Hitchens seems to think that "poor old Scooter" is being treated rather unfairly. What surprises me, however, is that Scooter is being treated as fairly as he is -- if by "fairly" you mean "like a typical non-famous federal defendant/convict."
First of all, the "appointments clause" arguments have been raging for centuries. The constitution is not exactly clear on who is an "inferior" officer, etc. While a very lively intellectual excercise, it is not often an argument that an appeals court will grab at. It may be, however, the most likely (if slender) reed for Libby to grab at.
As to the "low sarcasm" of the Judge, such language is rather typical. Libby is now a convicted felon until/if the verdict is overturned. The judge was not addressing a jury during a trial. When a verdict is handed down, it is almost *expected* that a judge display animus --- beginning with the typical judicial tirade at a publicized sentencing hearing. When people win on appeals they don't get apologies from the trial judges who may have called them "animals" and "menaces to society" and worse.
Finally, expert testimony is a matter within the firm discretion of the trial judge, and appeals courts will rarely find that the requisite level of error (abuse of discretion, IIRC) has been met. This is how it is with almost all evidentiary decisions. A judge's decision to include or exclude rarely results in a verdict being overturned. What sets Libby apart is the fact that he had the money to hire a memory expert in the first place. If a federal public defender had asked the court for a "memory expert" the answer would probably be unprintable.
As Hitch notes, there was no conviction of an "underlying crime." Well, no such underlying conviction is required. I haven't checked, but I would imagine that Scooter also got a three level enhancement in sentencing for "substantial interference with the administration of justice." In our district, the judge routinely gives this if the convicted person took the stand to defend themselves. Refer to the U.S. sentencing guidelines, section 2J.13(c) in particular.
Likewise, Hitchens argues that it would be illogical for Libby to show remorse if he is going to appeal. Well, virtually every person convicted faces this conundrum. It is hard to argue "actual innocence" when you've begged the court for mercy for your sins. But since you've already been convicted, "actual innocence" is already a bit hard to demonstrate. Make that, "virtually impossible to prove."
The jury is the finder of fact, and they were satisfied that there was enough evidence to convict. Hitch may think they were mistaken, but it takes an awful lot more before an appeals court will overturn.
