I had seen KO's pitch. I had expected a pardon, which I'm sure is still in the works. Its probably not a good idea to have your firewall doing a single day of jail time. That they screwed up the pardon is a bit of a surprise though. The whole thing just keeps on giving.

But the biggest impact is likely to come on the broader legal front. As The Los Angeles Times showed yesterday, Libby's prison sentence was not "excessive" by legal standards, but such a statement by the president is sure to be embraced by defense lawyers all around the country (experts have already dubbed such an argument "The Libby Motion"). They're also sure to mention Bush's assertion that Libby's sentence as it stands after the commutation ($250,000 fine and two years probation) is "harsh." Meanwhile, the Times reports, "Federal prosecutors said Tuesday the action would make it harder for them to persuade judges to deliver appropriate sentences." This from an administration that's continually and inflexibly pushed for truly harsh penalties. The New York Sun reports that the first such invocation of Bush's order might come from an alleged Hamas operative convicted of obstruction charges.

Libby Case May Aid Hamas Suspect
An alleged Hamas operative is likely to be among the first criminal defendants to try to capitalize on President Bush's commutation of the 2 1/2 year prison sentence imposed on a former White House aide, I. Lewis Libby Jr., for obstructing a CIA leak investigation.



>Have you seen Olbermann's commentary from Tues nite? I put a link to it here the other day. Or I'm sure you can find a transcript also. I got emailed the transcript this morning.
>
>The problem I have with the Libby affair is that it's a culmination of a policy. bush has basically spit on the constitution.
>
>>>>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