Rod Dreher suggests (seconded by Mark Shea) that conservatives who think Libby should go free because there was no ‘underlying crime’ are guilty of inconsistency, since they accepted no such excuse in the case of Bill Clinton. I think Dreher is right. But plenty of conservatives have argued for a pardon for Libby without claiming that perjury is no big deal. They argue either that the jury got it wrong, or that it was not allowed to consider all the factors that militated in Libby’s favor. One can consistently regard Clinton’s admitted perjury as an offense while thinking that Libby didn’t commit perjury.
What proportion of pro-pardon conservatives have rested their case on the technical issue, rather than on the point that there was no underlying crime and so a pardon is necessary?
The Dish 