Jury Convicts Lewis 'Scooter' Libby

[Guest nirvana]

A U.S. jury has found Lewis 'Scooter' Libby guilty of four counts of obstructing justice, lying and perjury during the investigation into the disclosure of former CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. Libby faces up to 30 years in prison with the conviction announced at the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday. Sentencing for the guilty verdicts are expected to be handed down on June 5. The defense lawyer for Libby says he will ask for a new trial or an appeal.

 

Once the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, Libby resigned in October 2005 after charges were brought against him by Patrick Fitzgerald over the Plame affair. The conviction is vindication for the role played by special prosecutor Fitzgerald, who some believed went too far by bringing charges against Libby when no indictments were made stemming from the original offense investigated.

 

"It’s sad that we had a situation where a high-level official person who worked in the office of the vice president obstructed justice and lied under oath. We wish that it had not happened, but it did." said Fitzgerald according to MSNBC. What effect the verdict will have on the United States Congress and the credibility of the Bush administration's run-up to the war in Iraq is unclear.

 

The conviction came after what Fitzgerald originally alleged, by way of a baseball analogy, was the equivalent of Libby "throwing sand in the face of an umpire."

 

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6424319.stm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17479718/

[Guest White House Press Gaggle]

12:37 P.M. EST

 

MS. PERINO: Good afternoon. Obviously, we have a verdict from the jury in the Scooter Libby trial. Let me start off by saying that the President was informed by -- he was in the Oval Office. He saw the verdict read on television. Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and Counselor Dan Bartlett were with him.

 

He said that he respected the jury's verdict, that he was saddened for Scooter Libby and his family, and that the White House direction from here on out -- and I know that there's going to be a lot of disappointment with this, but there is an ongoing criminal proceeding. Scooter Libby's attorneys just announced that they are going to ask for a new trial and that they are going to -- failing that, they will appeal the verdict. And so our principled stand of not commenting on an ongoing legal investigation is going to continue. I know that's going to be very disappointing for many, but that is the decision that we're going to -- that we've made, and the decision -- and the practice that we're going to continue on the way forward.

 

Q Let me ask you about some of the congressional reaction. You have Senator Reid saying that President Bush must pledge not to pardon Libby for his criminal conduct. What's the reaction to that?

 

MS. PERINO: Well, I'm aware of no such request for a pardon. And as is afforded to all Americans, there is a process that is followed in which to apply for a pardon. And I don't think that speculating on a wildly hypothetical situation at this time is appropriate.

 

Q You're not closing the door to it, you're leaving the door open to a pardon?

 

MS. PERINO: I'm not commenting on a hypothetical situation. I think that that is the best way to respond to that. I think that there is a process in place for all Americans, if they want to receive a pardon from a President, be that any President that is in office, and I'm aware of no such request.

 

Q Would the President be receptive to that?

 

MS. PERINO: It is a hypothetical situation. I'm never even brought it up with him.

 

Q Has the President talked to the Vice President yet?

 

MS. PERINO: No. The Vice President was on his way to the Senate policy lunch. I believe that's what -- no, it was this afternoon. And so the President was in the Oval Office, ready for his lunch. The Vice President was on his way to the Hill, so he didn't get a chance to see him.

 

Q Does the President feel like there's any responsibility to figure out a way to talk about this in a way that doesn't prejudice or jeopardize any ensuing legal process, and still say something to the American people about this case?

 

MS. PERINO: We've given it a lot of thought, to try to find out a way to sort of answer the mail on the requests that are coming in from not just the media, but also from the American people. However, the legal advice that we get from our Counsel's Office, and the request that we had from the parties in the case was that we not comment on it while there was an ongoing criminal matter. And since that is still the case, I think that what the President -- the best thing I can offer you right now is what the President's reaction is, that he respected the verdict, he respects the jury, and we're just not going to be able to comment on it beyond it.

 

Q Is this damaging to this White House, embarrassing for this White House?

 

MS. PERINO: You know, I think that any administration that has to go through a prolonged news story that is unpleasant and one that is difficult for -- when you're under the constraints and the policy of not commenting on an ongoing criminal matter, that can be very frustrating. But I think that we have been able to continue on, moving forward on all sorts of different fronts while also being aware that this situation is out there. But, no, I wouldn't characterize it the way you did.

 

Q Dana, in the closing argument, the special prosecutor said that there was a cloud over the vice presidency. Now that all is said and done, do you share that concern?

 

MS. PERINO: Certainly not. And I don't know how the Vice President is going to respond today. I don't know if they'll be issuing a statement, or not, but we'll try to connect with Lea Anne McBride -- but as I said, the Vice President was at this lunch when the verdict was read. And so I don't have more from his office at this time.

 

Q So there are no concerns about his credibility, his role in this?

 

MS. PERINO: No.

 

David.

 

Q What about the overall White House credibility? Has it been damaged now that a senior administration official has been convicted of perjury?

 

MS. PERINO: You know, I think that when Scooter Libby was first indicted, one of the things that the President said was that we were saddened by the situation. But, no, I would disagree with -- I would not agree with the characterization of the question.

 

Q Dana, you said the President is saddened by this. Is he saddened by the fact that a former top advisor in this building is facing this personal problem? Or is he saddened by the fact that a former advisor is convicted of lying in a federal investigation?

 

MS. PERINO: He was saddened for Scooter himself, personally, and for Scooter's family.

 

Q He's not saddened that his top advisor lied to -- was found guilty of lying to investigators?

 

MS. PERINO: He's saddened for Scooter. We're not going to comment on the trial.

 

Q You mentioned a moment ago how the President expects everyone to uphold the highest ethical standards. Have the White House or the President in any way commented on the ethics involved in this? I think in the beginning, he said he takes this seriously, and he changed the ground rules for dismissal. Why hasn't he ever commented on --

 

MS. PERINO: I think the President has had a very principled and responsible stand to not comment on the ongoing criminal matter in any way, shape, or form, and that has been his position. It's been the -- it's a responsible one, it's a principled one, and that's what he's done.

 

Q He hasn't commented on the ethical conduct --

 

MS. PERINO: Well, again, I appreciate how people want to try to get us to comment on the trial in any way, shape, or form, and we're just -- we're not going to do it.

 

John.

 

Q Can you say when you are going to be able to comment on the verdict? (Laughter.)

 

MS. PERINO: Hypothetically, had there been an acquittal today, then our conversation might have been very different.

 

Q Given that there was a conviction, though, when do you think the process would --

 

MS. PERINO: I think you have to let the appeals process play itself out.

 

Q So after the appeals process is over?

 

MS. PERINO: I think when it is no longer an ongoing criminal matter, that's when I would say that that would be -- the time when the trial was over.

[Guest Rush]

There were dozens of convictions in the Clinton era. Remember Web Hubbell, just for one? How about Clinton himself? He was not technically convicted of perjury, but a federal judge found him in contempt of court for it, and they withdrew his law license. Look at the penalty Clinton got. He lost his license to practice law in Arkansas. Yip yip yip yahoo!

[Guest E pluribus unum]

Libby Guilty.

 

Thats says it all.

 

aahaahahahaahahaahahahaahahahaahahaahahaahahahh

 

Now he can write a book; out Cheney and make 10 million if he so chooses.

[Guest Krusty]

Funny, when Clinton lied, conservatives saw it as the worst thing one can do and pushed for impeachment.

 

Now that Libby is found guilty, they think it is no big deal to lie.

 

I wonder why the dishonesty?

[BlingBling]

Yeah. Libby was sentenced to thirty months in prison and fined $250,000. The judge also "placed him on two years probation i.e., "supervised release"after his prison sentence expires. Looks like in two months he will get to enjoy his new home. I wonder what Cheney is thinking? I wonder what Bush is thinking?

[Luke_Wilbur]

The White House Press Briefing by Tony Snow displayed insight on President Bush's commutation (reduction of a sentence) of Scooter Libby. The President accepted the jury's verdict, but considered conviction jail sentence to be excessive and inappropriate. A future pardon is also not out of the question.

 

Q Is the President's decision to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby -- is that the final word in this case, or does he leave the door open for a pardon later?

 

MR. SNOW: Well, let me put it this way. The President thinks that he has dealt with the situation properly. There is always a possibility, or there's an avenue open for anybody to petition for consideration of a pardon. As far as we know, that's not been done; we don't know if it's contemplated by Scooter Libby or his defense team. But this is -- the President has put together what he thinks is the proper approach and the proper way of dealing with this case.

 

Q Tony, did the Vice President weigh in?

 

MR. SNOW: My guess is that -- I don't have direct knowledge, Ed. But on the other hand, the President did consult with most senior officials and I'm sure that everybody had an opportunity to share their views.

 

Q Why didn't he consult with Justice Department officials? Officials in his own Justice Department say normally someone would at least serve some jail time before a sentence is actually commuted. Why didn't he consult with his own Justice Department?

 

MR. SNOW: Well, a couple of things. First, quite often when you're dealing with sentences of this sort, they also have to deal with, as you point out, sentences that are ongoing or sometimes cases that have gotten a bit stale and people are trying to refresh their memories about the particulars of the case. The same would be true of the prosecutor, because they're quite often consulted for the same reason. Here you have a case that's still ongoing in the court system. It's not like people's memories are fuzzy about the details or the circumstances. The Attorney General, himself, was recused, as you know, in this case.

 

But the answer, Ed, is that it is certainly -- in some cases, people do such consultations. In this case -- and they do it for the reasons I've just cited. These tend to be, can you go back and fill me in on what happened in that case. If you take a look at the rash of pardons and commutations at the end of the Clinton era, a lot of that was people running around trying to find paperwork to figure out what the facts were. So let me just --

 

Q Well, why no jail time, though?

 

MR. SNOW: I'm sorry, what?

 

Q The jail time issue -- normally, somebody at least serves a day in jail, a week in jail, a month in jail.

 

MR. SNOW: Because the President thought the jail time, in fact, was inappropriate, and therefore, he decided to --

 

Q I thought he said the jail time was excessive, the sentence was excessive. He didn't say it was inappropriate.

 

MR. SNOW: Right. No, he said it was excessive, and he thought that any jail time was excessive. And therefore, he did not see fit to have Scooter Libby taken to jail.

 

Keep in mind that Scooter Libby has been convicted of a felony; that remains the same. He has a $250,000 fine to pay; that remains the same. He's got two years of probation; that remains the same. And a felony conviction has profound impacts on his ability to earn a living as a lawyer because he's not going to be able to practice law. So this is hardly a slap on the wrist, in terms of penalty. It is a very severe penalty.

 

But the President also believes, for those who were arguing on behalf of a pardon, that you need to respect the jury system. Scooter Libby was tried before a jury of his peers. And it is important to make clear our faith in what really is a pillar of the American justice system, which is everybody's right to be tried before a jury of the peers.

 

Q Tony, is the President saying --

 

Q So does that mean --

 

MR. SNOW: Wait, one at a time, one at a time.

 

Q So you're not closing the door, then, on a pardon.

 

MR. SNOW: Look, I think -- the President has done what he thinks is appropriate. The reason I will say I'm not going to close a door on a pardon is simply this, that Scooter Libby may petition for one. But the President has done what he thinks is appropriate to resolve this case.

 

Q You're saying that he thinks he's done what is enough?

 

MR. SNOW: He thinks he's done what's appropriate.

 

Q And that would be it, that he wouldn't do any more?

 

MR. SNOW: I don't want to read the President's mind, but on the other hand, I do not want to create expectations that somehow there will be more.

 

Q Tony, does the President think that Scooter Libby did, in fact, lie; that a member of the White House staff was, in fact, guilty of these crimes?

 

MR. SNOW: What he believes is that he was convicted of a jury of his peers. The President was not sitting in as a fact witness on a very long case, and he does think that it's important to respect what the jury concluded, because the jury really is the group that counts here.

 

Q Why not respect what the judge said, then?

 

MR. SNOW: Well, keep in mind that there is still -- he does respect what the judge said, but he also respects what -- I think if you took a look at the trial record, at what the parole commission recommended, that what the parole commission recommended was highly consistent with what the President thought was an appropriate punishment here.

 

Q Well, no, they talked about 16-plus months.

 

MR. SNOW: No, that is -- there's a range of -- what you're taking a look -- this gets very complicated. You have obstruction of justice, and then you have mitigating factors that bumps it down. And the bump down gets you, according, again, to the parole commission, to an area where it would be appropriate, it would be within acceptable guidelines to have such things as home detention or probation. Probation is something that is going to be required in this case.

 

Q Tony, it's my understanding that this administration has advocated allowing judges the discretion to sentence within guidelines, and that this sentence was, in fact, within customary guidelines. So how does the President square that view with his decision to commute the sentence?

 

MR. SNOW: Look, first, he thinks that -- I would suggest you go back and read some of the trial pleadings, because there is real controversy over what the proper guidelines are. What you're referring to are guidelines under the Espionage Act, which was never brought up as a possible violation by Mr. Libby or anybody there. But I don't want to get into the business of trying to -- I know you're trying to get into the business of having an abstruse legal argument with Patrick Fitzgerald; not going to do it. I will simply tell you that the President, after long consideration, weeks and weeks of consideration, came to the conclusion that 30 months in jail was excessive, and that he is comfortable with the punishment, which is still quite severe, of $250,000, a felony conviction, and two years of probation.

 

Q And just as a follow-up, can you shed any light on the President's process of deliberations, how he went about thinking about this decision, which you said he considered over weeks and weeks?

 

MR. SNOW: Only to a very trivial extent, because, as you know, there are -- there's a very important debate going on in Washington about the importance of maintaining the sanctity of deliberations within a White House. I will leave it at this: The President spent weeks and weeks consulting with senior members of this White House about the proper way to proceed, and they looked at a whole lot of options, and they spent a lot of time talking through the options and doing some very detailed legal analysis.

 

Q Did he consult with anyone outside the White House?

 

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to -- I'm not going to characterize beyond that.

 

Q And you know that because he told you so?

 

MR. SNOW: I know that because he told me so, and also others who were involved.

 

Q But you were not involved?

 

MR. SNOW: I was not involved.

 

Q Was it appropriate for the Vice President to weigh in about the fate of his own friend, and someone who had served him for years --

 

MR. SNOW: I'm sure that the Vice President may have expressed an opinion, but the fact is, the President understands the -- and he may have recused himself; I honestly don't know.

 

Q Did he ask for the President to spare his friend?

 

MR. SNOW: We'd never -- as you know, Kelly -- talk about internal deliberations. Nice try. This is exactly what we're talking about right now before the House and Senate, and we're not going to characterize specifically any kind of advice or plea that somebody may make.

 

Q But doesn't the public deserve to know if the Vice President asked the President to use this constitutional authority to spare his former aide and longtime friend from prison?

 

MR. SNOW: Well, let me put it this way. The President does not look upon this as granting a favor to anyone, and to do that is to misconstrue the nature of the deliberations. He spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to maintain the faith in the jury system, and he did that by keeping intact the conviction and some of the punishments. And at the same time, he thought it was important to put together what he thought was a just punishment, in this case, which is what he did. But to think of this as the bestowal of a favor is simply utterly to misconstrue the nature and --

 

Q Why shouldn't it be thought of as a bestowal of a favor when there are dozens of other people who would probably make the same case that their sentences were too heavy and should have been commuted?

 

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not sure that there are dozens of others who were -- every individual -- look, the court said --

 

Q Martha Stewart.

 

MR. SNOW: Well, again, there may be people who may have made cases at various junctures, but they're all different. The President looked at this one on its merits.

 

Q Was the President scared that if Scooter Libby went to jail that he might then talk about some secrets in the White House that would damage the President?

 

MR. SNOW: No, he thought it was an improper punishment. He thought it was an excessive punishment and, therefore, the proper way to do this was to go ahead and leave intact this -- again, the President's getting pounded on the right because he didn't do a full pardon. The idea is -- but the point of this is that you do not engage in these acts for symbolic or political reasons. You don't do it to make other people happy and say, boy, you showed it to so-and-so. The point here is to do what is consistent with the dictates of justice.

 

Q So politics did not play into this decision at all?

 

MR. SNOW: That is correct.

 

Q A pardon versus --

 

MR. SNOW: That is --

 

Q -- wait a minute -- a pardon versus commuting the sentence?

 

MR. SNOW: That is correct.

 

Q And also, let me ask you this. The President and other White House press secretaries would not touch this question of Joe Wilson during the height of the investigation. I'm going to ask you now, since the President is now basically saying this is over and he's done what he's done -- Joe Wilson asked for an apology for the American people because of the situation. Is the White House now willing to give the American people --

 

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get into --

 

Q Why not?

 

MR. SNOW: Because --

 

Q Why not? It's over now. You didn't want to talk about it then. Let's talk about it now. Do you think the American people are owed something because of the breach?

 

MR. SNOW: Number one, there is still considerable controversy about the facts of the case, including Joe Wilson's veracity. Number two, there is also --

 

Q What's in question about his veracity? Detail that, please.

 

MR. SNOW: There is also -- just, very quickly, you take a look at the Senate reports, his characterization of who sent him over and what he told people when he was in Niger is at direct odds with what he attempted to tell the American public.

 

Q That has nothing to do with leaking the name of --

 

MR. SNOW: I'm just --

 

Q She's making a good point.

 

MR. SNOW: I'm answering her question, which she raised --

 

Q But she's making a good point.

 

Q You're arguing a different case.

 

MR. SNOW: No, I'm arguing --

 

Q The apology that the American people may want -- some may want --

 

MR. SNOW: I understand.

 

Q -- has to do with the fact that the White House allowed for a breach. And doesn't Libby owe the President an apology?

 

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not -- this is -- number one, I believe the investigation found that the White House was not the source of the breach. Number two, the President has said that it is --

 

Q But it's part of the Bush administration.

 

MR. SNOW: -- the President has said it is inappropriate to have such breaches, and has apologized for them. So beyond that --

 

Q When did he apologize?

 

MR. SNOW: I think he said to the American people -- gave an apology, but --

 

Q Tony, one point that is not in dispute is that Karl Rove was involved in the leak, in some way he was involved. He talked to at least two reporters who ended up publishing this information. In 2004, the President said -- he didn't talk about convictions or anything -- he said he would fire anyone in this White House who was involved in the leak. We now know Karl Rove was involved; he did not fire him.

 

MR. SNOW: There are two things to note. We have also said that we do not -- we are not going to make comments in detail until the legal process is over. And it is not; there is still an appeal through --

 

Q You just put out a two-page statement. He commented --

 

Q Wait a minute, he just put out this statement, and it's it's over.

 

Q He commented -- how could you not --

 

Q Yes, he's commented now, so that's a big -- we can shoot holes in that statement.

 

MR. SNOW: No, on follow-on issues like this that still may have bearing and an issue that may return to trial, I'm not going to comment on it.

 

Q How can you stand there with a straight face and say that this is not a political act? What he did was inherently political.

 

MR. SNOW: It was political in the sense that, as President, he has the authority to do this, but on the other hand --

 

Q Yes, he chose to do it for this person.

 

MR. SNOW: On the other hand, if you're doing the weathervane thing, you probably, depending on which constituency you wanted to make happy, you would have done something differently. I am telling you that this President approaches these very carefully as a matter of principle. And the key considerations were, let's figure out what we think is appropriate -- what he thinks is appropriate, in terms of punishment, and let's also do it in a way that does not do violence, but, in fact, shows respect for a system of justice -- not going in and overthrowing the hard work and the verdict of a duly constituted jury. That, to me, demonstrates just the opposite of political consideration. This is an attempt to try to figure out a principled way of dealing with what he thought was a thorny issue.

 

Q Tony, what's more palatable now? A pardon today, or a pardon at the last day of his presidency? What's more palatable for the American public?

 

MR. SNOW: You're assuming that there's a pardon.

 

Q Two-thirds of the American people say that they wanted Scooter Libby to serve this sentence, so the President has not made them happy. Conservatives wanted a full pardon, so the President has not made them happy.

 

MR. SNOW: Well, apparently, then, he did not do this for political reasons, did he? You have just made my case.

 

Q Tony, did Libby directly ask the President for --

 

MR. SNOW: No, there were no direct communications. And the President has not communicated directly with Scooter Libby.

 

Q What about the Vice President, same question?

 

MR. SNOW: I have no idea, and I'm -- you'll have to ask the Vice President's office. The notifications that took place yesterday were from White House legal counsel to Judge Walton, to Patrick Fitzgerald, and to Scooter Libby's attorney.

 

Q Tony, two questions --

 

MR. SNOW: On this topic, or something else?

 

Q Yes, on this topic. Among those protesting the President's refusal to allow the Libby imprisonment was Maryland Senator Cardin, who announced that he was "shocked" at what he called the President's "double standard." And my question: Does the White House recall any such expressed Cardin shock at the non-imprisonment of Democrat lawbreaker Sandy Berger, and Marion Barry, as well as no imprisonment for that convicted perjurer Bill Clinton, and his pardon recipient Mark Rich?

 

MR. SNOW: No, I'm not familiar with that. But perhaps they are waiting to go back and revisit those issues when they have --

 

Q Could we talk about the two -- trying to have it two ways, saying that we have faith in the justice system, and yet what the judge did was excessive, even though it's within guidelines, according to the prosecutor.

 

MR. SNOW: What I said was with the jury system. But also, what the President did is also consistent with guidelines. You need to understand the guideline argument better. The question is, what are you using as your baseline? And the parole commission, which does this for a living, had recommended guidelines --

 

Q But they recommended --

 

MR. SNOW: I understand that -- the President has the power to commute, and he used it, and he used it in a manner that he saw fit. That's not trying to have it both ways. What the President said is that he is not going to go in and overturn what the jury did. On the other hand, again, he thought that the penalty was excessive. He is certainly permitted to do that. You'll concede that the President does have that power, constitutionally, and furthermore, that this President has done it very carefully.

 

If he had decided that he wanted to commute the sentence and get rid of all punishment, but still keep intact the felony, he could have done that. But instead what he did was he said that he believes that when somebody is convicted of this punishment, it is worth having -- I mean, of this crime -- it is certainly worth respecting the jury's decision and having significant and severe punishment. And I guarantee you, a quick show of hands how many people in this room think that $250,000 is a wrist slap, or that two years of probation, or, in fact, the loss of your career is somehow a trivial punishment. This is serious punishment.

 

Q But doesn't he already have a legal defense fund -- that is going to cover --

 

Q -- $5 million that he's already got --

 

MR. SNOW: Well, we'll have to see.

 

Q So it's not really excessive for him, then. Most average Americans couldn't afford $250,000, but most average Americans don't have Fred Thompson raising millions of --

 

MR. SNOW: Well, on the other hand, he also has legal fees.

 

Q So the $250,000, though, is really not that much money for him.

 

MR. SNOW: I don't know, you'll have to find out. Do you think $250,000 --

 

Q But that's not the case -- you said that it was a lot of money.

 

MR. SNOW: It is a lot of money.

 

Q But he has more than $250,000 --

 

MR. SNOW: You don't know that.

 

Q Well, in what he's raised.

 

Q -- there's no shortage of people who would gladly raise -- and have already been doing so.

 

MR. SNOW: Well, good. Americans are a generous people.

 

Q How does the President justify this commutation when there are thousands of others in jail with a similar request?

 

MR. SNOW: I'm not sure that -- thousands in jail with similar requests?

 

Q Three thousand.

 

MR. SNOW: Three thousand in jail with similar -- I'm not sure that you can take anybody who has a perjury count and say that they're all the same. Every count has to be considered differently. The President, as you know, looks very carefully at these things. And furthermore, not every one of these cases comes before a President, as you're well aware. Attorneys quite often petition for these and that is one of the procedures by which they do it.

 

Q Can I follow on that? There are more than 3,000 current petitions for commutation -- not pardons, but commutation -- in the federal system under President Bush. Will all 3,000 of those be held to the same standard that the President applied to Scooter Libby?

 

MR. SNOW: I don't know.

 

Q Tony, I'm trying to get a handle on it -- are you saying this White House handled this case in an extraordinary manner, or in a routine manner?

 

MR. SNOW: I think it handled it in a routine manner in the sense that the President took a careful look. But it is an extraordinary case by virtue of the fact that not only do you have the extreme level of publicity, but also that in many ways, the hand was called by a court decision to go ahead and send Scooter Libby to jail while he was still in the middle of his appeals process.

 

Q But how could it not be extraordinary to grant something to someone who didn't even ask for it?

 

MR. SNOW: I just think that's the President, again, using his commutation power to do what he thought was necessary to address what he thought was an excessive punishment.

 

Q But absent a request, he wouldn't even have known about this case if it didn't involve his former aide.

 

MR. SNOW: Well, no, I think you probably would have reminded him of it. The fact -- you talk about, if it had not involved a former aide -- this is a thing that has been in the headlines for quite a while.

 

Q Won't this encourage other members of his administration to obstruct justice?

 

MR. SNOW: No.

 

Q Tony, you didn't answer the question about Karl Rove, though. So why wasn't Karl Rove fired?

 

MR. SNOW: The reason I said that is because you're asking a question that still may be arising -- may be a subject of inquiry and ongoing --

 

Q How many years is it going to take? I mean, the President made that statement in 2004.

 

Q Fitzgerald said it's over.

 

Q Fitzgerald said it's over.

 

MR. SNOW: Well, Patrick Fitzgerald is not the one responsible for making a final decision on appeals. And I believe that --

 

Q -- other special prosecutor?

 

MR. SNOW: I believe that the Libby team, at this point, still has before the court an appeal.

 

Q The President didn't wait for the appeals.

 

Q What's the point of the statement --

 

MR. SNOW: No, no, no, the point was that some of these issues -- it certainly does, because these are things that may come up as questions within the context of further trial.

 

Q How does this square with the President saying, anybody who leaks in my White House, anybody who doesn't follow the law, is not going to work for me?

 

MR. SNOW: Well, once we get -- once we get final determination on that, we'll deal with it. By the way, Karl was not accused of breaking any laws. He was not, in fact, indicted on anything. So you've got -- there's a lot of contention in this, but you also need to stick with the fact record.

 

Q The President set a lower standard first. He didn't say about breaking the law, he said involved in leaking the identity. So you've changed the standard --

 

MR. SNOW: No, no, no, I was just -- I was responding to that particular question. Again, when we get final clarity on this through the judicial system, I'll answer the question.

 

Q Thank you, Tony. Former mayor Giuliani, who was involved in more than 1,000 pardons during his tenure at the Justice Department, referred to this, in retrospect, in the overall scheme, as a non-crime, and suggested a full pardon should have come right now. Would you respond to what the mayor said?

 

MR. SNOW: The President has made it clear that, again, he respects the importance of having a jury system and respecting that jury system, where having listened over a long trial to the facts of the case, a jury of his peers found Scooter Libby guilty of perjury.

 

Q So he doesn't agree that it's a non-crime, as the mayor said?

 

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to try to get into parsing all the particulars. The President is not trying to serve as a fact witness in this case, or even one who is trying to analyze the virtues or defects of the case that were presented to the court. What he does know is that a jury reached this verdict. And he is intent on honoring --

 

Q But doesn't he have to decide that in order to exercise that constitutional authority, just in his own mind to have a view of whether a crime was committed or not?

 

MR. SNOW: Again, I think what he does is, he understands that he's been convicted, and that to him is sufficient.

 

Q So he accepts a crime was committed?

 

MR. SNOW: He accepts that the jury has rendered a verdict and found him guilty of a crime and, therefore, punished him for it.

[Human]

I don't think that the President should have given libby a partial Pardon, but a Full Pardon.

 

That's the Moral thing to do.

[Luke_Wilbur]

My question is why? A jury found him guilty. Is Scooter Libby above the law?

 

Why should President's have this much power. It undermines the credibility of our justice system.

 

What bothers me more is many President's (including Clinton) wait till their last days in office and then go on a pardoning spree.

[Human]

http://www.ag.gov.fj/default.aspx?page=prerogativeMercy

 

 

The Prerogative of Mercy

Section 115 of the Constitution empowers the President to grant to a convicted person, a state pardon either conditionally or otherwise, or grant a respite of the execution of punishment imposed, or substitute a less severe punishment.

The President is advised on the exercise of this power by the Commission on the Prerogative of Mercy. Membership of the Commission consists of the Attorney General as the Chairperson, and two members appointed by the President.

The Commission meets on a regular basis to consider applications for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.

Members

The members of the Commission are:

• Hon. Mr Qoriniasi Bale - Chairman

• Mrs Mavis Basawaiya - Member

• Mr Hector Hatch - Member

• Mr Zulfikar Sahukhan - Legal Advisor

• Mrs Sisilia Christopher - Secretary

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prerogative_of_Mercy

 

Prerogative of Mercy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

In the British tradition the Prerogative of Mercy is one of the historic Royal Prerogatives of the British monarch in which he or she can grant pardons to convicted persons. In actual practice this power has been passed to politicians.

 

The Royal Prerogative of Mercy was originally used to permit the monarch to withdraw death sentences, but is now used to change any sentence or penalty.

 

 

 

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My question is why? A jury found him guilty. Is Scooter Libby above the law?

 

Why should President's have this much power. It undermines the credibility of our justice system.

 

What bothers me more is many President's (including Clinton) wait till their last days in office and then go on a pardoning spree.

Edited July 4, 2007 by Human

[Luke_Wilbur]

We are here not dealing with the Crown's prerogative of mercy continued through the pardoning power in this country as an exercise of grace. Currently, the prerogative of mercy reposed shown by President Bush cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions. But, commutation does not wash out the moral stain and taxpayer dollars Libby has put this country through. The real issue is that if Libby is pardoned, then he will be able to still practice law. Every lawyer admitted to the bar is committed to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession. Scooter Libby's conviction warrents him unfit to represent the bar. Scooter Libby should not receive a full pardon for this reason alone. It must be tough, but I hope President Bush puts our country's justice system before his friend in his future decisions.

[Human]

For me he deserves a Full Pardon on the grounds that it was just a political prosecution.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are here not dealing with the Crown's prerogative of mercy continued through the pardoning power in this country as an exercise of grace. Currently, the prerogative of mercy reposed shown by President Bush cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions. But, commutation does not wash out the moral stain and taxpayer dollars Libby has put this country through. The real issue is that if Libby is pardoned, then he will be able to still practice law. Every lawyer admitted to the bar is committed to uphold the honor and dignity of the profession. Scooter Libby's conviction warrents him unfit to represent the bar. Scooter Libby should not receive a full pardon for this reason alone. It must be tough, but I hope President Bush puts our country's justice system before his friend in his future decisions.

[Luke_Wilbur]

If Libby told the truth about his conversations with the other government officials, Judith Miller, Tim Russert and the media relating to Valerie Wilson he would not have been indicted. I believe that he thought what he was doing was best for our country. Joseph Wilson was a threat to the administration's plan to build a substantial American force presence in the Gulf.

 

Scooter Libby lied to the grand jury. His statements contradicted the established facts. The jury found him guilty. Now the President has set him free. Thus undermining the judicial values our country promotes to the rest of the world.

 

It is also plausible that commutation is the best legal strategy for the White House. Scooter Libby retains his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and can remain silent. Had Libby been pardoned and been completely cleared of any wrongdoing, he would have a more difficult time refusing to answer questions.

[Human]

And I Rest My Case.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/us/polit...amp;oref=slogin

 

 

Bill Clinton Criticizes Bush on Libby Move

 

By PATRICK HEALY

Published: July 4, 2007

DAVENPORT, Iowa, July 3 — Former President Bill Clinton criticized President Bush on Tuesday for commuting the prison sentence of I. Lewis Libby Jr. and tried to draw a distinction from his own controversial pardons.

 

In Iowa to promote the presidential candidacy of his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Mr. Clinton was asked by a radio host, David Yepsen, “You had some controversial pardons during your presidency; what’s your reaction to what President Bush did?”

 

“Yeah, but I think the facts were different,” Mr. Clinton said. “I think there are guidelines for what happens when somebody is convicted. You’ve got to understand, this is consistent with their philosophy; they believe that they should be able to do what they want to do, and that the law is a minor obstacle.”

“It’s wrong to out that C.I.A. agent and wrong to try to cover it up,” Mr. Clinton added. “And no one was ever fired from the White House for doing it.”

 

Mr. Clinton pardoned 140 people in the final hours of his presidency, including Marc Rich, the fugitive broker who had been charged with evading tens of millions of dollars in taxes, and who was the former husband of a top donor to Democrats and Mrs. Clinton’s first Senate campaign.

 

Rather than tread lightly on the Libby commutation, the Clintons have chosen to confront it; Clinton advisers said there was no real alternative, because the news media would bring up the Rich pardon anyway.

Still, the Clintons have not scheduled a news conference during their visit, where they might face tough questioning, nor have they permitted reporters to attend private events, some including as many as 300 people, where people ask Mrs. Clinton questions. All of their public events have been rallies where the two of them speak.

 

The Clintons campaigned in Iowa City and Davenport on Tuesday, where Mr. Clinton, in addition to lavishing praise on his wife, seemed to take some fresh shots at the Bush administration. Referring to the presidency, he said in Davenport, “You have to think; we’ve seen what happens when you don’t think.”

[Luke_Wilbur]

Two wrongs do not make it right. This article actually makes my point stronger. Any standing president should not be able to pardon individuals without the consent of Congress. I truly think it is an abuse of power.

[Human]

Come on Luke, you, and I and everyone else in america know who the leaker was.

The Prosecutor only wanted a trophy on his mantle, and the democrats were like "oh yeah!! This is payback

For the Clinton Years".

 

It is just political; it has NOTHING to do with Justice.

Nothing has really changed.

 

Oh!!! you were right about Nafta, my group "Republicans", and

Clinton really made a mess of that one.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two wrongs do not make it right. This article actually makes my point stronger. Any standing president should not be able to pardon individuals without the consent of Congress. I truly think it is an abuse of power.

Edited July 7, 2007 by Human

[wiley]

I understand Richard Armitage is also to blame. And I don't like the Democrats making political points on this issue. But, Scooter Libby should never have leaked information about a covert agent to Judith Miller. Many people in our intelligence community have spoken out about this through proper channels.

[Human]

What proper channels would those be?

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand Richard Armitage is also to blame. And I don't like the Democrats making political points on this issue. But, Scooter Libby should never have leaked information about a covert agent to Judith Miller. Many people in our intelligence community have spoken out about this through proper channels.

[Luke_Wilbur]

CIA informed the Justice Department that the damage was serious enough to warrant an investigation. Ms. Wilson's work was so sensitive that even now, she is still prohibited from discussing many details of her work in public because of the continuing risk to CIA officials and assets in the field and to the CIA's ongoing work. It is public record now that Plame’s counterproliferation unit had discredited Ahmed Chalabi and his imaginery friends as an intelligence asset. On the other hand, Cheney's office welcomed Chalabi’s predictions of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.

 

Libby knew that he would blow the cover of CIA front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, which became public known because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame. The damage is done. The company is shut down. Why, because the White House wanted to make their WMD story appear legitimate. Thus, the White House could mold the CIA toward their policy decision. Its that simple.

 

Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

 

. . . [E]very foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities. . . . That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

 

 

Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

 

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent

 

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

 

(b ) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information

 

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

 

© Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

 

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

 

(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences

 

A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

 

Post-war planning non-existent

By WARREN P. STROBEL and JOHN WALCOTT

 

Knight Ridder's Joseph L. Galloway, Jonathan S. Landay, Warren P. Strobel and John Walcott, with research by Tish Wells

 

Instead of providing a plan and enough troops to take control of Iraq, officials, advisers and consultants in and around the Pentagon and Vice President Dick Cheney's office bet on Iraqi exiles such as Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, who assured them that Iraqis would welcome American troops as liberators.

 

Gen. John Keane, the vice chief of the Army staff during the war, said some defense officials believed the exiles' promises. "We did not see it (the insurgency) coming. And we were not properly prepared and organized to deal with it . . . . Many of us got seduced by the Iraqi exiles in terms of what the outcome would be," Keane told a House committee in July.

 

Rumsfeld's office "was utterly, arrogantly, ignorantly and negligently unprepared" for the aftermath of the war, said Larry Diamond, who was a political adviser in Baghdad from January to March of this year.

 

Douglas Feith, the Defense Department's No. 3 official, and former Pentagon consultant Richard Perle both acknowledged that their vision for post-Saddam Iraq included putting pro-Western exiles in power.

 

"We had a theme in our minds, a strategic idea, of liberation rather than occupation, giving them (Iraqis) more authority even at the expense of having things done with greater efficiency" by coalition military forces, Feith told The Philadelphia Inquirer last month. Perle, in an interview, said he and others had for years advocated "helping the Iraqis liberate themselves - which was a completely different approach than we settled on."

 

"We'll never know how it would have come out if we did it the way we wanted to do it," he said.

 

The CIA, the DIA and the State Department all warned that Chalabi was a charlatan, and the uniformed military dragged its heels in training exiles to join the fight against Saddam.

 

The battle over Chalabi was one of numerous bitter interagency fights about Iraq that neither Bush nor his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, never resolved.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20061025202042/...ton/9927782.htm