whats the difference between commuting somebody and pardoning somebody?
 

and why do you think bush did commuted libbys sentence rather than a straight pardon? to help weather the political backlash?

who understands the logic behind this?

commuting still agrees they were guilty but didn't deserve the sentance whereas a pardon would wipe their record clean. so bush admits libby done wrong but doesn't think he should serve time

right, i guess what i was asking, more directly, was, if bush is going to hook up their fall guy, why wouldnt he just go all the way with a pardon and get everything expunged from libbys record?

if he goal was to hook his friend up?

to expand on this, this is a special thing. you dont hear about bush pardoning people every day. so i think its fair to say that this is generally viewed as him hooking his ex-employee/friend up. so if he is going to do that, why not a full pardon.

were talking about a 30 month sentence for libel. im sure that i can dig up sentences that were sent to him for consideration that were pretty wacky that he did not even consider.

The reason the sentence was commuted is because bail was denied while the verdict was being appealed. Bush hopes Libby will prevail on appeal then this becomes a mute point.

beause his record doesnt fucking matter.
they can get it sealed and expunged later on ,
while we're all watching survivor.

Here is one opinion on why it was handled the way it was.

If Scooter were pardoned, he could be forced to testify. You can't take the Fifth if there's no way to put yourself in legal jeopardy.

A commutation of this sentence, instead of a pardon for any crimes or possible crimes related to the sentence, means he can plead the Fifth, obstensibly to avoid any additional charges.