Whole article is worth reading ...PING!
~~~~~~~~~~~~
With regard to both the memory of Mr. Libby and that of Mr. Russert, the defense was further prohibited from introducing evidence about the reliability of memory in general. I believe that all of this testimony, and that described in the previous paragraph, would have convinced any fair-minded jury that the facts are sufficiently in dispute for there to be too much doubt for any conviction on the merits.
I further believe that the entirety of the evidence, both allowed and disallowed, would convince any fair-minded jury that ANY mis-recollections were quite likely unintentional.
I thought this was a great article, too.
A pardon should not be based upon the belief that the person was convicted in error, because offering a pardon implies a belief in the person’s guilt and accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt. The President does not need a reason to pardon someone and should not offer one.
If the President wants to reject the judicial process, he should simply do it.
As to the Judge, the prosecutor and the juries, they are players in the process that did their jobs, nothing more.