Text 4941, 878 rader
Skriven 2007-07-03 23:31:20 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (0707036) for Tue, 2007 Jul 3
===================================================

===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Tony Snow
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release July 3, 2007

Press Briefing by Tony Snow Room 450 Eisenhower Executive Office Building

˙ /news/releases/2007/07/20070703-6.wm.v.html ˙˙Press Briefings
˙˙Audio


10:55 A.M. EDT

MR. SNOW: Good morning. Good to see you all. Couple of notes, first on the
President's day. The President had his normal briefings in the morning. At
10:30 a.m. he'll have a visit with wounded military personnel at the Walter
Reed Army Medical Center.

He also this morning had phone calls with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
and the three members -- these were separate phone calls, these were four
phone calls total -- the other members of the presidency council: Jalal
Talabani, Adil Abd al-Mahdi and Tariq al-Hashimi. All of the conversations
were about ongoing political progress and developments within Iraq; the
President encouraging all of them to move not only aggressively forward,
but also move together on issues of concern.

They do report that they have now transmitted to the council of
representatives, their legislature, the oil law, and are hoping quite soon
to have a related piece of legislation, one that has to deal with the
distribution of oil and hydrocarbon revenues, before the legislature quite
soon. The President, nevertheless, encouraged them to keep moving on other
areas of political interest, including constitutional and political reform,
and to work well with one another.

So that's the tenor, really, that was a common theme of all four
conversations today. First phone call began at about 7:00 p.m., the last
one -- 7:00 a.m. -- the last one finishes at about 7:40.

There's also going to be a re-enlistment ceremony at Camp Victory in
Baghdad tomorrow. At a ceremony, more than 500 troops who were in the fight
in Iraq are going to re-enlist in America's Armed Forces. Troops who have
served in Iraq, as I've noted many times, continue to re-enlist in high
numbers -- higher numbers than throughout the military, generally. In
fiscal 2007, so far, more than 140,000 soldiers have enlisted or
re-enlisted in the Army. All three components are above the retention goals
as of the end of March; overall retention mission is 37,578.

In addition, the 500 re-enlistees will be joined by a hundred comrades who
will raise their right hands in the oath of becoming citizens of the United
States of America.

And with that, I'll take questions.

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.

Q Thank you, Tony. Does the White House have any reaction to the
resignation of Japan Defense Minister Kyuma?

MR. SNOW: No, let's -- let's first stay on this topic, and then for those
who have other ones -- don't have any reaction to it. Contact NSC later in
the day.

Q You were saying to Ken that this is routine, in term of the President's
procedure, and routinely, the procedure to consult with the Justice
Department. Can I just clarify, did the President talk to Attorney General
Gonzales?

MR. SNOW: Again, we're not going to -- we're not going to get into internal
deliberations --

Q No, but can you say whether he did not talk to Gonzales at all about
this?

MR. SNOW: Well, the Attorney General recused himself from this case. It
would have been inappropriate -- it would have been inappropriate to have
any conversations with him.

Q Okay, and he did not talk to anybody at Justice?

MR. SNOW: I'm not aware of any, but again, I'm not going to get you -- we
still have this strong belief in the importance of the confidentiality of
communications.

Q Well, the reason I ask is because the system expects a President to
consult. And there would be no harm in saying --

MR. SNOW: Well, no, you -- what you've created is a perception that there
is a hard and fast system that operates the same way every time. As I
pointed out quite often, what is involved in taking a look at old cases is
to go back to the prosecutors who originally did it, have them go back to
their files, consult the case, and look at it in that direction. Those are
conditions that do not apply in this case. And therefore, you don't have
the necessity of going back and saying, will you tell us what went on? I
mean, we're pretty well aware of what's been going on and the issues in the
case, and we are certainly satisfied that the President spent a lot of time
and very careful deliberation about this --

Q But that argues that it got special handling because of who Mr. Libby is.
You're making the opposite case, it seems.

MR. SNOW: No, I think when you're trying to -- no, what it's saying is, it
gets special handling because of the peculiar nature of the Libby case,
which is it's ongoing and highly public. That's what we're talking about
here.

Q So he got special handling because of who he is, or was.

MR. SNOW: No, he got special handling because the nature -- because --
look, Ken --

Q A similar case --

MR. SNOW: No, Ken, here's what you're doing. What you're saying is, because
Scooter Libby is a public figure, therefore a highly public trial,
therefore the facts are well-known. And knowing the facts are well-known,
you do not need to do prior consultations the way that you do in the past
to try to get those facts available, that somehow all of that is
attributable to "who Scooter Libby is." No, it is, in fact, a consequence
of the kind of trial that you've got here. This is not something, again,
where you have to go back and consult members of the Justice Department
about what the facts of the case are or the circumstances surrounding it.

Furthermore, you've got a trial record, and it is still a trial, so it's
not the case that you have to go ask the prosecutor and he needs to burnish
his memory about it.

Q I just want to follow up. There are some who -- on the right who are very
interested in the idea of a full pardon and they are pointing out that a
convicted felon can serve in the government. If Vice President Cheney wants
to bring Scooter Libby back into his office, would the President support
that?

MR. SNOW: I don't have any idea. This is not something that's come up.

Q Tony, I want to go back to the issue of an apology, and I want to stay
issue-focused and not blaming. Are there -- is the American people owed
some kind of apology from someone in this administration for the leaking of
a CIA person's name, personnel's name?

MR. SNOW: Yes, it's improper to be leaking those names.

Q You say it's improper, so you're saying someone in this administration
owes the American public an apology?

MR. SNOW: I'll apologize. All done.

Q No, it's not. That's flippant, that's a very flippant way of doing
something very serious -- it was a very serious matter. That was very
flippant.

MR. SNOW: Well, no, I think in some ways the characterization -- because
there are so many complex issues involved in this, including the provenance
of it, and furthermore, the fact that in the Washington culture things get
leaked all the time. And I'm not aware --

Q Does that make it right?

MR. SNOW: How many of you have apologized for a controversial name
appearing under tough circumstances in a news story? I daresay the answer
is zero.

Q Tony, does the President believe that prison time for perjury is
excessive, per se? And if he does not believe that, what is it about this
case, beyond the fact that Scooter Libby worked for this administration,
that led him to commute the sentence? What are the factors here?

MR. SNOW: Again, we are not going to get you into the -- I'm not going to
delve you into the deep considerations, other than to tell you the
President considered it excessive --

Q Does he think prison for perjury is excessive?

MR. SNOW: -- as did a parole board. As did the parole board. So I'm simply
telling you that -- what you're trying to do is to set up a false
distinction here as -- acting as if this were not the sort of punishment
that would be meted out in a perjury case. It is.

Q I'm asking you, if someone else perjures himself --

Q -- say that it was excessive.

MR. SNOW: It said that, in fact, the -- consistent with the guidelines that
it talked about, for the general use of guidelines in mitigated
circumstances, and it goes in some length into those considerations.

Q I'd like to know, if someone else perjures himself, someone unknown to
the President, does the President believe that prison time for that offense
is excessive?

MR. SNOW: It depends on the circumstances surrounding the case.

Q And so what is it about these circumstances that --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get you -- beyond what we've said, I'm just not
going to play the game.

Q But is one day, even one day in prison excessive for this kind of a
crime? I mean, people have spent time in prison for --

MR. SNOW: No, no -- this crime. This crime.

Q This crime, yes.

MR. SNOW: Not this kind of crime; this crime.

Q One day is too much for this particular crime?

MR. SNOW: The President decided that it was too much for this one.

Q Why not some jail time served, as was --

MR. SNOW: Tell me why.

Q I'm asking you.

MR. SNOW: No, it sounds to me like --

Q -- obstruction of justice, is why --

MR. SNOW: You don't think --

Q -- convicted of obstruction of justice.

Q For lying, perjury.

Q Perjury.

Q He was convicted of -- am I right? He was convicted of obstruction of
justice.

Q He was convicted of perjury. He lied about leaking.

MR. SNOW: -- running high in the press room today.

Q No, you're trying to take the logical and change it around and make --
you're insulting our intelligence.

MR. SNOW: No, I don't think so. What I've tried to do is to insert a little
nuance into a conversation that continues to try to create broad
generalizations that can be used, frankly, to twist the case out of
context.

Q Does Scooter Libby owe the President something now?

MR. SNOW: What Scooter Libby is doing is paying a debt to society.

Q Does he owe the President not to give -- ask for a pardon?

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to try to get into what he owes or doesn't owe. I
mean, that's -- ask Scooter Libby what he thinks he owes.

Q Should he just be happy right now that his sentence was commuted, and he
should not come back and ask for a pardon?

MR. SNOW: You know, again, I am not going to get in -- tell somebody their
business. I will remind you that this is a guy, again, who has a felony
conviction, a $250,000 fine, two years probation, and basically has lost
the way he has built a living in his entire life. That is pretty
significant punishment.

Q Book deal, right?

MR. SNOW: I love the fact that everybody thinks folks get rich off books. I
like Scooter, but I'm not sure that's one that's going to go flying off the
shelves.

Have we exhausted this, or do we have any --

Q Yes, we're pretty exhausted. (Laughter.)

Q Two questions. One, as far as the immigration bill was concerned, is the
President still disappointed, or he has still hope for this immigration
bill?

MR. SNOW: The President believes we have to do comprehensive immigration
reform. The fact that the Senate decided not to act does not mean that the
world will not continue with a situation in which the laws presently on the
books are insufficient for providing sufficient punishment to have
employers, with due diligence, figure out whether their employees are legal
or not. It does not have an encouragement for those who come here legally
to identify themselves in such a way that it is possible to track them, to
ensure that they're obeying the laws, working, paying taxes, and making
constructive contributions to society. It does not allow us, at least at
this present juncture, the $4.4 billion that was contemplated to complete
the most ambitious border security program in history. It does not allow us
to proceed with a temporary worker program that alleviates one of the
central fallacies of the 1986 bill, which is the need for people to come in
on a temporary basis, to flow in and out of the country, to fill jobs that
Americans don't normally fill, but at the same time need filled. And we're
already seeing a number of stories out of farm states about real problems
folks are facing because they do not have sufficient labor right now to do
what they need to do.

All of these are problems, and the question now is, okay, Congress, having
said this is a huge problem, it's a top priority, we've got to deal with it
-- the question is, what are you going to do? If there is constructive
action, we'd love to see it, love to be able to help.

Q Thank you.

Q Second one, please. Is President aware of the food -- quality of food
dumped from China now, also tainted food comes to the U.S. and it is
costing the U.S. $700 billion or more?

Q I like this one.

MR. SNOW: You took the -- that was Gizzi's question the other day. That was
interesting. The President is certainly aware of news reports.

Thank you.

END 12:35 P.M. EDT
===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070703-6.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)