The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Re: Re; Sorry, John

Text Size

John, you're not gonna convince me, and I'm not gonna convince you. Here is the WSJ take on it. Here was my take on it. I have also before and since made other, broader philosophical points, at much length, about why the pardon is so essential. But I leave you with this: Even a couple of the jurors, interviewed right after the trial ended, said in public that they hoped Libby would receive a pardon, and more than a few said they felt quite sorry for him. That's a pretty darn powerful argument, that jurors who found him technically guilty still thought he was, in effect, attitudinally innocent. I've never in my life seen jurors vote to convict and on the same day say they hoped the guy would be pardoned.

The whole trial was a travesty of justice. Justice demands that travesties be reversed.

View all comments (9) | Leave a comment

clarice| 1.19.09 @ 4:33PM

He's innocent and John is dead wrong.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/libbys_innocent_and_the_presid.html

devin schilling| 1.19.09 @ 4:37PM

he reminds me of hitler more and more every day he should never have won the election

Ran| 1.19.09 @ 4:46PM

On the one hand, justice must be served before compassion. On the other, the judicial mishandling and milquetoast commutations of Libby, Ramos and Campeon have insulted both.

Pkane| 1.19.09 @ 5:30PM

Quin, I agree we have to protect our own, and it is a tragic disgrace that Libby got caught up in all this because of an utterly absurd excuse for a scandal.

But let's take another angle. What benefit is it to Libby to receive a full pardon from Bush? Right now his reputation is what it is, entirely dependent on the politics of the beholder. Nothing can erase what was done, and for Bush to grant a full pardon will just dredge up the whole mess again and put Libby back in the spotlight.

If it's any solace, history shows that controversial, scandal tarred party figures fair alright in the long run (Liddy & North come to mind). And, career wise, Libby finds himself a martyred party figure, as opposed to just another obscure outgoing member of a failed administration.

Quin Hillyer| 1.19.09 @ 5:38PM

Pkane, that is a very good question. Fortunately, there is a very good answer. A pardon will allow Libby to get his law license back, and will allow him to vote, and (I think) will allow him to get a hunting license again (I THINK that all federal felons are permanently enjoined from firearms; but I may be wrong on that point). It also might provide him grounds (this is PURE speculation on this last point by me) to recoup some of his legal expenses. Again, though, I am certain of the law license and voting rights. Plus, don't discount the importance of the permanent record of history, which can be incredibly important to one's family, especially one's children.....

Kat| 1.19.09 @ 7:44PM

So, Libby's motives were to hold on to his security clearances and protect Chaney from embarrassment. If Libby and the Vice President didn't break the law why would either be a problem? Still doesn't make sense, I think Libby was just a scapegoat. Republicans do not protect each other, Democrats (to a disgusting degree) do. The Stupid Party strikes again.

Pkane| 1.19.09 @ 10:41PM

Quin,

Point taken. Given those factors, the question is why Bush wouldn't pardon him? Is Bush still desperate to somehow look reasonable to the frothing nutheads who are determined to hate him anyway?

Also, is there an explanation for why Libby didn't apply for a pardon - aside from the obvious answer that Bush shouldn't need a reminder?

Quin| 1.20.09 @ 9:50AM

Pkane,
I don't know the explanation, but I would guess that it could have been one of two reasons (or both of them together). A) The Justice Department's official review process has standards -- not rules, but standards -- that stupidly require that five years evolve after conviction before any consideration. With Libby's enemies at Justice (friends of Fitzgerald), they would have immediately stamped a big fat REJECTED note on the application for that reason alone, in which case if Bush pardoned him anyway, Bush would have been subject to severe criticism for ignoring the "recommendation" of the pathetic pipsqueaks at the denuded Justice Department (denuded, that is, since Gonzo took over from Ashcroft).
Second, and probably more important, I would guess that Libby didn't want to put Bush on the spot. A good soldier to the end, Libby would have too much class to make Bush answer for why he REJECTED a formal request.
Again, those are just my guesses....