Is Libby Counting on a Pardon?

The case of United States v. Libby is only a few days old at this point, but already it seems pretty clear that the prosecution has a very strong case and the defense has a very weak one. Libby's indictment is unusually detailed. It describes what appear to be a series of elaborate, calculated lies which are contradicted by a number of documents and the testimony of multiple witnesses (and there may well be significant additional evidence that we don't yet know about). It's hard to imagine a stronger prima facie case on these sort of charges. Add to that the fact that Fitzgerald is widely considered the best prosecutor in the country, and you begin to understand just how much trouble Libby is in.

Now we learn that Libby is currently shopping for a new criminal defense attorney and appears to be relying on the "I forgot" defense. Pete Yost of the AP reports the following:

Libby, who resigned as soon as the indictment
was handed up, was operating amid "the hectic
rush of issues and events at a busy time for our
government," according to a statement released
by his attorney, Joseph Tate.

"We are quite distressed the special counsel
(Patrick Fitzgerald) has now sought to pursue
alleged inconsistencies in Mr. Libby's
recollection and those of others and to charge
such inconsistencies as false statements," Tate
continued.

"As lawyers, we recognize that a person's
recollection and memory of events will not
always match those of other people, particularly
when they are asked to testify months after the
events occurred."

I, for one, wouldn't want to go up against Patrick Fitzgerald with that defense. It's one thing to forget; it's another thing to consistently "remember" an entirely different story. And as Tate's statement concedes, very little time elapsed (only a few months) between the events at issue and the initial FBI interview. In the AP article, Tate hints at what Libby's real strategy may be:

Tate referred to another possible line of defense,
saying that "for five years, through difficult times,
Mr. Libby has done his best to serve our country."
That argument worked in the administration of
President George H.W. Bush in 1992, though not
in court.

This is of course a reference to Bush Sr.'s controversial decision to pardon everyone who had been involved in the Iran-Contra affair just before he left office in 1992. Libby may be counting on similar treatment when Bush leaves office in 2008. If so, it's a hell of a gamble. I wonder if he received any assurances before he left the White House.