Yeah, he goes wrong on Libby, but he's also wrong on Hilton, except for the point that we'd all be better off leaving her out of our lives.
Two points, however, need clearing up: it's jail, not "prison," and there is a valid distinction to be drawn, not least in terms of the degree of unpleasantness she'll endure; and she can't be left alone to lead her life if that's to include drink-driving (a bit more than a "whiff" of alcohol involved, although one wonders if such a sot as Hitchens recognizes the distinction) on an already suspended license. Such behavior puts other people at risk of harm, and is well-known to be illegal.
Celebrity very famously has gotten a lot more people off the hook, to one degree or another, than has ever seen the courts act more harshly, regardless of what happens to Libby. But equal treatment under the law is as justified in the one case as in the other, although I heartily endorse your final point. The law, particularly in mandatory sentencing, has grown entirely too inflexible and it is always the little guys, the small fry, the already disadvantaged, who suffer most as a result.
I've been reading and listening to lots of stuff on Scooter but the REAL bottom line keeps getting lost. The REAL bottom line is that if people are allowed to LIE UNDER OATH and are not punished for it when found out, our whole system is ALWAYS compromised and probably almost always jeopardized. Judges should always throw the book at them. Especially biggies like Libby and, I guess, Clinton.
Commenting by HaloScan
