Personally, I suspected it would happen.. Well, I expected a pardon not being a legal eagle such as some. Completely expected. And It is obvious that this opens the door to a lot of future references in trials of more and more political yes-men doing the wrong things (or the right things depending on which side of the fence you sit) at the behest of their bosses/Star Chamber Execs.

All in all, trust for politicos of the right stripe has not gone down in my mind because it was already low enough that such an act seems completely predictable anyways. My trust level for persons not feaking out about this miscarriage of justice is what is lowering.

And my server is down too.. even though I've been good lately... sheesh

Another illustration from the news of the day to avoid this being simply political bi-polarism.

Jay's post had me banging my head on my desk. But don't worry, there wasn't any blood. Just severe bruising.

It was suggested - and I think this is quite plausible - that the moment a loyal staffer is escorted into a dark jail cell facing the possibility of spending the next 30 months enjoying the company of a burly, smirking roommate named Tex with tattoos that read "LOVE" and "HATE" and possibly "Mother" that the heavens might open and cause his or her mouth to suddenly spew forth all sorts of dirt on Dick in exchange for leniency or clemency. It's safer for the Administration - those who pull Bush's elastic strings - to commute Libby's sentence now than later, when the damage is done. This also looks good to other staffers who might be placed in similar circumstances soon. Clam up and we will protect you. The blatant disregard for the rule of law is par for the course anyway.

But it is the rule of law in that this is the exercise of legal authority.

Make no mistake, Bush has every right to do this. Let's call also call this what it is: a <ahref="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070702-4.html">Grant of Executive Clemency</a>. It's a pardon leaving part of the sentence, the fine and probation, intact. Tony Snow is also refusing to rule out a full pardon.

What's extraordinary in this is that normally, a President has the decency to wait until his last hours in office to empty the prisons. Libby took the fall for his boss and he's been thanked for it. Plain and simple. It's also a great way to continue to pay for his silence. He knows where a lot of the bodies are buried and keeping his out of "prison" is an excellent way to keep his quiet.

WCG, there's no chance whatsoever that Libby would have bene sent anywhere dangerous. Club Fed all the way.

You are sidetracking. The question is:<blockquote>So, using the illustration of Libby but perhaps leaving out the glorification of celebrity double standards (unless that is key to your theory of social good), what does this commuting of the sentence say to you? Are judges actually excessive or insufficiently harsh in what they do? And what does that opinion connect to for you as you go about your life?</blockquote>

For me, the most intersting thing is the timing as this President is asking that at least his party be judged, among other things, on this decision.

I think Jay has done us all a great service by putting the use of executive clemency in an American context, in a way easily understood by Canadians.

That said I am all for flogging the guilty (and occasionally the merely accused, where discreditable but legal conduct has occurred) including Scooter, Conrad, Bill Clinton and anyone who has taken money in relation to (or is related to, or went to school with, or played Lego with as a kid) the neverending Adscam scandals.

Alan, I fear that you are attributing rather higher motives to Bush as to timing than I do. I've no doubt Bush would have been delighted to leave the issue rest until an hour before he left office but for the fact the Court of Appeal was unwilling to extend the courtesy of bail pending appeal to Scooter. (But, assuming Scooter loses on appeal, I suspect his pardon is at the top of the pile for that last hour.)

Yet:<blockquote class="smalltext">"I weighed this decision carefully. <b>I thought that the jury verdict should stand.</b> I felt the punishment was severe," he told reporters.</blockquote>This for me is the interesting statement. How can he later say that the verdict should not stand? Is he really willing to be considered...<p>Oh, I guess that sentence really does not need finishing. But that leaves us in a quandry as to the meaning of justice, does it not? Or does it only as regards "severe punishment"?

Ok, well, he may be within the rule of law but not its spirit. I think that the sentence was too harsh - but I don't agree that Libby's was a "procedural" crime, lying to a grand jury is rather more than that. A large number of people in the Republican party were willing to impeach Clinton for something similar. Lying is a deliberate act, it's not like he just misplaced his pocket diary or something. I think that Bush's action is setting a good precedent for liars. But I do think Scoot deserved some jail time -- if the law is comfortable putting Martha Stewart in prison for insider trading - and that's just money - then Scoot certainly deserves longer for impeding the FBI and lying to a grand jury.

(Part of me, the same part of me that enjoyed the Paris Hilton coverage, so a tiny, black, petty little part of me, wishes that the crime of "He Shoulda Known Better" was on the books. Some pepl, they don't know better. But Administration staffers? Isn't there a due diligence issue here? "Whoops, I thought lying was alright!" "Ok, then, sorry we arrested you...")

Glenn Greenwald examines several cases of perjury to see what sentences the convicted criminals got: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/06/11/perjury/index.html. We might conclude that poor li'l Scooter deserved a jail sentence of about 18 months.

Except that the Bush administration seeks to re-impose exactly the sort of minimum sentencing requirements that the US Supreme Court ourt threw out: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/13/politics/main2924206.shtml-- requirements that mandate prison time for almost all criminals. As Harlan Protass puts it -- http://www.slate.com/id/2169792/ -- "the factors Bush relied on in commuting Libby's sentence are the same ones that the administration has aggressively sought to preclude judges from considering when imposing sentences on everyone else."

We can examine "Baby Doc" Bush's record for signs of a consistent application of ethics. The Voice of Moderation ("I woudn't go so far as to say we've *seized* the radio station ....") at Obsidian Wings looks at other occasions where he has had the opportunity for mercy: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2007/07/which-of-these-.html.

Finally, Glenn Greenwald -- as angry as I've ever seen him -- lays out *why* Scooter just simply *can't* do jail time, and reveals the rot at the centre of the American politick: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/03/libby/index.html.

Greenwald correctly points out the error in the current attempts to characterize the whole affairs as a Democratic witch-hunt: "The Plame investigation was urged by the Bush CIA and commenced by the Bush DOJ, Libby's conviction pursued by a Bush-appointed federal prosecutor, his jail sentence imposed by a Bush-appointed "tough-on-crime" federal judge, all pursuant to harsh and merciless criminal laws urged on by the "tough-on-crime/no-mercy" GOP. Lewis Libby was sent to prison by the system constructed and desired by the very Republican movement protesting his plight."

Very linkalicious and suspect a cut and paste job - but ultimately superficial to the point. What are the implications?

>what does this commuting of the sentence say to you?

That in violating custom and sentencing precedent, and deviating from his own track record, Bush has invited "us" to reconsider how we deal with non-violent felons convicted and sentenced to close custody but pending exhaustion of appeals. Perhaps nothing is served by confinement unless the person is a flight risk. Commutation seems to have been the only tool - albeit the wrong one - for the job. Time to revisit the toolbox.