From this morning’s press gaggle:
REPORTER: Tony, why do you … in your op-ed today you brought up the Clinton pardons, as well. Do two wrongs make a right? Is that the idea, like if Clinton did wrong …
SNOW: Well, this is … no, this is not a wrong, but I think what is interesting is perhaps it was just because he was on his way out, but while there was a small flurry, there was not much investigation of it. Now you’ve got President Clinton and Senator Clinton out complaining about this, which, I got to tell you, I don’t know what our Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it.
To refresh your memory on Hillary Clinton’s remarks:
“I believe that presidential pardon authority is available to any president, and almost all presidents have exercised it…. This (the Libby decision) was clearly an effort to protect the White House. … There isn’t any doubt now, what we know is that Libby was carrying out the implicit or explicit wishes of the vice president, or maybe the president as well, in the further effort to stifle dissent.”
The rest of the gaggle is posted below.
The full excerpt:
Reporter: So, back on Libby. The President envisioned him serving parole time. But there’s some confusion about that. What’s the White House understanding now about whether …
SNOW: The understanding is that this basically says, you now have … he’s got probation time, not parole time.
REPORTER: Probation, I’m sorry.
SNOW: Yes. So you treat it as if he has already served the 30 months, and probation kicks in. Obviously, the sentencing judge will figure out precisely how that works. But this … I know that there has been some confusion about it, but it’s our understanding that you treat it as if, okay, you’ve served your 30 months, now you’re on probation, and the kind of conditions that would apply during normal probation would apply.
REPORTER: Well, the judge didn’t think it was that clear.
SNOW: Well, again, we have a disagreement there.
REPORTER: Did the White House make a misstep here, I guess is what I’m asking.
SNOW: No, the White House did not make a misstep. And again, these sorts of determinations are always up to the sentencing judge.
REPORTER: But does this argue for why he should have run it past the Justice Department? Maybe a lawyer or …
SNOW: No, and again … you and I went through this the other day … there’s this notion that somehow there’s a hard and fast process that requires the President to consult. Again, in this case, the Attorney General himself had been recused from it. We think that proper diligence was exercised in this case.
REPORTER: How could proper diligence be exercised if the judge is now saying, wait, the statute says you have to serve some jail time before you can actually get probation?
SNOW: Again, I think that is still a grey area in the law. We understand what the judge is saying. Our legal counsel looks at it in a different manner, and I don’t think that that is a reflection on whether you have due diligence. There seems to be a disagreement here … it does happen in law. The sentencing judge will make the final determination on it.
REPORTER: If there is a grey area, how do you know with certainty then … I mean, on the one hand, you’re saying there is a grey area; on the other hand, you’re saying we’re confident that this is all fine and he will serve probation.
SNOW: Well, I can’t go any further for you on that, Ed. I mean, this is … but on the other hand, you treat it as if … it doesn’t seem that it ought to be that complicated … you treat it as if he served the 30 months, and you have a probationary period that follows.
REPORTER: What’s the basis for that? Because the judge is saying there’s a statute … in the order he specifically says there’s a statute that says that you have to serve some jail time.
SNOW: I will see if legal counsel can give you something a little more nuanced on that, but the fact is that this is something that will be determined by the trial judge. On the other hand, you’ve got a judge, also, who has had some of the verdict, some of the punishment taken away. My sense is that there are some disagreements here, but it’s something that … talking to Fred Fielding, he thinks that they’re on strong legal ground that, in fact, this is something that can be imposed.
REPORTER: But, clearly, it was not the President’s intention that probation not be served?
SNOW: That is correct. And that was very clear. Look … and again, if you talk to attorneys around town and you ask them, is it a severe punishment to have your career taken away, the answer is, yes. By maintaining a felony conviction it has very profound impacts on what Scooter Libby can do in the future to provide a living for his family, and obviously, the fine is significant and so is probation.
Go ahead, Kelly.
REPORTER: Do you think that the judge is reacting in some way because he feels that …
SNOW: I don’t want to try to psychologize.
REPORTER: Why do you say that the President did not take politics into account, and if he had he would not have lifted a finger?
SNOW: Because you take a look at the polls … the polls indicate that … they’ve been recited … people say, well, if you take a look at the polls, they wish he would have done nothing. So that’s my reading of it.
REPORTER: That he would have done nothing because he’s already so … why?
SNOW: No, because, again, if you’re taking politics into consideration, what you’re saying is somebody trying to figure out politically what is going to be advantageous and popular with the American public. What the President thought in this … what the President’s approach was … and I think you know him well enough to understand this … is what is consistent with the dictates of justice? It is not something where he was consulting public opinion polls or asking what’s going to play politically.
If you take a look at what has happened with some on the conservative side, they’ve been unhappy because they wanted a full pardon. The President thought that it was inappropriate to vacate the finding of the jury in this case. He … after a long deliberation, they found Scooter Libby guilty of obstruction and perjury, and he thought it appropriate to maintain those convictions. He just thought that the punishment leveled by the court was excessive. You can take a look at Tim Noah’s piece on Slate today where he also has taken … he’s gone through and read what the sentencing commission had to say and they seem to agree. So there’s … the President feels strongly that Scooter Libby’s punishment was excessive, but on the other hand, he is also not willing to say, I’m going to forget the fact that you were convicted of a serious crime by a jury of your peers.
REPORTER: So why would he still be considering … why wouldn’t he rule out a pardon?
SNOW: Because all he’s doing is … he’s not ruling anything in or out. But on the other hand, if you take a look at what he has said, he said that he is perfectly content … not content … he did the right thing. And there is still an option, people can always approach the pardon attorney. But the President thinks he’s done the right thing.
REPORTER: If he thinks it’s so important to keep jury deliberations and their rulings in effect, why does he ever pardon anybody?
SNOW: Well, there are some times when, obviously, there are some cases that may not be of sufficient gravity where he thinks that, in fact, a pardon would be called for.
This is a pretty serious case. And so, again, I think you can go back and look through the record of this administration. This is not where … one where, for grave offenses, people have been handed out pardons.
REPORTER: So the hurdle for a pardon is pretty high, though not off the table?
SNOW: Again, I’m not going to get into speculating about the future, other than to say that the President thinks that he’s done the right thing here. This is the right way to approach this case.
REPORTER: What about Conyers and his desire to have some sort of investigation of the use of the President’s power in this instance?
SNOW: Well, fine, knock himself out. I mean, perfectly happy. And while he’s at it, why doesn’t he look at January 20th, 2001?
REPORTER: Tony, why do you … in your op-ed today you brought up the Clinton pardons, as well. Do two wrongs make a right? Is that the idea, like if Clinton did wrong …
SNOW: Well, this is … no, this is not a wrong, but I think what is interesting is perhaps it was just because he was on his way out, but while there was a small flurry, there was not much investigation of it. Now you’ve got President Clinton and Senator Clinton out complaining about this, which, I got to tell you, I don’t know what our Arkansan is for chutzpah, but this is a gigantic case of it.
REPORTER: That’s all I need.
REPORTER:I think it’s “chutzpah,” but it was close.
SNOW: That’s fine. Oy, oy, oy.
REPORTER: Tony, there were safeguards put into place after Clinton, and since you obviously feel there were abuses at the end of the Clinton administration …
SNOW: I’m not just … no, no, no. Look, the President has the constitutional authority and the constitutional power to practice clemency. So I don’t … all I’m saying is that this administration has been very careful about the way they approach it, and that would include in the case of Scooter Libby.
REPORTER: But because of perceived abuses by Clinton, there were changes made. Former pardon attorneys say there were a bunch of changes made to make sure it went through the proper channels.
SNOW: Right.
REPORTER: So then, since you feel so strongly …
SNOW: So you’re hung up …
REPORTER: No, no, no. You feel so strongly that the Clinton pardons were abuses. You put that in your op-ed today; said there was a flurry of them. But …
SNOW: I don’t think I used the term “abuses.” I think I had said that there was a flurry of them.
REPORTER: “Dizzying haste,” you said.
SNOW: I believe that would be an accurate portrayal. If you take a look at news reports … people scurrying about, clutching pieces of paper, running around … I think those final hours were probably not timed of long chin-pulling reflection. But again … look, Ed has got a reasonable point, which is to ask, do we think we’ve done wrong, do we think we’ve cut corners? The answer is, no.
REPORTER: Much of the complaint about this has been that this is not equal justice under the law; that Scooter Libby is getting a special break, and there are so many others who have asked for commutation, including an Iraq war veteran, who’s got 33 years of prison ahead of him. Will … doesn’t Scooter Libby …
SNOW: Thirty-three months, not years.
REPORTER: I’m sorry, 33 months. Does Scooter Libby’s commutation fall under the same equal justice under the law there that everybody else gets?
SNOW: Look, if you’re asking … this provides a nice chance to go back and look at the Clinton pardons. Does that mean every drug dealer in America should have gotten off under the “equal justice under the law” logo? I mean, I think what you have here is that this was a special case. He had a special prosecutor. It was a unique case. I don’t want to try to judge on merits of demerits of cases that may be pending, and frankly, I don’t know whether this particular veteran has appealed to the pardon attorneys. I don’t know any of those particular cases, so it’s very difficult to respond to a broad, abstract assertion on other cases. This was, in fact, a unique case, but it was one that the President believes that he did right by the dictates of justice.
REPORTER: Well, was it not special in the sense that Scooter Libby is a former top aide who knew the President, worked for the President, and that gave him special access and special treatment?
SNOW: Well, no. I don’t think he got special access in the sense that when he worked in the White House he had access. But on the other hand, there’s been access since. So look, it is a special case because it was a special case … highly publicized, a special counsel doing an investigation. So I think you can say it was a unique case. But on the other hand, again, this is the President trying to take a look, a hard look at a case. And in this particular instance, hastened by a decision by the 1st U.S. District Court of Appeals to go ahead and do what he thought was right.
REPORTER: Can I just come back to the probation thing again? Just to be clear, you’re saying that Fred Fielding looked at this before the President signed it, signed off on it, said, oh, don’t worry about this, sir.
SNOW: I don’t know if … I don’t know if the President asked him specifically about it, but Fred did take a look at it, and he thought that it was appropriate.
REPORTER: Before …
SNOW: Yes, of course, absolutely, absolutely.
REPORTER: Okay.
REPORTER: You and the President both said very, very clearly that the jury’s verdict should be respected.
SNOW: That is correct.
REPORTER: Will you ever have to eat those words if he does grant Scooter Libby a pardon?
SNOW: Well, again, just wait and see if that happens, and then we’ll answer the question.
REPORTER: Do you expect that the President would look at some other cases now? I know he’s got a record of not … a lot of these, but might he be open to looking to some of the other cases of people who did not have special access …
SNOW: Kelly, I don’t know precisely how the process works for bringing these cases before the President. As Ed has pointed out, they do have a process that they go and they look through these things, but I honestly don’t know. My sense is that you don’t adjust simply because people say, man, you got to look at a lot of other cases. My sense is that people do take a look at the cases pending. But I don’t have any special details.
REPORTER: Did the pardon attorney play any role in this decision?
SNOW: I have no idea.
REPORTER: Could you find out?
SNOW: Yes, I don’t believe that there have been any conversations with the pardon attorney.
REPORTER: Well, would that not make this the only occasion on which the President has granted executive clemency without the case going through the office of pardon attorney?
SNOW: Well, I will try to find out what I can get you on it. I just don’t have anything on it.
