On March 6, 2007, the jury
convicted him on four of the five counts: obstruction of justice, one count of making false statements when interviewed by agents of the FBI, and two counts of perjury. They
acquitted him on count three, the second charge of
making false statements when interviewed by federal agents about his conversations with
Time reporter
Matthew Cooper. Libby retained attorney
Ted Wells of the firm of
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison to represent him. Wells had successfully defended former
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Espy against a 30-count indictment and had also participated in the successful defense of former
Secretary of Labor Raymond Donovan. After Judge
Reggie Walton denied Libby's
motion to dismiss, the press initially reported that Libby would testify at the trial. Libby's
criminal trial,
United States v. Libby, began on January 16, 2007. A parade of
Pulitzer Prize–winning journalists testified, including
Bob Woodward,
Walter Pincus and
Glenn Kessler of
The Washington Post and
Judith Miller and
David E. Sanger of
The New York Times. Despite earlier press reports and widespread speculation, neither Libby nor Vice President Cheney testified. It convicted Libby on four of the five counts against him: two counts of perjury, one count of obstruction of justice in a
grand jury investigation, and one of the two counts of making false statements to
federal investigators. After the verdict, initially, Libby's lawyers announced that he would seek a new trial, and that, if that attempt were to fail, they would
appeal Libby's conviction. Libby did not speak to reporters. Speaking to the media outside the courtroom after the verdict, Fitzgerald said that "The jury worked very long and hard and deliberated at length ... [and] was obviously convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had lied and obstructed justice in a serious manner ... I do not expect to file any further charges." The trial confirmed that the leak came first from then-Deputy Secretary of State
Richard Armitage; since Fitzgerald did not charge Armitage and did not charge anyone else, Libby's conviction effectively ended the investigation. During his media appearance outside the courtroom after the verdict in the Libby case, Fitzgerald fielded questions from the press about others involved in the
Plame affair and in the
CIA leak grand jury investigation, such as Armitage and Cheney, whom he had already described as under "a cloud", as already addressed in his conduct of the case and in his closing arguments in court.
Sentencing Given current federal sentencing guidelines, which are not mandatory, the conviction could have resulted in a sentence ranging from no imprisonment to imprisonment of up to 25 years and a fine of $1,000,000; yet, as Sniffen and Apuzzo observe, "federal sentencing guidelines will probably prescribe far less." On June 5, 2007, Judge Walton sentenced Libby to 30 months in prison and fined him $250,000, clarifying that Libby would begin his sentence immediately. According to Apuzzo and Yost, the judge also "placed him on two years probation after his prison sentence expires. There is no parole in the federal system, but Libby would be eligible for release after two years." In addition, Judge Walton required Libby to provide "400 hours of community service" during his supervised release. On June 5, 2007, after the announcement of Libby's sentencing, CNN reported that Libby still "plans to appeal the verdict". Joseph and Valerie Wilson posted their statement on Libby's sentencing in
United States v. Libby on their website, "grateful that justice has been served."
Order to report to prison pending appeal of verdict After the June 5 sentencing, Walton said he was inclined to jail Libby after the defense laid out its proposed appeal, but the judge told attorneys he was open to changing his mind; however, on June 14, 2007, Walton ordered Libby to report to prison while his attorneys appealed the conviction. Libby's attorneys asked that the order be stayed, but Walton denied the request and told Libby that he would have 10 days to appeal the ruling. In denying Libby's request, which had questioned Fitzgerald's authority to make the charges in the first place, Walton supported Fitzgerald's authority in the case. He said: "Everyone is accountable, and if you work in the White House, and if it's perceived that somehow (you're) linked at the hip, the American public would have serious questions about the fairness of any investigation of a high-level official conducted by the attorney general." His "order grant[ing] the [legal academic] scholars permission to file their brief ..." contained a caustic footnote questioning the motivation of the legal academics and suggesting he might not give a great deal of weight to their opinion[:] ... It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the court on behalf of a criminal defendant. The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics' willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of this nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it."
Failure of Libby's appealing to begin prison sentence On June 20, 2007, Libby appealed Walton's ruling in federal appeals court. The following day, Walton filed a 30-page expanded ruling, in which he explained his decision to deny Libby bail in more detail. On July 2, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied Libby's request for a delay and release from his prison sentence, stating that Libby "has not shown that the appeal raises a substantial question under federal law that would merit letting him remain free," increasing "pressure on President George W. Bush to decide soon whether to pardon Libby ... as the former White House official's supporters have urged."
Presidential commutation Soon after the verdict several prominent high ranking white house officials including
John Bolton,
Donald Rumsfeld, and
Dick Cheney called for Libby to be
pardoned by President
George W. Bush. Some of those who called for pardon were posted online by the Libby Legal Defense Trust (LLDT). A few conservative commentators and columnists including
Ann Coulter,
Byron York,
Bill Kristol, and left-wing journalist
Christopher Hitchens supported pardoning Libby. U.S. Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid issued a press release about the verdict, urging Bush to pledge not to pardon Libby, and other Democratic politicians followed his lead. Surveying "the pardon battle" and citing both pro and con publications,
The Washington Post online columnist
Dan Froomkin concludes that many U.S. newspapers opposed a presidential pardon for Libby. Much of this commentary obscured the fact that the clemency power provided the President with several options short of a full, unconditional pardon. In an op-ed published in
The Washington Post, former federal prosecutor and conservative activist
William Otis argued the sentence was too stringent and that, instead of pardoning Libby, Bush should commute his sentence. After the sentencing, Bush stated on camera that he would "not intervene until Libby's legal team has exhausted all of its avenues of appeal ... It wouldn't be appropriate for me to discuss the case until after the legal remedies have run its course." Ultimately, less than a month later, on July 2, 2007, Bush chose Otis's 'third option' — "neither prison nor pardon" — in commuting Libby's prison sentence. At the time, Bush explained his "Grant of Executive Clemency" to Libby, in part, as follows: Libby paid the required fine of "$250,400, which included a 'special assessment' of costs" that same day. Bush's explanation was written by
Fred F. Fielding,
White House Counsel during the last two years of Bush's presidency. According to a
Time article published six months after Bush left office, Fielding worded the commutation "in a way that would make it harder for Bush to revisit it in the future ...; [the] language was intended to send an unmistakable message, internally as well as externally: No one is above the law." The article suggested that there was a fundamental difference between how Bush and Cheney viewed the "war on terror", with aides close to Bush feeling that Cheney had misled the President and damaged the administration's moral character with the Plame leak. Prosecutor
Patrick Fitzgerald, however, took issue with Bush's description of the sentence as 'excessive', saying it was "[i]mposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country ... It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals ... [T]hat principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing," Fitzgerald said. The day after the commuting of Libby's sentence, James Rowley (
Bloomberg News) reported that Bush had not ruled out pardoning Libby in the future and that Bush's press spokesman,
Tony Snow, denied any political motivation in the commutation. Quoting Snow, Rowley added: The president is getting pounded on
the right because he didn't do a full pardon.' If Bush were 'doing the weather-vane thing' he 'would have done something differently. Democratic politicians' responses stressed their outrage at what they called a disgraceful abrogation of justice, and, that evening
CNN reported that Representative
John Conyers, Jr., Democrat of
Michigan, announced that there would be a formal
Congressional investigation of Bush's commutation of Libby's sentence and other presidential reprieves. The hearing on "The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials" was held by the
United States House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Conyers, on July 11, 2007. Just a few days later, however, Judge Walton questioned "whether ... [Libby] will face two years of probation, as [President Bush] said he would," because the supervised release time is conditioned on Libby's serving the prison sentence, and he "directed the special prosecutor,
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, and ... [Libby's] lawyers to file arguments on the point. ... " "If Judge Walton does not impose any supervised release, it could undercut ... [Bush's] argument that ... Libby still faced stiff justice." In response to Bush's justifications for
clemency, liberal commentator Harlan J. Protass noted that in
Rita v. United States, the case of a defendant convicted of perjury in front of a
grand jury which had been decided two weeks earlier by the
U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. government had successfully argued that sentences that fall within
Federal Sentencing Guidelines are presumed to be "reasonable", regardless of individual circumstances. Reportedly outraged by Bush's commutation of Libby's prison sentence, on July 2, 2007, Wilson told
CNN: "I have nothing to say to Scooter Libby ... I don't owe this administration. They owe my wife and my family an apology for having betrayed her. Scooter Libby is a traitor. Bush's action ... demonstrates that the White House is corrupt from top to bottom." Several months after Bush's action, Judge Walton commented publicly on it. He spoke in favor of applying the law equally, stating: "The downside [of the commutation] is there are a lot of people in America who think that justice is determined to a large degree by who you are and that what you have plays a large role in what kind of justice you receive. ... " Bush took no further action with respect to Libby's conviction or sentence during his presidential term, despite entreaties from conservatives that he should be pardoned. Two days after their term expired, former Vice President Cheney expressed his regret that Bush had not pardoned Libby on his last day in office.
Press coverage of Libby's trial Blogs played a prominent role in the press coverage of Libby's trial. Scott Shane, in his article "For Liberal Bloggers, Libby Trial Is Fun and Fodder", published in
The New York Times on February 15, 2007, quotes
Robert Cox, president of the
Media Bloggers Association, who wrote that the trial was "the first federal case for which independent bloggers have been given official credentials along with reporters from the traditional news media." The trial was followed in the
mass media and engaged the interest of both professional legal experts and the general public.
Criticism of investigation On August 28, 2006,
Christopher Hitchens asserted that
Richard Armitage was the primary source of the Valerie Plame leak and that Fitzgerald knew this at the beginning of his investigation. This was supported a month later by Armitage himself, who stated that Fitzgerald had instructed him not to go public with this information. ''
Investor's Business Daily'' questioned Fitzgerald's truthfulness in an editorial, stating "From top to bottom, this has been one of the most disgraceful abuses of prosecutorial power in this country's history ... The Plame case proves [Fitzgerald] can bend the truth with the proficiency of the slickest of pols." In a September 2008
Wall Street Journal editorial, attorney
Alan Dershowitz cited the "questionable investigation[s]" of Scooter Libby as evidence of the problems brought to the criminal justice process by "politically appointed and partisan attorney[s] general". In April 2015, also writing in
The Wall Street Journal,
Hoover Institution fellow
Peter Berkowitz argued that statements by Judith Miller, in her recently published memoir, raised anew contentions that her testimony was inaccurate and that Fitzgerald's conduct as prosecutor was inappropriate. ==The Wilsons' civil suit==