Judge Reggie Walton today ruled that Scooter Libby will not be free on bail pending appeals of his convictions. (although this decision can be appealed.)The major issue raised by the defense was the constitutionality of Patrick Fitzgerald's appointment. The issue is this:
If Fitzgerald was not supervised, he was should be confirmed by the Congress. Now, he was confirmed as USA for N. Illinois, and some have suggested that this is the real answer to the question. The other argument is that he could have been fired, and that this means he was supervised. However, Judge Walton said before the trial that this is a "difficult question", thus adding fuel to the fire, before he decided against the defense's argument.
Under this order, Libby will be going to jail in 4-6 weeks, though no dates have been given, assuming there are no further legal appeals, which Judge Walton said was possible.
Walton, it is reported, that there were no "close calls" that would possibly lead to a reversal or new trial.
Will Scooter be pardoned?
"Scooter Libby still has the right to appeal, and therefore the president will continue not to intervene in the judicial process," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "The president feels terribly for Scooter, his wife and their young children, and all that they're going through."
Notably, no concern expressed for Valerie Plame Wilson or the other parts of her network, or their families.
Bush has always said he would follow existing guidelines from the DoJ, which suggest that pardons are not given before five years, and only if contrition is expressed.
Walton, today, from Firedoglake:
Edmonds [a case] says inferior officers are directed and supervised at some level, and the author here was Scalia who authored dissent in Morrisonn[another case]. Scalia says if Morrison were removable at will then she is inferior. Here there is no question that Fitzgerald was removable at will by AG or DAG despite authority he was given. So based on Scalia, if we have the situation we have here, removable, Scalia I assume would have concluded inferior official and therefore he would have been part of majority in Morrison case.
That being the case, I will apply the four Morrison factors to this case. Subject to removal? Yes, even more than was Morrison. Second: were his duties limited? Was there a imitation on jurisdiction? Defense suggests the use of the term “related” makes for unlimited. But government points out Morrison case was to specific individual. But Fitz could only investigate and eventually prosecute related to leak, so this is a limitation on jurisdiction. Re limitation on tenure, while there was no specific date, there is a limit because once the investigation is done then his tenure expires.
[h/t bumblebums]
It is being reported by the AP that Libby's lawyers are seeking an emergency stay.
Libby's newly formed appellate team - Lawrence S. Robbins and Mark Stancil - will seek an emergency order delaying the sentence.