    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: George W. Bush (2007, Book II)]
    [July 2, 2007]
    [Pages 908-909]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Statement on Granting Executive Clemency to I. Lewis ``Scooter''
    Libby
    July 2, 2007

        The United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit today rejected
    Lewis Libby's request to remain free on bail while pursuing his appeals
    for the serious convictions of perjury and obstruction of justice. As a
    result, Mr. Libby will be required to turn himself over to the Bureau of
    Prisons to begin serving his prison sentence.
        I have said throughout this process that it would not be appropriate
    to comment or intervene in this case until Mr. Libby's appeals have been
    exhausted. But with the denial of bail being upheld and incarceration
    imminent, I believe it is now important to react to that decision.
        From the very beginning of the investigation into the leaking of
    Valerie Plame's name, I made it clear to the
    White House staff and anyone serving in my administration that I
    expected full cooperation with the Justice Department. Dozens of White
    House staff and administration officials dutifully cooperated.
        After the investigation was underway, the Justice Department
    appointed United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
    Patrick Fitzgerald as a special
    counsel in charge of the case. Mr. Fitzgerald is a highly qualified,
    professional prosecutor who carried out his responsibilities as charged.
        This case has generated significant commentary and debate. Critics
    of the investigation have argued that a special counsel should not have
    been appointed, nor should the investigation have been pursued after the
    Justice Department learned who leaked Ms. Plame's name to columnist Robert

    [[Page 909]]

    Novak. Furthermore, the critics point out
    that neither Mr. Libby nor anyone else has been charged with violating
    the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act, which
    were the original subjects of the investigation. Finally, critics say
    the punishment does not fit the crime: Mr. Libby was a first-time
    offender with years of exceptional public service and was handed a harsh
    sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the jury.
        Others point out that a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence
    and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury
    and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system
    of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not
    tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the
    public trust, he must be held accountable. They say that had Mr. Libby
    only told the truth, he would have never been indicted in the first
    place.
        Both critics and defenders of this investigation have made important
    points. I have made my own evaluation. In preparing for the decision I
    am announcing today, I have carefully weighed these arguments and the
    circumstances surrounding this case.
        Mr. Libby was sentenced to 30 months of prison, 2 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 30 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.
        The Constitution gives the President the power of clemency to be
    used when he deems it to be warranted. It is my judgment that a
    commutation of the prison term in Mr. Libby's case is an appropriate
    exercise of this power.

    Note: The proclamation of July 2, on grant of executive clemency, is
    listed in Appendix D at the end of this volume.