ROVE, LIBBY, AND THE PARDON QUESTION. The headline from the Libby trial yesterday was, of course, the surprising news that Libby's defense will be arguing that in the fall of 2003, Libby's concern to make sure that the White House got the word out that he was not involved in leaking was prompted by his and VP Cheney's perception that the White House was sacrificing him to save Karl Rove -- that is, letting the press believe that Libby might have been involved as a way to distract attention from the boy genius. The public significance of the move is huge, guaranteeing a lot of attention to the trial. But its legal significance was either missed or overblown by most commenters. It is not the centerpiece of Libby's defense; it is a limited tactic designed to deprive Fitzgerald of the motive he has attributed to Libby for lying to investigators: to save his job. Libby's defense is contending that Libby's actions to save his job in fall 2003 were not part of a cover-up of his role in leaking -- and hence not evidence of a motive for lying to the FBI -- but instead the understandable reaction to an unfair White House effort to sacrifice Libby for Rove's sake.
Likewise, I believe, the implication of this development for Libby's prospects for a pardon has been misunderstood. Both Josh Marshall and Michael Isikoff (in an otherwise excellent article) think Libby's blame-Rove tactic means Libby is giving up on a presidential pardon. It strikes me that the opposite may be the case: putting distance between himself and the White House provides a little more political cover for Bush to issue a pardon should Libby be convicted.
--Jeff Lomonaco
