they're not retaliated against--these guys are thugs.

But we really ought to be able to see the result of Jeffress' efforts to get BIGIMPORTANT people to try to exonerate Libby.

If not before sentencing, my guess is that a copy of the PSIR with letters makes it's way into the public domain immediately thereafter. I will also note that Team Libby did itself no favors in keeping this muck under wraps by their belligerent and noisy post trial attacks on the prosecution team.

Wow - this sentencing memorandum is excellent. The mantra in criminal sentencing for the defence is that you sentence the individual, not the crime, and take account of all the factors, mitigating and aggravating. But this is excellent lawyering on Fitz's part. When I was doing a case, when I find myself agreeing with the other side as I read through their materials, I know my client is in trouble. I suspect Ted Wells is having that internal monologue himself this evening. And the allusions to the (mis)conduct of other parties and the consequences of the larger scheme, while focusing on the actual crimes of Libby and hammering on the facts that took this out of a momentary memory lapse or an isolated failure of judgment, coupled with his own personal knowledge of the gravity of the proceedings in which he testified, you could just feel the tumblers falling into place on the jailhouse locks..

BTW, if this sentencing were being held in Canada, there would be no discussion about a publication ban on the identity of letter writers and supporters. These things, when it happens at all, are regularly disclosed in open court, and the PSR would list the names of all the people who were interviewed in the course of preparing the report. I'm frankly surprised that this is an issue - no judge would want the impression that his sentence may have been influenced by the representations of unnamed, powerful public figures.

The addresses and other information that could lead to personal harrasment or ID theft could be redacted without much triublr.

There is no excuse for not making public the content of the letters and rhe identity of the authors.

I can only wonder what else was included with those letters to the judge from the neocon elite. Checks? Cash? Incriminating photos? Shares in Haliburton (Dubai LTD)?

Isn't it fair for the public to learn what government officals took the time to support their guy, in spite of his conduct in this investigation, or more to the point, because of it?

"could be redacted without much triublr."

LHP, that is my favorite of all your typos.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad