Forgive me while I play catchup, especially as I expect others have already made this point, but the commutation of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence, while obviously meant to tread a kind of middle ground, seems less defensible to me than an outright pardon would’ve been. The only way to spin this as anything other than an abuse of presidential power to help a buddy, it seems to me, would have been to paint this as an essentially political persecution, to argue that the case ought never have been pursued, and would not have been but for the machinations of the administrations enemies. This is, for reasons that have been well-rehearsed, not very credible, but it would at least count as an in-principle explanation for why it’s appropriate for the executive to get involved here. Merely commuting the sentence allows that Libby’s prosecution and conviction were just, then concludes that the application of the normal penalties to someone whose guilt has been conceded is “excessively harsh” if the guilty party is a friend of the president. It’s no great mystery why this must have seemed like a politically easier sell, but it should have been a harder one logically. Orin Kerr has more.

Update: Apparently, Rich Lowry and I are on the same page. Next: Lions lying with lambs.