Via Talking Points Memo, with my emphasis:

DOJ manual on Commutations (emphasis added) ...

Section 1-2.113 Standards for Considering Commutation Petitions

A commutation of sentence reduces the period of incarceration; it does not imply forgiveness of the underlying offense, but simply remits a portion of the punishment. It has no effect upon the underlying conviction and does not necessarily reflect upon the fairness of the sentence originally imposed. Requests for commutation generally are not accepted unless and until a person has begun serving that sentence. Nor are commutation requests generally accepted from persons who are presently challenging their convictions or sentences through appeal or other court proceeding.

Also, Bush didn't just reduce Libby's jail sentence, he eliminated it. His reasoning was that the judge's sentence was excessive and the Probation Department had recommended a lesser term, perhaps one of probation or home confinement.

More...

This just in. Patrick Fitzgerald has issued this statement on President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's sentence. He takes no position on the commutation, but criticizes Bush's characterization of the sentence as excessive:

We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as “excessive.” The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws. It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as
equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.

Although the President’s decision eliminates Mr. Libby’s sentence of imprisonment, Mr. Libby remains convicted by a jury of serious felonies, and we will continue to seek to preserve those convictions through the appeals process.”

More....

I'm coming late to the news that President Bush has commuted Scooter Libby's prison sentence.

With the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision," Bush said in a statement issued by the White House early this evening. Although the president said he "respected" the jury's verdict, he added that he had "concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive."

Bush left Libby's $250,000 fine in place. Big Tent Democrat weighed in here.

The text of Bush's Clemency Order is here.

My immediate thought is that Dick Cheney has some clout left after all. My second is that Libby may not get a pardon when all is said and done. From President Bush's statement:

More...

Now that Scooter is a free man, I think the next step is obvious - he should be called to testify on the myriad of scandals that he was intimately involved with.

Technically he can invoke the 5th Amendment, but either Fitzgerald or Congress can grant him immunity - heck, he ain't going to jail anyway. Let him testify about what Cheney has done, especially with regard to Valerie Plame.

Will the President invoke Executive Privilege? Will Libby lie under oath (would not be a shock now would it)? Perhaps. But there are many questions to ask.

In the most blatant disregard for the law in quite a while, President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence.

The man is the worst President in the history of the nation and this is merely confirmation of the contempt he holds for the law, the Constitution, and the American People.

Will our Democratic representatives wake up and understand NOW that he will never end the war in Iraq -- that only a Congress that says no to funding the Debacle past a date certain can end the war? I doubt it.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has denied Scooter Libby's request for an appeal bond.

President Bush has repeatedly said he will not pardon Scooter Libby while his case is in the Appeals court.

Does Libby have any options besides reporting to prison on schedule? If he was certain a pardon would be granted, he could drop his appeal of his conviction. Then Bush could say the matter has concluded in the courts and the time is right for him to grant a pardon.

Bush could commute his sentence to probation, reserving the pardon issue until the Appeals Court has ruled on the conviction.

Other than those, I can't think of any. It sounds like Libby will be proceeding to prison as scheduled.

Via a WSJ interview with Giuliani, h/t to Josh Marshall for pointing to the interview, Rudy says that:

I think that terrorism should be approached the way we approach organized crime and the way we approach crime.

Of course, that is contra the Republican talking point about what the US did wrong in dealing with terrorism before the great and powerful Bush Administration and what is part of Rudy's basic strategy of criticizing the Clinton Administration. In fact, not two minutes earlier in the SAME interview, Giuliani said:

The World Trade Center was attacked in 1993; we saw it as a criminal act and not an act of war. It was an act of war. That was a mistake.

Sounds like Rudy proposes we return to the 1980s, when he was filing RICO cases against the Five Families. We need some nicknames though - Osama "The Chin" bin Laden? Has a nice ring to it doesn't it?

I'm spending the day writing briefs instead of blog posts, so if there's something you'd like to discuss, here's the place.

Let's also keep giving the holiday gift of traffic. Feel free to put links to your own blog posts in the comments -- so long as they are in html format (long urls skew the site and I can't edit comments on Scoop, I can only delete them.)

You might start with Mike's Blog Round-Up over at Crooks and Liars. Avedon Carol has Notes from the Blogosphere. Christy at Firedoglake has a great post on Habeas, Sentence First, Verdict Later. John Travolta defends Scientology against charges it is homophobic.

Your turn.

The New York Times today endorses "The Second Chance Act."

America has become a prison nation. More than 2 million people are behind bars. There is a better solution. Some states have already found it.

Several states have instead begun to focus on developing community-based programs that deal with low-level, nonviolent offenders without locking them up. And they have begun to look at ways to control recidivism with programs that help newly released people find jobs, housing, drug treatment and mental health care — essential services if they are to live viable lives in a society that has historically shunned them.

We need more of this and the best way to further it is to bring it to the federal level, with passage of the "The Second Chance Act."

More....

Glenn Greenwald takes Michael Gordon of the NYTimes to task for, in Glenn's words:

uncritically recit[ing] the U.S. military's accusations against the Iranian government, and/or (2) offer[ing] assertions from Gordon himself designed to bolster those accusations. . . . I defy anyone to scour Gordon's article and point to a single difference, large or small, between its content and what a Camp Victory Press Release on this topic would say.

I take Glenn's point, but I was struck by this quote from the military spokesman:

When he was asked if Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could be unaware of the activity, General Bergner said "that would be hard to imagine."

Hard to imagine? Perhaps. But does Gordon or anyone in the Media think it is possible to "imagine" this was true?

George W. Bush [told] . . . the American people in a speech . . . that the [Abu Ghraib] scandal was the work of "a few American troops who dishonored our country."

From WMD to Cheney's involvement in leaking the identity of a CIA operative to warrantless eavedropping to torture, the Bush Administration has a long track record of not telling the truth.

What is hard to imagine is taking at face value any statement from any part of the Bush Administration. And unfortunately, that includes military spokespersons.

I agree with Jane and John Amato of Crooks and Liars: The Republicans blocked the immigration reform bill and voters will remember that when its time to go to the polls.

I wasn't happy with the bill because it was too onerous on the path to legalization and too disrespectful of principles of family reunification.

Yet, there's no doubt that Republican xenophobes killed immigration with their false insistence that it was an amnesty bill. And voters are likely to make them pay. Republicans are the biggest losers in the debate:

Hispanics represent the fastest-growing chunk of the American electorate. Their choices help drive the rising swing states of presidential politics: Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico.

I've written about a species of analysis that I think is best described as "academic Broderism," a description coined by Jon Zasloff and endorsed by Scott Lemeiux. (See also Emily Bazelon.) The most notable practitioners that I have seen of this are Cass Sunstein and Jeffrey Rosen, both contributors to The New Republic and other "serious" publications. I want to provide a counterpoint example and it so happens that perhaps the finest Left law blog there is, Balkinization, gives us two of the best examples - Georgetown Law Professor Marty Lederman and Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin.

Lederman and Balkin consistently provide well reasoned analysis that understands the politics of the Supreme Court and the law, and also engages the real world consequences. On the discussion of the day, the utter predictability of how Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito would change the Court, Balkin and Lederman were clear eyed during the nomination process and urgent in their writings, and remain so now. The typical academic detachment was not deemed necessary by these two legal scholars. More.