As he should have, President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's jail time.
It was the right thing to do. Judge Reggie Walton gave Libby an unduly harsh sentence by not only sentencing Libby to jail but insisting that he go before his appeals were done. It was obvious that Walton was determined Libby would spend time in jail, a fate perjurer-in-chief Bill Clinton was spared.
Naturally, the nutroots are livid. They have been salivating for months at the prospect of video of Libby walking into jail. It was the closest they'll get to impeachment and/or convicting either the President or Vice President, which is their actual goal.
Alan Dershowitz explains that the Court of Appeals played politics with this case--so much for all that judicial impartiality that liberals have suddenly discovered they love.
The outcry against President Bush's decision to commute Scooter Libby's sentence is misplaced. President Bush acted hours after the U.S. Court of Appeals denied Libby bail pending appeal. That judicial decision was entirely political. The appellate judges had to see that Libby's arguments on appeal were sound and strong -- that under existing law he was entitled to bail pending appeal. (That is why I joined several other law professors in filing an amicus brief on this limited issue.) After all, if he were to be sent to jail for a year and then if his conviction were to be reversed on appeal, he could not get the year back. But if he remained out on bail and then lost the appeal, the government would get its year. In non-political cases, bail should have and probably would have been granted on issues of the kind raised by Libby.
It isn't unusual for a person to be free on bail pending appeals, particularly in a case like Libby's where the chance of jumping bail are very low. But this court system was insisting that Libby serve jail time whether his appeals were successful or not. And liberals call that justice?
|