But on a more serious note, and please correct me if I am wrong, is it not true that, after receiving a pardon, Scooter (or anyone having received a pardon) cannot use their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to resist being compelled to testify?

And, for that matter, even at this stage of the proceedings, he has only a marginal ability to use that privilege?

DAVID GERGEN: ... What I do think is clear is that there's a lot more to know. And there had to be a reason why the defense attorney did not put Scooter Libby and the vice president on the stand, particularly after he said some days earlier that we would be hearing from them. That decision was -- I think in addition to the Tim Russert appearance, that decision was the turning point in the case. They must have had a strong reason. Perhaps Ted Wells never even knew why Scooter Libby didn't want to go on the stand. But clearly, there's somebody behind this case. Why would Scooter Libby lie as the jury determined? Why would he not take the stand? Why would the vice president not take the stand? There's clearly something they do not wish to discuss. And I don't know what that is.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN: And I think, Larry, it will be interesting to see if the White House can sustain not talking about this through the appeals process. They sustained it for this long, but I think they would be better served as a communications advisor now. I would be advising the White House to get out there and find some way to talk about this in enough detail to answer some of questions that David brings up that are still hanging out there.

What I find shameful is that the CIA sent her husband in the first place. Good management means that you use the best resources available to do the job. A real agent would have:
been required to submit a written report.

Wilson was qualified for the job.  Infact he had already made a prior trip to Niger on behalf of the CIA.

Wilson was interviewed by CIA agents who wrote a written report.

In addition to Wilson, there were additional reports written by the embassy in Niger and a four star General.

would not have been allowed to write an editorial for the NYT in which he made at least one mistake.

There was no mistake in Wilson's NYT article.  Care to tell us what the "mistake" was?

would not have left out the fact that what he told the CIA caused them to believe that the attempt to purchase was confirmed.

Wrong again.  There was no purchase attempt.  And the information from 1999 which led the Nigerien official to conclude that the Iraqi businessman was fishing for yellowcake, was judged by the CIA as inconclusive and not adding anything to what they already know.

As for the CIA, what did Tenet say? That there had been no purchase? Which was not the claim. Or that there had been no attempt to purchase?

Tenet said: "Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution".

In other words the report was inconclusive, but had been given a normal and wide distribution within the Bush administration.

A "ton of fun?" He sat silent at counsel table for five weeks. What seemed fun about him?

My sentiments exactly.  Libby did not testify before them.  They did not know him as a person.

As to a congressional hearing if he is pardoned, his 5th Am. privilege would only be gone as to the crimes he was charged with.  If his testimony could implicate him in other crimes, he would retain it.

In this case, we have a man who lied and who has been caught in his lie.  The juror who is recommending that he be pardoned has the attitude that it is OK and perhaps ought to be legal to lie to authorities who are investigating your crime.  He lied, and it snowballed on him.  He kept on lying to tell a consistent story and now, this, is what she is saying.

Personally, I have to admit that, much as I hate what Libby has done, the argument has at least some appeal to me.  If I had been on the jury, I would have been happy to convict a man for what I regard as evil and lying. . .

However, as a general rule, do I believe that persons are morally obliged to always tell the truth to authorities about their crimes when the authorities are asking?  

I don't know, but I sure don't think so, especially when the conduct in question, of itself, might be morally, arguable morally OK, or even, morally questionable but not of a proper concern to the person asking.

One of the heroes of the book of judges tells a lie to gain an audience with a king who is oppressing the Israelites and uses the time to kill the king.  A little later, God--according to the Bible account at least--gives the prophet Samuel a pretext to use if and when King Saul asks what he is doing going to Bethlehem (where he anoints David king).  The early Greek texts of John 8 even show Jesus telling a falsehood when asked if he is going up to a feast.

Martha Stewart lied to authorities about her insider trading and the public has forgiven her.  She hasn't even admitted her "lie," and people just ignore it.  Clinton apparently lied to the grand jury (and the public), depending on whether you want to consider oral sex to be sexual relations.  I kind of do, because oral sex is considered by the public generally and by legal statutes to be in the same category as vaginal sex.

Most people I know consider the Bill Clinton lie re Monica Lewisky to be a normal and acceptable type of lie, on the basis that the persons asking it "didn't have a right to know the truth by asking it of a person who did a thing that did not harm or legitimately concern the one asking."

Most old fundamentalist church even believed that lying was appropriate in just some of these instances.

Have I ever lied to "authorities" about a matter?  

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have a 1st amendment free speech right to lie and to advertise with information that turns out to be false or misleading, if I am not mistaken.  Perhaps they can even, in their advertising, say things they know are false.  

Personally, I kind of favor criminalize lying to the public about your product and it isn't product by the 1st amendment, as far as I am concerned.  

However, to me, I somewhat believe that 5th amendment protections should be presumably accorded to a person who "lies" to authorities.  And, large segments of the public--and for that matter, the Bible itself--seem to agree.  At least, large segments of the public agree on this when the result achieved by the principle is one they would like, even if they don't wish to apply the same results in other cases.

And, don't you and I agree about just this when it comes to the Clinton impeachment?  And, if Clinton is exonerated and excused, how do we justify convicting Martha Stewart of lying to authorities?  Sure, convict her of insider trading if that is what she did.  However, to say that she misled some FBI investigators--isn't that somewhat normal?

it is OK and perhaps ought to be legal to lie to authorities who are investigating your crime.

Libby was charged with no crime beyond perjury and obstruction.

If I could have a brew with this guy I'd look him straight in the eye and say, "Horse hockey."

"You had the chance to hang the jury and cut him loose. Now, having condemned him, don't come whimpering to me that you didn't want to do it.

Jeralyn: Just wondering if you would concede the Libby team made a calculated decision based on the USUAL makeup of DC juries (usually dominated by African-American citizens, who make up the majority of the population there).

I believe they believed Ted Wells would ultimately be addressing a mainly black jury, therefore they decided very early (prior to actually hiring Mr. Wells) that he would best 'represent' Mr. Libby to them.  No disrespect to the talented Mr. Wells. But they figured every possible angle and that was easily one of the most obvious defensive tactics when it was clear Libby was likely to be indicted.

I'm also reading Martin Wisse's blog -

The Scooter Libby trial was about the least important of the crimes the Bush administration has committed, just like the "cash for honours" scandal is about the least important of Blair's crimes, but they are also the only crimes recognised as such by the political establishment and the media in both countries. It has always been that way; Nixon stumbled over Watergate, a tawdry coverup of a failed burgle attempt, not over waging a secret war against Cambodia and Laos.

The opposition, such as it is, in both countries is loath to attack the government on the real crimess because they're just as complicit in them and/or want to be able to pursue similar policies once they're in power. Hence the focus on wonkish, minor crimes rather than the reality behind those crimes.

  The failings of Wilson/Plame and the general seamy nature of the entire enterprise don't justify breaking the law as libby has been do to have done, nor do they in the opinion of many justify-- dishonest, unethical and "dirty" actions by people in the Administration -- even if those actions were not illegal.

Libby's guilty verdict: Media myths and falsehoods to watch for

The big one of course will be the oft-repeated claim that "No underlying crime was committed":

Since a federal grand jury indicted Libby in October 2005, numerous media figures have stated that the nature of the charges against him prove that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation of the CIA leak case found that no underlying crime had been committed. But this assertion ignores Fitzgerald's explanation that Libby's obstructions prevented him -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law.