[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 43, Number 27 (Monday, July 9, 2007)]
[Pages 901-902]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
Statement on Granting Executive Clemency to I. Lewis 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

[[Page 902]]

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 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.