Ed Lazarus handles this issue, including the guidelines issue, well in a piece in Findlaw.

It is useful to note too that with power comes responsibility. Why shouldn’t such people have MORE to worry when they seriously threaten public safety given they are likely to be able to do so a lot more than us peons and willingly accepted the responsibility.

Anyway, Noah was a ‘reluctant hawk’ during the lead-up to the war. In a fashion, Wilson hurt his credibility too. His continual enabling is not TOO surprising, but does help underline how we got into to mess in the first place.

Clinton was a rotten husband and lied to keep his affairs a secret. There was no underlying crime. Clinton did enter into a plea agreement in the Paula Jones matter where he agreed to pay a fine and be disbarred from practicing law for a period of time in exchange for all charges being dropped. Libby was given an opportunity to cop a plea and he choose to wait for presidential action in lieu of a plea bargin. All he had to do was agree to tell the truth, not a tall order for a high ranking government official.

Who knows why Clinton pardoned Rich. I believe he has even said he now regrets that decision. Even there, however, Rich was no more of a scoundrel than some of those pardoned by Bush 41 and I have never heard Bush express regret over any of his pardons. Not the Pakistani cocaine dealer and not the Cuban terrorist believed responsible for bringing down a plane in which 78 people were killed.

So, once again, the “Clinton did it” claim fails the test of accuracy. The more accurate test is Weinberger vs Libby and that makes it Bush-41 vs Bush-43. Go with it!

Hush hush…it’s on the QT.

/noah

What a buffoon.

Assuming your interpretation is correct, why didn’t Team Libby call Edelman? Note that I’m not denying there’s ambiguity, only your contention that there’s no way Edelman could have known what it was that Libby didn’t feel free to discuss. Edelman’s testimony could have cleared this up.