Bump and Update: As expected, Judge Walton denied Scooter Libby's request for an appeal bond and ordered him to report to prison within weeks. Team Libby will immediately appeal. Marcy Wheeler provides analysis of the ruling.

As for the time it will take the D.C. Circuit to decide Libby's appeal of Walton's decision, I can only go by how long my last one took in a different Circuit. The Notice of Appeal was filed on Jan. 18 and the 10th Circuit issued its order upholding the trial court on March 8, about 7 weeks later. I would think the D.C. Circuit might take longer.

This means Libby almost certainly will be designated and ordered to report before the Appeal is decided. So, unless the Circuit Court stays Walton's order pending the outcome of the appeal, which is not likely, or Bush commutes Libby's sentence to probation before his surrender date, Libby will do at least some time in prison.

****

Pach at Firedoglake will be live-blogging the Scooter Libby appeal bond hearing. Here's the latest:

More...

The Politico is reporting:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "incompetent" during an interview Tuesday with a group of liberal bloggers, a comment that was never reported. Reid made similar disparaging remarks about Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said several sources familiar with the interview.

Hmm. Who are these sources familiar with the interview? I assume it was not Reid. Who else was there? The most likely candidates are the people who were on the call. The "liberal bloggers." Now here is a question for Politico and the sources and, for that matter, everyone who was on the call - Why are you anonymous (or at least not identified by your blogger name)? Why are the sources anonymous? Why did the sources, if they are bloggers, not write about this? And if Reid did say it, why was this not blogged about it?

This is extremely strange. Do "liberal bloggers" fear "retaliation" for being a source on this story? Or is it that they are embarrassed that they did not blog about it? Is "being embarrassed" sufficient for the grant of anonymity? The description of the sources "persons familiar" provides no guidance on this one. But here is a chance for blogs to shake things up.

At MYYD, Jerome Armstrong thinks Hillary has it in the bag. That may or may not be, but I am more interested in his discussion of the Obama campaign. Jerome writes:

I looked into Obama's candidacy, very interested, then began to be skeptical, and now completely dismiss the notion that there's a movement behind Obama. It's looks like a better-than-ordinary campaign for a candidate that's personally compelling, and not much more. It is not a movement, but a candidate. It's about Obama, and nothing more. . . . But this is partisan politics, and Obama will not survive the rightwing machine's onslaught without a strategy that includes internet partisanship.

I think Jerome mars his message a little by focusing on the Netroots component here. I see how Obama being more engaged with the netroots could help him but that is not the issue. It is the disengagement from partisan Democratic politics. Obama could totally ignore the Internet as far as I am concerned so long as he remembers to be a partisan Democrat. I have written as much for a year now. In particular, I wrote about the penchant of Obama to portray himself as an Other Dem:

You may see Paris, you may see France, but in Delcambre, Lousiana, you won't see underpants.

In an attack on baggy trousers, the Mayor is signing an ordinance that imposes a possible 6 month jail sentence and hefty fine for those who wear baggy pants that expose their underwear.

“This is a new ordinance that deals specifically with sagging pants,” Ayo said.

“It’s about showing off your underwear in public.”

Why is alternative means of self-expression so threatening to people? See below:

David Broder is the Dean of the Washington Press Corps and a leader in the strange musings that pass for thinking inside the Beltway. Consider his hilarious column today and how Broder sees Senator Reid playing with political fire. You see, in Broderland, Democrats will suffer for NOT passing the immigration bill and for fighting too hard against the Iraq War. I kid you not:

All this, from a Senate that had spent most of the past five months battling futilely with President Bush over a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq -- and that then closed down for three days over last weekend and used Monday for a debate on a purely symbolic vote of no confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

. . . He may be playing with fire. A poll that Andy Kohut completed for the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press four days before the Senate fiasco on the immigration bill found a striking increase in disapproval of Democratic congressional leaders. . . .

Reid may think that Bush will suffer if immigration reform is killed. But the public is likely to put the blame where it principally belongs -- on the leader of the party that runs the Senate.

I hope Democrats can now see that their cocktail party buddies like David Broder are the most clueless, disconnected people on the Earth. Broder thinks the American People wanted the immigration bill and are tired of Democrats trying to end the Iraq War. Please remember this when you worry about being criticized by David Broder.

Back in the 90's, when I used to debate New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, then in private practice, on cable news shows, he was unequivocally opposed to all use of marijuana.

He's changed his mind.

"On many issues, hopefully you learn, you study, you evolve,” the governor said. “This is one where I had, as a prosecutor, a presumption against the use of any narcotic which wasn’t designed purely for medicinal and medical effect, and now there are ways that have persuaded me that it can be done properly.”

New York is almost ready to legalize medical use of marijuana. The hang-up is not whether it should be legal, but how users will acquire it.

More...

100 immigrants (and bloggers and videographers) departed Union Station yesterday on an Amtrak train bound for Washington. The tour is called "Dreams Across America". Along the way the immigrants will tell their story.

On June 13th, 100 dreamers will travel by train all across America to tell the stories of their American dream. You can follow them and their journeys. More important, you can tell the world your own immigrant story, or your parents’, or grandparents’, right here, in text, or by video.

I think this is such a great idea. Here's more:

Yes, we're all grateful the news is no longer focused 24/7 on Paris Hilton. But this is worth noting. I've argued all along her 45 day sentence was unfair when compared with others on probation whose only violation was driving under suspension.

The Los Angeles Times has confirmed it. Out of 2 million jail releases in L.A. County, the paper found 1,500 for persons who committed an alcohol offense, were placed on probation and then violated probation by driving under suspension.

The results:

Had Hilton left jail after four days, her stint behind bars would have been similar to those served by 60 percent of those inmates. But after a judge sent her back to jail Friday, Hilton's attorney announced she would serve the full 23 days in jail. That means Hilton will end up serving more time than 80 percent of others in a similar situation.

Paris Hilton should not receive special treatment because of her celebrity or financial status, but neither should she be treated more harshly. As Patrick Fitzgerald repeatedly said during the sentencing hearing of Scooter Libby, when it comes to sentencing, "one's station in life does not matter."

Free Paris.

If you have a 5 ounce tube of Colgate toothpaste, read this.

Five-ounce tubes of toothpaste labeled Colgate and sold in discount stores in four states are being recalled because they may contain a poisonous chemical, according to the importer.

Via mcjoan, Harry Reid says:

"I understand their disappointment," Reid said. "We raised the bar too high."

. . . He admitted to us that it was a mistake to raise expectations and that it wouldn't happen again.

What won't happen again? Raising expectations of ending the war? Ummm, too late for that Senator Reid. That is what the 2006 elections were about. There is no lowering the bar now.

Democrats need to face this reality - the "expectations" are that they will do everything possible to end the Debacle. If they do not try to end it, they will suffer consequences. And for Gawd's sake, please stop listening to Carl Levin:

The proposal to cut off money for U.S. combat is particularly far-fetched. Many leading Democrats, including Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., oppose the move because it would be seen as Democrats turning their backs on the troops.

Amazing! If it will be seen like that it is in large measure because Democrats like Levin SAY it will be seen like that. Just incredibly stupid. Meanwhile, Charlie Cook, normally astute, drinks the Beltway water:

Scooter Libby is fighting hard to get an appeal bond. He's even bringing another lawyer on board, Lawrence Robbins, to "bring his special expertise."

Personally, I think Libby should get the appeal bond. Judge Walton doesn't seem inclined to agree, but nothing is certain until he rules tomorrow morning.

Note that Libby will not be going to jail tomorrow even if the appeal bond is denied. Fitzgerald doesn't oppose that and Judge Walton said he intended to grant a voluntary at last week's sentencing hearing. He will be granted a voluntary surrender date between 30 and 45 days from now. During that time, Team Libby will appeal the denial of bond, should that occur, to the D.C. Court of Appeals.

I summed up the grounds in his initial request (pdf) here. Christy at Firedoglake analyzes Fitzgerald's response here and here.

Today, Tom Maguire of Just One Minute posts Libby's response to Fitzgerald (pdf) and provides his analysis.

Jane of Firedoglake writes about Obama's general counsel Robert Bauer calling for a Libby pardon.

More...

Karl Rove hasn't yet been served with a subpoena to testify about the role he played in the plot to fire U.S. Attorneys who didn't take politics into account when making prosecutorial decisions, but his former aide, Sara Taylor, has been subpoenaed. So has Harriet Miers. A separate subpoena directed the White House to turn over additional emails related to the firings by June 28.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto claims Congress "can easily obtain the facts they want without a confrontation by simply accepting our offer for documents and interview," but John Conyers' letter points out that "voluntary cooperation" has been a myth.

The precise role of White House officials [in the firings], however, has been kept a mystery. After an initial round of false statements to Congress on that subject - including written misstatements that the Department was forced to correct, and false testimony that remains uncorrected to this day - Justice Department witnesses have been unable or unwilling to shed any meaningful light on the basic facts regarding who at the White House played what role in selecting these U.S. Attorneys for replacement and why.

Will Rove be served with his own subpoena after the latest witnesses stonewall?