The editors of National Review are, surprisingly, speaking truth to power rather than recycling GOP talking points:
Please spare us the excuses warmed over from Democratic talking points in the 1990s: the prosecutor is out-of-control, there was no underlying crime, etc., etc. It is the responsibility of anyone, especially a public official, to tell the truth to FBI agents and grand juries. If Libby didn't, he should face the consequences.
So, too, is Andy McCarthy on NR's blog The Corner:
Some observations from the wrenching experience of watching TV last night and witnessing people I admire -- people who were on the right side of the Clinton wars and have heretofore been strong rule-of-law conservatives -- engage in what is a startling defense of the conduct alleged against Scooter Libby.
The claim that Libby is being smeared with the allegation that he leaked classified information even though he hasn't been charged with it, and that because he has not been charged he has no way to get his good name back from the said smearing, is specious.
This is not a case where a person has not been charged with any crimes at all, where the government doesn't have the nerve to put its money where its mouth is, or where the government itself is leaking out damaging innuendo. The government has not filed a bare-bones indictment, as it could legally have done. Instead, the special prosecutor has given Libby elaborate notice, extensively describing his alleged conduct. We are not at a loss here to make our own judgments about what the conduct means if it is proved.
Update 10/30: Brad DeLong points out that the Wall Street Journal has taken a different approach:
Unless Mr. Fitzgerald can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Libby was lying, and doing so for some nefarious purpose, this indictment looks like a case of criminalizing politics.
As DeLong says:
Libby's story is contradicted not just by a few journalists, but by his own notes and more than a half-dozen senior administration officials as well.
Hence the Wall Street Journal's declaration that if the obstruction of justice is successful--if it keeps the prosecutor from being able to prove the underlying offense beyond a reasonable doubt--it should not be prosecuted.
Comments