Where's Karl Rove?

"In other words, when an impartial judicial system does something that conservatives don't like, the will of conservatives, not the rule of law, should triumph."

One of those conservative organs, Charles Krauthammer, writes in his Washington Post opinion column that a presidential pardon for Libby "should be granted now without any further delay."

But Krauthammer seems to have not paid any attention to the prosecution case that convinced a unanimous federal jury of Libby's guilt.

For instance, Krauthammer writes: "Everyone agrees that Fitzgerald's perjury case against Libby hung on the testimony of NBC's Tim Russert."

In fact, the heart of Fitzgerald's meticulous case was proving that Libby had spoken to so many people about Plame before he had his conversation with Russert that even if Russert had told him about Plame -- which Russert denied -- it was flatly a lie when he insisted that was the first time he'd heard it.

The Russert conversation took place on either July 10 or 11 in 2003.

Fitzgerald argued in his closing: "You don't need Tim Russert's evidence to find the defendant guilty even on the Tim Russert count."

Even if Russert had been "run over by a bus a month ago and went to that great news desk in the sky instead of coming in here to testify . . . you could still find plenty of evidence that the defendant was not surprised on July 10th or 11th. Because he learned it from the Vice President. He learned it from Bob Grenier of the CIA. He learned it from [Cheney spokesman] Cathie Martin. He learned it from [State Department official] Marc Grossman. He shared it with [CIA briefer] Craig Schmall. . . . He told [New York Times reporter] Judith Miller on June 23rd. He told [press secretary] Ari Fleischer on July 7th. He told Judith Miller on July 8th. He discussed the spouse with [Cheney's counsel] David Addington July 8th. You know you're not surprised about something on Thursday when you give it out Monday and Tuesday and repeated times."

And juror Collins said that although "most" of the jurors thought Russert was very credible, "there were a few people who thought, 'No, he probably had that conversation.' So, for purposes of arguing that point, we spent I don't know a day and a half, assuming it was true."

And they still all eventually voted to convict.

Eugene Robinson writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "The White House would like to strip the guilty verdicts against Lewis 'Scooter' Libby of any larger meaning. The White House also would like to change the subject.

"'I think there has been an attempt to try to use this as a great big wheelbarrow in which to dump a whole series of unrelated issues and say, "Aha,"' press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday. 'And it is what it is; it's a case involving Scooter Libby and his recollections, and we're just not going to comment further on it.'