The White House Responds

Santelli Tells It Like It Is

Parts 2 & 3Part 2

Part 3

The reporters repeatedly questioned the Presidents judgment and expressed tacit indignation about his decision to commute the sentence before any jail time had been served.

One reporter stood out from the rest asking a pointed question about whether there was as much indignation about the “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.” These important inconsistencies went unacknowledged by the rest of the press corp.

For the record here are the facts on the cases sighted:

Sandy Berger – while acting as former President Clinton’s designated representative to the commission investigating the attacks of September 11, 2001, illegally took classified documents from the National Archives on more than one occasion. He folded documents in his clothes, snuck them out of the Archives building, and stashed them under a construction trailer nearby until he could return, retrieve them, and later cut them up. After he was caught, he lied to the investigators and tried to shift blame to Archive employees.

He was fined $50,000, ordered to serve two years of probation and to perform 100 hours of community service; disbarred. No jail time.

Marion Barry – charged with three counts of felony perjury, 10 counts of misdemeanor drug possession, and one misdemeanor count of conspiracy to possess cocaine. However, in October 1990, he was convicted on only one charge: a single previous misdemeanor count of possessing cocaine which occurred during November of 1989. No jail time.

Bill Clinton – lied during grand jury testimony, impeached by congress. He settled the civil suit for $850,000. He was disbarred from his Arkansas law license for five years and ordered to pay $25,000 in fines to that state’s bar officials. No jail time.

Marc Rich – pardoned by Clinton, he was a fugitive from justice who was hiding overseas; his ex-wife was a large Democratic contributor. He was a banker, and commodities trader who was trading with Iran while they were holding terrorists [the U.S. hostages of 1979-80] and trading with South Africa under the apartheid regime. He was indicted by Rudy Giuliani and instead of facing trial he fled the country to avoid prosecution. He’s lived in Switzerland for 17 years. His ex-wife gave more than $600,000 to the Democratic Party during the Clinton administration. Although he didn’t commit perjury as far as I can tell, he was still a shit and should have spent some time in jail.

One wonders where the righteous indignation was when President Clinton pardoned or provided clemency for nearly 500 people, many of whom were convicted of crimes similar to or much greater than Lewis Libby’s. PARDONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT CLINTON

Below is a list of questions posed by White House reporters today. The questions were taken directly from a transcript of the press conference. For clarity and brevity, the responses to the questions have been removed.

Press Briefing by Tony Snow
Room 450
Eisenhower Executive Office Building

10:55 A.M. EDT

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?

Q Tony, did the Vice President weigh in?

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?

Q Well, why no jail time, though?

Q The jail time issue — normally, somebody at least serves a day in jail, a week in jail, a month in jail.

Q I thought he said the jail time was excessive, the sentence was excessive. He didn’t say it was inappropriate.

MR. SNOW: Wait, one at a time, one at a time.

Q So you’re not closing the door, then, on a pardon.

Q You’re saying that he thinks what he’s done is enough?

Q And that would be it, that he wouldn’t do any 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?

Q Why not respect what the judge said?

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?

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?

Q Did he consult with anyone outside the White House?

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 –

Q Did he ask for the President to spare his friend?

Q 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?

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?

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?

Q So politics did not play into this decision at all?

Q Do you think the American people are owed something because of the breach?

Q Doesn’t Libby owe the President an apology?

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.

Q You just put out a two-page statement — we can shoot holes in that statement.

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.

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?

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.

Q Tony, did Libby directly ask the President for –

Q What about the Vice President, same question?

Q 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?

Q How does the President justify this commutation when there are thousands of others in jail with a similar request?

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?

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?

Q How could it not be extraordinary to grant something to someone who didn’t even ask for it?

Q Won’t this encourage other members of his administration to obstruct justice?

Q Tony, you didn’t answer the question about Karl Rove, though. Why wasn’t Karl Rove fired?

Q How many years is it going to take? I mean, the President made that statement in 2004.

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?

Q 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?

Q So he doesn’t agree that it’s a non-crime, as the mayor said?

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?

Q So he accepts a crime was committed?

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?

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

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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?

Q Does he think prison for perjury is excessive?

Q I’m asking you, if someone else perjures himself –

Q — say that it was excessive.

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?

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

Q One day is too much for this particular crime?

Q Why not some jail time served, as was –

Q I’m asking you.

Q — obstruction of justice, is why –

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.

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

Q Does Scooter Libby owe the President something now?

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

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?

END 12:35 P.M. EDT

At one point Hitchens states, “Liberal reluctance to confront this sheer horror is the result, I think, of a deep reticence about some furtive concept of “race.” It is subconsciously assumed that a critique of political Islam is an attack on people with brown skins.” He later added, “The least we can do, confronted by such radical evil, is to look it in the eye (something it strives to avoid) and call it by its right name.”

I couldn’t agree more. Read the whole article here.

Unfortunately, we have an upcoming Presidential election and the candidates are all pandering to the polls and trying to distinguish themselves in anyway they can. It’s gotten so bad that John Edwards, a mainstream Democrat candidate, actually had the gall to call the war on terror a “bumper sticker” slogan and he rejected the notion that there even is a “global war on terror.” At one point he called it an “ideological doctrine” which has been advanced by the Bush administration and he suggested that it has strained American military resources and emboldened terrorists.

Mr. Edwards’ statements may seem shocking but the other candidates aren’t far behind him ideologically – even the Republicans. Unfortunately, it appears nothing short of a successful attack will wake these politicians, and this country. I pray it never happens and we collectively continue to sleep; embracing the dream that nothing is wrong and that Islam is peace. More likely than not, one day soon our law enforcement or intelligence operatives will miss something seemingly minor and we will all suffer the consequences.

1. That’s what it takes to get the media to pay attention

2. Typically, something of equal or greater repugnance has already (sometimes commonly) been said by someone on the left.

Unfortunately, there is no moral outrage when someone on the left says these things. The right expects it and the left ignores it. However, when someone on the right makes outlandish comments – well now, that’s news worthy. The media and the Democrats on the left know that people on the right will react strongly to criticism and that plays to their agenda. It has the added benefit of riling up and energizing the leftist base. Bonus!

Ms. Coulter is an extremely bright person and one might think that she would understand how her inflammatory rhetoric can be so easily manipulated. It should be clear to her that the tactic damages her cause rather then aid it. She isn’t the first person to experience the wrath of this form of political judo.

Despite my reservations about her particular methods, I honestly believe that she is often taken out of context and deserves every opportunity to make certain her actual message is being heard. In the end her message may be too intellectually nuanced for many people to understand and it definitely faces challenges in the left-biased, sound-byte driven, echo chamber that provides our main-stream news coverage.

But what the heck, I’m an optimist. Maybe the light will eventually turn on and people will understand that what she is trying to do is draw attention to liberal hypocrisy.

Here’s Ann Coulter commenting on being taken out of context regarding John Edwards.