It all fits into the theme of trying to create a semi-formal (and eventually fully formal) system of inherited nobility in the US.

They believe they are above us all, and should not be subject to the same rules and legal processes.

I read about half the letters written to the judge about libby's sentence, and a more obvious case of the elite closing ranks to try and protect one of their own I have not seen.

The pretension and smugness of many of the letters is sickening. Particularly one guy who actually signs himself "Esquire." The thesis of the letters is that Scooter should be freed because he is one of them, and despite his felony conviction, the crime was "out of character" or some such.

But the lack of contrition is key here. There will be no admission of wrong doing, because that would prick the bubble of the illusion.

Also, that Giuliani quote is choice given his stance on the sentence in the debate. A year is too lenient, but 2.5 is too much Mr. Giuliani? So if the Judge had given Scooter 18 months would Giuliani support the sentence? Not bloody likely.

Shooter, please link us to anyone, anywhere demanding that Berger be pardoned.

Otherwise cute rhymes don't excuse horrible crimes.

The fact is, it really was 'just perjury.' The 'obstruction' and 'false statement' counts of the indictment were simply pile-ons as to the basic facts in dispute: what was the content of Libby's conversations with Matt Cooper, Judy Miller and Tim Russert. Only. Joe Klein was much more correct in saying "it was just perjury" than Glenn Greenwald is in saying, "several felony counts of obstruction and false statements." Libby was not accused of destroying documents, or of tampering with witnesses, or of falsifying evidence, or fraud, or any of the other usual methods of "obstruction." The three or four felony counts were all different names for the same activity; testimonly about the Libby/reporter conversations. Libby simply remembered his conversations differently from the reporters.

It would be "just perjury" if Libby had lied about his favourite colour or his shoe size when talking to the FBI or while under oath testifying to the grand jury. His lies were substantively aimed to prevent the investigation from learning who the original leaker was. Yes, Armitage told Novak, but who told Armitage? That person is the criminal Fitz was looking for, and Libby's lies prevent anyone from knowing that.

That is, the essence of obstruction of justice, and that is why 12 of Libby's peers, in a court of law with the best defence money can buy, convicted Libby of that crime unanimously.

You can't wave your hands away from that. The "ham sandwich" line doesn't work for Jury trials. 12 people saw the evidence, heard the defence, and decided they believed the Prosecution's version of events rather than Libby's unlikely string of forgetfulness which all amounted to protecting the Administration and preventing the pursuit of justice.