Writing in The Hill, Byron York laments the fact that Judge Walton is "determined" to send Scooter Libby to jail pending his appeal:

At sentencing this week, Walton also said that he saw no reason why Libby shouldn’t be behind bars sooner rather than later — in other words, that he should begin serving his sentence while his appeal is underway. Why the hurry? These days it’s often the case that when a defendant is judged no danger to society and no danger to flee the country, he is allowed to remain free on appeal.

Tom Maguire seconds the motion. I had the same thoughts when I first heard this. But we were all wrong. I think it is due to the fact that York, Maguire and I are not well versed in criminal law. You see, going to jail pending appeal is the norm, not the exception. The relevant statute says:

I'm at the NORML conference.

We're creating a blog with Blogger.

Tommy Chong was here yesterday. Here's a picture of him and me.

Gotta go now. More later.

This is an open thraad.

Joe Lieberman stakes out a position held only by Dick Cheney:

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

(Emphasis supplied.) If our soldiers were not in Iraq, they would not be subject to these attacks Lieberman. As I have said many times, the way to stop war with Iran is to end the Debacle in Iraq.

On a related note, noted "extremist" hunter Joe Klein discovers that there is no such thing as a precipitous withdrawal:

Somewhat lost in the pleasure that Judge Walton's now famous footnote has provided, is the question of whether law professors make a credible argument that Fitzgerald's appointment runs afoul of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The law professors argue:

The dispositive Constitutional question then is whether the Office of Special Counsel to which Mr. Fitzgerald was appointed is inferior office within the meaning of the Appointments Clause.

If it is not an "inferior" office, all agree, then it is subject to Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. But there is more to it than that. Patrick Fitzgerald was a duly appointed and confirmed U.S. Attorney. Does that matter? Not only does it matter, it decides the case imo. Let's explore these issues on the flip.

David Broder would have done himself a favor if he had read the Washington Post reporter who actually covered the Scooter Libby trial, Carol Leonnig before he penned his embarrassing regurgitation of GOP Talking Points. Published the same day Broder wrote his nonsense, Leonnig wrote, in part:

3. Libby didn't leak Plame's identity.

Oh, brother, am I tired of this one. Libby wasn't charged with the crime of knowingly leaking classified information about Plame; he was charged with lying to investigators. But the overwhelming weight of the evidence at the trial -- including reporters' notes of their interviews with Libby -- showed that Libby had indeed leaked classified information about Plame's identity, even though that wasn't what put him in the dock. The jury agreed that Libby lied when he said that he'd been telling reporters only what other reporters had told him about Plame's role at the CIA.

What is unclear is whether Libby knew she was a covert CIA agent at the time he discussed her with reporters -- a key point in determining whether this was an illegal leak. But Walton said that Libby "had a unique and special obligation" to keep such secrets, well, secret.

Oh brother Carol, are you and a lot of people tired of the nonsense from your colleague David Broder.

He never fails to live down to my expectations. David Broder can be counted on to repeat the false GOP talking point, this time on Scooter Libby's obstruction of justice:

Like other special prosecutors before him, Fitzgerald got caught up in the excitement of the case and pursued Libby relentlessly, well beyond the time that was reasonable. Nonetheless, on the fundamental point, Walton and Fitzgerald have it right. Libby let his loyalty to his boss and to the administration cloud his judgment -- and perhaps his memory -- in denying that he was part of the effort to discredit the Wilson pair. Lying to a grand jury is serious business, especially when it is done by a person occupying a high government position where the public trust is at stake.

Earth to David Broder. Obstruction of justice blocks the investigation of the underlying crime. Libby's perjury was part of obstructing Fitzgerald's investigation of the underlying crime. We will not know if there was an "underlying crime" (Broder's phrase for knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert intelligence officer in violation of the IIPA) BECAUSE of Libby's obstruction. The man is pure and simple, an idiot, not very bright. He is appropriately, the Dean of the Washington Press Corps. What an indictment of the Washington Press Corps.

In light of the recent anti-primary posts at daily kos, one can see a split developing in the Netroots when you compare those posts to this one at MYDD:

Labor is the pillar of the progressive community, and is openly being dismissed as irrelevant. . . . The progressive movement on the internet isn't recognizing these realities either. . . . The people in charge of the political system are the swing votes and the people that those voters want to work with. Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel have positioned themselves to be this swing vote, and they have chosen to basically throw some crumbs our way (minimum wage) while voting with the Republicans on the big issues, like Iraq. This isn't permanent. . . . [W]e can broaden out and build bridges between progressives and independents. We can learn to educate and/or cut off people like Udall, and encourage labor to stand up harder for workers.

And primaries, one presumes, will be central to that. If that is the case, no member of the Netroots should ever argue against ANY primary. Do they propose that Netroots leaders get to decide when primaries are good?

In the U.S., tragic crimes too often spawn criminal laws that are based on headline potential rather than sound policy. In the wake of a murder committed by a pedophile in Britain, a British proposal ("Sarah's Law") to emulate the American approach to sex offender registration has been rejected on the sensible ground that open registries cause more harm than they prevent.

The NSPCC, a leading children's charity, welcomed the development saying "open access" could force convicted paedophiles underground and place youngsters at greater risk of assault.

The latest guilty plea in the Jack Abramoff scandal came yesterday, as Italia Federici admitted her tax evasion and obstruction of Congress. TalkLeft discussed Federici's connection to Abramoff and former Deputy Secretary of the Interior Stephen Griles here.

As head of the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, Federici, 37, had close ties to senior Interior Department officials, including former Interior Secretary Gale Norton. Founded by Federici and Norton in 1997, CREA is a nonprofit group that touts Republicans' environmental accomplishments and criticizes established environmental groups like the Sierra Club.

According to the plea agreement, Abramoff and his clients donated half a million dollars to CREA.

Federici also admitted to failing to pay $77,243 in taxes she owed on the $233,955 she earned between 2001 and 2003 as head of CREA.

You have to love the name Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy. Federici was an advocate for herself, her boyfriend Griles, and Abramoff. The environment, not so much.

Sure to enrage Beltway Dems and some in the Netroots, Howard Dean speaks some truth:

The American people hired Democrats last November to ensure that we end this war," Dean said during the weekly Democratic radio address. "So let me be clear, we know that if we don't keep our promise, we may find ourselves the minority again."

Are you sure "we know" Governor Dean? I am not sure that is true. I hope it is.

At daily kos, there seems to be a new approach to Crashing the Gates. It involves clearing the field. DavidNYC writes:

Earlier this week, Markos also took note of fears that a primary could be unnecessarily divisive. There's no question that to have a shot at beating Sessions, Alabama Dems will have to be completely united. Primaries can often be a good thing, but not always, and this race might fall into the latter category. And if Ron Sparks says so, I'm inclined to believe him.

To be fair to Markos, he really did not say that:

[M]oney isn't wasted in contested primaries if it keeps the eventual victor's name in the news and interest in the race high. It gives candidates a chance to hone their message and forces them to test their field operation before the November contest. In fact, primary victors often get a bump as a bandwagon effect takes hold. Our two most dramatic victories in 2008 -- in Red states Virginia and Montana -- featured Democrats who first had to make it through primaries. Primaries shouldn't be feared.

More

As a service for Joe Klein to enable him to better understand the "extremism" of the Left blogs in their critique of the Media, I will be periodically pointing out instances where the Media "reporting" and "analysis" is fact free. In today's edition, I point to ABC's Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous and the Washington Post's Dan Balz. Balz writes:

The collapse of comprehensive immigration revision in the Senate last night represents a political defeat for President Bush, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) . . .The defeat of the legislation can be laid at the doorstep of opponents on the right and left, on congressional leaders who couldn't move their troops . . .

As reported by Kevin Drum, Gibson and Stephanopolous said:

Their conclusion? It was killed by extremists on both sides: liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans overwhelmed the centrists.

The facts? Not present in the reporting. As Kevin Drum wrote: