AP
The verdict is in, and it's bad news for Libby and his already-floundering defense team: Guilty on four out of five counts including the single obstruction of justice charge, both perjury charges and one false statements charge, with the only Not Guilty coming down for count three, or the second count of making false statements to the FBI about conversations Libby had with Time's Matt Cooper. He's facing 25 years - 10 years on the obstruction of justice charge and 5 years on each of the three lying counts - though such a high sentence is unlikely, and according to federal sentencing guidelines would probably look more like a year or two.
As for the next step, lead Libby attorney Ted Wells stated the defense's intentions as follows: "We intend to file a motion for a new trial, and if that is denied, we will appeal the conviction." No surprise move, though the defense can't do much until Judge Reggie Walton conducts the sentencing in June. A motion for new trial has little to no chance of success, especially given Walton's open irritation with the Libby team, and the majority of criminal conviction appeals fail. All of which points to a future of jailtime for the former White House aide.
Meanwhile, rumors have been flying for weeks about the possibility of a Presidential pardon. CNN's Jeffrey Toobin even opined that Libby's best bet would be to stretch out the sentencing proceedings and try to nab a pardon during Bush's lame duck stretch following the 2008 election. Another hanging question is whether the win will embolden special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to continue investigations of the Plame leak and potentially charge other parties, including but not limited to Karl Rove and Dick Cheney. Outside the courthouse after the verdict, Fitzgerald smacked down rumors that he'll keep on digging by saying, "I do not expect to file any further charges...we're all going back to our day jobs." Wells had stressed from his opening argument on that Libby was being hung out to dry to protect Rove, and reports from jurors after the verdict announcement show that they agree (though their sympathy wasn't enough to offset their certainty that the defendant was lying). If one jury could find Rove culpable, who's to say that another couldn't?
