Text 4944, 576 rader
Skriven 2007-07-05 23:30:58 av Whitehouse Press (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Press Release (070705) for Thu, 2007 Jul 5
==================================================

===========================================================================
Press Briefing by Scott Stanzel
===========================================================================

For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary July 5, 2007

Press Briefing by Scott Stanzel Room 450 Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive
Office Building

˙ /news/releases/2007/07/20070705.wm.v.html ˙˙Press Briefings


12:38 P.M. EDT

MR. STANZEL: Good afternoon, everybody. Happy July 5th. Hope you all had a
wonderful Independence Day. I don't have anything off the top, so I'll take
your questions.

Q The House Judiciary Committee has given the White House until 10:00 a.m.
Monday to explain its basis for invoking executive privilege. How is the
White House going to respond to that?

MR. STANZEL: Well, we always respond appropriately to the inquiries. I
would note that we do get a lot of inquiries from the Hill. They've
launched over 300 investigations, had over 350 requests for documents and
interviews --

Q Since January?

MR. STANZEL: Since taking over, yes. And they have had over 600 oversight
hearings in just about 100 days -- so that's about six oversight hearings a
day. And we've turned over 200,000 pages of documents as an administration.
And in that time, what they have to show for it, if you're taking a
generous look at it, is six bills -- six major bills passed.

We'll always respond appropriately, and look forward to reviewing that
letter, but I guess I would raise those issues because it raises the
question, what does Congress want to do -- do they want to pass legislation
for the American people or would they rather investigate and have politics
be the course of the day?

Q Does that mean that -- when you say you will respond appropriately, does
that mean that you'll meet the 10:00 a.m. deadline?

MR. STANZEL: I haven't seen that letter, so we'll take a look at it and see
what they're asking for. And I'm sure the Counsel's Office will have a
response in due time.

Q And by your earlier response, are you suggesting that the Congress is too
zealous in its oversight, excessive?

MR. STANZEL: Well, I would say they have a lot to show in terms of activity
and requests and letter writing, and that sort of thing, but not much to
show in the way of real legislation, whether it's legislation on health
care, education, comprehensive immigration reform -- all of those things
are important issues that we think the American people care about and would
like to see Congress move forward on.

Q Scott, in the Libby matter, the President and the White House all made a
big deal of saying that this is not a slap on the wrist, because Libby is
going to pay a fine, and he's also going to be on probation for two years.
As you know, the judge in the case is now saying he actually may not have
to be on probation because he did not serve any jail time. So doesn't this
undermine the President's case that, in fact, this is not a slap on the
wrist?

MR. STANZEL: Actually, let me take a minute on that, Ed, and I appreciate
you raising that question. There is no dispute on the issue of the two-year
period of probation supervised by the office, the probation office. So
there is not dispute on that matter from our perspective.

The statute -- it says that a judge, when issuing a sentence, can impose
"supervised release" after incarceration. If, when making the initial
sentencing decision, the judge chooses not to impose incarceration, he
could have the defendant serve under identical conditions of supervision,
under the probation statute.

Last month the judge imposed a sentence of imprisonment, and therefore, he
termed the subsequent probationary period "supervised release." On June
22nd, he committed Libby to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to
surrender to a facility at a time of their choosing. The commutation of the
prison term results in Libby's release from the Bureau of Prison custody,
because it substitutes any time left to serve in advance of a supervised
release. So by the terms of the commutation, all other elements of the June
22nd sentencing order remain intact.

Therefore, under the judge's June 22nd order, he is required to report to
the probation office within 72 hours of the release from custody to serve
his period of supervision by the probation office.

Q Have you read the judge's July 3rd order, though?

MR. STANZEL: Have I read the judge's July 3rd order? No, personally, I have
not.

Q Because the order you're talking about was before the President actually
issued the commutation, correct?

MR. STANZEL: This was June 22nd. So --

Q So he's issued a new one on July 3rd. Have you read that?

MR. STANZEL: I have not.

Q Okay, it says: "Strictly construed, the statute authorizing the
imposition of supervised release indicates that such release should only
occur after the defendant has already served a term of imprisonment."

MR. STANZEL: Well --

Q He didn't serve in any prison time, right?

MR. STANZEL: Correct. But the judge -- it's our view that the judge, the
attorneys and the probation office can work out the reporting date, and
whether it is technically regarded as probation or supervised release in
light of the commutation. So the President has been clear in this. He
believes that Mr. Libby should serve two years under probation office
supervision, pursuant to the conditions and all other components of the
June 22nd order.

Q But you're saying, technically, it could be probation. The President
didn't say any technicalities. The President clearly told the American
people at Walter Reed --

MR. STANZEL: He did.

Q -- this is going to be probation.

MR. STANZEL: Correct.

Q His judge is saying, hmm, maybe not.

MR. STANZEL: Well, we believe the attorneys and the judge and the probation
office can work out those details.

Q But, work out details -- I mean, the President is making the case it's
not a slap on the wrist because there's going to be probation.

MR. STANZEL: Right.

Q And the judge is saying, no, if you look at the statute, that's not
what's going to happen.

MR. STANZEL: Well, it's our view that in the reading of the law and the
order on the 22nd, that that is the way it should be.

Q Is the President aware of this question, this statute, before he signed
off on the commutation?

MR. STANZEL: I'm not going to speak to the internal deliberations and
discussions that the President may have had on this matter. But he thinks
it was the right approach.

Q But do you think maybe now, in retrospect, it would have been better to
go through the Justice Department and have a lawyer there look at this, so
that --

MR. STANZEL: I think that this process was dealt with in a very thorough
manner. And the issues that have been raised -- that you're raising -- we
believe are technical issues. And the President's views are very clear on
this: that he should serve those two years of probation under the
supervision of that office.

Q Scott, is Scooter Libby getting more than equal justice under the law? Is
he getting special treatment?

MR. STANZEL: Well, I guess I don't know what you mean by "equal justice
under the law." But this is a unique case, there's no doubt about that. And
we have said that there are a lot of people on all sides of this issue
who've made good points. The President took a very measured approach to it.
He believed that the jury verdict should be respected and -- but he did
feel that the sentence was excessive, in terms of jail time. But this is a
unique case, and there's no doubt about that.

Q So that this case shouldn't be setting any kind of standard for, say,
someone who has already asked for commutation of sentence for, like, 33
months in jail for perjury and obstruction of justice, just as Scooter
Libby was charged with those?

MR. STANZEL: I think every case is different, and it's important to
evaluate every case on its merits.

Q So he's not trying to set a new standard, and this should not be used as
a measurement for any other case that's out there?

MR. STANZEL: I don't -- I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to speak to
precedent and that sort of thing. But it was the President's view that this
was a very unique matter, and he took the action he did based on the facts
and based on a considered and deliberate process of considering all the
angles to this issue. But every case should be evaluated on its own merits.

Q How can the White House square this commutation of the sentence of
Scooter Libby with the fact that when the President came to Washington, he
said that he wanted to change the tone of Washington; he wanted to bring
people together. And indeed, this is dividing Washington, D.C. even more,
as the President's numbers are even falling even more in the polls. How
does he square this with what he said when he first came to Washington?

MR. STANZEL: Well, to be clear, the President did not do this for political
reasons. As we've indicated before, if he was doing it for political
reasons, there would have been no action. As you all here have cited, polls
indicating -- that the American people may not have agreed with lessening a
sentence or commuting a sentence or a pardon, for that matter.

So the President took this action based on what he thinks was right and the
right thing to do. And Scooter Libby is going to -- has paid a hefty
penalty -- $250,000. We discussed the two years probation. He still has the
felony count, lose his opportunity to serve as a lawyer in his career, as
he did prior to his public service. So it's a unique case; there's no doubt
about that.

Q Follow-up. How can -- how can you explain the President's feelings right
now? Talking to many people who are very close to him, they keep saying
that the President did not want to overturn a jury's decision, but he made
this decision, and then he's also leaving the door open for a pardon. How
-- could you tell us how he came to -- because that's a very -- that's very
conflicted.

MR. STANZEL: Well, he thinks that the rule of law and the process for a
jury deliberation is an important one to respect. He respects the jury's
verdict in this case. He disagreed with the sentencing, he found it to be
excessive.

As you know, the President has used his commutation powers and his
pardoning powers that are granted to him by the Constitution very
sparingly, and more sparingly than previous administrations. So the
President believes that he took the right approach on this. He understands
that he'll get political heat from people all across the spectrum, but he
did what he believed was the right thing to do.

Q Scott, what do you say to Democratic critics who say that the commutation
of Libby's sentence was intended to mollify conservatives, his own
Republicans included, who were beginning to break with him on issues
ranging from immigration to Iraq?

MR. STANZEL: Well, if that was what we were responding to, then a full
pardon would have been the answer of the day, because that's what many
people -- many conservatives were asking for. And that is what the
President did not do. He respected the jury verdict. There's still the
hefty fine and the probation. And it's interesting to me -- there's much
hypocrisy in Washington, D.C., but it seems to me that the hypocrisy
demonstrated by Democratic leaders on this issue is rather startling. When
you think about the previous administration and the 11th hour fire sale
pardons, and issues that were provided commutations on the last day in the
numbers of the hundreds, in the final time between the post-election
period, it's really startling that they have the gall to criticize what we
believe is a very considered, a very deliberate approach to a very unique
case.

Q So you're accusing Bill and Hillary Clinton of hypocrisy?

MR. STANZEL: I would say that it is amazing to me that they can -- with
what they did on January 20, 2001, they can criticize the President for
issuing a commutation -- his fourth -- insomuch as they issued -- President
Clinton issued 141 pardons on January 20th; over 200 in the period -- in
the post-election period in 2000. It sort of pales in comparison.

Q What does that have to do with this, though? The circumstances of this
case seem to be very different. Those pardons and commutations were all, as
far as I know, processed through the usual channels, where --

MR. STANZEL: Do you know that?

Q We believe that that's the case; the attorneys applied for them --

MR. STANZEL: I don't know that that's the case.

Q -- they went through the Justice Department review.

MR. STANZEL: I don't know that that's the case.

Q It is, certainly, in most of them, as far as we're aware. We haven't
heard of others that aren't.

MR. STANZEL: Well, those are all questions -- legitimate questions to be
asked.

Q So this case was special because this was someone who worked for the
White House, who knew the President, and who seems to be getting special
treatment. There are at least 3,000 other cases out there of people who
feel that their sentences were far too long, and wish that they could have
had theirs commuted, as well.

MR. STANZEL: Well, certainly there's an argument to be made that there was
special treatment in those 141 pardons issued on January 20, 2001 -- Mark
Rich, Susan McDougal, a Clinton brother, you know.

Q Yes, but what's that have to do with this?

MR. STANZEL: It's interesting to me that they would bring up those attacks
in this day and try to score a political point. They can disagree with the
action the President took, but to use some of the language that they've
used is really remarkable.

Q So you're saying you're not going to have a final day pardon of Scooter
Libby? Let's get that on the record: Is that what you're saying?

MR. STANZEL: The President is on the record on that, and he's not ruling
anything in or out.

Q How are you going to accuse them of walking out the door with a fire
sale, and then you're leaving the door open for a last day pardon --

MR. STANZEL: It's purely hypothetical, but I was asked to respond to things
that Democratic leaders were saying today, and what they're saying today is
truly remarkable, when you think about what they did on the last day in
office. But the President thinks that he took the right approach on this
issue.

Q Can you talk about the poll numbers? The numbers are dropping. Do you
think that has anything to do with what you said, hypocrisy from the other
side? People are -- the question I asked before, it's gone against what the
President said. The numbers are now -- they dropped from 29 to 26 percent.
Can you talk about the President's poll numbers right now?

MR. STANZEL: Well, clearly, as I've indicated, the President doesn't lead
based on poll numbers. People are frustrated with what's going on in
Washington, but I think a lot of that has to do with people's concerns
about the Iraq war -- the President is concerned about the Iraq war. You've
heard him say before, if a pollster called him and said, do you support
what's going on, or are you disappointed with what's going on, are you in
favor of what's going on, no, the President wants it to be better. That's
why we instituted the Baghdad security plan.

In terms of Congress and their remarkably low poll numbers, historically
low poll numbers, we think that a lot of the reason for that is people
don't see that Congress is addressing the real issues of the day. They're
more interested in investigations; they're more interested in political mud
fights than they are in actually getting real legislation passed.

Q Does the President hold the view that former President Bill Clinton is
being unfair to him with his criticism?

MR. STANZEL: I haven't talked to the President about that. It was my
observation that it's a remarkable attack to make, given the situation that
they were in.

Q How did you begin with saying there is no dispute, when, in fact, the
judge, the sentencing judge, an appointee of this President, does believe
there's a dispute on how to proceed with probation? How can the White House
determine there is no dispute?

MR. STANZEL: I don't believe there's a dispute on the interests in having a
two-year probationary period of supervised probation by that office. That's
what I meant by there's no dispute.

Q But didn't the President's commutation override that? That's what the
judge is saying.

MR. STANZEL: It's our view that it didn't. It's our view that it didn't.

Yes, Ben.

Q Scott, why, if the President thought the sentence was excessive, why
didn't he simply reduce it? Why do away with the entire sentence?

MR. STANZEL: Well, I think the President thought that the penalty -- the
fine, the probation, the felony charge -- were all very significant
penalties. And so that's why -- I'm not going to get into a gaming out of
whether zero to 30 and somewhere in there was -- is the right place, but
the President thought that the fine was excessive -- or the jail time was
excessive, and that's why he commuted the sentence.

Q Even one day would have been considered excessive?

MR. STANZEL: The President commuted the entire sentence.

Q So a single day in jail for lying and obstructing justice, in a federal
case, is excessive?

MR. STANZEL: The President believed that 30 months, the sentence that was
given -- one day wasn't given, 30 months was.

Q Right, but it's not the 30 months that he thought was excessive, it was
the entire sentence.

MR. STANZEL: It was the --

Q -- any time in jail.

MR. STANZEL: He commuted the 30-month sentence. So what the President
believed was 30 months was excessive, and he respected the jury verdict,
and the jury verdict also put in place -- found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury
and obstruction of justice, which are serious charges, and those are
addressed by the $250,000 fine and the probation and the felony charge.

Q Can you tell us if reducing the sentence was even considered?

MR. STANZEL: I'm not going to even speculate about internal deliberations.
So the President made very clear his views in the two-page statement and in
his comments the next day.

Q One other on this. Has he spoken, has the President spoken to Scooter
Libby about this?

MR. STANZEL: No, he has not.

Q Scott, has --

MR. STANZEL: Yes, go ahead.

Q I have three British questions, if I may.

Q Could we stay on this topic?

MR. STANZEL: Okay.

Q Scott, did the President bypass the normal channels in the Department of
Justice to maintain secrecy about his deliberations and his process with
respect to Scooter Libby?

MR. STANZEL: No, the President took a very deliberate approach to this
issue. I'm not going to discuss all the deliberations that he had. We have
indicated that he did not speak with the Department of Justice, but he took
a very measured approach, because the facts of this case were very evident,
they were very clear. And he does not -- the authorities of commutation and
pardoning are granted to him by the Constitution, and so he does not have
to answer to a subordinate office on that.

Q Why didn't he seek Justice Department comment?

MR. STANZEL: Because he felt that he was certainly capable, with his staff,
in making this decision.

Q May I change the subject?

MR. STANZEL: Any others? April.

Q Has Scooter Libby's lawyers contacted the White House about possible
appealing to the Supreme Court the conviction, or a pardon? Has he made
anyone here aware of next steps?

MR. STANZEL: Not that I'm aware of, but you should check with Scooter
Libby's lawyers about their actions. I'm not aware of any.

Q Scott, some of his fellow Republicans have criticized the President for
commuting Libby's sentence, but not commuting the sentences of those El
Paso border agents, Compean and Ramos. Is there any concern in the White
House this is going to heighten that criticism and add fuel to the fire?

MR. STANZEL: We've seen that criticism before and we've addressed that
matter many times before. I think it's important, as I've indicated -- each
case is different. It's important to look at the facts of every case, look
at the facts of that issue. So I don't think that there's a concern that
we're going to get more or less political heat because the President took
this action. But it's important to evaluate every case on its merits.

Q Scott, one more. You're bringing up the Clintons. Isn't that like saying
two wrongs make a right?

MR. STANZEL: I'm not saying that at all. But I am saying that you should
pay attention to the ground you stand on when you're launching attacks.

Q Because you're saying that they were worse, so if you're upset about this
--

MR. STANZEL: I'm saying that they -- the previous President used his
pardoning and commutation powers far more than this President. There were
many controversial issues that they dealt with --

Q As did the President's father.

MR. STANZEL: Correct. There were many issues that they dealt with. And I'm
just saying that to try to make a political point based on this one issue
that we feel is a very deliberate approach, that respects the rule of law,
is remarkable.

Q But because of those Clinton pardons, there were actually safeguards that
were added. And when you talk to former pardon attorneys, they say because
of what happened with Mark Rich and others, Congress looked at -- and
others -- and they put in new safeguards. But then, by not going to the
Justice Department, the President went around those safeguards. So how can
you -- aren't you having it both ways by saying, well, the Clintons did a
really bad job of this, but then you ignored some of the reforms that were
made after the Clinton pardons --

MR. STANZEL: The President's powers come from the Constitution. And that's
what the President answers to.

Q I've got three British, Middle East-type questions. The first one -- has
President Bush personally been in touch with Prime Minister Gordon Brown on
the terrorism of the past week?

MR. STANZEL: Not that I'm aware of. But, certainly, U.S. officials have
been in regular contact with their counterparts in the U.K., so those
conversations are frequent and very involved and regular.

Q Can the U.S. consider Great Britain a full ally when Prime Minister Brown
has said that the war on terror is a phrase that won't be used anymore?

MR. STANZEL: We absolutely consider the U.K. a very valued partner and a
full ally.

Q And third, has the U.S. attitude toward Hamas changed in any way in light
of the release of Alan Johnston?

MR. STANZEL: You know, we were pleased by the safe release of Mr. Johnston.
It was a great relief, of course, to his family and friends. And we would
also note that there's another hostage in Gaza, and that's Israeli Corporal
Shalit, and we hope that they would release him, as well. But that does not
change our attitude.

Q Scott, there's a new terror tape from Ayman al- Zawahiri. It seems be
calling followers to join the jihad in Iraq. Do you have any reaction to
the new terror tape?

MR. STANZEL: You know, I would say that the new terror tape is a reminder
that we face a very determined enemy, one who wants to kill wantonly, wants
to kill to spread their view of the world. They're a dangerous enemy. And
the President has made clear that we must stay on the offense, so we are
not fighting these terrorists in places like Boston; rather we are fighting
them in Baghdad.

So it's just yet another reminder of their determination. They see Iraq as
a central front in the war on terror. They would see precipitous withdrawal
by the United States as a victory for them. The President made comments
yesterday, believes it's very important that we stay on the offense against
these people who clearly have shown their desire to kill innocent civilians
in order to stop peace and democracy.

Q Does the White House view Zawahiri and bin Laden as becoming increasingly
irrelevant, occasionally releasing a tape, in Zawahiri's case, when there
are cells apparently operating in places like Glasgow and London, perhaps
on their own?

MR. STANZEL: I don't know that I would make that specific judgment. I think
that certainly we are hunting down all the top leaders of al Qaeda. We
understand, however, that there are cells throughout the world, so this
fight goes on not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it goes on in other
places. And unfortunately, the actions of some in the U.K. remind us that
this issue can come to our shores, as well.

Q Scott, can I ask you about a Russia-related issue. President Putin, upon
leaving Kennebunkport, went directly to Guatemala and helped his country
win an Olympic bid. I can tell you my country is ecstatic about it. Is
there anything the White House might say to the Russian leader and the
Russian nation on that victory?

MR. STANZEL: Sure. We congratulate Russia on its successful bid to host the
Olympics in Sochi in 2014. The Olympics, as you know, are a great way to --
for countries to come together and celebrate athletic achievement. So we
congratulate them on their --

Q Did the two Presidents, to the best of your knowledge, discuss the issue
at Kennebunkport?

MR. STANZEL: Not that I'm aware of. Stephen Hadley had given a pretty full
readout of their discussions, and he did not mention that. So I'm not aware
that that came up.

Q And lastly, the Chinese recently invited the President to their own
Olympics in 2008. Do you know if that's under consideration?

MR. STANZEL: I'm aware of that invitation, but we don't have any updates to
the President's schedule at this time.

Q Scott, can you update us on gifts that may have been given to the
President for his birthday?

MR. STANZEL: I didn't -- I didn't check on that. I know that the President
had a wonderful evening with family and friends. He was joined by his
father and his mother and the daughters and a number of good friends. But I
don't know. You might check with the First Lady's office on that.

Q Thank you.

MR. STANZEL: Thank you.

END 1:03 P.M. EDT

===========================================================================
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070705.html

 * Origin: (1:3634/12)