I. Lewis 'Scooter' Libby Gets His Sentence

Washington Post reporter Amy Goldstein was online Tuesday, June 5 at 2 p.m. ET the sentence handed down for former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby following his conviction on counts of perjury and obstruction of justice.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Libby Sentenced to 30 Months in Prison, Fined $250,000 (Post, June 5)

The transcript follows.

____________________

Amy Goldstein: Good afternoon. This is Amy Goldstein, and I got back a few minutes ago from the federal courthouse, where I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was sentenced today. Thanks for joining me to talk about one of Washington's most interesting trials in years. Let's get started.

_______________________

Washington: When and where does he have to report? (Will be free pending an appeal?) What is the possibility of a Presidential Pardon?

Amy Goldstein: Thanks for this central question -- now that Libby has been sentenced to 30 months in prison, when does he actually have to go? U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton didn't resolve this at today's sentencing, but it should be settled in about eight days. Toward the end of today's hearing, the judge granted a request by the defense to file a written argument laying out the case for Libby to remain out on bond while he appeals his conviction. Judge Walton asked the defense and the prosecution to turn in their arguments and scheduled a hearing on the matter for next Thursday, June 14.

As for the pardon, the answer is that nobody knows. Until today, the White House has refused to discuss the possibility. Today, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino addressed the matter -- just a little -- saying: "The president said he felt terrible for the family," Perino said. "He's not going to intervene."

_______________________

Chicago: Hi Amy. Early in the session, could you please recite the four acts that amounted to Libby's two perjuries, his lie to investigators and his obstruction? Thank you.

Amy Goldstein: Libby was convicted on March 6 of four of the five felonies with which he'd been charge. The most serious, obstruction of justice, stemmed form the fact he misled the federal grand jury in the CIA leak case, about when and how he learned that undercover officer Valerie Plame worked for the CIA and how he disclosed that information to journalists. Judge Walton sentenced him to 30 months on that count.

The two perjury counts involve what in legalese is called a "false material declaration" to the grand jury -- one about a conversation he had with NBC journalist Tim Russert and the other about a conversation he had with former Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper. He also was convicted of making a false statement to FBI agents about a conversation with Russert. Judge Walton sentenced Libby to 15 months on each of these three counts and ordered him to serve all of them concurrently. That means a sentence that totals 30 months.

Libby, by the way, was acquitted on a fifth count that had alleged he made a false statement to the FBI about his conversation with Cooper.

Hope that sets things straight for you.

_______________________

Baltimore: We keep hearing that no one ever was charged with the underlying crime (breaking the IIPA). Is that the usual standard? If the police investigated a drug dealer but found a money-laundering operation instead, would they be unable to charge? Personally I am tired of the crying that a Washington elite may serve jail time when any other less-connected resident of the District would have been sentenced without a whimper.

Amy Goldstein: This question of whether is matters that no one was ever charged with an underlying crime -- in this case, the actual leak of Valerie Plame's identity -- figured prominently in the case that the defense made to try to keep Libby out of prison.

Defense attorneys argued that his sentence should be lessened because there was no underlying crime that Mr. Libby was obstructing. This was a big part of the oral argument made in court this morning by one of Libby's main attorneys, William H. Jeffress Jr. On the other hand, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald argued this morning that the existence of an underlying crime didn't matter. Fitzgerald said that what counted was simply that Mr. Libby was well aware of the criminal investigation and that the investigation was legitimate. Judge Walton sided with the prosecution on this.

_______________________

Hickory, N.C.: Amy, do you believe the spin from Scooter's supporters will suggest Judge Walton's decision is partisan, as they did with U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald?

Amy Goldstein: It's always difficult to predict how much traction any kind spin will generate, but in this case that argument might run counter to Judge Walton's reputation as a relatively tough judge. Two Republican presidents gave him judicial seats: President George H.W. Bush first placed him on D.C. Superior Court, and he moved up to the U.S. District in 2001 courtesy of the current President Bush.

_______________________

Baltimore: Do you think that the prosecutor Fitzgerald is working on a more broad investigation that may include people right at the top? And do you think that whatever Ms. Plame was doing, it must have been important enough for the White House to stop by outing her?

Amy Goldstein: Moments after the jury convicted Libby on March 6, Fitzgerald and his prosecution team came outside the front of the federal courthouse, just a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol, and spoke at length to a large gathering of reporters. At that time, Fitzgerald said that he considered the investigation essentially over, although he did not rule out ever reopening it if new information came to him.

_______________________

Henderson, Nev.: Given that Libby is an attorney, would he now lose his membership of the Bar?

Amy Goldstein: Libby's lead attorney, Theodore V. Wells Jr., said during the closing of his oral argument this morning that he anticipated that his client would lose his law license. Wells said this as part of an emotion-laden argument for compassion from the judge, in which he said that his client had "two loves" in addition to his family: the law and government service. Wells predicted that both would be closed to Libby in the future. Only time will tell.

_______________________

Prescott, Ariz.: Have you read the letters sent in to vouch for Libby? As a Wyoming native, I read former Sen. Alan Simpson's letter, and from what I understand he was arguing that Libby was a real loyal guy to Cheney, and because he was found guilty, it was because he probably was doing what his boss told him to do. Did you get the same impression? What do you suppose Simpson was thinking, trying to persuade a judge that powerful people and their servants should be above the law?

Amy Goldstein: I have glanced through some of the letters but haven't had a chance to read all of them thoroughly because Judge Walton released them while the sentencing hearing was going on. As you may know, there were letters from more than 150 people, who urged the judge either to be lenient or to hand out a stiff sentence. In my quick glance, I was struck by both the strong testimonials from people of considerable influence -- including former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and, going back in history a bit, former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. I also was struck by several impassioned, hand-scribbled notes from ordinary citizens who sounded very, very angry at Libby.

One of my colleagues is preparing a story about the letters for the morning newspaper. Stay tuned.

_______________________

Chatham, N.J.: What role do you believe the media played in this case? Were they an active or passive participant? Was the coverage in proportion to the importance of the underlying issue?

Amy Goldstein: The role of the media is one of the most intriguing aspects of the Libby case. To start with, there was of course extensive coverage of the trial, and defense lawyers argued this morning that the coverage itself was part of his public humiliation -- grounds, they argued, for a compassionate sentence

At a deeper level, though, the media were what you might think of as involuntary active participants. During the course of the investigation, Fitzgerald, the special counsel, broke new ground in compelling journalists to divulge information they had learned from confidential conversations with government sources. He did this largely by maneuvering to get those sources to waive the confidentiality promises. This put several prominent Washington reporters -- including a few of my own Post colleagues -- in the rare and not entirely comfortable position of testifying before the grand jury and at the trial. As you might remember, one reporter -- Judith Miller, formerly of the New York Times -- went to jail for 85 days in an attempt to avoid cooperating in the investigation; in the end, even she testified. This testimony from journalists, perhaps none more important than that of NBC's Tim Russert, was essential to the prosecution in establishing that Libby had lied to investigators.

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: Considering their history of correspondence, did Judith Miller write a letter to Judge Walton with a recommendation on Scooter Libby's sentencing?

Amy Goldstein: No letter from Judy Miller, despite Libby's correspondence to her during her days in jail. (See above.)

_______________________

Anonymous: Isn't this case just a vendetta against Libby? It was Richard Armitage who was found to be the leaker. Fitzgerald knew this from the beginning of the investigation.

Amy Goldstein: In a case with as strong a political context as the Libby trial, the question of whether the prosecution was a vendetta is likely to linger for a long time. Certainly, that is the argument of Libby's admirers and many friends of the Bush administration in general. On the other hand, the prosecution argued that Libby broke the law by impeding a significant federal investigation. In the end, a jury agreed.

_______________________

Amy Goldstein: I think our hour is up, so we've run out of time. Many thanks for all your thoughtful questions.

_______________________

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.