As I was waking up this morning, I heard Juan Williams being interviewed on Morning Edition re the Libby commutation. He seemed to go on at some length about the differences between a commutation and a pardon but, to quote Jane above, “the reporter doesn’t even seem to understand that the “commutation” was a deliberate attempt to give Libby the right to plead the 5th and remain silent.” I was still emerging from sleep but I sat straight up in surprise at that obvious omission! I’m not 100% sure of this because of my semiconscious state, but perhaps someone could get a transcript of that segment. Given the length of it and it being a “special report,” it might be a good idea to point out that Juan Williams, expert though he claims to be, just did not “get” the most important difference in the story. Or maybe he did, and chose not to report it??

IANAL but I can’t see how it would matter. Once convicted of a set of charges Libby cannot be retried on those charges (barriong an Appellate Court giving him a retrial and voiding the sentence).

So Libby cannot use the 5th Amendment to avoid cooperating with Fitz on the subject of his charges. In fact, NOT DOING SO could be construed as a violation of his probation.

Another interesting point. If Libby wins his Appeal and Judge Walton is told that he must undertake a retrial…Libby’s commutation is no longer relevant. And if the trial lingers on into a new administration…well Bush may not have the aility to “commute”.

And finally…if Bush was so concerned and CERTAIN about an unfair sentence…why did he even wait this long to commute the sentence down to zero? THAT should have been done right from the sentencing hearings. Why wait until it went throuh all the appeals? Why did he ignore the fact that the Appellate Courts (not merely Walton) found nothing “excessive” about the sentence for four serious felonies?

Has Bush EVER commuted an upcoming sentence prior to time being served? Seems that this is an EXCEPTIONAL example…only because Libby was convicted of obstructing justice in a case that might involve him or Cheney as the initiators of the orders to leak.

And wouldn´t you know it – I got my contract renewed yesterday! So here´s another donation coming your way. Thank you for fighting the good fight!

Ok, off to get my client´s customers to comprehend that new EU directive…

Torture King’s new clothes, and the little people who stood up to him and got in his face:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..51425/1890

BRILLIANT!!!! this had me in tears, because as long as young people are willing to stand up, we aren’t done yet.

FDL, waiting for payday, but $$ will be on their way from me this weekend. :) great job reporting on the libby case and this arrogant use of presidential powers to CTA…cover their asses.

What do I mean when I say “underlying crime?” No one leaked Plame’s name because Plame wasn’t covert. If there was a crime, Fitzgerald would have gone after them! So how can you ask someone about a crime when there is no crime?!? It’s almost like another kind of double jeopardy.

I also suggest you people read up on pardons and clemency. For your reading pleasure, here is a list of Clinton’s pardons:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

-Al

I have a dear colleague — seriously Catholic in a seriously lapsed sort of way — who does great work defending the environment. But when it comes to asking for money, or sticking up for her right to money for her work, or even keeping track of her hours, she has a mental/spiritual block. Money is filth to her.

This is something of a joke among her colleagues and friends. But those who care about her recognize that sometimes someone has to do that for her, or to help her do it, or insist that she do it. And you, Jane, do that and make no bones about doing it. You do it well. And that is an under appreciated task here in the blogosphere. Hats of to you (once again)!

You help make a home for our ideas.