Ezra Klein: A Pardon?

March 07, 2007

A Pardon?

Even though sentencing won't occur for awhile yet, attention is turning to Libby's prospects for a presidential pardon once Bush leaves office. I doubt it. Bush has never been one to keep loyalty a two-way street. It's long been his M.O to cut loose even the most faithful of servants after they outlive their usefulness. And Scooter Libby has definitely outlived his usefulness. To pardon him would refocus the blame onto the presidency, make it clear the administration felt indebted to an underling doing their bidding. That's all true, of course, save for the indebted part. Libby was doing their bidding and now it is done. End of transaction.

I'd actually prefer a pardon -- it would focus the historical attention on the Bush administration, leave his legacy stained from the outset, and come closer to harming the prime movers behind the Plame Affair -- but I doubt Bush is willing to tarnish his own record to protect a pawn.

March 7, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

...but I doubt Bush is willing to tarnish his own record to protect a pawn.

Depends on how much the pawn knows, and how much he's willing to blab.

Posted by: Jasper | Mar 7, 2007 8:46:52 AM

I'd estimate the chances of a Jan ' 09 pardon at very close to 100%.

Posted by: Petey | Mar 7, 2007 8:58:06 AM

You mean because Iran Contra has been such a big deal?

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Mar 7, 2007 9:07:54 AM

you're comparing Ted Haggard to Scooter? That's a bit weak. Haggard lined up votes for Bush in 2004, his job is done. Libby knows where the bodies are buried when it comes to the case for selling the Iraq War. He hasn't outlived his usefulness yet. Look at it in a "save you ass" way. The only way to save Bush/Cheney's ass is to pardon Scooter. You think he wants to spend years in prison for his bosses? That's loyalty I don't expect to find in this day and age.

I'd be happy to bet a considerable sum of money that Scoots gets his pardon. He did his job (cover Cheney's ass), now Bush has to do his.

And how the heck does a pardon "come closer to harming the prime movers behind the Plame Affair"?

Posted by: verplanck colvin | Mar 7, 2007 9:19:10 AM

"I doubt it. Bush has never been one to keep loyalty a two-way street. "

Have you been paying attention?

The VP Cheney controls much of this administration.
The VP IS loyal to his people.
Scooter was and is Cheney's dude not W's.

sheesh

Posted by: anon | Mar 7, 2007 9:23:15 AM

"And Scooter Libby has definitely outlived his usefulness"

His usefulness now might be his ability to keep secrets. He hasn't outlived that bit of utility to Bush and Cheney. That bit of utility might be threatened by some serious jail time.

I'd bet on a pardon; Bush thinks his record will be looked upon favorably 50 years in the future, and this wouldn't change that calculus in his mind.

Posted by: tomboy | Mar 7, 2007 9:27:13 AM

between shooting people by mistake, watching all of his machiavellian plans unravel,bombs blasting that were meant for him, blood clots in his legs and a gay, pregnant daughter, it has been quite a year for mr. cheney and his lovely wife!!
...in his rare appearances, he always looks disgusted, ancient and exhausted. i wouldnt even want to be a fly at the cheney breakfast table this morning...i wouldnt even want to land on his toast.

Posted by: jacqueline | Mar 7, 2007 9:34:14 AM

Since one of the primary motivations of this administration is to piss off "liberals" and pardoning Libby would for sure accomplish that, it is a certainty Libby will be pardoned.

Posted by: Ron | Mar 7, 2007 9:45:37 AM

i wonder who will play dick cheney in the movie.
too bad that george c. scott still isnt around. he would have done great with the sidewise grimace...
and madonna dressed up nicely for "evita"...she could probably muster a good valerie plame.
....isnt this the way our present history becomes recorded and remembered these days?
...time for a day in the country to restore the soul...i am glad to report that the bee box on my land is filled with bees!
at least they are alive and well in these parts!

Posted by: jacqueline | Mar 7, 2007 9:46:23 AM

If Cheney wants him pardoned, he gets pardoned. If not, not.

If Cheney wants him made Cardinal Archbishop of Salzburg, he gets a red hat.

Let's not forget who's running the country here.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Mar 7, 2007 9:57:24 AM

Are you insane? Do you think Bush gives a damn about "refocusing the blame on the presidency" after he's gone? History will vindicate him, remember? What has he got to lose by pardoning Libby, compared to what Libby might do if he doesn't?

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Mar 7, 2007 9:58:21 AM

Depends on how much the pawn knows, and how much he's willing to blab.

Libby knows it ALL. The question is how much hardball he's willingn to play. Lots is my guess. Shooter Cheney will back his Scooter (if he lives until then).

If Libby's lawyers start throwing 90 mph curves in the direction of 1600 PA, the pardon could come right after the appeals court ruling. July 3rd sounds about right.

Bet on it. Bush has nothing to lose and something to gain by a pardon - cutting off an impeachment move if the whole truth came out. The Bush/Cheney criminal enterprise is endangered from a high-level stooge.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Mar 7, 2007 9:59:27 AM

What has he got to lose by pardoning Libby, compared to what Libby might do if he doesn't?

Ginger Yellow is absolutely right. Of course Bush will pardon him if the appeals fail and that's what it comes down to. Regardless, Libby will never, ever see a prison wall unless something extraordinary happens.

And The Hill is alive with the sound of it.

Posted by: litbrit | Mar 7, 2007 10:14:22 AM

Oh, I don't think the left wants to get into a pissing contest over presidential pardons. Especially after Clinton.

I guess Monica defined the Clinton presidency, so maybe Bill thought pardons for cash and pardoning drug dealers and terrorists couldn't do too much more damage to his legacy.

I think Bush is a disgrace for NOT pardoning those two border patrol agents. Bush is a disgrace on the border, period.

Oh, by the way, all you morons who think Bush's ratings are so low cuz of the war, there are a lot of people like me who would say they disaprove of Bush, if polled, because of the border. I still support the war, but I no longer approve of Bush.

He has turned his back on this country as far as our southern border is concerned.

A pardon for Libby would raise his stock with me tho.

Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 7, 2007 10:21:22 AM

I doubt Bush is willing to tarnish his own record to protect a pawn.

Um, have you seen the state of his record currently? Pretty tarnished already I would say. Moreover, he knows this. He's made it clear short-term popularity is not a priority. I agree, loyalty to subordinates isn't, either. But Libby knows dirt, primarily on Cheney, but which, if it comes out in a Libby tell-all book, will tarnish the whole admin's long-term rep, something Bush does care about. Not wanting that tarnish, and with Cheney insisting, Bush will grant the pardon, buying Libby's silence on the worst dirt, but not before forcing Libby to spend a small fortune (including, admittedly, lots of other people's money) on appeals, so that Bush can pardon him when it hurts him least -- upon his leaving office.

Posted by: Ryan | Mar 7, 2007 10:37:25 AM

Bush has never really done very much to insure any kind of legacy other than the one of contempt he's done a magnificent job of building. I don't think that impacts whether scooter gets off or not. bush will do whatever he wants regardless of the consequences. If experience with bush and his administration has taught us anything, it's that.

Oh, and that his supporters might be some of the bizarrely gullible people on the planet.

That said, there is one irrelevant observation I would make. If you want to collect the truly intellectually blighted, as a group, right now it's easier than ever before in history. Simply tally all the current bush supporters. There's no group more impoverished morally or challenged spiritually than anyone who could hang with george and his gang at this point. It's a fairly small group and their vocal outburts as easily distinguished.

Posted by: ice weasel | Mar 7, 2007 11:35:56 AM

Thanks Toke, for weighing in just as I was wondering to myself what the stupid people out there are thinking.

Posted by: jimmmm | Mar 7, 2007 11:36:58 AM

It's long been his M.O to cut loose even the most faithful of servants after they outlive their usefulness.

The premise is weak. First, the evidence at the link, what of it there is, is almost all about people who turned out to be scoundrels or broke the law or both. Why should Bush stand by them? If he did, the same people gleefully moaning about his distancing himself from them would be raising hell about his standing by them. What should he do?

Second, there has been zero evidence presented that Libby lied to protect the Administration, and zero evidence that he was asked to. People who say or imply that and who consider themselves part of the reality-based community ought to give some evidence. Or better, just accept reality.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 7, 2007 11:51:10 AM

maybe Bill thought pardons for cash and pardoning drug dealers and terrorists couldn't do too much more damage to his legacy.

Looked at the list of GWB pardons lately?

Posted by: Jason | Mar 7, 2007 11:51:47 AM

People who say or imply that and who consider themselves part of the reality-based community ought to give some evidence. Or better, just accept reality.

Or admit that they make inferences based on a model of how the world works, and then claim that their model is better than others. Which is usually implicit in almost any discussion of anything.

Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Mar 7, 2007 12:02:53 PM

Tim, the model still needs to be supplemented by at least a teeny bit of evidence, since the world works in several different ways that could account for Libby lying. Evidence is all the more necessary in this case, since we have the advantage of the trial record, in which the prosecution gives very convincing evidence based on a different and sufficient model, that Libby lied to cover his own tail, not Cheney's or Bush's or anyone else's. Let's have some reality here.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 7, 2007 12:15:25 PM

I see. And what about the Cheney note?

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Mar 7, 2007 1:04:19 PM

Well, what about it? Does it show or even suggest that Libby was asked to lie, or that he lied to protect others?

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 7, 2007 1:11:40 PM

Anonymous, I think this analysis of Cheney's character - that he is loyal to his people - is wrong. The amazing thing about Cheney is his moral autism - there are few people who have ever risen so high in public life with such a narcissistic and self-centered personality. Politicians all fake empathy, but the good thing about democratic politics is that they learn, at least, to fake empathy. Cheney is a backchannel guy, his one elective post was as a representative (elections are normally about presidents - the vps are along for the ride), and having never learned to fake empathy, he is left with what empathy he can muster from the shabby shallows of his heart. I doubt that he considers Scooter Libby a friend, anymore than Scrooge thought of Bob Cratchitt as a friend. It is funny, in the recent outbreak of ersatz outrage over whether or not Bill Maher said he would be happy if Cheney died, no attention was paid to the oddest part of the whole terrorist attack - Cheney didn't say word one about the twenty three people who were killed. A regular politician would have. Bush would have. From Cheney, zip. Those people who mistakenly think they are Cheney's friends - like the guy he shot in Texas - soon learn their lesson when the slightest problem arises. I imagine even Cheney's mistress, the ambassador to Switzerland who he was visiting down at the ranch when the hunting accident happened, will be dropped like a hot potato if she becomes inconvenient. More than his politics, it is Cheney's personality that makes him so frightening and dangerous, a true gangster figure.

Posted by: roger | Mar 7, 2007 2:38:46 PM

This is all very interesting... but the deal is done. Libby will be pardoned. I'm surprised Ezra thinks there's even a question.

Posted by: weboy | Mar 7, 2007 4:07:55 PM

Roger, do you have evidence for your smears, or is this just wanking?

Weboy, do you have evidence that "the deal is done," or that there is any deal at all?

Really, what happened to the "reality-based community"?

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 7, 2007 4:17:44 PM

"Does it show or even suggest that Libby was asked to lie, or that he lied to protect others?"

Er, yes. "Not going to protect one staffer + sacrifice the guy [the pres] that was asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others."

Sure sounds like Cheney thinks he's protecting someone in the Oval Office - couldn't possibly be Rove, I'm sure.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Mar 7, 2007 7:32:51 PM

Ginger, I can't see how what you said after "yes" amounts to an affirmative answer to the question I asked. Where's the part about Libby being asked to lie or lying to protect others?

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 7, 2007 8:08:38 PM

Well your reading comprehension skills can't be up to much, then. Libby lied, says the jury. Cheney thinks,and is annoyed about the fact that, Libby has to protect someone in the White House. Are you saying there's no connection between the two? The only way to say that they're not is to argue that Libby is lying to protect Cheney, so he's still protecting others. If that doesn't suffice, here's Libby in his own words, at least according to his lawyer: "They're trying to set me up. They want me to be the sacrificial lamb. I will not be sacrificed so Karl Rove can be protected."

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Mar 7, 2007 8:37:50 PM

Cheney should be impeached for this, which seems doable if folks would take their minds off impeaching Bush for a minute. It would probably be more productive to impeach of Cheney anyway, on almost every front.

Posted by: Owen | Mar 7, 2007 8:56:02 PM

Thanks for you concern about my reading skills, Ginger. Maybe my poor skills explain why I still can't follow your logic.

First of all, the memo is from 2003, in the wake of the White House denying that Rove had anything to do with the leak. Libby was upset that, since he had also been under suspicion, the denial about Rove without a similar denial about Libby would make it appear that Libby might be involved. Cheney wrote the memo to argue for a denial to be issued on Libby's behalf as well. The memo goes like this: "Not going to protect one staffer [Rove, protected by the White House denial] + sacrifice the guy that was [or "this pres"] asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder [by fighting Wilson through the press corps] because of the incompetence of others." Cheney got the White House to issue the same denial for Libby that was issued for Rove.

It's clear that the denial about Libby was requested and issued not to protect Rove but to protect Libby. Rove was already protected by the earlier denial issued about him. The memo has nothing to do with Libby protecting Rove or anyone else. The memo has sparked interest for other reasons, because it suggests the President might have asked Libby to do what he did in discrediting Wilson (though I doubt that happened in any direct way, or Cheney wouldn't have crossed it out), and it raises the issue of "sacrificing" Libby, making him a scapegoat. I don't think the memo implies anyone had that intention, only that Cheney thought that would be the outcome if a denial wasn't issued for Libby. It was, and Libby wasn't "sacrificed."

Even if the note did refer to some plan to make Libby a scapegoat, it still has nothing to do with his being asked to lie or him lying to protecting others. Those latter aren't the same as and aren't remotely implied by being picked as a scapegoat.

There is no evidence that Libby was asked to lie or that he lied to protect anyone but himself. If there had been such evidence, the prosecution would surely have used it as further evidence that Libby lied, showing additional motive and intent. Instead the prosecution made a very different case, very convincingly, that Libby lied to protect himself.

Impeached for what, Owen? For Libby lying?

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 7, 2007 9:39:03 PM

Sanpete - I've got nothing... but the good sense my Mama gave me. If you can't see the obvious pardon that's coming for Scooter loyally falling on his sword... I can't help ya. But you don't become Cheney's right hand and one of his closest friends and not get a pardon. Serious jail time? Just not gonna happen.

Posted by: weboy | Mar 7, 2007 9:55:44 PM

How is "fighting Wilson through the press corps" "sticking his neck in the meat grinder", given that his conversations about Wilson were strictly off the record?

"The memo has sparked interest for other reasons, because it suggests the President might have asked Libby to do what he did in discrediting Wilson (though I doubt that happened in any direct way, or Cheney wouldn't have crossed it out)"

Huh? Why did he write it in the first place, then?

"I don't think the memo implies anyone had that intention, only that Cheney thought that would be the outcome if a denial wasn't issued for Libby. It was, and Libby wasn't "sacrificed."

How could Libby be scapegoated, unless he was caught in a lie? He wasn't one of Novak's sources. To use the right's favourite line, there was no crime until the investigation (on Libby's part at least).

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Mar 7, 2007 10:09:23 PM

Weboy, whether there will be a pardon or not isn't the same issue as whether there is a deal, as you alleged. Libby didn't fall on his sword. He accused the Administration of making him a scapegoat. There may be a pardon, especially if it comes to jail time, but your certainty is unsupported. While I'm sure the good sense your Mama gave you is very valuable to you personally, and it seems wrong to challenge something so family oriented, I'll have to rely on logic and evidence instead.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 7, 2007 10:14:17 PM

Saw Kate O'Beirne on Matthews begging for a pardon for dear Scooter.

Couldn't stop laughing.

Jim, I've got to ask: How can you stay with that woman? The president ought to give you a medal of honor for remaining Kate's Mr. O'Beirne.

Talk about pure torture and prisoners of war, ladies and gents, we give you the one, the only Jim O'Beirne.

Posted by: Mark | Mar 7, 2007 10:38:45 PM

Ginger, every account of the memo I've seen that gives an interpretation of the "meat grinder" remark explains it as I did. Keep in mind that Cheney dislikes and disrespects the press corps, and that dealing with them as a high official doing something devious is risky, as we've seen in the results. What do you think it might mean?

Cheney presumably first wrote "this pres" to exert maximum pressure on White House spokesman McClellan to issue a denial for Libby. The most likely reason for crossing it out is that it wasn't really true and that McClellan was in a position to know it wasn't true. Why do you think he crossed it out, and why would it matter to why Libby lied?

Again, there is no real evidence that Libby was scapegoated. The memo doesn't imply it, and the action taken in response to the memo was taken to avoid scapegoating him. Even if there were an intention to scapegoat Libby, though, it wouldn't have been for lying; it would have been for leaking classified information. (This was before Libby was questioned, but as the prosecution showed, he had reason to think he might have broken the law.) And even if for some reason they had wanted him to be caught in a lie instead of for leaking, being caught in a lie doesn't imply being asked to lie or lying to protect someone else. Nothing you've pointed to would imply that, even if it did mean what you thought it did.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 7, 2007 10:45:57 PM

Thanks for respecting my Mama, Sanpete... but I'm happy to wait until January 2009 if necessary to be vidicated on this. If you seriously thing that this Administration - which is all about loyalty and close personal friendships - will let Libby hang out to dry, you're just fooling yourself. They really are as bad as they appear and when Bush pardons Libby - and he will - no fair acting surprised. And my own question is, why wait? Doin a midnight run as he's leaving just prolongs the Libby agony and it's not going to stop the "just like Clinton" type editorials that are bound to follow. But Libby's getting pardoned. Don't kid yourself.

Posted by: weboy | Mar 7, 2007 11:16:18 PM

SanPete - you have a very odd view of evidence. But I'm rather glad that you have such high standards. Using those standards, I am sure you are totally skeptical that Iran is planning on making a nuclear bomb, knew that Saddam Hussein could not possibly have stockpiled WMD, and, like me, would like to peal a cool 600 billion dollars from a military that has been inflated to protect us against fictitious threats.

However, I am not sure what you mean when you ask me for evidence about smearing Cheney. You mean, you have evidence that Cheney ever made a peep, a comment, a burp, a fart expressing any sympathy whatsoever for the people who were murdered when a bomber tried to assasinate him in Afghanistan? I would like to see that - it would make me think he was not as much of a psychopath as the man we see on tv repeating nonsense about Mohammed Atta meeting Iraqi agents in Prague (he doesn't, alas, have your high standard of evidence. In fact, if Cheney was in Fitzgerald's place, he'd have hoosgowed the entire White House. That's the kind of inference crazy guy he is).

But -- I imagine you could give a shit about the 20 Afghans that were murdered, and want to know if he has kept his pecker clean for his wife. Well, the rumor where I live, in Austin, is pretty clear about the affair with the woman who not only happens to be the ambassador to Switzerland, (Pamela Willeford) but who happened to be at the ranch the day Cheney shot his lawyer "friend". Now, you will tell me that Cheney hid from the cops and the press because he didn't see anything wrong with shooting his friend - that he is simply crazier and more homicidal than I ever dreamed. But I would counter that this dark picture of Cheney is not fair - that he was actually doing the usual political maneuver that politicans all go through, when in such situations. You might be right - perhaps he is bughouse crazy. I don't think so, though.

Posted by: roger | Mar 7, 2007 11:25:06 PM

Weboy, it was the "deal" I questioned, and then your certainty. January 2009 won't tell you anything about either. But we can evalutate your evidence, and don't need to wait to do it.

Roger, thanks for explaining. I think you made the quality of your evidence, your logic and your own heart, in its current state, plain enough.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 7, 2007 11:50:01 PM

Ezra, you're assuming that Bush has a rational view of his own presidency. Like earlier posters have said, he thinks he'll be vindicated in the long-run (re: Iraq), so a little pardon won't tarnish anything. I forget who said it but there was an article describing Bush as only caring about the "meta" values and as long he gets those right the details don't matter. If anyone knows what I'm talking about I'd love to read it again.

Posted by: eriks | Mar 8, 2007 8:05:08 AM

Quite frankly I've found this Libby business very complicated, and a bit boring. Thankfully, Stephen Colbert explains it to me in this video:
http://minor-ripper.blogspot.com/2007/03/stephen-colbert-explains-libby-verdict.html

Posted by: Minor Ripper | Mar 8, 2007 9:21:26 AM

"Keep in mind that Cheney dislikes and disrespects the press corps, and that dealing with them as a high official doing something devious is risky, as we've seen in the results"

Keep in mind that dealing with the press corps is Libby's bread and butter. Keep in mind that he wrote a mash note to Miller when she protecting him.

"What do you think it might mean?"

The Rove denial didn't come until shortly after the investigation started. It seems perfectly reasonable that the meatgrinder refers to the investigation rather than the press, given that Libby's job is to do Cheney's dirty work in the press anyway. It was probably tied to the Rove denial, but there was nothing stopping Cheney (or Libby) from denying it himself. I think it means Libby was being pressured to cover up for Rove, perhaps with the explicit promise of a pardon in case of a perjury charge, perhaps not given Cheney's dislike of contingency planning.

"Cheney presumably first wrote "this pres" to exert maximum pressure on White House spokesman McClellan to issue a denial for Libby. The most likely reason for crossing it out is that it wasn't really true and that McClellan was in a position to know it wasn't true. Why do you think he crossed it out, and why would it matter to why Libby lied?"

I find that explanation bizarre. It seems far more reasonable to assume that the president did ask him to "stick his neck in the meat grinder", but that Cheney reined himself in by switching to the passive voice. We know very well that Bush doesn't take kindly to being challenged like that.

I don't think Libby was "scapegoated", per se. I think he was asked to cover for Rove, Cheney pushed back, but Libby fucked up the testimony, either by making a bad strategic decision or because lying tends to catch up with you.

I'll ask again. Libby wasn't one of Novak's sources. What motive would he have to lie if he did not have some external incentive? The White House's mouthpieces have claimed pretty much all along that the leakers didn't know Wilson was covert, and Fitzgerald obviously didn't think there was enough evidence to prove they did. So what's Libby's motive for perjuring himself? To cover up his involvement in an administration wide smear campaign? That's a pretty petty thing to go to jail for, given what else he and his pals in the White House have got up to, and the amount of smearing that went on in public (from Cheney, no less).

Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Mar 8, 2007 1:49:28 PM

Ginger, no one believes that Rove asked Libby to leak. Everyone agrees that Cheney tasked him on that. There was no need for Libby to cover for Rove. The only way Libby could have tried to cover for Rove, and it wouldn't have been a practical idea, would have been for him to come forward and say that he, Libby, was the leaker. He could have exposed to whom he revealed the info about Plame. Problem is that he couldn't have even come close to accounting for all the leaks, and Rove still wouldn't be any more off the hook than before. I don't see any reason to read the memo as referring to a plan that had no hope of success, rather than what it appears to be about, given the context of the White House denials before and after the memo.

In addition, your reading doesn't make good sense of the text. The "sacrifice" and sticking his neck in the "meat grinder" are clearly two different things, otherwise the sentence reads something like "we're not going to sacrifice the guy the President [or who was] asked to be sacrificed because someone else screwed up," which doesn't add to the argument but makes it a pointless redundancy. The way I read it, it's an argument that Libby was asked to do something dangerous, and we shouldn't sacrifice him now that it's blown up because of others' incompetence. That makes more sense of the text.

The reason it was important for the White House to issue the denial on behalf of Libby was that it had just done so for Rove. That indicated White House backing, which it was important for Libby to have as well, or there would be questions why it was lacking.

You don't explain what you find bizarre about what seems to me by far the most natural reading of the cross-out. Libby didn't work for Bush, so it's unlikely Bush would have asked him to do anything, while we know that Cheney did ask him. Not that this matters to anything you've said about why Libby lied.

The prosecution argued that Libby had reason to think he might have broken the law. That Libby claimed he didn't know Plame was covert doesn't mean that he didn't know. He may well have known, or have had reason to know. Libby didn't know that Fitzgerald wouldn't have enough evidence to prosecute on the leak itself.

Further, the prosecution argued that Libby was afraid he would lose his job, since the President had said anyone involved would be fired.

Further, the prosecution argued that by having the White House issue a denial on his behalf Libby had already established the lie, and had to either continue to lie or eventually be exposed as having lied.

I think those are more than sufficient motives for lying, and the jury apparently agreed.

Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 8, 2007 3:01:28 PM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: viagra prescription | Jun 27, 2007 11:48:00 PM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: viagra online | Jul 3, 2007 8:03:47 AM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: viagra generic | Jul 3, 2007 9:48:03 AM

cheap@viagra.com

Posted by: viagra discount | Jul 3, 2007 11:36:47 AM

cheap@levitra.com

Posted by: order levitra | Jul 4, 2007 12:04:13 PM