It was obvious to me and many others that the Libby trial was a dog and pony show for Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald. Little was said about the “history” of Libby and Fitzgerald.

I referenced this history in Prosecutors With an Agenda – The Libby Trial where Libby and Fitzgerald faced off in the case of Marc Rich and his presidential pardon from Bill Clinton, which infuriated the Justice Department.

It’s been said the Libby trial was “a trial about nothing” since the original investigation was about releasing the name of a “covert” CIA agent based on the lies of her husband and the fact the “agent” wasn’t covert. Richard Armitage, then at the State Department, was the person who ”outed” Valerie Plame and her husband Joe Wilson wrote an op-ed filled with deceit, accusations and innuendo. It should have been case over.

If Mr. Libby is guilty of anything it’s his attempt to cooperate with officials and mixing his dates and conversations. This case became a “show trial” for Fitzgerald while Democrats are parsing it to death in an attempt to bring Vice-President Cheney down and accuse the Bush administration of lying about the war in Iraq.

Democrat’s partisanship and utter foolishness would be laughable if not for the seriousness of Libby’s demise and the 25 years in prison that could result. A case of perjury and obstruction about a CIA agent is suddenly a correlation about Iraq. How ridiculous to compare the two, especially when it’s been heavily documented that Joe Wilson’s fishing expedition was a lie printed nationally time and again.

Patrick Fitzgerald never charged anyone with violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 — the job for which the Department of Justice appointed him — after he quickly determined that there was no violation of that law.  Why continue? I claim it was payback for the Marc Rich pardon by Bill Clinton and Libby’s legal work in that matter.

The jury was left to make a decision on timelines and “he said, she said” with some witnesses given immunity from prosecution to testify against Mr. Libby who was wearing a giant target on his back provided by the overzealous Fitzgerald.

Tim Russert’s testimony was prominent and legal analysis has repeatedly pointed to this as the straw that broke Libby’s back. Mr. Russert kept no notes from his conversations with Mr. Libby, and was not even sure what time of day the conversation took place. An F.B.I. report said that Mr. Russert said that he could not rule out discussing Ms. Plame with Mr. Libby, but he had no recollection of that. On the stand, Mr. Russert testified that he did not believe he had said that.

Libby’s own defense lawyers faltered by telling the jury in the beginning they would hear from Mr. Libby and then withdrawing Libby as a witness. The jury had expectations they would hear directly from Mr. Libby and were not rewarded as promised. It’s only speculation but Libby should have defended himself on the stand as promised by his lawyers.

Other reporters who testified had confused notes, had lost their notes, or could not remember all that well. Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who suffered jail for nearly three months until she disclosed her sources and notes, admitted that she had a weak memory, and testified that she had heard of Valerie Plame’s CIA connection from sources other than Mr. Libby.

Further, the Libby trial was too widely publicized and political while the original characters in this plot, Plame and Wilson, were repeatedly pictured on magazine covers in their pajamas and convertible car, while posing for cameras at social events. Since when does a “covert” CIA agent look for publicity, write a book or two and hold press conferences?

Fitzgerald’s continuation of the “leak case” should have ended abrubtly when he discovered it’s source and no violation of law had been committed. The fact that Fitzgerald continued to investigate was and abuse of power.

Why was former press secretary Ari Fleischer granted immunity from prosecution, although he admitted to telling two reporters about Plame’s employment? The reporters were never questioned either.

A third person, Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, testified that Fleischer not Libby was the first person to tell him that a prominent critic of the Iraq war was married to undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame, something that Fleischer had denied under oath.

The Libby trial went too far, too long. President Bush and his administration let this fiasco proceed and hung Mr. Libby out to prosecution and eventual “guilt”. Libby’s career is over and he should be pardoned now, not at the end of the Bush administration, something unlikely to occur if at all.

If and when I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby does receive a Presidential pardon he may wish to paraphrase Ray Donavon, former Reagan Secretary of Labor who was accused – but acquitted – of larceny and fraud after a prolonged trial and media attention.

 After his acquittal, Donovan was famously quoted as asking, “Where do I go to get my reputation back?”

A Presidential pardon for Mr. Libby is warranted, rebuilding his life and career will be the challenge.