[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe an foreign actor like Jones doesn't understand this but a US state Governor doesn't "put down" anyone. Juries and judges do that for capital crimes (like cold blooded murder) in accordance with long standing (read pre Bush) Texas law, but of course you knew that right?

No, I didn't know that. But doesn't he sign the death warrants? And wouldn't it be a bit strange if the executions tripled when he became Governor, but for a completely unrelated reason? I'm sure the process was the same before El Diablo got the Texas job, but why did the rate triple?
meh

Or maybe, just maybe, Jones was using the phrase "put down" in a comic/satirical sense, like he does in the rest of the article.

Then there is the case of Victor Rita. Far from having an "umblemished record", Rita was first convicted of the crime of perjury in May of 1986, and sentenced to five years’ probation for making false statements in connection with the purchase of firearms. So if we are being asked to compare the two cases we see that Libby gets a jail sentence for his first offense and Rita gets probation for his. That sort of shoots down the whole analogy don'cha think?

The NYT tells me that, like Libby, Rita has a clear record as far as federal sentencing guidelines go.
That could be where Jones is getting his words from.

Like Mr. Libby, Mr. Rita had no criminal history for purposes of the federal sentencing guidelines.

So, as far as the courts were concerned, the cases were similiar. (Maybe, I'm not bothered going into this very far)
So, the analogy may stand up.

Then there is the fact that Rita's second perjury case (you know, the one Jones claim was his first?) was part of an investigation into Rita buying illegal machinegun parts which the court found he deliberately attempted to conceal by switching the illegal parts for other legal ones. In Libbys case the investigators already knew he wasn't the source of the leak they were investigating so, unlike the Rita case, there was no underlying crime to justify the more severe sentance.

Whether they knew he was the source or not, that makes no difference to the fact that he was convicted for perjury. Let's take it from the article

"did knowingly and corruptly endeavour to influence, obstruct and impede the due administration of justice by misleading and deceiving the grand jury"

OK, so he didn't leak. Wahey, we knew that already. But he did obstruct the investigation into the source, from which we can assume his motive was to protect a guilty party. That's quite serious.

Really Tchocky, you should at least check up on your facts just a little before you present the word of a foreign actor as relevant to the discussion. Last I heard experience with Monty Python hardly qualifies him as an expert in American legal proceedings.

Ok, look at my post. It starts with "Ha ha". The article I linked was written by a comedian. It's written with tongue planted firmly in cheek. I wasn't posting it as an incisive filleting of the American legal system as far as perjury is concerned, and you know that.
If I'm linking to something in pursuit of debate, I'll check it out at least superficially. But when the article isn't serious, when it's satirical and not set to change minds, I let it go unexamined.