While "law and order" conservatives demand Bush pardon convicted felon, obstructor of justice, perjurer, and traitor because, well, he was a Republican and they can do whatever they want, a Bush spokesman claims the president will not intervene.
Speculation immediately turned to whether Bush will pardon Libby, who was also a special assistant to the president until he was indicted in late 2005.
Deputy White House press secretary Dana Perino , who was traveling with Bush in the Czech Republic, told reporters Bush is "not going to intervene" on Libby's behalf, but Perino did not explicitly rule out a presidential pardon.
Nevertheless, Libby supporters and conservative groups urged Bush to exercise his power to pardon. The conservative National Review, in an online editorial titled "Pardon Him" posted on its website, mentioned that no one was charged with leaking the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson, the act that triggered the probe.
It's funny how obtuse conservatives can be. The reason no one was charged with the leak was because of Libby's obstruction of the investigation. That was the whole point of Fitzgerald's prosecution, no matter how much they try to ignore it. Just like they try to ignore how the administration burned an undercover CIA agent working on issues relating to Iran's nuclear program.
Of course, had Libby cooperated with the investigation, Cheney and/or Rove would've likely ended up indicted. So for them, it was well worth the cost.
Walton is set to rule June 14 on whether Libby must begin serving his prison term immediately or can remain free on bail pending his appeal.
If the judge allows Libby to remain free, Bush could delay a pardon decision until after the 2008 presidential election, right before he leaves office. But if Walton decides to sends Libby to prison next week, the pressure on Bush to act immediately would soar.
"The question of the pardon is not if but when," said Stephen Hess, a professor at George Washington University. "The pressures from [Republican] loyalists and in the administration will be enormous. From the loyalists' point of view, Libby was falling on his sword for the vice president."
So the rule of law can be dismissed if a "loyalist falls on his sword" for one of their own partisans?
I guess they want two criminal codes -- one for Democrats, the other (much thinner) for Republicans.
Comments are closed on this story.