Pardon Libby? Of what? He has not been convicted of anything!

It's like the Marines at Haditha. They are considered guilty by the Left even before any investigation.

Now, your common thief, murderer, child molestor and rapist must be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law according to these same Leftists - except for Duke Lacrosse players of course, they being rich and white.

People can be pardoned without having been convicted.

Potential poll question: Whose prosecution (persecution?) has less credibility, Fitz's or Nilfong's?

Second question: Who'll get off the hook first, Libby or the lacrosse players?

It comes down to Libby's word vs. that of Mr. Mandy Grunwald. No premature pardon. It's show time!

Libby will not be pardoned--because he will be acquited.

However, if he is convicted, he will be pardoned. The Bush family will not leave its poltical wounded on the battlefield.

Why let it go to trial?

So Old Media and its moonbat fellow travelers spend their efforts on that instead of something significant.

Why pardon Libby before the show? There'll never be a better time to get all the usual suspects on the witness stand where they can tell the truth or face the consequences.

Because he's guilty.

So was Rove, and look how well he did. Roll them dice, says I.

No, Rove was not guilty. Scooter's crime isn't revealing Plame.

Sure he was. He was guilty of being indictable. In like wise, Libby is guilty of being convictable. In other words both are guilty of weakness. Rove partly redeemed himself by not getting indicted, Libby needs to do the same by not getting convicted.

Yes, as you point out, he's guilty and Rove wasn't.

Exactly, apparently he may be guilty of lying to the grand jury about something which isn't a crime. Fine. Let him be convicted after all the media people and spooks testify to what they said to whom and when, and then Bush should pardon him.

Not apparently.

This case will collapse when Matt Cooper takes the stand.

And Tim Russert. And Andrea Mitchell. And David Corn. And Viveca Novak. And Judith Miller. And Jill Abramson. And Walter Pincus. And any other reporter identified by Libby's lawyers as having heard the words 'Valerie Plame' sometime before June 15, 2003. Who knows, they might even subpoeana Pinch Sulzberger and Howell Raines.

But the real entertainment question is whether Judge Reggie will allow Wilson and his wife to testify.

The case doesn't have anything to do with Valerie Plame.

oj. Have you determined that Libby is guilty?

Everyone knows he's guilty. The argument is over whether the matter deserves prosecution.

Does Joe Wilson have a pumpkin patch in his backyard?

Even if Valerie isn't called to testify, the issue of why Joe, and the particulars about when, and his authorization to travel to Africa, are going to become public knowledge. My guess is that none of it will reflect well on the Plames.