>>>This is about as fair and balanced ( hey, this is a Fox forum <g> ) analysis of the whole thing as I've seen ( relax, Mike - it's from CNN )
>>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/04/unpardonable.politics.ap/index.html
>>
>>
>>Agreed. I have never defended the pardon of Marc Rich and some of the others. (At least one news outlet should use the headline "Pot Calls Kettle Black" in coverage of Pres. Clinton's criticism yesterday of the Libby commutation). But hypocrisy is no excuse for what Bush did. That should be viewed on its own merits, not with a lowest-common-denominator viewpoint that it's OK if someone else did something as bad or worse.
>
>The decider apparently screwed up the commutation order. Go figure.
>
>Strictly construed, the statute authorizing the imposition of supervised release indicates that such release should occur only after the defendant has already served a term of imprisonment. Section 3583 does not appear to contemplate a situation in which a defendant may be placed under supervised release without first completing a term of incarceration. . . .
>
>The footnote in the order is priceless.
>
>If either party believes that it would be helpful to seek clarification from the White House regarding the President's position on the proper interpretation of Section 3583 . . . they are encouraged to do so.
>
>
>http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/files/libby_3583.pdf


Even the judge is confused. He said earlier this week he doesn't know if it's legally possible to order probation (as Bush specified) for someone who has been convicted but never incarcerated.