Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Can you explain why an obstruction charge does not carry the sentence of the crime obstructed?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 07:16 PM
Original message
Can you explain why an obstruction charge does not carry the sentence of the crime obstructed?
I've heard that 30 months was the maximum sentence. Olberman just reported that it was the minimum requested sentence, but no mention of what the maximum could be.

Seems to me the just thing would be for obstruction to carry the sentencing associated with the criminal investigation which was obstructed! In the Libby case, that was espionage. If one argued that we are at war, that's a capital offense.

Have I missed something? Do we need to propose legislation?

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 07:25 PM
Response to Original message
1. That's too logical. It's what I was thinking, too
It's the only way to deter from obstruction! like that isn't obvious
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Because it's a different crime?
:shrug:

And I don't think anybody was investigated for espionage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. H2O Man claimed Fitz said as much.
In his thread.

More, in two documents made public in the past 12 months, Mr. Fitzgerald notes the grand jury was investigating possible espionage.


-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. well investigating possible espionage
doesn't mean they found evidence of espionage, and more importantly, we don't know if Libby was being investigated for this possible espionage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Right, We don't know who committed the crime because of Libby's actions.
We do know it was committed.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. No
we don't know espionage was committed.

The notion that Libby should be punished as if he committed every possible crime that was investigated is just nonsensical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. And who says they even *know* what crime has been obstructed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. In general Grand Juries know what crime they are investigating.
Or I'm missing a huge piece of the pie.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 08:01 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. The latter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Surely you have some evidence then.
Fitz said they were investigating espionage, see upthread. Please explain to me how one (a Grand Jury) could possibly investigate a crime with knowing what the crime is?

I'm finding it hard to argue with your logic here.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
8. because a person could "obstruct" out of affection who would never commit the crime itself
Edited on Tue Jun-05-07 08:11 PM by pitohui
a woman might obstruct an investigation of a murder committed by her son or grandson, yet never in a million years commit a murder herself

obstruction is not a good thing but it often occurs because of bonds of affection and the desire to protect


we presume libby obstructed out of affection and loyalty to cheney, while his crime is serious, it is out of affection/loyalty and not as bad as cheney's crime which was done for revenge and/or profit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Exactly
Just because you obstruct doesn't mean you did the crime. Libby was never indicted for leaking Plame's name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I haven't made that claim.
I am making the assertion that the obstruction of this crime warrants more than 30 months.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
13. Actually, it should probably be like conspiracy, which carries 1/2 of the conspired offense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Samantha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 09:22 PM
Response to Original message
14. They were investigating whether the identity of a covert agent
was deliberately revealed. I think the key word was "deliberately." They knew Valerie Plame had been exposed, but the investigation into whether or not that was done deliberately or inadvertently was never examined because Scooter Libby blocked investigation into that act. So I think the sentence for obstructing the investigation (by lying) could not be the same as that of the suspected core crime because proof of the deliberate revelation was never established.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BuyingThyme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 09:26 PM
Response to Original message
15. If there's a successful obstruction, one, by definition, does not know
what (crime) was being obstructed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
in_cog_ni_to Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-05-07 09:32 PM
Response to Original message
16. Fitz asked for a Minimum sentence of 30 Months and a Maximum of 37 Months. The scumbag got the
Minimum...which doesn't surprise me. White collar criminals never do MAJOR time...you know, like the guy caught with a joint who gets 4 years in prison?:eyes: Obstructing an investigation into the outing of a CIA agent doesn't compare to the wretched, dangerous, demented pot smoker.:sarcasm:

Our whole system is totally fucked up...from the top down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC