Scooter Libby, and Paris Hilton
Jun. 14th, 2007 10:48 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumLots of ink has been spread, and uncounted electrons recycled, on both of them.
I see parallels, mostly in the various hypocrisies being bandied about by those who are defending them.
Poor Libby just couldn't catch a break, to hear those who wrote letters to the judge asking him to be lenient.
Libby, you see, was the victim. It doesn't matter that the crimes for which he was convicted were serious, and related to a grievous harm to our national (and perhaps the world's) interest.
No, see the Att'y General, appointed a special prosecutor (who was a US Att'y, appointed by GW Bush) to look into an complaint by the CIA (being run by Bush's man Tenet); who alleged (to read all these letters, falsely) that a covert agent had been outed.
This rogue, Republican, prosecutor actually asked Libby questions, which Libby (under oath) answered with lies.
The prosecutor, ignoring Libby's noble purpose in preventing the person who sabotaged the US efforts to contain nuclear proliferation in the Horn of Africa (known to be a hot-spot of folks who really don't like us, and would like to be able to more easily trade in radioctive materials) from being brought before the bar, had the effrontery to present a case to a grand jury, which (imagine) actually indicted him for perjury, and obstructing justice.
If that weren't bad enough some witless bunch of jurors failed to see through all the flim-flam, and convicted him.
How does this relate to Paris Hilton?
Well the story making the rounds is she is being treated more harshly than she deserves. Someone (a rogue judge... spouting nonsense about "respect for the law") insisted that she serve a whole 45 days.
Only the facts aren't that she was pulled over for a DUI, and given 45 days.
No. She was given 45 days for violating probation.
For what was she on probation?
Driving recklessly, while drunk, back in January. She got three years for it. Along with it came some restrictions; she could only drive while in possession of a valid license, had to enroll in a program, and (as is standard with probation) had to obey all laws and court orders.
She didn't. She got a ticket for driving without a valid license, (after she, and her lawyer(s) were sent a notice that her license was suspended) and had to sign that she knew she wasn't allowed to do it (so she got a second chance, more than many get). Her passenger got to drive the car home (again, this was more slack than some get, the police could have impounded the car)
She never enrolled in a program.
Then she decided to take a midnight drive; still without having had her driving privilege restored. This wasn't a quick trip to the grocery, no, it was ding 75 in a 30 zone (miles per hour, not kilometers), at night, with no lights.
She was late to court.
She got 45 days.
She got off easy, the judge had every right to revoke her parole, and send her to prison (not jail) to serve the entire bit her probation was in lieu of.
Yep, them poor people, getting so much more grief than they deserve. Libby has the "it wasn't the sex, it was the 'perjury'" crowd explaining that his, very real perjury; and obstruction of justice, aren't all that bad, and Hilton has the same people who say the system give too many slap on the wrist sentences accusing the judge of being to harsh for giving some 45 days in jail; and insisting she actually serve the sentence, instead of making her go to prison for a couple of years.
Those rich, and famous, people just can't get a break.
I see parallels, mostly in the various hypocrisies being bandied about by those who are defending them.
Poor Libby just couldn't catch a break, to hear those who wrote letters to the judge asking him to be lenient.
Libby, you see, was the victim. It doesn't matter that the crimes for which he was convicted were serious, and related to a grievous harm to our national (and perhaps the world's) interest.
No, see the Att'y General, appointed a special prosecutor (who was a US Att'y, appointed by GW Bush) to look into an complaint by the CIA (being run by Bush's man Tenet); who alleged (to read all these letters, falsely) that a covert agent had been outed.
This rogue, Republican, prosecutor actually asked Libby questions, which Libby (under oath) answered with lies.
The prosecutor, ignoring Libby's noble purpose in preventing the person who sabotaged the US efforts to contain nuclear proliferation in the Horn of Africa (known to be a hot-spot of folks who really don't like us, and would like to be able to more easily trade in radioctive materials) from being brought before the bar, had the effrontery to present a case to a grand jury, which (imagine) actually indicted him for perjury, and obstructing justice.
If that weren't bad enough some witless bunch of jurors failed to see through all the flim-flam, and convicted him.
How does this relate to Paris Hilton?
Well the story making the rounds is she is being treated more harshly than she deserves. Someone (a rogue judge... spouting nonsense about "respect for the law") insisted that she serve a whole 45 days.
Only the facts aren't that she was pulled over for a DUI, and given 45 days.
No. She was given 45 days for violating probation.
For what was she on probation?
Driving recklessly, while drunk, back in January. She got three years for it. Along with it came some restrictions; she could only drive while in possession of a valid license, had to enroll in a program, and (as is standard with probation) had to obey all laws and court orders.
She didn't. She got a ticket for driving without a valid license, (after she, and her lawyer(s) were sent a notice that her license was suspended) and had to sign that she knew she wasn't allowed to do it (so she got a second chance, more than many get). Her passenger got to drive the car home (again, this was more slack than some get, the police could have impounded the car)
She never enrolled in a program.
Then she decided to take a midnight drive; still without having had her driving privilege restored. This wasn't a quick trip to the grocery, no, it was ding 75 in a 30 zone (miles per hour, not kilometers), at night, with no lights.
She was late to court.
She got 45 days.
She got off easy, the judge had every right to revoke her parole, and send her to prison (not jail) to serve the entire bit her probation was in lieu of.
Yep, them poor people, getting so much more grief than they deserve. Libby has the "it wasn't the sex, it was the 'perjury'" crowd explaining that his, very real perjury; and obstruction of justice, aren't all that bad, and Hilton has the same people who say the system give too many slap on the wrist sentences accusing the judge of being to harsh for giving some 45 days in jail; and insisting she actually serve the sentence, instead of making her go to prison for a couple of years.
Those rich, and famous, people just can't get a break.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-06-14 07:41 pm (UTC)Then she's finally in a location where she can be diagnosed and directed to proper treatment and away from the herd of enablers, if so. Personally I think such a diagnosis is too convenient and should be eyed skeptically until supported by a third party with no connection to this sordid mess.
It still doesn't excuse her poor behaviour. It may point out different avenues towards correcting this behaviour, but she doesn't deserve a "walk" because she's unable or unwilling to address her condition.
The court should just order a boot put on her car so she can't drive it (or impound it for the duration of her probation), and send her home.
She's a Hilton. She can buy a Beemer on her charge card and still have plenty of credit left over.
-- Steve will point out that the point of this is to prevent future bad acts. Otherwise this is just a shadow show.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-14 08:21 pm (UTC)>> Sheriff Baca's announcement that she has a severe case of
>> ADD puts a lot of Hilton's poor behavior in focus: looked at
>> from that viewpoint, her symptoms seem amazingly obvious in
>> retrospect
> Then she's finally in a location where she can be diagnosed
> and directed to proper treatment and away from the herd of
> enablers, if so. Personally I think such a diagnosis is too
> convenient and should be eyed skeptically until supported by
> a third party with no connection to this sordid mess.
Sheriff Baca's announcement was predicated by observation of her in the jail medical unit -- whether by a county-employed or county-paid consulting psychiatrist I don't know, but one of those two, after her private psychiatrist turned over her medical records. It was Sheriff Baca's doctor who made the determination that she was so ill her condition was being exacerbated by incarceration.
Diagnosis is one thing, treatment is another. Having lived in Los Angeles, I can tell you that the county jail system there simply doesn't have the resources to provide treatment of the kind she needs. Period. You think the public is squawking now, just wait until the cost estimate of treating her at taxpayer expense during her incarceration is made known.
no subject
Date: 2007-06-14 08:52 pm (UTC)The version I'd heard, and was going from, was that the diagnosis was provided by a psychiatrist hired by the Hilton family. Hence my distrust of it as a likely "easy out". If there's more to it than that, then perhaps my "neutral third party" criterion has already been met.
Note also that I said "directed to", not "provided", proper treatment. Referral to counseling is common throughout penal/correction systems, or so I thought from my admittedly limited contact with them.
-- Steve's wondering if Paris would qualify for involuntary committment to psychiatric care if this is indeed a result of ADHD, as driving over twice the speed limit without lights is certainly a danger to herself and others...