Here is what Rudy Giuliani had to say when asked whether Scooter Libby should be pardoned for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice:

I think the sentence was way out of line. I mean, the sentence was grossly excessive in a situation in which at the beginning, the prosecutor knew who the leak was and he knew a crime wasn't committed. I recommended over a thousand pardons to President Reagan when I was associate attorney general. I would see if it fit the criteria for pardon. I'd wait for the appeal. I think what the judge did today argues more in favor of a pardon because this is excessive punishment.

Well, the Supreme Court doesn't seem to agree. Today they issued a ruling in a virtually identical case in which a defendant was found guilty of the same crimes as Libby, and given an even longer sentence. The judge in the case followed sentencing guidelines, and added time, just as in the Libby case, becuase the proven crimes hindered prosecutors from discerning whether the origial ones had been committed.

But for that matter, Guiliani himself doesn't seem to agree with Giuliani. That is, the Giuliani who was once a prosecutor. Back then (1987) perjury certainly was a big deal to Rudy:

As a young prosecutor and later as a U.S. attorney, Giuliani supervised many prosecutions for perjury, including several that flowed from a string of Wall Street insider-trading cases that helped make him a national figure and paved the way for his bid for New York Mayor. Giuliani saw perjury and obstruction as significant enough problems in pursuing white-collar crime that he urged Congress to impose a mandatory prison sentence to brokers who lie to investigators.

So, Rudy, the difference now is what, exactly? Never mind, we already know the answer.