June 18, 2006


Pardon talk for Libby begins (TOM BRUNE, June 17, 2006, Newsday)

Now that top White House aide Karl Rove is off the hook in the CIA leak probe, President George W. Bush must weigh whether to pardon former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the only one indicted in the three-year investigation.

Speculation about a pardon began in late October, soon after Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald unsealed the perjury indictment of Libby, and it continued last week after Fitzgerald chose not to charge Rove.

"I think ultimately, of course, there are going to be pardons," said Joseph diGenova, a former prosecutor and an old Washington hand who shares that view with many pundits.

"These are the kinds of cases in which historically presidents have given pardons," said the veteran Republican attorney.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 18, 2006 11:35 AM

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.

Posted by: obc at June 18, 2006 11:45 AM

People can be pardoned without having been convicted.

Posted by: David Cohen at June 18, 2006 12:18 PM

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?

Posted by: George at June 18, 2006 12:31 PM

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

Posted by: ghostcat at June 18, 2006 2:13 PM

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.

Posted by: Bob at June 18, 2006 10:56 PM

Why let it go to trial?

Posted by: oj at June 18, 2006 10:59 PM

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

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at June 19, 2006 10:13 AM

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.

Posted by: erp at June 19, 2006 12:09 PM

Because he's guilty.

Posted by: oj at June 19, 2006 12:13 PM

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

Posted by: joe shropshire at June 19, 2006 12:37 PM

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

Posted by: oj at June 19, 2006 12:40 PM

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.

Posted by: joe shropshire at June 19, 2006 12:51 PM

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

Posted by: oj at June 19, 2006 12:53 PM

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.

Posted by: erp at June 19, 2006 1:40 PM

Not apparently.

Posted by: oj at June 19, 2006 2:30 PM

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.

Posted by: jim hamlen at June 19, 2006 2:50 PM

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

Posted by: oj at June 19, 2006 2:54 PM

oj. Have you determined that Libby is guilty?

Posted by: erp at June 19, 2006 4:34 PM

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

Posted by: oj at June 19, 2006 4:42 PM

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.

Posted by: ratbert at June 19, 2006 7:26 PM