By now we’ve all heard about how Judge Reggie Walton has pointed out that you can only be placed on probation after having served a prison sentence.

Legally, probation is “supervised release”. You have to go to prison in order to be released. Federal law does not provide for probation without prison time. Somehow this managed to escape the rocket scientists and brain surgeons who advised Bush on the commutation, the ones who persuaded him that commutation could be sold as leaving Libby facing “pretty significant punishment”, since he still faced “a felony conviction, a $250,000 fine, two years probation, and basically has lost the way he has built a living in his entire life.”

How about another question? Suppose a way is found for Libby to be placed on probation. After all, here’s what we’re being told:

Strictly interpreted, the statute authorizing probation indicates that supervised release “should occur only after the defendant has already served a term of imprisonment,” U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton wrote.

So maybe there’s a way around that issue.

But what happens to I. Lewis Libby if he violates the terms of his probation? Normally, a parolee goes back into the system to finish serving the time he had left to serve when he was paroled. Libby has no time left to serve, to start with.

So is this yet another example of that brilliant high Bushism, benchmarks without consequences? He’s on probation, but if he violates the terms of his probation, then all that happens is nothing at all?

Pray, tell us again, George W. Bush, how I. Lewis Libby still faces “pretty significant punishment”?