For the most part, the White House press corps has decided that George Bush commuting the sentence of a convicted perjurer and obstructor of justice to protect his own administration's wrongdoings is old news and not worth pursuing. But every now and then, one of them feels a tiny spark of the reason they became a journalist and brings up that pesky miscarriage of justice:

Q Tony, you noted this morning that the sentences in the Border Patrol case were within the federal sentencing guidelines. They also were in the Libby case. So those guidelines are not a hurdle around here? MR. SNOW: Well, actually -- no, if you take a look, actually, there is some dispute in legal circles about what the proper boundaries were for the sentencing in the Libby case. And I'll leave it at that. I'll leave it to the lawyers -- Q No one recommended no jail time. MR. SNOW: On the other hand, there are differing benchmarks there for the use of it. What you do have is you've got probation, you've got a $250,000 fine. That's a significant punishment. Q Is it the administration's position that the sentence in that case was beyond the federal sentencing guidelines? MR. SNOW: Again, I will -- I'm not going to try to get myself into the legal cases, but you've seen arguments on both sides. I think if you took at look at the court papers -- I'm not going to try to fob myself off as a lawyer on this. I'll let the lawyers argue over it.

Well Tony might not be a lawyer, but it would have been a nice follow-up had he been asked to dispute what the Judge who handed down the sentence said:

In commuting the defendent's thirty-three month incarceration, the President stated that the sentence imposed by this Court was "excessive" and that two years of supervised release and a $250,000 fine alone are a "harsh punishment" for an individual convicted on multiple counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal investigators...Although it is certainly the President's prerogative to justify the exercise of his constitutional commutation power in whatever manner he chooses (or even to decline to provide a reason for his actions altogether), the Court notes that the term of incarceration imposed in this case was determined after a careful consideration of each of the requisite statutory factors, see 18 U.S.C. & 3553 (2000), and was consistent with the bottom end of the applicable sentencing range as calculated under the United States Sentencing Guidelines.

Rather than allowing Snow to fob off White House talking points to justify Bush's actions on them, perhaps the press corps could demand a legal justification for the White House's claim. You know, follow their own code of ethics that demand:

...the principles of — truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability -

It would be a nice change of pace.