The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

For reasons I (and others)ave amply explained in numerous columns and blog posts, I utterly reject this key paragraph by Otis:

U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton noted that there was ample evidence that Libby intentionally lied. Jurors took care (they did not convict on all counts), and the evidence before them makes it hard to believe that Libby's misstatements were merely a product of poor memory or confusion. The case was proved, and the conviction should not simply be wiped away.

I am convinced the man did not lie. Logic says he did not lie. (No motive, no evidence other than the decidedly faulty memory of Tim Russert.) His entire demeanor during the trial -- and his original willingness to testify sans attorney -- says he did not lie.

I'll gladly stand with Fred Barnes, the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Sowell, and Michael Barone, among others, who have argued strongly for Libby's pardon. Otis means nothing to me. Prosecutors like to stand up for prosecutors. Big deal.

Libby is innocent; AND he was entrapped; AND the investigation was abusive; AND.... on and on go the arguments in his favor, all of them valid. Pardon Libby now!