Query: is this worth writing about?

This is a question for people here.  Recently, I found out that shortly after the Supreme Court decision ending mandatory minimums for crack cocaine, President Bush commuted the fifthsentence of his Presidency.  He commuted the sentence of Michael D. Short, who had served fifteen years for conspiracy to distribute crack cocaine, and will be released in February, less than a year before his sentence will expire.

Now, this is something I consider good news.  I am a member of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, as is Mr. Short.  But I couldn’t help but to be curious as to why this one particular individual was given clemency by President Bush, with no explanation given, mere hours after the Supreme Court made its decision public.  So I dug a little deeper.

Mr. Short, as it turns out, was convicted in a trial of 26 members of what was called the “Woodridge group”, a cocaine dealing ring in Washington D.C. in the 1980s.  His trial was part of a large group of trials known at the time as the Winestock trial.  Mr. Short, along with nearly all the other people convicted in that trial, have filed many appeals, all of which have been denied, but Mr. Short, unlike other co-defendants, only appealed on procedural and inadequate counsel grounds.  Beyond numerous recorded phone conversations, the main witness in the Winestock trial was a member of the Woodridge group who gave testimony in exchange for leniency at his own sentencing.  That witness was Brian Lee Tribble, who had previously been accused and then cleared of providing basketball star Len Bias with the cocaine that killed him the night after he was selected second in the NBA draft.

I have, of course, a lot more details, but none of it really goes anywhere.  I can’t answer why Bush chose this individual out of all the people in America serving long sentences for crack distribution.  But the whole thing seems odd.  Is this worth blogging in detail?  Or am I wasting my time?