LEWIS LIBBY

There is a cloud over the vice president. He sent Libby off to [meet with former New York Times reporter] Judith Miller at the St. Regis Hotel. At that meeting, the two hour meeting, the defendant [Libby] talked about the wife [Plame]. We didn't put that cloud there. That cloud remains because the defendant obstructed justice and lied about what happened. ... He's put the doubt into whatever happened that week, whatever is going on between the Vice President and the defendant, that cloud was there. That's not something that we put there. That cloud is something that we just can't pretend isn't there.

Comment on the verdict by Libby's defense team

After the verdict, initially, Libby's lawyers announced that he would seek a new trial, and that, if that attempt were to fail, they would appeal Libby's conviction."Libby Found Guilty of Perjury, Obstruction", ''CNN Newsroom'', 6 March, 2007, accessed 6 March, 2007."Libby Lawyer Demands New Trial After Conviction", ''CNN Newsroom'', 6 March, 2007, accessed 6 march, 2007. Libby did not speak to reporters."
Libby's defense team eventually decided against seeking a new trial.Ambassador Mel Sembler, Chairman, Libby Defense Trust, and the Advisory Committee, "Message from the Chairman", ''Libby Defense Trust'', ''scooterlibby.com'', 1 June, 2007, accessed 5 June, 2007.

Comment on the verdict by juror Denis Collins

As reported in ''CNN Newsroom'', and subsequently on ''Larry King Live'' on CNN and by various other television networks, including MSNBC (on ''Scarborough Country''), one juror — Denis Collins, a journalist and former reporter at ''The Washington Post'' who also offered a detailed day-by-day account of his experience as Juror #9 at the Libby trial at ''The Huffington Post''Denis Collins, "Inside the Jury Room: Huffington Post Exclusive: What the Jury Thought, Day by Day, Witness by Witness, at the Scooter Libby Trial", ''The Huffington Post'', March 7 2007, Latest News, accessed March 7 2007. — said: 'We're not saying we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of, but it seemed like he was the fall guy. ... tasked by the vice president to go and talk to reporters.""Juror: Libby Is Guilty, But He Was Fall Guy", ''CNN Newsroom'', March 6 2007, accessed March 6 2007.Cf. ''Larry King Live'' and ''Scarborough Country'', first aired 9:00–10:00 p.m., ET, accessed live; repeated at 12:00–1:00 a.m., ET.Joe Strupp, "New Revelations from Former 'Wash Post' Reporter/Libby Juror", ''Editor & Publisher'', March 6 2007, 5:05 p.m., ET, accessed March 6 2007; updated version accessed March 24 2007. [Updated title; formerly entitled "Former Colleagues at 'Wash Post' Discuss (Now Famous) Libby Juror".]

Disbarment

Before being indicted, Libby had been a licensed corporate lawyer, admitted to the bars of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Libby's law license was inactive in Pennsylvania prior to his conviction in United States v. Libby."I. Lewis Libby" (Attorney ID No.: 23330)", ''The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania'' (public search facility), accessed 5 June, 2007. After his conviction, having suspended his license to practice law on April 3, 2007, the Washington, D.C. Office of Bar Counsel (DC Bar) "disbarred [him] pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-2503(a)" on legal grounds of "moral turpitude," effective April 11, 2007, and recommended to the DC Court of Appeals his permanent disbarment if his conviction is not overturned on appeal.''Find a Member'' search facility; his name "struck" from the records, Lewis Libby is no longer listed as a "member" of the DC Bar, which revised its "Professional Rules of Conduct" on February 1 2007, according to its "Bar News" section, both accessed June 5 2007. On April 3 2007, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals filed an "Order" ("In the Matter of I. Lewis Libby, Jr. ... Bar Registration No. 950758"), suspending Libby "immediately from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pending resolution of this matter [in United States v. Libby]," which the Office of Bar Counsel (DC Bar) received on April 4 2007, directing it to "inform the Court if the matter is resolved without the necessity of further court action." In that order, "the Board directed the Bar Counsel to file a brief addressing whether [Libby's] crimes inherently involve moral turpitude." In its brief, filed on 24 April, 2007, entitled "Statement of Bar Counsel", the DC Bar stated that his crimes did so and recommended to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility that Libby "be disbarred pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-2503(a)," which reads "in pertinent part": "When a member of the bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude, ... the court shall, pending final determination of an appeal from the conviction, suspend the member of the bar from practice.... If a final judgment of conviction is certified to the court, the name of the member of the bar so convicted shall be struck from the roll of the members of the bar and such person shall thereafter cease to be a member." Pursuant to the policy on "Moral Turpitude" contained therein, it is also noted (n. 4) that Libby's "disbarment should be deemed to commence, for reinstatement purposes, on April 11, 2007, the date that [he] filed an affidavit in compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g)." The brief lists Libby's admission to practice law in that jurisdiction as 19 May, 1978. At that time Libby's lawyers filed notification of his intention to appeal his conviction within ten days after his sentencing with the DC Bar."Order" ("In the Matter of I. Lewis Libby, Jr. ... Bar Registration No. 950758"), filed April 3, 2007, accessed June 17, 2007.Emma Schwartz, "Scooter Libby's Law License Loses Its Wheels", ''Legal Times'', 6 April, 2007, accessed 5 July, 2007. In commuting Libby's prison sentence later, President Bush would observe: "The reputation [Libby] gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. ... The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting."

Sentencing

Given current federal sentencing guidelines, which are not mandatory, the convictions could have resulted in a sentence ranging from no imprisonment to imprisonment of up to 25 years and a fine of $1,000,000; yet, as Sniffen and Apuzzo observe, "federal sentencing guidelines will probably prescribe far less." In practice, according to federal sentencing data, three-fourths of the 198 defendants found guilty of obstruction of justice in 2006 served jail time. The average length of jail time on this charge alone was 70 months.Richard B. Schmitt and David G. Savage, "Libby sentence met guidelines", ''The Baltimore Sun'', 4 July 2007, accessed 5 July, 2007.
On June 5, 2007, Judge Walton sentenced Libby to 30 months in prison and fined him $250,000. According to Apuzzo and Yost, the judge also "placed him on two years probation after his prison sentence expires. There is no parole in the federal system, but Libby would be eligible for release after two years." In addition, Judge Walton required Libby to provide "400 hours of community service" during his supervised release.
On June 5, 2007, after the announcement of Libby's sentencing, ''CNN News'' reported that Libby still "plans to appeal the verdict."
That day, in response to the sentencing, Cheney issued a statement in Libby's defense on The White House website. The statement concluded: "Speaking as friends, we hope that our system will return a final result consistent with what we know of this fine man.""Vice President Statement on Libby Sentencing", ''whitehouse.gov'', June 5, 2007, accessed June 6, 2007.
Prior to the sentencing, along with Natan Sharansky, as cited earlier, 173 others had sent Walton letters "plead[ing] for leniency" for Libby.Ron Kampeas, "Sharansky Leads Jews Pleading Leniency for Libby -- Without Success", ''Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)'', June 5, 2007, accessed June 15, 2007; rpt. in Ron Kampeas (JTA), "Sharansky and 173 Others Plead Leniency for Libby", ''The Jewish News Weekly of Northern California'', June 8, 2007, accessed June 15, 2007. All 174 "sentencing letters" (some jointly authored) have been released to the public by Judge Walton, who presided in United States v. Libby and who sentenced him on June 5, 2007; these now-public letters have been posted and/or referred to in various online news sites and in the compiled indices of Libby-related news articles hosted by major mass media sites such as ''CNN News'' and ''The New York Times''. A central source of all the letters cited by Kampeas is the , ''Secrecy News'' (online newsletter of the Federation of American Scientists), accessed 15 June, 2007. They are presented alphabetically, according to the last name of the writer(s).
Joseph and Valerie Wilson posted their statement on Libby's sentencing in ''United States v. Libby'' on their website.Joseph and Valerie Wilson, "Statement from Joseph Wilson on Libby Sentencing", ''Joseph and Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust'', June 5, 2007, News, accessed June 6, 2007.

Order to report to prison pending appeal of verdict

After the June 5 sentencing, Walton said he was inclined to jail Libby after the defense laid out its proposed appeal, but the judge told attorneys he was open to changing his mind"; however, on June 14, 2007, Walton ordered Libby to report to prison while his attorneys appealed the convictions."Judge Orders Libby Jailed during Appeal", ''CNN News'', 14 June, 2007, accessed 14 June, 2007. Libby's attorneys asked that the order be stayed, but Walton denied the request and told Libby that he would have 10 days to appeal the ruling. In denying Libby's request, which had questioned Fitzgerald's authority to make the charges in the first place, Walton supported Fitzgerald's authority in the case. He said: "'Everyone is accountable, and if you work in the White House, and if it's perceived that somehow (you're) linked at the hip, the American public would have serious questions about the fairness of any investigation of a high-level official conducted by the attorney general.'" The judge was also responding to an Amicus curiae brief that he had permitted to be filed, which had not apparently convinced him to change his mind, as he subsequently denied Libby bail during his appeal.Cf. "Motion for Leave to File Brief As Amici Curiae and Brief of Law Professors Vikram Amar, Randy E. Barnett, Robert H. Bork, Alan M. Dershowitz, Viet D. Dinh, Douglas W. Kmiec, Gary S. Lawson, Earl M. Maltz, Thomas W. Merrill, Robert F. Nagel, Richard D. Parker, and Robert J. Pushaw As Amici Curiae in Connection with Defendant's Motion for Bail Pending Appeal", filed June 8 2007, online posting, ''Scooter Libby Defense Trust'', June 7 2007, accessed June 15 2007. His "order grant[ing] the [legal academic] scholars permission to file their brief ... contained a caustic footnote questioning the motivation of the legal academics and suggesting he might not give a great deal of weight to their opinion[:]Cf. Josh Gerstein, "National: Professors Back Libby on Appeal: Group Includes Dershowitz, Bork", ''The New York Sun'', June 8 2007, updated June 9 2007, accessed June 15 2007.

... It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of this nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it."

Moreover, when the hearing started, "'in the interest of full disclosure,'" Walton informed the court that he had "'received a number of harassing, angry and mean-spirited phone calls and messages. Some wishing bad things on me and my family,'" adding "'Those types of things will have no impact. ... I initially threw them away, but then there were more, some that were more hateful ... They are being kept.'""Judge Orders Libby Jailed during Appeal", ''CNN News'', 14 June, 2007, accessed 14 June, 2007.
''New York Times'' reporters Neil Lewis and David Stout estimated subsequently that Libby's prison sentence could begin within "two months," explaining that

Judge Walton’s decision means that the defense lawyers will probably ask a federal appeals court to block the sentence, a long-shot move. It also sharpens interest in a question being asked by Mr. Libby’s supporters and critics alike: Will President Bush pardon Mr. Libby? ... So far, the president has expressed sympathy for Mr. Libby and his family but has not tipped his hand on the pardon issue. ... If the president does not pardon him, and if an appeals court refuses to second-guess Judge Walton’s decision, Mr. Libby will probably be ordered to report to prison in six to eight weeks’ time. Federal prison authorities will decide where. "Unless the Court of Appeals overturns my ruling, he will have to report," Judge Walton said.Neil A. Lewis and David Stout, "Judge Won't Delay Libby Prison Term", ''The New York Times'', 14 June, 2007, accessed 16 June, 2007.

Failure of Libby's appeal of order to begin prison sentence

On June 20, 2007, Libby appealed Walton's ruling in federal appeals court.Associated Press, "Libby Appeals Sentencing Ruling", ''New York Times'', 20 June, 2007, accesssed 20 June, 2007. The next day, Walton filed a 30-page expanded ruling, in which he explained his decision to deny Libby bail in more detail.Josh Gerstein, "Libby Judge Files Expanded Opinion: Details Decision Not Allowing Libby to Remain Free", ''New York Sun'', June 22, 2007, accessed June 22, 2007.Reggie B. Walton, "Memorandum Opinion", filed 21 June, 2007, accessed 8 July, 2007. On July 2, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied Libby's request for a delay and release from his prison sentence, stating that Libby "'has not shown that the appeal raises a substantial question' under federal law that would merit letting him remain free," increasing "pressure on President George W. Bush to decide soon whether to pardon Libby ... as the former White House official's supporters have urged."Cary O'Reilly, "Libby, Ex-Cheney Aide, Must Go to Jail During Appeal (Update2)", ''Bloomberg.com'', 2 July, 2007, accessed 2 July, 2007. According to O'Reilly, "The appeals court case is U.S. v. Libby, 07-3068, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Washington)."Cf. Matt Apuzzo (Associated Press), "Court to Libby: Go Directly to Jail", ''The Globe and Mail'', 2 July, 2007, accessed 2 July, 2007. ["The U.S. Bureau of Prisons has not yet assigned Mr. Libby a prison or given him a date to surrender, but last week it designated him as federal inmate No. 28301-016."]

Presidential pardon issue

Soon after the verdict, calls for Libby to be pardoned by President George W. Bush began to appear in some newspapers; some of them are posted online by the Libby Legal Defense Trust.''Libby Legal Defense Trust: In the News''; the Libby Legal Defense Trust also features a "Message from the Chairman", former Ambassador Mel Sembler, and the Advisory Committee, 1 June, 2007, accessed 7 March, 2007. U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid issued a press release about the verdict, urging President Bush to pledge not to pardon Libby, and other Democratic politicians followed his lead.Harry Reid, press release, ''democrats.senate.gov'' 6 March, 2007, accessed 5 April, 2007; cf. news account in "Democrats to Bush: Don't Pardon Libby", CNN News 7 March, 2007, accessed 5 April, 2007.
Surveying "the pardon battle" and citing both pro and con publications, ''The Washington Post'' online columnist Dan Froomkin concludes that many U.S. newspapers opposed a presidential pardon for Libby.Dan Froomkin, "Many Newspapers Oppose Pardon", ''White House Watch'' (column and blog), ''washingtonpost.com'', June 7 2007, accessed June 7 2007. Much of this commentary obscured the fact that the clemency power provided the President with several options short of a full, unconditional pardon. In an op-ed published in the ''The Washington Post'', former federal prosecutor and conservative activist William Otis argued the sentence was too stringent and that, instead of pardoning Libby, President Bush should commute his sentence.William Otis, "Neither Prison Nor Pardon: Justice in the Libby Case Lies With Bush's Third Option", ''The Washington Post'', June 7 2007: A-27; online posting, ''washingtonpost.com'', June 7 2007, accessed June 7 2007.
After the sentencing, President Bush stated on camera: "... [I] will not intervene until Libby's legal team has exhausted all of its avenues of appeal ... It wouldn't be appropriate for me to discuss the case until after the legal remedies have run its course."Jim Rutenberg, "Bush in Dilemma on Libby Pardon", ''International Herald Tribune'', June 7 2007, accessed June 7 2007.
But, ultimately, less than a month later, on July 2, 2007, Bush chose Otis's "third option" — "neither prison nor pardon" — in commuting Libby's prison sentence.

Presidential commutation of prison sentence

After Libby was denied bail during his appeal process on July 2 2007, President Bush commuted Libby's 30-month federal prison sentence, calling it "excessive," but he did not change the other parts of the sentence and their conditions. The commutation left in place the felony conviction, the $250,000 fine, and the terms of probation. The commutation of a sentence that had not been served, even in part, appeared highly unusual; presidential commutations (which are rarely granted) have traditionally been carried out after a substantial portion of the sentence had been served. A former Justice Department pardon attorney stated that she could not find any precedents for commuting a sentence before it had begun, especially in the last half-century.
Bush explained his "Grant of Executive Clemency" to Libby (in part):

Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation.


I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison.


My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.

Libby's lawyer, Theodore V. Wells, Jr. "issued a brief statement saying Mr. Libby and his family 'wished to express their gratitude for the president’s decision. ... We continue to believe in Mr. Libby’s innocence,' Mr. Wells said."Scott Shane and Neil Lewis, "Bush Spares Libby from 30-Month Prison Term", ''The New York Times'', 3 July, 2007, accessed 3 July, 2007.
Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, however, took issue with Bush's description of the sentence as 'excessive,' saying it was 'imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. ... It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals,' Fitzgerald said. 'That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing.'"Qtd. by CNN, "Bush Commutes Libby's Prison Sentence", ''us.cnn.com'', 2 July, 2007 (updated periodically), accessed 3 July, 2007.
The day after the commuting of Libby's sentence, James Rowley (Bloomberg News) reported that President Bush has not ruled out pardoning Libby in the future and that Bush's press spokesman, Tony Snow, denied any political motivation in the commutation. Quoting Snow, Rowley added: "'The president is getting pounded on the right because he didn't do a full pardon.' If Bush were 'doing the weather-vane thing' he 'would have done something differently.'"James Rowley, "Bush Won't Rule Out Pardon for Libby as Aide Defends Clemency", ''Bloomberg.com'' 3 July, 2007, accessed 3 July, 2007.For his full published statement in response to the commutation and the press conference about it by President Bush's press spokesman Tony Snow, see Joseph C. Wilson, "Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson's Response to Bush Spokesman Tony Snow's Comments at Today's White House Briefing", online posting, ''Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington'' (CREW), 3 July, 2007, accessed 4 July, 2007; online posting, "Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson's Response ... " and "Read more", ''Joseph and Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust'' (Home page), n.d., accessed 8 July, 2007.
Nevertheless, Democratic politicians' responses stressed their outrage at what they called a disgraceful abrogation of justice, and, that evening CNN reported that Congressman John Conyers, Jr. (D, Michigan) announced that there would be a formal Congressional investigation of Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence and other presidential reprieves.Anderson Cooper, "Breaking News", ''Anderson Cooper 360°'', broadcast on CNN, 3 July, 2007, 10 p.m.-12 a.m. EDT, accessed July 3 2007; cf. "Political Bulletin: Bush Bashed Over Libby Commutation: Furious Democrats Will Hold Hearings", ''US News and World Reports'', July 3 2007, accessed July 3 2007."Political Bulletin: Bush Bashed Over Libby Commutation: Furious Democrats Will Hold Hearings", ''US News and World Reports'', Washington News, July 3 2007, accessed July 3 2007.See also "President Commutes Libby's Sentence", ''Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington'', July 3 2007, accessed July 4 2007. The hearing on "The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials" was held by the United States House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Conyers, on July 11, 2007."The Use and Misuse of Clemency Powers by Officials of the Executive Branch", ''judiciary.house.gov'', 11 July, 2007, accessed 11 July, 2007.Julie Hirschfeld Davis (Associated Press), "Bush Refuses to Explain Libby Order", ''FoxNews.com'', 11 July, 2007, accessed 11 July, 2007.
In his public statement accompanying his executive clemency proclamation, President Bush stated that he believes the sentence "harsh ... based in part on allegations never presented to the jury," that "The reputation [Libby] gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged," and that "The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting." Libby paid the required fine of "$250,400, which included a 'special assessment' of costs" that same day.
Just a few days later, however, Judge Walton questioned "whether ... [Libby] will face two years of probation, as [President Bush] said he would," because the supervised release time is conditioned on Libby's serving the prison sentence, and he "directed the special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, and ... [Libby's] lawyers to file arguments on the point...." "If Judge Walton does not impose any supervised release, it could undercut ... [Bush's] argument that ... Libby still faced stiff justice." That issue was resolved on July 10, 2007, clearing the way for Libby to begin serving the rest of his sentence, the supervised release and 400 hours of community service.
In response to President Bush's justifications for clemency, liberal commentator Harlan J. Protass noted that in ''Rita v. United States'',''Rita v. United States'', online posting in ''Supreme Court Collection'', Legal Resource Institute, Cornell University Law School, ''law.cornell.edu'', accessed July 4 2007. the case of a defendant convicted of perjury in front of a grand jury which had been decided two weeks earlier by the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. government had successfully argued that sentences that fall within Federal Sentencing Guidelines are presumed to be "reasonable", regardless of individual circumstances.^[2]
Reportedly "outraged" by Bush's commutation of Libby's prison sentence, on July 2, 2007, Wilson told CNN: "I have nothing to say to Scooter Libby. ... I don't owe this administration. They owe my wife and my family an apology for having betrayed her. Scooter Libby is a traitor. Bush's action ... demonstrates that the White House is corrupt from top to bottom." He reiterated this perspective on the commutation in the House Judiciary Committee hearing on July 11, 2007, vehemently protesting that a Republican congressman was engaging in "yet a further smear of my wife's good name and my good name."
According to a ''USA Today/Gallup Poll'' conducted from July 6 to July 8, 2007, "most Americans disagree with President George W. Bush's decision to intervene" on Libby's behalf in the case.Jeffrey M. Jones (Gallup News Service), "Two in Three Say Bush Should Not Have Intervened in Libby Case: Only 13% Say Commuting Sentence Was Right Thing to Do", ''USA Today/Gallup Poll'', 10 July, 2007, accessed 10 July, 2007: "The July 6-8 poll finds 66% of Americans saying Bush should not have intervened on Libby's behalf. Only 13% say Bush was 'right to commute Libby's sentence,' while even fewer, 6%, say Bush 'should have gone farther and granted [Libby] a full pardon.' About one in six have no opinion of the matter."

Press coverage of Libby's trial

Blogs played a prominent role in the press coverage of Libby's trial. Scott Shane, in his article "For Liberal Bloggers, Libby Trial Is Fun and Fodder", published in ''The New York Times'' on February 15, 2007, quotes Robert Cox, president of the Media Bloggers Association, who wrote that the trial was "the first federal case for which independent bloggers have been given official credentials along with reporters from the traditional news media."Scott Shane, "For Brigade of Liberal Bloggers, the Libby Trial Is Fun and Fodder", ''The New York Times'', February 15 2007; updated with appended correction, 17 February, 2007, accessed March 24 2007 (TimesSelect subscription required).''The Scooter Libby Trial'', ''Media Bloggers Association'', February 20 2007–June 28 2007 (updated periodically), accessed June 30 2007. The trial was followed in the mass media and engaged the interest of both professional legal experts and the general public. While awaiting the Judge's ruling pertaining to supervised release and the "400 hours of community service that Judge Walton imposed," for example, bloggers discussed the legal issues involved in these non-commuted parts of Libby's sentence and their effects on Libby's future life experiences.

The Wilsons' civil suit

Libby was also named as a party in an on-going civil suit that Joseph and Valerie Wilson brought against Libby, Cheney, Armitage, and Rove.Associated Press, "Armitage Added To Plame Lawsuit: Ex-State Department Official Joins Cheney, Libby, Rove As Target In Suit", CBS News, 13 September, 2006, accessed 7 March, 2007.Joseph C. Wilson, "Statement in Response to Jury's Verdict in U.S. v. I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby" (now outdated URL), press release, originally posted online by ''Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington'' (CREW) 6 March, 2007, accessed 6 March, 2007; updated posting as "CREW Statement on Libby Conviction: No Man Is Above the Law.", ''Citizens ^Blogging for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington'' (blog), 6 March, 2007, accessed 18 April, 2007; also posted as "Wilsons' Attorney Statement in Response to Jury's Verdict in U.S. v. I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby", ''Joseph and Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust'', 6 March, 2007, accessed 18 April, 2007. U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates dismissed the lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds on July 19, 2007, stating in his forty-one page "Memorandum Opinion" that while it raises "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials," the Wilsons had not shown that the case belonged in federal court."Associated Press, "Valerie Plame's Lawsuit Dismissed", ''USA Today'', July 19, 2007, accessed 19 July, 2007.^[3]Carol D. Leonnig, "Plame's Lawsuit Against Top Officials Dismissed", ''The Washington Post'', 20 July, 2007, accessed 20 July, 2007."Memorandum Opinon", in "Valerie Wilson, et al., Plaintiffs, v. I. Lewis Libby, Jr., et al., Defendants", "Civil Action No. 06-1258 (JDB)", ''United States District Court for the District of Columbia'', 19 July, 2007, accessed 20 July, 2007. Bates also stated that "The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory. ... But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials...."Qtd. in Matt Apuzzo (Associated Press), ""Plame Lawsuit Dismissed in CIA Leak Case", ''The Denver Post'', July 19, 2007, accessed July 19, 2007. As Carol Leonnig reports, Bates "also ruled that his court lacks the power to award damages for the claims about public disclosure of private information about Plame, because the couple has not yet exhausted other remedies in seeking compensation from the appropriate federal agencies for those alleged violations."
According to the Wilson's legal counsel, Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), in her statement posted on the Wilson's website, they are reviewing the decision and anticipate appealing it."Melanie Sloan, Legal Counsel for Joe and Valerie Wilson, Responds to Dismissal of Civil Suit", ''Joseph and Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust'', July 19, 2007, accessed July 19, 2007. As reported by Richard B. Schmitt in ''The Los Angeles Times'', Ms. Sloan said that

Bates' decision recognized that the Wilsons' claims posed "important questions relating to the propriety of actions undertaken by our highest government officials." ... But, she said, the judge dismissed their lawsuit on a threshold legal issue centered on the difficulty of suing a federal official. ... "While we are obviously very disappointed by today's decision, we have always expected that this case would ultimately be decided by a higher court." Sloan said. "We disagree with the court's holding and intend to pursue this case vigorously to protect all Americans from vindictive government officials who abuse their power for their own political ends."Richard B. Schmitt, "Judge Throws Out Plame's Lawsuit", ''The Los Angeles Times'', July 19, 2007, accessed July 20, 2007.

Former Ambassador Joe Wilson stated, in an e-mail message, "This case is not just about what top government officials did to Valerie and me. ... We brought this suit because we strongly believe that politicizing intelligence ultimately serves only to undermine the security of our nation. Today's decision is just the first step in what we have always known would be a long legal battle and we are committed to seeing this case through."Joseph C. Wilson, e-mail correspondence, as qtd. in Jeralyn Merritt, "Plame Civil Lawsuit Dismissed", ''TalkLeft'' (accredited press blog), 19 July, 2007, accessed 20 July, 2007.

See also

★ CIA leak grand jury investigation

★ Iraq War

★ Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs

★ List of disbarred attorneys

★ Neoconservativism

★ Plame affair

★ Plame affair criminal investigation

★ Plame affair timeline

★ Project for the New American Century

★ United States v. Libby

★ The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials (hearing)

Notes

1. 'Scooter' Libby Reportedly Said 'I didn't do it'", ''Associated Press'', January 30 2007, accessed February 15 2007.
2. Harlan J. Protass, "The Quality of Mercy Is Strained: Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence, While His Lawyers Come Down Hard On Everyone Else", ''Slate'', July 3 2007, accessed July 4 2007.
3. "Judge Tosses Out Ex-Spy's Lawsuit Against Cheney in CIA Leak Case", ''CNN.com'', July 19, 2007, accessed July 19, 2007.

References

★ "Biographies of White House Senior Staff: Lewis Libby". ''United States Department of State'', February 2005. Archived by ''web.archive.org''. Accessed 8 July, 2007.

★ Bromell, Nick. "Scooter Libby and Me". ''The American Scholar'' (Phi Beta Kappa) (Winter 2007). Accessed 8 June, 2007.

★ –––. "Scooter's Tragic Innocence: Why My Friend Scooter Libby Is Loyal to Bush, Cheney and an Arrogant Administration Whose Values Are Not His Own". ''Salon'', 24 January, 2007. Accessed 8 June, 2007. (Premium content; restricted access).

★ Dickerson, John. "Who Is Scooter Libby?The Secretive Cheney Aide at the Heart of the CIA Leak Case". ''Slate'', 21 October, 2005. Accessed 28 June, 2007.

★ Frankel, Max. "The Washington Back Channel". ''The New York Times'', 25 March, 2007. Accessed 8 June, 2007. (TimesSelect subscription required.)

★ Garfield, Bob. "'Former New York Times Staffer Judith Miller'". ''On the Media from NPR'', National Public Radio, WCNY, 11 November, 2005. Accessed 5 March, 2007. (Transcript and RealAudio link.)

★ "I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby". ''Right Web'' (International Relations Center). Last updated 21 March, 2007. Accessed 1 July, 2007.

★ "Indictment" in ''United States of America vs. I. Lewis Libby, also known as "Scooter Libby"''. ''United States Department of Justice'', 28 October, 2005. Accessed 5 July, 2007.

★ Libby, Lewis. ''The Apprentice: A Novel''. Rpt. ed. 1996; New York: Griffin, 2005. ISBN 0312284535 (10). ISBN 978-0312284534 (13).

★ "Libby's Guilty Verdict: Media Myths and Falsehoods to Watch for". ''Media Matters for America'', 6 March, 2007. Accessed 8 June, 2007.

★ Markels, Alex. "Legal Affairs: I. Lewis Libby: The Plight of a Disciplined Risk-Taker". ''National Public Radio'', 28 October, 2005. Accessed 5 March, 2007.

★ Merritt, Jeralyn, moderator. "Verdict in the Libby Trial". Transcript. ''The Washington Post'' ("Live Online" discussion), 6 March, 2007, 2:00–3:00 p.m., ET. Accessed 6 March, 2007. (Duration: one hour.) N.B.: "Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties."

★ in "United States of America, v. I. Lewis Libby, Defendant". Criminal No. 05-394 (RBW). United States District Court for the District of Columbia, filed 10 January, 2007. Accessed 10 February, 2007. ["USA-v-Libby_Rules-of-Order.pdf".]

★ "President Commutes Libby's Sentence: Calls 30-month Term for Ex-Cheney Aide 'excessive'". ''Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington'', 3 July, 2007. Accessed 4 July, 2007.

★ "Scooter Libby -- White House: Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff to the Vice President". Archived White House biography from 2004. Accessed February 10, 2007.

★ Waas, Murray. "Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information". ''National Journal'', February 9 2006. Accessed March 6 2007.

★ –––, ed., with Jeff Lomonaco. ''The United States v. I. Lewis Libby''. New York: Union Square Press (imprint of Sterling Publishing), 2007. ISBN 1402752598 (10). ISBN 978-1402752599 (13). ("Edited & with reporting by Murray Waas" and with research assistance by Jeff Lomonaco.)

★ Weisman, Steven. "White House Is Pressing Israelis To Take Initiatives in Peace Talks". ''The New York Times'', 17 April, 2003. Accessed 24 March, 2007. (TimesSelect subscription required.)

★ Wilson, Joseph C. "Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson's Response to Bush Spokesman Tony Snow's Comments at Today's White House Briefing". Online posting. ''Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington'' (CREW), 3 July, 2007. Accessed 4 July, 2007. Online posting. "Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson's Response ... " and "Read more", ''Joseph and Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust'' (Home page), n.d. Accessed 8 July, 2007. (Concerning President Bush's commutation of Libby's prison sentence.)

★ –––. "Statement in Response to Jury's Verdict in U.S. v. I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby" (now outdated URL). Press release. Originally posted online. ''Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington'' (CREW), 6 March, 2007. Accessed 6 March, 2007. Posted as "CREW Statement on Libby Conviction: No Man Is Above the Law." ''Citizens ^Blogging for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington'' (blog), 6 March, 2007. Accessed 18 April, 2007. Also posted as "Wilsons' Attorney Statement in Response to Jury's Verdict in U.S. v. I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby". ''Joseph and Valerie Wilson Legal Support Trust'', 6 March, 2007, home page. Accessed 18 April, 2007.

External links

★ ''Background on the Plame Investigation'' at ''The Washington Post''. Accessed 20 July, 2007.

★ ''CNN Special Reports: CIA Leak Investigation'' compiled by ''CNN Newsroom''; incl. interactive timeline in ''Case History''. Updated periodically. Accessed 10 July, 2007. (Includes events relating to Lewis Libby's federal trial.)

★ "Legal Affairs: Lewis Libby's Complete Grand Jury Testimony". Full audio clip and transcript provided by National Public Radio on ''npr.org'', 7 February, 2007. Accessed 17 February, 2007. (8 hours.)

★ "The Lewis Libby Case". Archive of articles concerning I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby broadcast on National Public Radio. Updated periodically. Accessed 10 July, 2007.

★ Libby Legal Defense Trust. Website sponsored by friends and supporters of I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby. Incorporates a brief biography and "News". (Press releases; news reports; "Legal Filings" and "Statements" relating to Libby's defense in United States v. Libby. Updated periodically.)

★ "Scooter Libby" Index at ''Salon.com''.

★ ''Times Topics: I. Lewis Libby Jr.'' (Index of news articles pertaining to Libby published in ''The New York Times''; incorporates: "The Counts", a summary of the Libby trial verdict; "Diary of the Leak Trial", a graphical timeline; and multimedia links. Access to some archived articles requires TimesSelect subscription.) Accessed 10 July, 2007.

★ ''United States v. I. Lewis Libby''. Photo gallery with news captions at ''The Washington Post''. Accessed 17 July, 2007.