U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

36–605 PDF 2008

USE AND MISUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY

POWER FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 11, 2007

Serial No. 110–57

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

[Vacant] 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

JULY 11, 2007

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 1

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 3

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Joseph C. Wilson, IV, former Ambassador 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 6

Mr. Douglas A. Berman, Professor, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State 

University 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 8

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 10

Mr. Roger C. Adams, Office of the Pardon Attorney, U.S. Department of 

Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 30

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 33

Mr. Thomas Cochran, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Middle District 

of North Carolina 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 44

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 47

Mr. David Rivkin, Baker & Hostetler LLP 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 56

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 58

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

List of Pardons Granted by President George W. Bush and Pardons Granted 

by President William Clinton, submitted by the Honorable Lamar Smith, 

a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ........................................................................ 116

Article from The Washington Post, dated March 7, 2007, submitted by the 

Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Utah, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary .......................................... 166

Excerpts from Minority Views, Report on Prewar Intelligence Assessments 

About Postwar Iraq, Together With Additional Views, Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 110th Congress, submitted by the Honorable Chris 

Cannon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah, and Member, 

Committee on the Judiciary ................................................................................ 168

Letter from the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress, 

from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

to President George W. Bush, dated July 6, 2007 ............................................. 190

Letter from the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress, 

from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

to President George W. Bush, dated July 10, 2007 ........................................... 192

Page

IV

Letter from Fred Fielding, White House Counsel, to the Honorable John 

Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress, from the State of Michigan, 

and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, dated July 11, 2007 .................. 193

(1)

USE AND MISUSE OF PRESIDENTIAL CLEMENCY POWER FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH OFFICIALS 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:30 p.m., in Room 

2138, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John Conyers, 

Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Conyers, Nadler, Scott, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Delahunt, Wexler, Cohen, Weiner, Wasserman Schultz, 

Ellison, Smith, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Gallegly, Chabot, Lungren, 

Cannon, Keller, Issa, Pence, Forbes, King, Feeney, Franks, 

Gohmert, and Jordan. 

Staff Present: Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel; 

Mark Dubester, Majority Counsel; Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel; Allison Beach, Minority Counsel; Sean McLaughlin, Deputy 

Chief Minority Counsel/Staff Director; Crystal Jezierski, Minority 

Counsel; and Matt Morgan, Staff Assistant. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Committee will come to order. I welcome my 

colleagues, our witnesses, and our guests here in the Judiciary 

hearing room. We are gathered here today on the subject of the 

hearing on the use and misuse of President’s commutation power. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess. 

And I begin with the observation that there are few principles in 

our society more important than equal justice under law. The idea 

that no man or woman is above the law is firmly embedded in our 

Nation’s founding documents and underlies the entirety of the 

criminal justice system. 

When clemency is granted outside the normal pardon system, 

and particularly when it is issued to members of the President’s 

own Administration, that fundamental concept is called into question. 

I respect the President’s authority under the Constitution to 

grant clemency. At the same time, I would hope that the White 

House would acknowledge our role as a co-equal branch of government with not only the right but the duty to conduct oversight. 

Today as part of our oversight responsibility I hope we can obtain answers to several important questions surrounding the President’s recent decision to commute the prison sentence of Mr. Libby: 

Was the grant of clemency here consistent with other pardons and 

commutations by this President? Were the prosecutor, the pardon 

2

attorney or other relevant officials in the Department of Justice 

consulted before the commutation was issued? Was the process to 

consider the commutation fair, thorough and available to similarly 

situated individuals? Was the net result of the commutation consistent with the Nation’s sentencing guidelines? 

Looking at his initial public statement, the President evidently 

believed that the 30-month prison sentence issued by Judge Walton 

was too harsh but felt some punishment was appropriate; in this 

case, a fine and probation. Is there any construction by which this 

ultimate sentence is consistent with sentencing guidelines? If not, 

do we need to reconsider the guidelines so that whatever factor the 

President identified can be taken into account in future sentencing 

decisions for others? What impact will the President’s decision have 

on Congress’ ability to learn how Ms. Plame came to be outed from 

the CIA in 2003? Was her outing the inadvertent result of a slip 

of the tongue by a government bureaucrat or was it part of a larger 

conspiracy to besmirch Ms. Plame and her husband Ambassador 

Wilson, who had written an op ed criticizing the Administration? 

Does the fact that Mr. Libby has received a commuted sentence 

rather than a pardon inhibit Congress’ ability to learn the truth? 

Some have sought to divert our efforts to ascertain the truth in 

this matter by focusing on unrelated issues or by muddying the 

facts of the Libby investigation. For example, it has been asserted 

that criminal charges should never have been brought against Mr. 

Libby or that there was never an underlying crime. But of course 

this belies the fact that Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation found that 

several individuals, including Mr. Libby, leaked classified information not just to Mr. Novak but to the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other publications. 

Some have tried to turn our attention to the events of some 7 

years ago when President Clinton pardoned Mark Rich. I did not 

support that action. But whatever its demerits were, it was investigated in four separate hearings in the Senate and the House and 

it did not involve someone who worked in the White House and 

who could potentially implicate others there, as may be or appears 

to be the case in this instance. 

I close by noting that if we are truly to get to the bottom of the 

controversies surrounding the President’s commutation of Mr. 

Libby’s present sentence, we would need to hear from two additional parties. The first is Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. He 

declined our invitation to participate today, but I hope that at some 

point he will offer us his perspective and that he does so when it 

is still timely and relevant. 

The second party of course is the White House. I have written 

President Bush asking him not to assert executive privilege in this 

matter, just as President Clinton did not assert the privilege 7 

years ago. I have not received a response as of yet, but certainly 

obtaining the testimony of those directly involved in the commutation would be useful and informative to this Committee. The principle of equal justice under law demands no less. 

I am pleased now to recognize the Ranking Member of the House 

Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Lamar 

Smith. 

3

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A wise American once 

said, quote, ‘‘we are a Nation of laws, and if any matter is abundantly clear by our Constitution, it is that the President has the 

sole and unitary power to grant clemency,’’ end quote. 

I agree with that statement, which was made by Chairman Conyers about President Clinton’s grant of clemency to 16 members of 

the FALN organization. The Constitution does give the President 

the authority to grant clemency. Congress cannot restrict this 

power, and yet here we are spending time and resources that 

would be better used focusing on the real needs of the American 

people, protecting our country from terrorist attacks, such as those 

recently attempted at Ft. Dix, New Jersey and JFK Airport in New 

York, securing our borders and reducing illegal immigration, investigating gang violence and violent crime, which is on the rise, and 

protecting our children from sexual predators on the Internet. 

Each of these issues was a priority for this Committee during the 

last Congress and there are pending bills within the Judiciary 

Committee’s jurisdiction on these subjects now. It is time to get 

back to the people’s business. But here we go again and we will 

spend half a day on the President’s decision to commute the 30-

month prison sentence of one person, an individual with an outstanding lifetime reputation. 

To put this in perspective, President Clinton admitted to perjury, 

was not sentenced to jail, and paid no fine. Sandy Berger, Mr. Clinton’s National Security Adviser, did not go to jail for lying to investigators about stealing classified documents from the National Archives. President Clinton granted a total of 457 pardons and 

commutations compared to only 117 to date for President Bush. 

President Franklin Roosevelt granted 3,687 during his 4-year 

terms in office, and President Harry Truman granted 1,913. What 

is it about Democratic Presidents and pardons? I was going to call 

President Clinton the king of pardons, but considering these figures, I think it is only fair to call him the prince of pardons. However, on his last day in office President Clinton issued dozens of 

pardons, an unprecedented use of the pardon authority, and of 

course by waiting until then to announce the pardons Mr. Clinton 

escaped being held accountable for his actions while in office. 

One of President Clinton’s pardons went to Mark Rich, a fugitive 

from justice who fled to Switzerland. He was granted clemency 

after being indicted for tax evasion and illegal oil deals made with 

Iran during the hostage crisis. Over $400,000 was donated by his 

ex-wife Denise Rich to the Clinton Library and the Democratic 

Party. 

Other notorious Clinton clemencies went to 16 members of 

FALN, a Puerto Rican Nationalist Group responsible for setting off 

120 bombs in the United States, killing six and injuring dozens 

more. 

In 1999, the House passed a resolution by a vote of 311 to 41 

that the President should not have granted clemency to terrorists. 

Only 2 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee today voted in favor 

of the resolution, 14 Democrats voted against the resolution or 

voted present. I hope they will show the same leniency toward Mr. 

Libby. 

4

Mr. Clinton also pardoned numerous criminals convicted of cocaine distribution and trafficking, including his half brother Roger 

and Carlos Vignale, who paid the First Lady’s brother $200,000 to 

represent him. Also pardoned was a former Cabinet member who 

pleaded guilty to making false statement to authorities, and Susan 

McDougal, a real estate business partner of the Clintons who had 

relevant information about the Whitewater scandal and had been 

convicted of criminal contempt. 

As troubling as these pardons are, they are within President 

Clinton’s authority to grant and neither I nor this Committee nor 

Congress can limit that power. 

New York Times columnist David Brooks summed it up last week 

in a column about Mr. Libby. He said, quote: ‘‘Of course the howlers howl. That is their assigned posture in this drama. They entered howling, they will leave howling, and the only thing you can 

count on is their anger has been cynically manufactured from start 

to finish,’’ end quote. 

Mr. Chairman, I have never offered my Democratic friends advice before, which is obviously unsolicited and no doubt unwanted, 

but if you want to avoid becoming the party of howlers, forget the 

partisanship, the Bush bashing, and the negativism. Let’s come up 

with a positive agenda that benefits working men and women. The 

American people will appreciate it. 

I welcome our witnesses and look forward to hearing their testimony, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman, and without objection, 

other Members’ opening statements will be included in the record. 

And I accept his advice as well. 

The witness list includes Tom Cochran, Professor Douglas A. 

Berman, David Rivkin, Roger Adams, and the Honorable Joseph C. 

Wilson, IV, former Ambassador. Mr. Wilson from 1976 to 1998, 

during both Democratic and Republican administrations, held various diplomatic posts throughout Africa, eventually serving as Ambassador to Gabon. He was Acting Ambassador to Iraq when it invaded Kuwait in 1990. He is married to the former CIA agent, Valerie Plame. He will be our first witness. 

The witnesses know we limit testimony to 5 minutes. Welcome, 

all witnesses. Welcome, Ambassador Wilson. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH C. WILSON, IV, 

FORMER AMBASSADOR 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the invitation to appear before you at this hearing 

on the possible abuse of presidential authority in the commutation 

of I. Lewis Libby, convicted on four counts of lying to Federal investigators, perjury, and obstruction of justice. 

I am not a lawyer, but I have understandably followed this case 

closely. This matter, after all, involves the betrayal of our national 

security, specifically the leaking of the identity of a covert officer 

of the Central Intelligence Agency, my wife, Valerie Wilson, as a 

vicious means of political retribution. 

After it became apparent in the spring of 2003 that one of the 

key justifications for war in the President’s State of the Union AdVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\071107\36605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 36605
5

dress was not supported by the facts, I felt an obligation and a 

sense of responsibility to the American people and to our men and 

women in uniform to share my firsthand knowledge about the unsubstantiated allegations of uranium yellowcake sales from Niger 

to Iraq. 

Accordingly, in a New York Times article of July 6, 2003, I disclosed the deliberate deception surrounding the justification for the 

invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq. Eight days later 

Valerie’s status as a CIA operative was made public in a newspaper column by Robert Novak. We now know from testimony and 

evidence presented in the United States v. I. Lewis Libby that 

Novak’s column was the end product of a process that was initiated 

by Vice President Cheney, who directed his Chief of Staff Scooter 

Libby to supervise it. 

Never in my 23 years as a member of the Diplomatic Service of 

the United States did I ever imagine a betrayal of our national security at the highest levels. Fifteen years ago this week I was 

sworn in as George Herbert Walker Bush’s Ambassador to two African nations, the Gabonese Republic and the Democratic Republic 

of Sao Tome and Principe. Seventeen years ago I served as his Acting Ambassador to Iraq in the first Gulf War. I was the last American diplomat to confront Saddam Hussein about his invasion of 

Kuwait prior to Desert Storm. As Acting Ambassador, my embassy 

was responsible for the safe evacuation of over 2,000 Americans 

from Kuwait and Iraq and the release of close to 150 Americans 

being held hostage by Saddam and his thugs. 

I was proud to serve my country mostly overseas for 23 years in 

both Republican and Democratic administrations and to promote 

and defend the values enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of 

Rights. I was honored to be then President Bush’s Envoy to Iraq 

and to have been part of the foreign policy team that managed the 

international crisis created by Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. Members of that foreign policy team remain among my closest colleagues and friends. 

Given my service, it has been therefore disconcerting to see my 

family and me targeted in the crosshairs of a character assassination campaign launched by the Vice President and carried out by 

his Chief of Staff and by the President’s political aide, Carl Rove, 

among others. 

Ultimately this concerted effort to discredit me, ruining my wife’s 

career along the way, has had a larger objective. This matter has 

always been about this Administration’s case for war and willingness to mislead the American people to justify it. 

In order to protect its original falsehoods, the Vice President and 

his men decided to engage in a further betrayal of our national security. Scooter Libby sought to blame the press, yet another deception. He was willing even to allow a journalist to spend 85 days in 

jail in a most cowardly act designed to avoid telling the truth. 

President Bush promised that if any member of the White House 

staff were engaged in this matter, it would be a firing offense. 

However, the trial of Scooter Libby has proved conclusively that 

Carl Rove was involved and although he escaped indictment he 

still works at the White House. We also know as a result of evidence introduced in that trial that President Bush himself selecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\071107\36605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 36605
6

tively declassified national security material to attempt to support 

the false rationale for war. 

The President’s broken promise and his own involvement in this 

unseemly smear campaign reveal a chief executive willing to subvert the rule of law and system of justice that has undergirded this 

great republic of ours for over 200 years. 

Make no mistake, the President’s actions last week cast a pall of 

suspicious over his office and Vice President Cheney. Mr. Libby 

was convicted of, among other things, obstruction of justice, a legal 

term used to describe a coverup. The Justice Department’s Special 

Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has said repeatedly that Mr. Libby’s 

blatant lying has been the equivalent of throwing sand in the eyes 

of the umpire, therefore ensuring that the umpire, our system of 

justice, cannot ascertain the whole truth. 

As a result Fitzgerald has said a cloud remains over the Vice 

President. In commuting Mr. Libby’s sentence the President has removed any incentive for Mr. Libby to cooperate with the prosecutor. The obstruction of justice is ongoing and now the President 

has emerged as its greatest protector. 

The President’s explanation for his commutation that Mr. Libby’s 

sentence was excessive turns out to be yet another falsehood because the sentence was quite normal, as Special Counsel Fitzgerald 

noted. 

The President at the very least owes the American people a full 

and honest explanation of his actions and those of other senior Administration officials in this matter, including but not limited to 

the Vice President. 

In closing, let me address the question of the underlying crime. 

Mr. Libby’s attorneys and his apologists have tried to downplay the 

conviction on the grounds that nobody was actually indicted for the 

leak of Valerie’s status as a covert CIA officer. Libby’s propaganda 

is an effort to distract from his crime, his obstruction of justice, his 

coverup. Who is he protecting? 

I would like the Committee Members and all Americans to think 

about this matter in this way: If senior American officials take time 

from their busy schedules to meet with a foreign military attache 

for the purpose of compromising the identity of a CIA covert officer, 

what would we call that? Although that scenario is hypothetical, 

the end result is no different from what happened in this case, the 

betrayal of our national security. 

I look forward to answering any and all legitimate questions. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR JOSEPH C. WILSON, IV (RET.) 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking member, members of the Committee, 

Thank you for the invitation to appear before you at this hearing on the possible 

abuse of Presidential authority in the commutation of I. Lewis Libby, convicted on 

four counts of lying to federal investigators, perjury and obstruction of justice. I am 

not a lawyer, but I have understandably followed this case closely. This matter, 

after all, involves the betrayal of our national security, specifically the leaking of 

the identity of a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency, my wife, Valerie 

Wilson, as a vicious means of political retribution. 

After it became apparent in Spring of 2003 that one of the key justifications for 

war in the President’s State of the Union address was not supported by the facts, 

7

I felt an obligation and a sense of responsibility to the American people and to our 

men and women in uniform to share my first-hand knowledge about the unsubstantiated allegations of uranium yellowcake sales from Niger to Iraq. Accordingly, In 

a New York Times article on July 6, 2003, I disclosed the deliberate deceptions surrounding the justification for the invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq. Eight 

days later Valerie’s status as a CIA operative was made public in a newspaper column by Robert Novak. We now know from testimony and evidence presented in the 

United States vs. I. Lewis Libby that Novak’s column was the end product of a process that was initiated by Vice President Cheney who directed his chief of staff, 

Scooter Libby to supervise it. 

Never in my twenty-three years as a member of the diplomatic service of the 

United States did I ever imagine a betrayal of our national security at the highest 

levels. 

Fifteen years ago this week, I was sworn in as George Herbert Walker Bush’s Ambassador to two African countries—Gabon and Sao Tome and Principe. Seventeen 

years ago I served as his acting Ambassador to Iraq in the first Gulf War. I was 

the last American diplomat to confront Saddam Hussein about his invasion of Kuwait prior to Desert Storm. As acting Ambassador, my embassy was responsible for 

the safe evacuation of over 2,000 Americans from Kuwait and Iraq and the release 

of close to 150 Americans held hostage by Saddam and his thugs. 

I was proud to serve my country mostly overseas, for twenty-three years, in both 

Republican and Democratic administrations, and to promote and defend the values 

enshrined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I was honored to be then President 

Bush’s envoy to Iraq and to have been part of the foreign policy team that managed 

the international crisis created by Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. Members of that 

foreign policy team remain among my closest colleagues and friends. 

Given my service, it has been therefore disconcerting to see my family and my 

targeted in the crosshairs of a character assassination campaign launched by the 

Vice President and carried out by his chief of staff, and by the President’s chief political aide, Karl Rove, among others. 

Ultimately, this concerted effort to discredit me, ruining my wife’s career along 

the way, has had a larger objective. This matter has always been about this administration’s case for war and its willingness to mislead the American people to justify 

it. In order to protect its original falsehoods, the Vice President and his men decided 

to engage in a further betrayal of our national security. Scooter Libby sought to 

blame the Press, yet another deception. He was willing even to allow a journalist 

to spend eighty-five days in jail in a most cowardly act to avoid telling the truth. 

President Bush promised that if any member of the White House staff were engaged in this matter, it would be a firing offense. However, the trial of Scooter Libby 

has proved conclusively that Karl Rove was involved, and although he escaped indictment, he still works at the White House. We also know as a result of evidence 

introduced in the trial that President Bush himself selectively declassified national 

security material to attempt to support the false rationale for war. The President’s 

broken promise and his own involvement in this unseemly smear campaign reveal 

a chief executive willing to subvert the rule of law and system of justice that has 

undergirded this great republic of ours for over 200 years. 

Make no mistake, the President’s actions last week cast a pall of suspicion over 

his office and Vice President Cheney. Mr. Libby was convicted of, among other 

crimes, obstruction of justice—a legal term used to describe a cover-up. The Justice 

Department’s Special Counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, has said repeatedly that Mr. 

Libby’s blatant lying had been the equivalent of ‘‘throwing sand in the eyes of the 

umpire’’, thereby ensuring that the umpire, the system of justice, cannot ascertain 

the whole truth. As a result, Fitzgerald has said, ‘‘a cloud remains over the Vice 

President.’’ In commuting Mr. Libby’s sentence, the President has removed any incentive for Mr. Libby to cooperate with the prosecutor. The obstruction of justice is 

ongoing and now the President has emerged as its greatest protector. The President’s explanation for his commutation that Mr. Libby’s sentence was excessive 

turns out to be yet another falsehood because the sentence was quite normal, as 

Special Counsel Fitzgerald noted. The President, at the very least, owes the American people a full and honest explanation of his actions and those of other senior 

administration officials in this matter, including, but not limited to the Vice President. 

In closing, let me address the question of the underlying crime. Mr. Libby’s attorneys and his apologists have tried to downplay his conviction on the grounds that 

nobody was actually indicted for the leak of Valerie’s status as a covert CIA officer. 

Libby’s propaganda is an effort to distract from his crime—his obstruction of justice, 

his cover up. Who is he protecting? 

8

I would like the committee members and all Americans to think about this matter 

in this way: If senior American officials take time from their busy schedules to meet 

with a foreign military attache ́ for the purpose of compromising the identity of a 

CIA covert officer, what would we call that? Although that scenario is hypothetical, 

the end result is no different from what happened in this case—the betrayal of our 

national security. 

I look forward to answering any and all legitimate questions.

Mr. CONYERS. Doug Berman is the William B. Saxbe Professor 

at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law. Professor Berman 

is nationally recognized in criminal law sentencing, co-author of the 

casebook, sentencing Law and Policy, creator and author of the 

Sentencing Law and Policy blog, and a longtime editor of the Federal Sentencing Reporter. 

We welcome you to this hearing for your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF DOUGLAS A. BERMAN, PROFESSOR,

MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW, THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking 

Member, Members of the Committee. I very much appreciate this 

opportunity to share my perspective on President George W. Bush’s 

sudden and surprising decision to commute entirely the prison 

term of I. Lewis ‘‘Scooter’’ Libby. 

As I will explain, President Bush’s commutation was fundamentally a sentencing decision and a sentencing decision that is peculiar and suspect on its own terms and a sentencing decision that 

is inconsistent with the Justice Department’s stated sentencing 

policies, with arguments Federal prosecutors make in court to 

courts across the Nation every day, and with the equal justice principles that Congress has pursued in modern sentencing reforms. 

Significantly, President Bush’s statement in support of the commutation actually praises Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation and prosecution and also the jury’s work in returning convictions. Ultimately, the statement focuses its criticism on U.S. District Judge 

Reggie Walton’s sentencing choices. 

The President says, quote: ‘‘The prison sentence given to Mr. 

Libby is excessive,‘‘ and that is why he says he decided to compute 

the 30-month prison term imposed by Judge Walton. Seeking to 

justify this decision, the President claims that Mr. Libby is still 

subject to, quote, ‘‘a harsh punishment because the commutation 

left in place the fine and supervision term ordered by Judge Walton.’’ President Bush’s statement also stresses collateral consequences, the damage to Mr. Libby’s reputation and his family’s 

suffering. 

I must say as a student of sentencing that the stated reasons 

that President Bush gave for commuting all of Mr. Libby’s prison 

time are somewhat hard to understand and perhaps even harder 

to justify. Mr. Libby’s prison term was set at the bottom of the sentencing range suggested by the Federal guidelines created by the 

U.S. Sentencing Commission. This term was recommended by an 

experienced prosecutor and selected by an experienced judge. 

The President’s conclusion that Mr. Libby’s term was excessive 

thus contradicts the recommendation of an expert sentencing agency and the determinations of the prosecutor and the judge most familiar with Mr. Libby’s criminal offenses and personal circumstances. 

9

Quite notably, under existing precedence the D.C. Circuit Court 

of Appeals would have considered Mr. Libby’s 30-month prison 

term and even a longer term set within the guidelines presumptively reasonable on appeal. 

Significantly, unlike some other high profile cases which have led 

to calls for the President to exercise his clemency power, even by 

some Members of this Committee, the prison sentence in Mr. 

Libby’s case was not the product of a mandatory sentencing provision. 

Judge Walton clearly had discretion to choose whatever term he 

thought was appropriate under the circumstances, although Federal law did require him to impose a sentence he judged sufficient 

but not greater than necessary to achieve the purposes of punishment that Congress has set forth in Federal law. 

Obviously Judge Walton believed that not only a fine and supervision was necessary but that the 30-month prison term, again to 

stress at the bottom of the applicable sentencing range, was sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the punishment 

goals that Congress has set forth. 

Of course defendants and their attorneys often complain that 

sentences set within guideline ranges are excessive and they frequently appeal within-guideline sentences, claiming that they are 

unreasonably long. But in thousands of such appeals in recent 

years no Federal appellate court has declared a single withinguideline sentence to be unreasonably long. 

Indeed, since the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. 

Booker the vast majority of sentences imposed above the guidelines 

have been declared reasonable by Federal circuit courts and many 

sentences below the guidelines have been declared by courts unreasonable in light of congressional sentencing purposes and policies. 

Even if one accepts the President’s assertion that a 30-month 

prison term for Mr. Libby was excessive, it is hard to justify or understand the President’s decision to commute Mr. Libby’s prison 

sentence in its entirety, keeping Mr. Libby from having to spend 

even a single day in prison for convictions that the President in his 

own statement said were serious and are matters that cut to the 

heart of our criminal justice system. 

The Justice Department in a series of policy advocacy and 

speeches to this Committee and speeches to the Senate and a variety of testimony has emphasized the importance of equal justice. 

Members of this Committee and Congress as a whole have often 

emphasized the need for guidelines to be enforced in a way to ensure that all members of society are treated equally. 

Candidly, in my own writings I have been concerned that some 

of the personal circumstances emphasized by President Bush don’t 

find their way into the application of the guidelines, but I am particularly concerned that the Bush administration argues every day 

in court that other persons should not be subject to the compassion 

that the President showed obviously in the statement toward Mr. 

Libby. 

I have in my testimony detailed in particular some of the inconsistencies between the goals that Congress has pursued in sentencing reform and the statements made by the President. I am 

happy to answer questions about those particulars, and I very 

10

much appreciate the chance to testify before this Committee. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOUGLAS A. BERMAN


DAB-1.eps
11


DAB-2.eps
12


DAB-3.eps
13


DAB-4.eps
14


DAB-5.eps
15


DAB-6.eps
16


DAB-7.eps
17


DAB-8.eps
18


DAB-9.eps
19


DAB-10.eps
20


DAB-11.eps
21


DAB-12.eps
22


DAB-13.eps
23


DAB-14.eps
24


DAB-15.eps
25


DAB-16.eps
26


DAB-17.eps
27


DAB-18.eps
28


DAB-19.eps
29


DAB-20.eps
30

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Professor Berman. 

Our next witness is Pardon Attorney Roger Adams at the Department of Justice, a career position he has held throughout the 

current Bush administration as well as for 3 years in the Clinton 

administration. He testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee 

in 2001 regarding President Clinton’s pardon of Mark Rich. 

While Mr. Adams can provide the Committee with information 

regarding the pardon and commutation process as it ordinarily 

works and the extent to which the ordinary process was followed 

or diverged from in this instance, career department officials such 

as Mr. Adams do not generally state policy positions on behalf of 

the Department. Under those circumstances, we are pleased to welcome you to the hearing today. 

TESTIMONY OF ROGER C. ADAMS, OFFICE OF THE PARDON 

ATTORNEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. ADAMS. Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, and 

Members of the Committee, thank you for asking me to appear before the Committee to discuss the work of the Office of the Pardon 

Attorney. For over a century the White House has usually relied 

on the Department of Justice and specifically the Office of the Pardon Attorney to receive, investigate——

Mr. CONYERS. Pull your mike closer, sir. 

Mr. ADAMS [continuing]. Usually relied on the Office of the Pardon Attorney to receive, investigate and make recommendations on 

clemency requests and to prepare the documents the President 

signs when granting a pardon or commutation of sentence. 

It is crucial to emphasize at the outset, as you just did, Mr. 

Chairman, that for the past quarter century the Pardon Attorney 

and all the employees in the office have been career officials rather 

than political appointees. And as you noted, Mr. Chairman, I began 

my tenure as Pardon Attorney in 1997 during the administration 

of President Clinton and have been privileged to serve since then. 

While the Department processes requests for executive clemency 

in accordance with regulations promulgated by the President and 

set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations, it is important to keep 

in mind that those regulations create no enforceable rights in persons applying for executive clemency, and they do not restrict the 

plenary authority granted to the President under Article II, section 

2 of the Constitution. The President is free to grant a pardon or 

commutation without the involvement of the Pardon Attorney or 

anyone else in the Department of Justice. However, my testimony 

outlines the more common situation when my office is involved. 

When we are involved our task is to prepare what is called a letter of advice, actually a report and recommendation setting out 

what we think the President should do. The Office of the Pardon 

Attorney sends a report and recommendation to the Deputy Attorney General, who reviews it, directs any changes he believes are 

appropriate, and signs a recommendation when he is satisfied that 

it reflects the Department’s best advice on the matter. The report 

is then sent to the Counsel to the President. 

As for the steps we take to prepare a letter of advice, let me first 

discuss the process my office follows in pardon cases. Under the 

provisions of 28 CFR, section 1.2, a person does not become eligible 

31

to file for a pardon request until the expiration of a 5-year waiting 

period that commences upon the date of the individual’s release 

from confinement, or if no condition of confinement was imposed, 

the date of conviction. 

The pardon applicant files the petition with my office. The standard application form requests information about the offense, the petitioner’s other criminal record, biographical information, including 

such matters as employment and residence history since conviction, 

and the reasons the person seeks the pardon. 

As an initial investigative step the Office of the Pardon Attorney 

contacts the United States probation office for the district of conviction to obtain copies of the presentence report and judgment order 

as well as information regarding the petitioner’s compliance with 

court supervision and to ascertain the probation office’s views regarding the merits of the pardon request. 

If review of the pardon petition and the data obtained from the 

Probation Office reveals information that clearly indicates favorable action is not warranted, my office prepares a report to the 

President recommending that pardon be denied. 

Alternatively, if the initial review indicates that the case may 

have some merit, it is referred to the FBI for a background investigation. 

The Bureau provides the Office of the Pardon Attorney with factual information about the petitioner, including his or her criminal 

history, records concerning the offense for which pardon is sought, 

employment and residence history, and the petitioner’s reputation 

in the community. If the FBI report suggests that favorable treatment may be warranted or if the case is of particular importance 

or raises significant factual questions, the Office of the Pardon Attorney requests input from the prosecuting authority, the sentencing judge and, in appropriate circumstances, the victims of the 

petitioner’s crime. 

After an evaluation of all the relevant facts, my office prepares 

a report containing a recommendation as to whether a pardon 

should be granted or denied. 

Let me now briefly turn to commutation requests. As with pardons, a Federal inmate seeking a Presidential commutation of his 

sentence files a petition with the Office of the Pardon Attorney. 

The petitioner is free to supply any additional documentation he or 

she believes will provide support for the request. 

In completing the petition, the person explains the circumstances 

underlying his conviction, provides information regarding his or her 

sentence, criminal record, any appeals or other court challenges 

that have been filed, and the grounds upon which relief is sought. 

After my office reviews the commutation petition to ensure that 

the applicant is eligible to apply, we contact the warden of the petitioner’s correctional institution to obtain copies of the presentence 

report and judgment of conviction as well as the most recent prison 

progress report. The latter details the inmate’s adjustment to incarceration, including his participation in work, educational, vocational, counseling and financial responsibility programs and other 

matters. We also check automated legal databases for court opinions relating to the petitioner’s conviction. 

32

If our review of this information uncovers significant issues or 

suggests that the case may have some merit, my office solicits the 

views of the prosecuting authority, sentencing judge and, in appropriate cases, the victim of the crime. 

Just to wind up, Mr. Chairman, following the evaluation of all 

the material gathered in the course of the investigation, the Pardon 

Attorney’s Office drafts its report and recommendation for or 

against commuting the sentence. 

Mr. Chairman, the Office of the Pardon Attorney plays an important role in preparing recommendations to inform the President’s 

consideration of pardon and commutation petitions. However, as I 

noted, the office is staffed by career employees, has no policymaking authority, and its recommendations cannot bind the President in the discharge of constitutional authority. 

In closing, let me thank you again for the opportunity to testify; 

and, as you noted in your introduction, I am here in my capacity 

as pardon attorney and would be glad to answer any questions you 

have at the appropriate time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Attorney Adams. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Adams follows:]

33

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROGER C. ADAMS


RCA-2.eps
34


RCA-3.eps
35


RCA-4.eps
36


RCA-5.eps
37


RCA-6.eps
38


RCA-7.eps
39


RCA-8.eps
40


RCA-9.eps
41


RCA-10.eps
42


RCA-11.eps
43


RCA-12.eps
44

Mr. CONYERS. Next we have Attorney Thomas Cochran, who has 

served for more than 15 years as an Assistant Federal Public Defender for the Middle District of North Carolina. Mr. Cochran represented Victor Rita, Jr., in the recently decided Supreme Court 

case Rita versus the United States which involved important issues 

regarding interpretation of the Federal sentencing guidelines. 

We welcome you, sir, to this hearing. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS COCHRAN, ASSISTANT FEDERAL 

PUBLIC DEFENDER, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. COCHRAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, distinguished Members of 

the Committee, I want to thank you for convening this hearing and 

for granting me the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of my client, Mr. Rita. 

I have been an attorney for over 20 years and for over 14 with 

the Federal Public Defender’s Office in North Carolina. In 2005, I 

was appointed as appellate counsel to represent Mr. Rita; and I assisted him with his case through to the United States Supreme 

Court. On appeal, Mr. Rita sought to have his sentence of 33 

months vacated based on various factors, contending that such a 

sentence was excessive and unreasonable. 

Mr. Rita has asked me to thank you for your time, and he expressed his regret in not being able to be here with us today. Unfortunately, Mr. Rita was required to report to the Bureau of Prisons on July 2, 2007, to begin the service of his sentence. Ironically, 

this was the same day that President Bush commuted the 30-

month prison term of I. Lewis Libby, concluding that his sentence 

was excessive. 

It is highly appropriate for you to examine the legal background 

in Mr. Rita’s case and Mr. Libby’s case. I believe you will be surprised to find they are nearly identical in many aspects. To begin, 

you will be surprised to find that neither man was truly the target 

of the investigation for which he ultimately was charged. 

In North Carolina, Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Martens 

began an investigation of a North Carolina firearms company, 

InterOrdnance, to determine whether it was violating the Federal 

firearms laws. In the process of this investigation, Mr. Martens 

called witnesses, including Mr. Rita, before the grand jury. 

Here in Washington, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald was appointed to investigate the leaking of Valerie Plame’s name to columnist Robert Novak to learn whether any person violated either 

the Intelligence Identities Protection Act or the Espionage Act. In 

the process of this investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald called witnesses, 

including Mr. Libby, before the grand jury to testify. 

Both men, Rita and Libby, were federally indicted on counts of 

making false statements under oath, perjury and obstruction of justice. Both were convicted by a jury. Both men were sentenced to 

over 2 years of imprisonment, Mr. Rita for 33 months and Mr. 

Libby for 30 months. Both men have extensive civil service backgrounds, are dedicated family men, and have been subjected to a 

harsh sentence based in part on allegations never presented to the 

jury. 

45

Despite all of these similarities, today Mr. Rita is in prison and 

Mr. Libby is not. 

I have no involvement in the Libby case, and therefore cannot 

comment upon the details of what transpired other than what I 

have gleaned from documents retrieved from the district court file. 

Having represented Mr. Rita, however, I can give you a better explanation of his case and background. 

Mr. Rita is a 59-year-old man who spent the better part of his 

life in public service. Like Mr. Libby, who has received various 

awards for his service, Mr. Rita has accumulated over 35 medals, 

awards and commendations for his military service. All told, Mr. 

Rita retired with more than 32 years of service to the Federal Government. 

Like Mr. Libby, whose attorneys described him in their sentencing memorandum as a dedicated family man, Mr. Rita is also 

devoted to his family. He describes himself as a family man, having 

helped raised his two sons. 

Despite these similarities, his personal background is different 

from Mr. Libby’s in many respects. While Mr. Libby is a law school 

graduate, Mr. Rita had a troubled youth and had to grow up partly 

on his own and dropped out of high school. He did obtain his GED 

and later completed an associate of arts degree while working for 

then the INS. 

As a result, Mr. Rita is not of the same means as Mr. Libby. 

Though he retained his own attorney in the district court, he went 

into debt and exhausted all of his funds during that trial. His pro 

se notice of appeal he filed himself and was appointed counsel for 

the appellate process. 

In comparison, Mr. Libby had the benefit of his own legal training, large defense team, and the Libby Legal Defense Trust formed 

to defray the legal costs for his defense. 

In addition to his severely strained economic condition, Mr. Rita 

also differs from Mr. Libby with regard to his health. Mr. Rita suffers from hypertension, degenerative disc disease, type 2 diabetes, 

an enlarged prostate, infection in his legs, and a skin rash due to 

the exposure of Agent Orange while he was a foot soldier in Vietnam. There are suspicions some of his illnesses originated from the 

exposure of Agent Orange. He takes well over a dozen medications 

per day and requires a C-PAP machine to sleep at night. 

Now I would like to address some of the parts of the decision in 

the Supreme Court case. Leading to that, Mr. Rita appeared before 

the grand jury in North Carolina and gave answers that were contrary to his actions. Those answers provided the basis for charges 

of false testimony and obstruction. He was indicted on these 

charges. 

With regard to Mr. Libby’s case, please note that his five counts 

of obstruction and false statement and perjury revolve around 

three conversations that he had. Mr. Rita was only brought before 

the grand jury once, Mr. Libby four times. 

Mr. Rita went to trial and was convicted on all five counts. His 

trial counsel filed a motion for reduced sentence. At sentencing, 

counsel presented evidence; and Mr. Rita was sentenced to 33 

months. 

46

Mr. Libby also went to trial and was convicted of four of the five 

charges against him. He filed sentencing memoranda requesting a 

sentence of probation. The court sentenced him to 30 months, 2 

years of supervision and a $250,000 fine. On July 2, President 

Bush commuted Mr. Libby’s 30-month sentence. 

Mr. CONYERS. Could you wind up, sir? 

Mr. COCHRAN. I would be happy, Mr. Chairman. 

Incredibly, the President’s justification for commuting Mr. 

Libby’s sentence mirrors Mr. Rita’s argument before the Supreme 

Court. However, when Mr. Rita appeared before the Court this past 

February the President’s Solicitor General took the opposite position and argued that uniformity in sentencing trumped Mr. Rita’s 

justification. 

The President’s actions placed his absolute constitutional pardon 

power at odds with his own Solicitor General’s successful argument 

before the Supreme Court. 

I spoke by telephone with Mr. Rita this past Monday. He had one 

question that he asked that I pose to this Committee: How can the 

executive branch argue that my reasons for seeking a lower sentence before the Supreme Court were wrong and then use my same 

reasons for a lower sentence to justify wiping out Mr. Libby’s prison time completely? 

I would like to thank you for your time, and I would be happy 

to answer whatever questions I can. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the witness. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cochran follows:]

47

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS COCHRAN


TC-1.eps
48


TC-2.eps
49


TC-3.eps
50


TC-4.eps
51


TC-5.eps
52


TC-6.eps
53


TC-7.eps
54


TC-8.eps
55


TC-9.eps
56

Mr. CONYERS. Finally, we have Attorney David Rivkin, a partner 

in the office of BakerHostetler. Prior to entering private practice, 

Mr. Rivkin served in the George H. W. Bush White House as Associate Executive Director and Counsel of the President’s Council on 

Competitiveness, as a Special Assistant for Domestic Policy to Vice 

President Quayle. 

We welcome you, sir, at this important hearing. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID RIVKIN, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

Mr. RIVKIN. Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith, Members of the Committee, I do appreciate a chance to appear before 

you and address this important public policy issue. 

We all agree that the President constitutionally has the right to 

engage in the practice he has engaged in regard to Mr. Libby. The 

question is one of propriety and policy merits. 

We have heard criticisms today and before that commutation of 

Mr. Libby’s sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice evidences disregard for the rule of 

law, at the very least, realizes the very serious nature of the offenses involved. 

Let me stipulate that perjury and obstruction of justice indeed 

are serious transgressions that ought to be taken seriously. By the 

same token, the very nature of the pardon power presupposes the 

President’s ability to pardon individuals accused of minor as well 

as serious offenses. 

More fundamentally, and in a certain sense apropos, given 

Chairman Conyers’ statement, I believe that the pardon power, 

when properly deployed by the President, properly advances the 

cause of justice. 

The framers understood the justice under the law, the justice of 

rules, procedures, equal treatment, due process, which again Chairman Conyers mentioned in his opening statement, while important 

to our systems of ordered liberty, is not the only conceivable form 

of justice. The framers believed the political branches ought to 

render in appropriate circumstances a different kind of justice driven by considerations of equity and not rules. It is the closest to 

what the framers would have called the natural draw-driven justice. 

The President’s pardon power is one notable example of his justice. Incidentally, the ability of Congress to pass private bills, 

which sidestep the rules governing immigration or land acquisition, 

is another. 

The pardon power is inherently selective. It does critics no good 

to complain that thousands of people seek it but only few obtain 

favorable results. It is inherently discretionary when he believes it 

to be in the best interest of justice. The fact that somebody was 

prosecuted and punished by a jury of his peers in accordance with 

the established evidentiary and other judicial procedures suggests 

in most instances that justice was done. Unfortunately, that is not 

always the case. 

This is not, by the way, to criticize our criminal justice system, 

which is, in my view, the most defendant-friendly system in today’s 

world, and certainly the fairest. But any rule-based system, no 

57

matter how well-managed and operated, produces less than perfect 

results. 

In my view, there are several reasons why the entire prosecution 

of Mr. Libby did not evolve in a way that could promote justice. 

With all due respect to the Chairman, these are not extraneous 

considerations, these are the key factors bearing upon the President’s decision, in my opinion, to provide the pardon power. 

I do not want to impugn the integrity of any participant in this 

process. Prosecutor Fitzgerald does not have a partisan bone in his 

body, neither does Judge Walton. But to me the whole process was 

irredeemably tainted from the very beginning. 

The most important and consequential problem was the decision 

to appoint a Special Counsel. This step was particularly regrettable 

since the senior DOJ officials knew prior to tapping Mr. Fitzgerald 

that the leak of Valerie Plame’s name to the columnist Robert 

Novak, the ostensible reason for the CIA’s referral of the matter to 

the Department of Justice, was in effect by the Deputy Secretary 

of State Dick Armitage. Mr. Fitzgerald certainly knew of that fact 

at the time he accepted his appointment and shortly thereafter. 

As I have written and said on many occasions on a pretty bipartisan basis, the appointment of a special and independent counsel, 

no matter what the virtues of the individual involved, invariably 

skews the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and is virtually guaranteed to produce less than optimal results. It fosters time and 

again a leave-no-stone-unturned, protracted, costly and Inspector 

Javier-like pursuit of the individual being investigated. 

Here we have a situation where Special Counsel spent several 

years and millions of taxpayer dollars all because he believed Mr. 

Libby might have lied to him or his investigators. In the process 

he caused a great deal of harm for the ability of reporters to conduct business. I emphasize that because I do not see how, quite 

aside from frailties of human memory, Mr. Fitzgerald could have 

known for sure at the time he went after Judith Miller and Matt 

Cooper and other media figures that Mr. Libby’s account of his discussions with reporters does not square with theirs. Ask yourself 

whether a regular DOJ prosecutor not wearing a Special Counsel 

hat would have done this. 

Now I am not going to retrace the discussion about Sandy Berger 

because among other things Ranking Member Smith mentioned it. 

By the way, I am not suggesting that Mr. Berger was treated too 

leniently, I am suggesting Mr. Libby was treated too harshly. 

Here we have two senior officials accused of—suspected of engaging in similar conduct. They received dramatically different treatment from our criminal justice system. 

That brings me to my last point, which is trumpeted by many 

critics of this commutation, why wasn’t he exonerated by the jury? 

In my view, the reason has everything to do with how Mr. Fitzgerald presented it to the jury. He did this ably but in a way that 

fundamentally was unfair and sealed Mr. Libby’s fate with the 

jury. Jurors are human beings, and as human beings, and particularly in a case that does not involve money, they want to understand the defendant’s motivations. 

The key thing is the narrative presented by the prosecutor. In 

Mr. Libby’s case he presented the following narrative, we actually 

58

heard the narrative substantially repeated by Mr. Wilson on this 

panel today, that there was a nefarious effort in the White House 

to destroy Mr. Wilson’s reputation and even to punish him by allegedly hurting the career of his wife Valerie Plame and these activities were a part and parcel of the broader effort to sell the Iraq war 

to the American people. While I believe this narrative to be fundamentally false, it proved successful with the jury. The fact that 

the critics of the President’s decision to commute Mr. Libby’s sentence invariably invoke the broad narrative of the alleged White 

House Iraq war-related nefarious activities, underscore how unfair 

and politicized this whole prosecution has been. 

To summarize, since Mr. Libby’s prosecution led to a fundamentally unjust result, the use of the pardon power to remedy the injustice, if only partially at this time, was an entirely correct and 

proper exercise of the President’s power in this instance, what the 

framers expected the pardon power to be used for at this point in 

time. I hope the President completes the job and pardons Mr. Libby 

at the appropriate time. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rivkin follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID B. RIVKIN, JR. 

I want to express my gratitude to Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member 

Lamar Smith, for inviting me to appear before you today to participate in the hearing on President Bush’s use of his pardon power to commute the prison sentence 

of the former Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney, Scooter Libby. Let me say 

at the outset that nobody can seriously argue that, with the single exception of impeachment cases, the President’s pardon power is not absolute on its face or that 

it cannot be exercised by the President in any and all policy contexts, so long as 

the underlying offense involves violations of federal law. Indeed, the concerns that 

have been expressed about this commutation are primarily of a policy nature and 

go to the propriety of the commutation of Mr. Libby’s prison sentence and the context in which it was issued. My bottom line view is that, given all the facts and 

circumstances involved in Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation and prosecution of Mr. 

Libby, the commutation of his sentence at this time by the President is entirely appropriate. Indeed, it is my hope that, in due course, the President will take the next 

step and issue a full pardon to Mr. Libby. 

Let me go through the policy arguments that have been raised against the President’s action and outline for you some suitable rebuttals. First, let’s take the issue 

of timing of the commutation, since many critics have suggested that it was premature. The simple answer is that, following Judge Walton’s decision not to allow 

the continuation of bail for Mr. Libby during the pendency of his appeal, and the 

rejection by the D.C. Circuit of Mr. Libby’s challenge to this decision, he was subject 

to an immediate incarceration. In this regard, I recognize that Judge Walton’s decision was entirely within his discretion—there is no constitutionally-protected right 

to bail following conviction. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit’s affirmation of this decision is also quite legally correct. Nevertheless, in my view, it was unnecessarily 

harsh. 

Second is the criticism that the commutation of Mr. Libby’s sentence, imposed 

after the jury found him guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice, somehow 

evinces disregard for the rule of law or, at the very least, trivializes what are properly considered to be serious violations of federal law. Let me stipulate that perjury 

and obstruction of justice are indeed major transgressions and ought to be taken seriously. By the same token, the very nature of the pardon power presupposes the 

President’s ability to pardon individuals convicted of serious violations of federal 

law; there is no suggestion in the Constitution that only minor offenses ought to 

be a proper subject for the exercise of the pardon power. 

More fundamentally, I believe that the pardon power, when properly deployed, advances the cause of justice. The Framer’s understood that justice under the law, the 

justice of rules, procedures and ‘‘due process’’, while important to our system of ‘‘ordered’’ liberty, is not the only conceivable form of justice. They wanted the political 

branches to render a different kind of justice, driven by the considerations of equity 

59

and not by rules. It is the closest we come today to what the Founders would have 

called the natural law-driven justice. The President’s pardon power is one example 

of such justice; the ability of Congress to pass private bills, which sidestep the rules 

governing immigration or land acquisition, is another. 

The pardon power is, of course, inherently selective—it does critics no good to 

complain that thousands of people seek it, but only a few obtain favorable results. 

It is inherently discretionary, and is an extraordinary remedy to advance what the 

President exercising it believes to be in the best interests of justice. The fact that 

somebody was prosecuted and convicted by the jury of his peers, in accordance with 

the established evidentiary and other judicial procedures, suggests, in most instances, that justice was done. Unfortunately, there are some instances where this 

is not the case. 

This is not, by the way, to criticize our criminal justice system, which is, probably, 

the fairest and most defendant-friendly system in today’s world. However, any rulebased system, no matter how well-managed and operated, inevitably, albeit very occasionally, produces less than perfect results. There are instances where obviously 

guilty individuals go free, and there are occasions where individuals, who should not 

have been prosecuted at all, end up being convicted. 

In my view, there are several reasons why the entire prosecution of Mr. Libby did 

not evolve in a way that could have promoted justice or ended up promoting justice. 

This, incidentally, is not meant to impugn the integrity of any of the participants 

in what, in my view, became a rather tragic process. Prosecutor Fitzgerald is undoubtedly an honorable man, and, by all accounts, does not have a partisan bone 

in his body. The same is true about Judge Walton, and I have no doubt that the 

jury was fair and conscientious in its deliberations. The problems reside elsewhere. 

The most important and consequential problem was the decision to appoint a Special Counsel to investigate this matter in the first place. This step was particularly 

regrettably, since the senior DOJ officials knew, prior to tapping Mr. Fitzgerald, 

that the leak of Valerie Plame’s name to the columnist Robert Novak—the ostensible basis of the CIA’s referral of the matter to the Department of Justice—was effected by the Deputy Secretary of State Dick Armitage and that Mr. Fitzgerald either learned about this fact at the time he was appointed and likewise. Also, it appears that shortly after his appointment, Mr. Fitzgerald knew that the very reason 

for his appointment—alleged violation of IIPA—was in error, since Ms. Wilson was 

not a covert agent within the meaning of the IIPA. More generally, as I have written and argued on other occasions, the appointment of a Special or Independent 

Counsel, no matter the probity and virtue of the individual involved, invariably 

skews the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and is virtually guaranteed to produce 

less than optimal results. It fosters time and again a ‘‘leave no stone unturned,’’ protracted, costly, and Inspector Javier-like pursuit of the individual being investigated. Yet, doing justice is not a mechanical process and it must always be informed by a sound exercise of prosecutorial discretion. 

Here, we have a situation where a Special Counsel spent several years and millions of taxpayer dollars all because he believed that Mr. Libby might have lied to 

him or to his investigators when they investigated a ‘‘crime’’ they already knew had 

not been committed. In the process, the Special Counsel caused a great deal of harm 

to the ability of reporters to ply their business—which is a core element of our body 

polity’s overall system of political and institutional checks and balances. I emphasize the word ‘‘might’’ because, quite aside from the frailties of human memory, Mr. 

Fitzgerald could not have known for sure at the time he went after Judith Miller, 

Matt Cooper, and other media figures that Mr. Libby’s account of having heard first 

from reporters of Ms. Plame’s work and her alleged role in organizing her husband’s 

trip to Niger was false. That conclusion on his part necessarily had to await until 

he successfully coerced the reporters involved. Ask yourself whether a regular DOJ 

prosecutor, not wearing a Special Counsel hat, would have done this. 

And, to those who say that, given Mr. Libby’s high-government position, a regular 

government prosecutor would have been just as relentless as Mr. Fitzgerald, my response is look at how the Department of Justice’s career attorneys (in the Public 

Integrity section) treated another high-ranking official, President Clinton’s former 

National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger. There is no dispute about what Mr. 

Berger has done, since he admitted, after some time lapsed, to such transgressions 

as stealing highly classified documents from the National Archives, destroying at 

least some of them, and lying about it to Executive branch officials. What he did 

certainly amounted to an obstruction of justice, providing misleading and false information to Executive branch officials, and several other serious criminal law transgressions. The only reason perjury is not on my list is because Mr. Berger was not 

put in the position where he had to testify under oath. 

60

Yet, presented with all of these facts, the career attorneys in the Department of 

Justice decided not to prosecute him and settled for the imposition of a fine on Mr. 

Berger, as well as the forfeiture for a period of years of his security clearance. My 

point here is not to suggest that Mr. Berger was treated too leniently; rather it is 

to suggest that Mr. Libby was treated too harshly. In my view, when two senior 

government officials, who have been accused or suspected of having engaged in a 

substantially similar conduct—in neither case was personal enrichment or any other 

pecuniary consideration an issue—receive a dramatically different treatment from 

our criminal justice system, we cannot say that justice was done. 

This brings me to my last point, which has been trumpeted by the critics of the 

President’s commutation of Mr. Libby’s sentence—why wasn’t he exonerated by the 

jury, since juries are often swayed by arguments that a particular defendant was 

treated overly harshly by the government or was made a scapegoat for the transgressions of others. Indeed, Mr. Libby’s lawyers have tried to deploy some arguments along these lines and yet, did not succeed. In my view, the reason for this 

has to do with how Mr. Fitzgerald chose to present his case to the jury. He did so 

ably, and without violating his ethical obligations; yet, in my view, it was done in 

a way that was fundamentally unfair and sealed Mr. Libby’s fate with the jury. 

Jurors are human beings and as human beings want to understand a defendant’s 

motivations. As a result, the overall narrative provided by the prosecutor, the context if you will, is extremely important. In Mr. Libby’s case, Mr. Fitzgerald presented the jury the following damning narrative—there was a nefarious effort in the 

White House to destroy Joe Wilson’s reputation and even to punish him, by allegedly hurting the career of his wife Valerie Plame; these activities were a part and 

parcel of the broader effort to sell the Iraq war to the American people. While I believe this narrative to be fundamentally false, it proved successful with the jury. 

The fact that the critics of the President’s decision to commute Mr. Libby’s sentence invariably invoke the broad narrative of the alleged White House Iraq warrelated nefarious activities, underscores how unfair and politicized this whole exercise has been. 

To summarize, since, in my opinion, Mr. Libby’s prosecution led to a fundamentally unjust result, the use of the pardon power to remedy the injustice, if only partially at this time, was an entirely correct and proper exercise of the President’s 

powers.

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. Let me begin the questions 

by asking Mr. Adams, based upon your experience as Justice Department’s Pardon Attorney for over a decade, are you aware of 

any other instance in which a President has given clemency to an 

official in his own Administration regarding a conviction for obstructing an investigation into possible wrongdoing potentially involving other officials in his Administration? 

Mr. ADAMS. Let me make sure I understand the question, Mr. 

Chairman. Clemency for a former official in his Administration? 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. Are you aware of any other instance in which 

a President has given clemency to an official in his own Administration regarding a conviction for obstructing an investigation into 

possible wrongdoing that could involve other officials in his Administration. 

Mr. ADAMS. That is a fairly narrow criteria, and I have had a lot 

of cases that have gone through my office. I don’t think I can recall 

such a specific case. I can recall—we are all familiar with cases 

where a President has pardoned or granted either pardons or 

commutations to people who have formerly been in the executive 

branch. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Mr. Berman, ordinarily under the sentencing guidelines would the fact that a person has led a privileged 

life and has held high positions in government be a mitigating factor in determining an appropriate sentence rather than an aggravating factor, in your view? 

61

Mr. BERMAN. The guidelines say prior military service, prior good 

works, it speaks to these factors being not ordinarily relevant in 

deciding whether to go outside the guideline range. The guidelines 

provide, as they did in this case, a range, usually fairly narrow, 

again, for Mr. Libby it was 30 to 37 months. The fact that Judge 

Walton picked a sentence at the bottom of the range suggests to 

me that Judge Walton was attentive at some level to some of these 

personal factors, and I think your question itself highlights the way 

in which these kinds of personal factors could be seen as either 

mitigating or aggravating. In fact, Mr. Fitzgerald in his sentencing 

memorandum highlighted that by virtue of Mr. Libby having a career as a lawyer, being a high government official; that background 

may have made it a more aggravating set of circumstances to obstruct justice in these situations. 

Other cases obviously raise these personal factors in different 

contexts. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Ambassador Wilson, you have listened 

patiently through all of this except for your own testimony. Would 

you want to share anything with our Committee in connection with 

what you have heard thus far in this hearing? 

Mr. WILSON. Well, Congressman, I am surrounded by a number 

of lawyers, and I am not a lawyer, even though the half of the lawyers in this town who are not employed by Mr. Libby are probably 

employed by me. 

I am struck by, one, the nature of the underlying crime that was 

initially investigated. It was a breach of the national security of 

this country. It is very clear from the testimony that came out that 

a number of senior White House officials were involved, and I repeat what I said in my earlier prepared testimony, that Mr. Fitzgerald suggested that there was a cloud over the Vice President. 

These people were in the direct chain of command of the President 

of the United States and commuting their sentence and commuting 

Mr. Libby’s sentence and keeping Mr. Rove employed as his political adviser even after it became known that Mr. Rove was one of 

the leakers and in violation of the President’s own edict, it casts 

a pall over the President and over his office and over these senior 

officials. 

I would like to see the President and the Vice President come 

clean with the American people, beginning with perhaps releasing 

their own interviews with Special Counsel Fitzgerald. I think they 

owe that to the American people. I would like to see the cloud lifted. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. Mr. Berman, did the President’s statement encourage Federal judges to disregard the guidelines? 

Mr. BERMAN. I think there is a likelihood that defense attorneys 

will be citing the President’s statement in support of their own 

what’s been called Libby motions suggesting that the guidelines 

ought not be followed whenever a person has these kind of collateral harms to reputation, harms to their family, which are in some 

sense inevitable when any person of high position or privilege is 

subject to a criminal indication. 

Again, personally I think there may be circumstances, there may 

be situations in which those kind of personal circumstances ought 

62

to come to bear, and I am often disappointed that there isn’t a way 

for defense attorneys to put that within the guidelines, that the 

guidelines do not enable judges, generally speaking, to formally 

consider some of these factors that may bear on culpability and 

likelihood of recidivism. But I think it is almost inevitable not only 

that defense attorneys will make these motions, but that different 

judges around the country will react to the motions differently, 

some believing that the President made the right judgment and 

then reducing the sentence below the guidelines in accordance with 

the President’s sentiments, others listening to more standard Justice Department arguments that these factors ought not be considered because there is a risk that it sends the message that those 

of privilege or those who suffer outside the courtroom ought not be 

punished through the normal processes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes the 

distinguished Ranking Member, Lamar Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like 

to ask unanimous consent to have made a part of the record all the 

commutations and pardons by the current President Bush to date 

as well as all the pardons and commutations of the former President Clinton. 

Mr. CONYERS. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. SMITH. Today is kind of an interesting hearing. When you 

and I spoke about this hearing several days ago, you assured me 

that it was not going to be a partisan hearing, and the reason you 

gave as to why it was not going to be a partisan hearing is because 

we were going to examine previous Administrations, Republican 

and Democrat alike. 

I read all the majority witnesses’ testimony and there is no mention of any previous Administration. I listened to their oral testimony today and there was no mention of any previous Administration. So I am a little disappointed and I know it wasn’t intended 

but clearly has turned out to be a partisan hearing, and particularly not any curiosity about past Administrations. 

I would like to ask the majority witnesses this question though, 

did any of the majority witnesses take a look at the Clinton record, 

particularly in regard to the pardons that were given to individuals 

convicted of similar crimes that Mr. Libby had been convicted of? 

In other words, did you look to see how many people received pardons for being convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice or making 

false statements? Was there any curiosity about that? Mr. Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. A lot of curiosity, although I would say I have been 

long critical of President Clinton’s own record on pardons and 

commutations. I was particularly disappointed that in light of his 

period as President and the extraordinary growth in the Federal 

prison population, the increasing use of mandatory minimum sentences, the extent to which many, many first offenders with the 

same kind of personal circumstances that are involved in Mr. 

Libby’s case, not always the exact same crime but often nonviolent 

first offenses when there is no risk of recidivism that the President 

didn’t take a more proactive role, President Clinton, in bringing 

justice to those cases. 

Because as others have mentioned, the justice system does not 

always work perfectly, and the clemency power exists to deal with 

63

not just cases of wrongful conviction, not just cases of overzealous 

prosecutions, not cases that go off the track because of special prosecutors, but to notice that rigid sentencing rules particularly can 

often lead to extraordinarily long sentences. And I am quite honestly quite disappointed not so much with the grants that Clinton 

did, although some of those were very suspect and I think did undermine the rule of law, but disappointed there wasn’t an effort to 

look more broadly at the justice considerations in play here. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. By the way, the answer is there were 39 

individuals who were pardoned or whose sentences were commuted 

by President Clinton who had been charged with similar crimes. 

Mr. Rivkin, let me address my second question to you. What do 

you say to Mr. Cochran or what do you say to his client? There are 

obviously many instances where individuals have been pardoned 

and other individuals have not been pardoned who have been convicted of the same or similar crimes. 

What do you say to Mr. Cochran’s client, what do you say to the 

convicted drug traffickers that were not pardoned by Mr. Clinton 

although he pardoned several dozen? 

What about the discrepancy there. 

Mr. RIVKIN. I would say a couple of things, Congressman Smith. 

As I tried to explain in a very brief 5 minutes, there is something 

unique and distinctive about the pardon power. It is a particularly 

ill-suited area for growing precedence and lessons for the future. 

You do not form a case law by exercising pardon power. 

My view would be that while the President did not dwell on it 

in his remarks—and this actually is relevant to the question of the 

so-called ‘‘Libby motion’’—what he is really trying to say with the 

use of pardon power is not that it is inherently excessive to sentence somebody to 21⁄2 years in prison when that person has a good 

family and has suffered enough and has not had enough prior offenses but that it was excessive in these circumstances. 

Everything that you do when you exercise a pardon power is 

what we lawyers call ‘‘facts- and circumstances-specific.’’ so I have 

absolutely no view as to the merits of that pardon. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Rivkin, let me squeeze in a last question here. 

You said one of the reasons that you favored the commutation of 

Mr. Libby’s sentence was that you felt that a special counsel should 

never have been appointed in the first place. Tell me why that is. 

Mr. RIVKIN. Well, I tend to think that—and this is, again, whether you call them special counsels, independent counsels—whenever 

you have—one was made, actually, a long time ago by Jesse Jackson. Whenever you have a prosecutor who is operating outside the 

normal bureaucratic and institutional constraints, it does not matter if it is a politically appointed prosecutor or a career prosecutor. 

The inherent exercise of prosecutorial discretion is skewed to the 

point where there is obsessive, never-ending, no-stone-unturned 

prosecutions. There is enormous pressure. 

I will tell you I was not a fan of Ken Starr’s prosecutions, either. 

So it has nothing to do with whether or not it is a Republican 

or a Democrat. I think the decision to appoint a special counsel in 

a situation where the Department of Justice knew that the individual involved was not a member of the White House staff and 

who certainly was not a supporter of the war did not fit into any 

64

kind of narrative about this nefarious activity. It was ludicrous, 

frankly, to appoint a special counsel, and it was ludicrous to continue this investigation. It is unfortunate that it went on, and you 

cannot divorce these considerations from the sentencing and the 

conviction here, and that, to me, is a very, very serious matter. 

Again, not to dwell on matters pertaining to Mr. Berger, but we 

have two senior government officials who are accused of doing virtually the same thing, and one is a mess. The only difference is Mr. 

Berger was investigated by career attorneys in the Office of Public 

Integrity who decided not to prosecute him. That is a perfectly fine 

decision. Mr. Libby was prosecuted by special counsel. The disparity in their treatment is remarkable, and that is fundamentally 

unfair and unjust. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rivkin. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Let me comment first before I ask a few rapid questions. 

In response, I think, to a question by the gentleman from Texas, 

I think this is a very unique situation, not quite unique but it is 

a very unusual situation, comparable only to the pardons in the 

Iran-Contra situation. In that situation and in this situation, pardons were issued to former or to current government officials. 

There was confidence in the President who had engaged in wrongdoing with the pardons and in the situation in which their actions 

frustrated a legitimate investigation, and the pardons guaranteed 

to make sure that that investigation could go no further, investigations in each case of wrongdoing by the Administration and perhaps by the President himself. 

That makes those two cases—this one and the Iran-Contra—

quite different from Mr. Clinton’s pardons or anybody else’s pardons, in my view. To me, they undermine the functioning of government and the trust in government that we must have; and that 

is why they are particularly loathsome. 

Now, my questions are going to be really structured by Mr. 

Rivkin’s statement. Mr. Rivkin stated a number of things. Let us 

go to number one. 

You said that the appointment of the special counsel is particularly regrettable since the senior DOJ officials knew, prior to tapping Fitzgerald, that the leak of Valerie Plame’s name to syndicated columnist Mr. Robert Novak, that the ostensible basis for 

the investigation was affected by the Deputy Secretary of State, 

Dick Armitage, and that Fitzgerald either learned about the fact at 

the time he was appointed or shortly thereafter. And it appears 

that shortly after his appointment Fitzgerald also knew that the 

reason for the appointment, the alleged violation of the law by outing CIA agents, was in error since Ms. Wilson was not a covert 

agent within the meaning of that act. But the submission to the 

court by the special prosecutor specifically said that the investigation seeks to determine which Administration officials disseminated information concerning Ms. Plame to members of the media 

65

in spring 2003, the motive for the dissemination and whether any 

violations of law were committed in the process. 

While the initial reporting regarding Ms. Plame’s employment 

was a column by syndicated columnist Robert Novak, the investigation of unauthorized disclosures is not limited to disclosures to Mr. 

Novak. So it was a broader investigation, which would seem to negate that point that you made. Moreover, the investigation seeks 

to determine whether any witnesses interviewed to date have made 

false statements, et cetera. 

Mr. Wilson—Ambassador Wilson, I should say—you also say in 

your statement that Ms. Plame was not a covert agent. Mr. Wilson, 

was Ms. Plame a covert agent? 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman. 

Ms. Plame’s actual name is ‘‘Mrs. Wilson.’’ Mr. Novak did not 

even get that part of his article quite correct——

Mr. NADLER. Nor did I. 

Mr. WILSON [continuing]. But she has become ‘‘Ms. Plame’’ again 

thanks to Mr. Novak’s article, and she accepts that. 

The case was referred by the CIA to the Department of Justice 

because the CIA believed that a crime had been committed. The 

special counsel has said repeatedly, both in representations to the 

court and publicly, that she was a classified officer who should 

have been protected under the relevant American law. 

My wife, Valerie Wilson, was a covert officer, a classified officer, 

a member of the Central Intelligence Agency, who served her country for 20 years both in covert positions and in nonofficial covert 

positions during the course of her career. 

Could I also just answer in response to the question raised by 

Congressman Smith? 

I took a look at pardons and other Presidential actions because 

my concern in this was whether or not the whole truth is coming 

out or whether or not the decision to commute was, in fact, part 

and parcel to a cover-up or to an ongoing obstruction of justice. 

The case that I really looked at was that of President Nixon’s, 

who did not, in fact, pardon or commute the sentences of his senior 

White House staff, Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Ehrlich. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Let me go further. 

You state, Mr. Rivkin, that in Mr. Libby’s case Mr. Fitzgerald 

presented the jury with the following damning narrative—and, by 

implication, you are saying it is a false narrative—that there was 

a nefarious effort in the White House to destroy Joe Wilson’s reputation, to punish him by allegedly hurting the career of his wife’s, 

Valerie Plame—Valerie Wilson. These activities were part and parcel of the broader effort to sell the Iraq War to the American people. 

I believe this narrative to be fundamentally false if proved successful to the jury, and that is why these pardons were okay, because the whole thing was essentially wrong because of that false 

narrative. 

I must tell you that I think the evidence richly bears out that 

narrative, that the Vice President—we have in his own handwriting that he seems to have directed an effort to discredit—here, 

we have in the Vice President’s own handwriting to call out to key 

press varying—saying the same thing about Scooter, not going to 

66

protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy who was asked to—I cannot read it—stick his neck in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others. 

There seems to have been—it is clear from the record that Mr. 

Cheney, Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, and others were engaged in talking 

to all sorts of reporters to get the word out that Valerie Wilson was 

the motivating factor behind Ambassador Wilson’s trip in order to 

discredit Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. Wilson, is that a correct reading of the data? 

Mr. WILSON. I certainly believe so, Congressman. Indeed, Mr. 

Fitzgerald said in one of his comments that it was hard to conceive 

that there was not a conspiracy to discredit, punish and seek revenge. That may not be a literal translation, but I believe those are 

the words that he used, not necessarily in that order. Discredit, 

punish and seek revenge on Ambassador Wilson were the terms. 

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, can I have one additional minute? 

Mr. CONYERS. No. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. 

Mr. CONYERS. I am not inclined for additional minutes. 

The former Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me say that I think this hearing today is a waste of time. 

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives the President plenary 

power to pardon or to grant clemency. It is one of the few powers 

in the Constitution that is not reviewable, checked or balanced by 

the other two branches, similar to each House of Congress’ power 

to establish their own rules of procedure. So, no matter what we 

do here today, the President will still continue to have his power 

to grant clemency, just as all of his predecessors and all of his successors have. 

Now, this Congress is rapidly becoming a ‘‘do even more nothing 

Congress’’ than the one in the last Congress that was criticized by 

my friends on the other side of the aisle. About 80 percent of the 

laws that we have passed in the first 6 months have been to rename post offices. Maybe we can slow down on that because there 

are not any more post offices left to rename after former colleagues 

or other notables in our various districts. 

It seems to me that what is going on here today is more braying 

at the moon by my friends on the other side of the aisle who spend 

more time looking into real or imagined misconduct on the part of 

the Bush administration rather than doing the job that we were 

elected to do. 

Now I will point out that on this Committee we have got jurisdiction over private bills. Sometimes we have passed out a lot. I do 

not like them, and on my watch we passed out very few, but every 

private bill is a way of bending the rules or of waiving rules to provide equity to people that the majority of the Congress decides to 

provide equity to. And what is being done when we consider a private bill is intrinsically, really, no different than when the President exercises his constitutional power to provide clemency to 

whomever he wants. 

Now, we have heard a little bit about process today and why this 

was different strokes for different folks. Mr. Adams, you know you 

67

are supposed to be the gatekeeper to look at pardon applications 

and to make recommendations which the President is free either 

to accept or to disregard or to not even talk to you about. 

I guess the one question that I want to ask, rather than prolonging this hearing, is that at the end of the Clinton administration, there were a bunch of pardons issued on his last day of office. 

I want to ask you if you were consulted on any of the four individuals who were granted clemency: Marc Rich, whose wife was a 

major donor to the Clinton Library; Roger Clinton, the President’s 

half brother; John Deutch, his CIA Director; and our beloved 

former colleague, Dan Rostenkowski. 

Were you consulted on any of these; and, if so, which ones and 

how? 

Mr. ADAMS. Just to clarify, Congressman, Mr. Rostenkowski was 

not pardoned on the last day. His pardon was in December of 2000. 

My office was not consulted on that one. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. 

Mr. ADAMS. My office was not consulted on the Marc Rich pardon. We were not consulted on the Roger Clinton pardon. 

My only involvement with the pardon of Mr. Deutch was to provide some technical assistance on the morning of January 20 on 

how they would prepare the pardon warrant for Mr. Deutch because he was pardoned for offenses that he had not actually been 

convicted of yet. He had entered into a plea agreement on January 

19 that he would plead guilty to an information, which set out various charges, and Mr. Deutch’s name is not on the master warrant 

that was signed by President Clinton. They apparently were considering him so late that his name did not make it onto the master 

warrant, so I was asked to provide technical assistance on how 

they would prepare the individual pardon warrant for Mr. Deutch, 

and I did that. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to 

come up with some boilerplate language and just send it up to the 

White House for them to keep for posterity in case they need a 

rush job. Would that be accurate? 

Mr. ADAMS. I really am not going to comment on that. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. You do not have to. 

Mr. ADAMS. You know, it is not terribly difficult draftsmanship 

to grant someone a full unconditional pardon. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, the Chairman 

of the Subcommittee on Crime, Bobby Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Would you yield just briefly to me? 

Mr. SCOTT. I will yield. 

Mr. CONYERS. I was just reviewing the activities of the 110th 

Congress, of the Judiciary and the 109th Congress; and the 110th 

Congress has passed to the House 37 measures—bills; and the 

109th Congress has sent 15 during the period from July 1, 2005, 

to July 1, 2007. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

68

I would also like to respond to whether or not this is an important hearing. This is not a hearing of whether the President has 

the power of pardon. Of course he does. This is just an oversight 

as to how he is using it, and we want to put this thing in context. 

The allegation that we are considering is that there was a 

scheme to punish Ambassador Wilson for telling the truth and to 

discourage others from doing the same thing. Now, what happens 

when people do not tell the truth and do not speak up? 

We are in a war today partially because no one was speaking up. 

Somebody must have known there were no weapons of mass destruction. Nobody said anything. 

Somebody knew that there was no connection with 9/11. No one 

said anything. 

Somebody had to have problems with Secretary Powell’s testimony before the U.N. 

Somebody knew that when the Administration officials estimated 

the length of this war going in and they said 6 days, 6 weeks, no 

more than 6 months, somebody must have had some problems with 

that. 

Somebody should have known that when the Administration 

came before the Budget Committee and said that we should not 

even bother to budget the war because it would not cost anything, 

that it would not cost enough to budget, somebody must have 

known that it was not true. 

Here we are investigating the U.S. Attorneys. There seems to be 

a pattern. If you do not follow a political line, you might get fired. 

This morning, the former Surgeon General was in the paper telling a congressional panel Tuesday that top Administration officials 

repeatedly tried to weaken or to suppress important public health 

reports because of political considerations. Why is he just speaking 

out now and not before? Because of what might happen. On January 29, 2006, climate experts at NASA tried to silence him; and 

when you have a situation like this when this is the scheme that 

is part of the pardon, we can see how important this is. 

Now, Ambassador Wilson, is there any question that this revealing of your wife’s name might have endangered her life? 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, the CIA would normally have prepared a damage assessment. Neither my wife nor I would have 

been made aware of that. It is very clear with respect to her own 

life and to her own security that there have been threats. Some 

have been credible, some have not been credible, and those have all 

been investigated. 

More to the point, the question arises, with respect to the compromise and to the betrayal of her identity, to what other national 

assets were betrayed and as to whether or not there was a threat 

to them. 

It has been written in a number of books that she was involved 

in counterproliferation activities. In other words, her responsibility 

was to ensure that nuclear weapons would not arrive on our 

shores. I would not comment on whether that is accurate or not but 

just refer you to the books. 

In fact, as a way of thinking about this, as soon as her identity 

is compromised, you make the assumption that every program, 

every project, every operation, every asset, every individual with 

69

whom she has come into contact either innocently or in the course 

of her professional activities have in one way or another been compromised. 

Mr. SCOTT. And this affected her career? 

Mr. WILSON. Yes, sir, it did. Once she became known as a CIA 

officer, she could no longer continue to do those things for which 

she had been trained and had been working for close to 20 years. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there any question in your mind that this revelation was a direct result of your telling the truth about the 

yellowcake? 

Mr. WILSON. There is certainly no question in my mind, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, a lot has been said that Armitage was the one 

who informed Novak. Is there any question that others—did Libby 

actually reveal her name to a reporter? 

Mr. WILSON. During the course of Mr. Libby’s trial, it was revealed that Mr. Libby, Mr. Armitage and Mr. Rove all were actively peddling her name to members of the press. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Adams, if they had gone through the normal process—now, 

the President, finally, does not take issue with the fact that there 

was a violation of the code section. He just had problems in his 

public statements about the excessive punishment. 

If they had gone through the normal process, would you have 

caught the issue that supervised probation cannot take place without incarceration and avoid the spectacle of the President’s saying 

and others’ saying that the supervised probation will still remain? 

Would you have caught that and recommended something before 

that spectacle occurred? 

Mr. ADAMS. I think, Congressman, you are referring to the term 

of ‘‘supervised release,’’ which the President said he was leaving intact in his commutation order of decision. 

Mr. SCOTT. Would you have caught that? 

Mr. ADAMS. I am not sure what you mean by ‘‘caught that.’’ It 

is not uncommon, Congressman, for the President to commute a 

sentence of incarceration and leave intact a sentence of supervised 

release. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is that not a question now that the judge has suggested that you cannot do that? 

Mr. ADAMS. I think the judge has asked for opinions on it, and 

it is my understanding that the Justice Department—Mr. 

Fitzgerald’s office—has filed a pleading, an answer, to that question. 

Mr. SCOTT. Cooperation is a factor in downward departure. Is 

there any expectation that Mr. Libby will now cooperate, particularly in light of the fact that the special prosecutor has represented 

that all in this situation is not known? Is there any suggestion that 

he may now start cooperating? 

Mr. ADAMS. I have had nothing to do with Mr. Libby’s prosecution, and I really cannot——

Mr. SCOTT. So that is not an expectation? 

Mr. ADAMS. I cannot answer the question, Congressman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, you are the only Administration witness up 

here. So, you know, it is the best we can do. 

70

Remorse is a factor in the downward departure. Based on what 

you know about his behavior, would he be entitled to a downward 

departure because of remorse? 

Mr. ADAMS. I do not know enough about the facts of the case. I 

do not know anything about the facts of that case. 

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from North 

Carolina, Howard Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is good to have you all with us, especially my fellow North 

Carolinian. 

Mr. Rivkin, for what it is worth—it is probably not worth anything—but if I had been the United States Attorney and the Libby 

case were presented to me, I am confident that I would have declined prosecution, and you touched on some of those issues in your 

testimony. 

Ambassador, you touched on some of these in response to the 

gentlewoman from Virginia’s questioning, but in your written statement, Ambassador, you indicate that the actions by the Vice President and by Mr. Libby, among others, caused untold damage to national security. Now, I am told that bipartisan inquiries and Mr. 

Libby’s criminal trial did not demonstrate that. Now, if I am off 

course, bring me back on course. 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, any time that a covert CIA officer’s 

identity is betrayed, all of those assets and all of those programs 

and all of those projects and all of those people with whom that 

CIA officer has come into contact are presumed to have been betrayed as well. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, I guess I am having trouble with ‘‘untold damage,’’ but we will visit that another day. 

Mr. Adams, it has been reported that the Libby commutation is 

the first instance in which commutation was granted prior to the 

recipient’s appeal having been exhausted. Is this, in fact, accurate? 

Mr. ADAMS. No, sir. Do you mean historically or——

Mr. COBLE. Yes. 

Mr. ADAMS. No, sir, that is not correct. 

There was a commutation of a man named Arnold Prosperi, who 

was commuted on the last day of the Clinton administration. He 

had an appeal pending at the time. 

Mr. COBLE. Okay. I cannot recall where I read this, but I read 

somewhere that this was a case of first impression, and you tell me 

it is not. 

Mr. ADAMS. There was another case. 

Mr. COBLE. Yes. 

Mr. ADAMS. Prosperi’s case was—he had an appeal pending, and 

his sentence was commuted——

Mr. COBLE. I have got you. 

Mr. ADAMS [continuing]. Back to home confinement in his case. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Adams. 

Now, Mr. Sandy Berger, President Clinton’s National Security 

Advisor, his name has been mentioned two or three times, and I 

was going to pursue that. But it was disposed of, as best I recall, 

on a guilty plea, and I was going to ask about what appropriate 

71

punitive action would be in order, but I think I will save that for 

another day. 

Let me talk to Mr. Rivkin. 

Mr. Rivkin, apparently, a new motion—I think one of you has 

commented about this—called the ‘‘Libby motion’’ has surfaced by 

which defendants will argue for a downward departure because the 

recommended sentence is excessive. 

Are you aware of any instance in which a defendant has successfully argued for a reduced sentence based upon the commutation 

of a third party’s sentence? 

Mr. RIVKIN. I am not, Congressman. In fact, I would not begrudge defense counsel from utilizing any creative argument in the 

advance interests of your client, but I think it would be oddly frivolous, and the reason for it is the fundamental difference between 

the way the President exercises his constitutional authority to pardon somebody and the way that the judge is engaged in the sentencing authority. They are just apples and oranges, and it would 

be quite ludicrous, in my opinion. You can argue that, but it would 

be quite ludicrous to say, gee, the judge sentenced somebody within 

the range or in the middle of the range or in some other portion 

of the range of the sentencing guidelines, but there are some mitigating factors, and he did not take them into account. 

But as to the President’s articulating, exercising an entirely different process—again, I have tried to be a little dispassionate about 

it. I was talking about different kinds of justice in my opening 

statement. It just has nothing to do with it. You cannot draw any 

implications, in or out, based on how the President exercises his 

pardon power, so those motions are going to be tried, and they are 

going to fail. I think they have no merit. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Rivkin. 

Mr. Chairman, do you award credit if I yield back my time prior 

to the red light’s illuminating? 

Mr. CONYERS. Always, without fail. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The Chair is pleased to recognize the gentlelady from Texas, the 

distinguished former Subcommittee Chairwoman on this Committee, Sheila Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

I thank the witnesses as well, and I particularly thank my Chairman for making this the most constructive Oversight Judiciary 

Committee that we have had in more than a decade, and I want 

to compliment him very quickly for matching legislative initiatives 

that have been passed with oversight. One of the criticisms of the 

past Congresses has been by the American people of the complete 

abdication of any responsibility of oversight. 

Let me quickly speak to the 800-pound gorilla that is in the 

room—and that is Marc Rich—and lay out some unique differences. 

One, the past President did pardon Mr. Rich. There was an expose of that, or an explanation, shortly thereafter. The point was 

made that there were experts who indicated that this should have 

been a civil case versus a criminal case. The company had already 

paid $200 million-plus; and the experts—two tax attorneys—indiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\071107\36605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 36605
72

cated, as I have said previously, that they thought that appropriate 

handling of tax matters had occurred. 

In addition, let me note for the record that staff members Podesta, Nolan and Lindsey said that they advised against it. We do not 

know what staff persons advised against it in the Bush White 

House, and the past President waived all executive privilege so 

that all of his staff could be questioned. 

I do not know, Mr. Chairman, whether we have gotten a waiver 

of all executive privilege, but I would venture to say on the record 

that we have not. 

Let me move quickly to the questions and to be able to pose this, 

having put the big 800-pound gorilla on the record, and to acknowledge why I am concerned. 

Mr. Wilson, I will ask about Ms. Wilson. As a woman, let me applaud and take great pride in her service. I thank you both for your 

service and what you are trying to do. 

I believe that this has to do with the lives that have been lost 

in this violent, misdirected and wrong-headed war. The tragedy of 

the Libby case is that we will not now be able to explore the violence of this war, the internal workings of the decision on this war, 

because we have now had a person who was a key element, along 

with the Vice President, on leading us into this misdirected, falsely 

designed war, and we now have a block because of this interruption 

by the CEO, the President of the United States, recognizing that 

he is using a constitutional power. 

My question, Mr. Wilson: We indicated that there certainly 

seems to have been the jeopardy of Ms. Wilson’s life, but isn’t it 

true, when you are covert, when you are classified, that there are 

many, many other principles that work with you? Do we even know 

the far range of those lives that may have been put in jeopardy by 

this horrific and, I think, vile act? 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congresslady, for your comments about 

Valerie. I share your views about her service to our country; and 

let me also say, before I walked in today, I heard from your district 

that it has finally stopped raining——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you so very much. What a relief. 

Mr. WILSON [continuing]. Which is a good thing. 

I, obviously, cannot speak to the damage assessment. I know that 

Valerie was asked about all of her contacts and all of her projects 

and all of her programs, but, as you can imagine, all of this is compartmentalized, and she would have no reason to know and, therefore, neither she and, more particularly, I would not know. 

Let me also just say that, while the article that I wrote on July 

6 was designed to alert my fellow Americans to what I believe were 

fundamental misstatements of facts in the President’s State of the 

Union Address in making the justification for taking our country 

to war, this hearing, I believe, is really designed to determine the 

extent to which the President may have exceeded or may have used 

his commutation authority in order to engage in a cover-up and in 

an ongoing obstruction of justice. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And if I may reclaim my time, only because 

of the shortness of time of my questions. I thank you for that answer. 

73

Let me quickly put on the record that Judge Walton indicated 

that he thought the evidence against Mr. Libby was overwhelming, 

but I want to go particularly to the Vice President and to the impact of the internal workings of the House. The only representative 

is the pardon attorney. 

It indicated that Mr. Bush uncharacteristically put himself into 

the details of this case. It also indicated—and I am reading from 

a Newsweek article that is quoting Fred Fielding, who indicated 

that, after great review, they were disappointed that the evidence 

against Mr. Libby was so strong that he had testified falsely. 

Let the record also reflect that he is charged and convicted of 

four counts. 

It also says that Mr. Cheney was very intimately involved. 

I want to ask, have you waived executive privilege and whether 

or not you can account for the involvement of Vice President Cheney in forcing the commutation of the sentence of Mr. Libby? I am 

asking. Can I get the gentleman to answer the question? I am asking Mr. Adams, please. 

Mr. ADAMS. Congresswoman, neither I nor my office had anything to do with the commutation for Mr. Libby. That is all I can 

say. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you know anything about the executive 

privilege, whether the White House has waived that for us to ask 

the——

Mr. ADAMS. I do not. If you would direct a letter to the White 

House, I will assume——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And you know nothing about the——

Mr. CONYERS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. I just wanted the Committee to note that I have 

just had put in my hand a letter dated July 11, 2007, from the 

White House in which Fred Fielding, Counsel to the President, has 

indicated, ‘‘We respectfully must decline your request that the 

President provide documents and testimony relating to the commutation decision and trust that the Committee appreciates the 

basis for this decision.’’

I ask unanimous consent to put it in the record. 

[The information referred to is located in the Appendix.] 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that clarification. 

Mr. CONYERS. You are welcome. Thanks for raising the point. 

The Chair recognizes the only former state—oh, I am sorry. Mr. 

Gallegly, the distinguished gentleman from California, is now recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Like Mr. Wilson, I am not a lawyer, but I have had the honor 

to serve on this Committee for, I think, 17 years; and it has been 

quite a ride. So sometimes you do not have the advantage of having 

been briefed in law school that you do not ask questions you do not 

know the answers to, so I may ask a question I do not know the 

answer to this afternoon, and I may even ask a question that I 

think I know the answer to, but I would like to start with Mr. 

Cochran. 

74

In listening to your testimony and in reviewing your testimony, 

I think it is clear to all of us that the principal focus in your testimony was relating to your client, Victor Rita. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. COCHRAN. That is correct. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Is it true, Mr. Cochran, that you argued to the 

Supreme Court that you believe that Mr. Rita’s sentence was excessive? 

Mr. COCHRAN. That is correct. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. You also in your testimony today were making, 

maybe not identifying, the comparison as a mirror image that there 

were similarities that were very extreme or almost a mirror image 

would be a fair assessment; is that correct? 

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Having said that, would you agree with President 

Bush’s opinion that the sentence for Mr. Libby was excessive? 

Mr. COCHRAN. I do not know that I can comment, because I do 

not know the intricate facts of Mr. Libby’s case. 

Mr. Rita’s concern was more directed at the perception of unfair 

treatment more than anything else. In the Supreme Court, he put 

forth several arguments regarding personal characteristics of his 

background—his military service, his health condition, his military 

record—as possibilities for the Court to consider whether he should 

have a reduced sentence in weighing that against his conviction. 

In the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General argued against our 

position persuasively, convincing the Court that those were not 

things that mattered in Mr. Rita’s case; and I think the best way 

to characterize Mr. Rita’s concern is confusion. He brought his case 

to the Court based on personal background issues; and then, in 

reading the statements signed by the President in commuting Mr. 

Libby’s sentence, the President mentions some of the very same 

personal characteristics and background in commuting Mr. Libby’s 

sentence. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Cochran, you said you really were not that 

familiar with Mr. Libby’s case, but it is clear that you were familiar enough to weave him into your testimony today. Is that a fair 

assessment? 

Mr. COCHRAN. Yes, sir. Clearly, the two men faced the same 

charges. These charges came about during the same time period. 

They both have backgrounds in civil service. They are both family 

oriented men. There are some very obvious and common themes 

throughout. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. And you stand by your claim that Mr. Rita’s sentence was really unreasonable and excessive? 

Mr. COCHRAN. That was our contention from the beginning. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Cochran, have you ever filed a clemency petition for the Department of Justice on behalf of Mr. Rita? 

Mr. COCHRAN. I have not, sir. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. Do you anticipate that you will? 

Mr. COCHRAN. I have discussed that with Mr. Rita, and we have 

not come to a final decision on that issue yet. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Have you sought alternatives for incarceration for 

other defendants who you have represented? 

Mr. COCHRAN. I have on one occasion. 

75

If I may ask the Congressman, is that in terms of clemency proceedings or other matters? 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Other alternatives, including clemency but not 

limited to it. 

Mr. COCHRAN. I have sought departure motions, what we characterize as ‘‘3553(a) motions,’’ to ask the sentencing court to forward 

these sentences. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, would you say then, in summary, while you 

have argued that Mr. Rita’s sentencing was excessive and you have 

repeatedly mentioned, really, the real similarities in the two cases, 

that it could be conceivable by a reasonable thinking person that 

Mr. Libby’s sentence was also excessive? 

Mr. COCHRAN. It could be. I am not taking issue with the commutation as such. Again, it is Mr. Rita’s concern—it is more the 

perception of fairness. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. You are welcome. 

The Chair is pleased to recognize a former prosecutor from the 

State of Massachusetts, Bill Delahunt. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank the Chairman. 

You know, Mr. Cochran, you are drawing comparisons here. Let 

me suggest this as a distinction, and I am not familiar with the 

facts of your case, but what your client did, I am sure, had an impact, but it was a limited impact. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. COCHRAN. In what regard, sir? 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, in terms of its consequences. 

Mr. COCHRAN. I am sorry, sir. If I could get more clarification. 

Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. Well, let me suggest this. What distinguishes, in my opinion, the Libby case is that, if one accepts the 

verdict and the testimony at the trial, one can conclude that this 

is really not about Ambassador Wilson, it is really not even about 

his spouse, but it is about influencing the decision to go to war; and 

I would suggest that that has a special burden on the perception 

of justice and on the gravity of what has occurred in terms of this 

commutation. Because I think that we can agree that the activities 

of the Administration to discredit Ambassador Wilson was maybe 

not necessarily ad hominem but to influence both the American 

public opinion and Members of Congress in terms of the authorization to go to war. 

What could be more severe? What could be more grave? 

With all due respect to your client and in the case of your client, 

Mr. Cochran, it was not about whether Members of this Committee 

and Members of this House would make a decision to go to war, 

and I have no doubt that many in Congress were convinced to vote 

for the resolution because of the statement by the President at the 

State of the Union Address. It had an impact on me. 

But let me put this to Ambassador Wilson. What impacted me 

was the omission—the omission—by Secretary of State Powell of 

the reference to the yellowcake uranium when he made his presentation a week later before the Security Council of the United Nations. Maybe it was just simply being an old prosecutor, just an old 

county prosecutor in a small, little place called Boston, Massachusetts, but something really smelt. Why? Why wouldn’t the Secretary of State make this the centerpiece of his argument before 

76

the international body with the eyes of the world watching him? So 

it did have an impact at least on this particular Congressman. 

Ambassador Wilson, would you care to comment? 

Mr. WILSON. Well, thank you, Congressman. 

Certainly, in the months leading up to the March invasion, conquest and occupation of Iraq, one of the centerpieces of the President’s—and indeed, the Administration’s—defining of the threat to 

national security interests was that we could not afford to wait for 

the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Now, 

while the ‘‘use of force’’ authorization was passed prior to the President’s State of the Union Address, clearly, the rhetoric up to, including and beyond the State of the Union Address included that. 

With respect to Mr. Powell, he later said, of course, that he discarded the Niger claim, which was just one of many claims that 

were made, because it did not rise to his standards, and he later 

said we did not need——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Can you repeat that, Ambassador Wilson? It did 

not rise to his standards a week later. 

Mr. WILSON. A week later. He later said—and I think this is 

quite——

Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me interrupt you again, because I just want 

to make one other observation. 

With all due respect, Mr. Rivkin, the failure to appoint a special 

prosecutor, not an independent counsel—and I understand the distinction—I dare say would have infected the body politic in terms 

of the credibility of the investigation and subsequent prosecution. 

I cannot imagine a Justice Department, given the high-profile nature of this case, not having appointed a special prosecutor. 

I have to tell you this. I had heard of Mr. Fitzgerald’s reputation. 

It came before this Committee, there was discussion about it, and 

I defended that appointment because of his reputation as a professional. I know he was appointed by a Republican President. I said, 

‘‘Justice will be done,’’ and I think he did an outstanding job. 

Mr. RIVKIN. May I respond at this point? 

Mr. WILSON. I am sorry. Can I just add one thing? Excuse me, 

Congressman. 

My understanding was that the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald as 

special counsel came about as a consequence of Mr. Ashcroft’s decision, the Attorney General, to recuse himself in the case because 

of a possible conflict of interest, which, of course, is what one does. 

But, again, I am not an attorney. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right. I thank the gentleman for his questions. 

The Chair is pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman 

from Florida, Mr. Ric Keller. 

Mr. KELLER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I have listened to you and others, it seems like this hearing 

boils down to three questions, and I want to walk through this. 

First, is there any evidence that this pardon or commutation of 

sentence was given to protect senior White House officials? Second, 

is this pardon consistent with other pardons or commutations? 

Third, is the action in commuting this sentence legal? 

So let me begin with the very first issue, and I would like each 

of the witnesses to listen carefully to my question because I am 

77

going to go down the line and ask each of you this. I am going to 

begin with you, Ambassador Wilson. 

Do you have any evidence whatsoever, based on your personal 

knowledge, that Scooter Libby threatened to implicate the President, the Vice President or Karl Rove if he was not given a pardon 

or a commutation? 

Mr. Ambassador. 

Mr. WILSON. I have no personal knowledge as an outsider to this. 

It is a question that I think is worth raising. Leonard Decof, one 

of the top 100 trial attorneys, historically has said that Ted Wells 

and the rest of Libby’s defense team are experienced, competent 

trial lawyers. Ted, on opening statement, promised the jury they 

would hear testimony from Libby and from Cheney. Yet he never 

put either on the stand. His promise was not merely a miscue. I 

believe it was shot across the bow. 

Mr. KELLER. I do not want to hear outside hearsay from what 

some lawyer said somewhere else. I am just looking for evidence 

and personal knowledge. 

So let me go to the next gentleman, and I guess we have—is it 

Mr. Adams? 

Do you have any evidence whatsoever, based on your personal 

knowledge, that Scooter Libby threatened to implicate the President, the Vice President or Karl Rove if he were not given a pardon 

or a commutation? 

Mr. ADAMS. Congressman, my office is in the Justice Department, and it was not involved in either the prosecution of Mr. 

Libby or the decision to——

Mr. KELLER. You have no such evidence? 

Mr. ADAMS. The answer is, I do not know anything about it. 

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Rivkin, do you have any such evidence? 

Mr. RIVKIN. I do not, but let me just say that I cannot conceive, 

even if you assume that there were some nefarious activities, the 

context in which——

Mr. KELLER. I am going to cut you off, because I only have a certain amount of time. 

Professor Berman, do you have any such evidence? 

Mr. BERMAN. No. 

Mr. KELLER. Mr. Cochran, do you have any such evidence? 

Mr. COCHRAN. No, sir. 

Mr. KELLER. Okay. The next question we have, is this pardon 

consistent with other pardons? 

I would make the argument in some ways that this pardon is 

not, in fact, consistent with other pardons or commutations. Scooter 

Libby was not the half brother of President Bush, unlike the situation with Bill Clinton’s brother, Roger. Scooter Libby did not pay 

hundreds of thousands of dollars to the siblings of the First Lady, 

unlike the pardon-seeking, convicted felons who paid money to Hillary Clinton’s two brothers successfully. Scooter Libby was not a fugitive who left to Switzerland after being charged with the largest 

tax increase or tax evasion scheme in history, unlike Bill Clinton’s 

pardon of Marc Rich. 

Now, it has been said that perhaps some inconsistency is that 

DOJ guidelines were not followed in this case. 

78

Mr. Adams, you have testified that, essentially, DOJ guidelines 

are that you have to wait 5 years after you were imprisoned or, if 

there is no imprisonment, 5 years after you were convicted in order 

to seek a pardon and that this is merely advisory. 

Were the DOJ guidelines followed in the case of Marc Rich? 

Mr. ADAMS. No, sir. 

Mr. KELLER. Were the DOJ guidelines followed in the case of 

Carlos Vignali? 

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Vignali did apply for a commutation. He was eligible to apply. 

Mr. KELLER. In fact, that was strongly opposed by DOJ, was it 

not? 

Mr. ADAMS. I cannot tell you what the Justice Department said 

about that. 

Mr. KELLER. I can tell you that it was. 

Were the DOJ guidelines followed in the case of the Gregorys? 

Mr. ADAMS. The Gregorys were eligible to apply for pardons, and 

they did so. 

Mr. KELLER. And that also was opposed by the Department of 

Justice? 

Mr. ADAMS. Once again, Congressman, I am sorry. I cannot comment on what we said in that case. 

Mr. KELLER. I can tell you that it was. 

The next issue I want to talk about is the legality of the pardons 

or the commutations, and this has been questioned. In fact, it has 

been questioned by none other than the Clintons. President Bill 

Clinton said recently that this Administration believes that after 

hearing of this commutation that the law is a minor obstacle. Hillary Clinton said that this has elevated cronyism over the rule of 

law, questioning it. 

So just to be crystal clear on the legality of this, Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution expressly provides, ‘‘The President shall 

have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the 

United States except in cases of impeachment.’’

Now, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has expressly held—and I quote—

‘‘The pardon power flows from the Constitution alone, not any legislative enactments, and cannot be modified, abridged or diminished by the Congress.’’

Do you have any evidence, Mr. Adams, that the Constitution in 

this case was not followed by the President of the United States? 

Mr. ADAMS. The President clearly had the authority to commute 

Mr. Libby’s sentence, Congressman. 

Mr. KELLER. When we talk about Justice Department guidelines, 

those are purely advisory, and they are not binding in any way on 

the President; isn’t that correct? 

Mr. ADAMS. Yes, sir. As I said in my prepared statement, that 

is the case. 

Mr. KELLER. Thank you. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from Florida, 

Robert Wexler. 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

79

I, too, want to thank you for holding today’s hearings. It seems 

evident to me that the President’s decision to commute Scooter 

Libby’s 30-month prison sentence is egregious. It rewards loyalty 

above the rule of law. It encourages future acts of obstruction of 

justice. As a result, yesterday, I introduced H.Res. 530 with my Judiciary colleagues—Congressman Cohen, Congresswoman Jackson 

Lee, Congresswoman Baldwin, and 14 additional Members of Congress—to censure President Bush and to condemn this unconscionable abuse of power which began with the Administration’s falsifying of intelligence on Iraqi nuclear capabilities. 

After a month-long trial, Scooter Libby was found guilty by a 

jury of his peers of very serious crimes: four counts of perjury, of 

obstruction of justice and of making false statements to FBI investigators. Mr. Libby’s criminal actions obstructed the Federal investigation into the White House’s failure to comply with an executive 

order mandating the protection of classified national security information. It is clear that the perjury of Mr. Libby was designed to 

do one thing and one thing only, to protect President Bush, to protect Vice President Cheney and other Administration officials from 

further scrutiny regarding the coordinated political retaliation 

against former Ambassador Wilson and his wife. 

President Bush’s commutation of Mr. Libby’s 30-month prison 

sentence is an egregious abuse of the President’s clemency power, 

and it could only be described as politically motivated quid pro quo 

to reward Libby for halting further investigation into the White 

House’s failure to protect the confidential identity of a CIA operative. 

Despite President Bush’s assertion that Mr. Libby’s sentence was 

excessive, the record shows that it was not. The 30-month prison 

term imposed by Judge Walton is supported by the Federal sentencing guidelines. Indeed, under the Federal sentencing guidelines, those who commit perjury and who successfully obstruct justice—as did Mr. Libby—actually lengthen the prison term, not 

shorten it. 

Not only is Mr. Libby’s sentence supported by the Federal sentencing guidelines, but a similar sentence in a similar case involving perjury was recently upheld by the United States Supreme 

Court in Rita versus the United States. 

In fact, President Bush’s position that the commutation was 

needed because of the excessive nature of Mr. Libby’s sentence is 

intellectually dishonest. If the President truly believed it was excessive, he could have commuted Mr. Libby’s sentence after Mr. 

Libby had served 12, 18, 20 months or whatever sentence the 

President deemed appropriate. Commuting it before Mr. Libby 

served even 1 day in prison proves that the length of sentence was 

not the President’s real concern. 

While the President has the constitutional authority to commute 

an individual sentence, it does not mean that Congress must sit by 

and give tacit approval when a President unjustly exercises that 

authority. Congress must go on record against the President’s actions. Censure, in my mind, would be a strong statement to the 

President from Congress and from the American people that his decision to reward loyalty above the rule of law is wrong and will not 

be tolerated. 

80

Mr. Berman, you had testified, I believe—and I just want to 

make sure this is clear for the record—that President Bush said his 

reason for using the commutation was that the sentence was excessive. 

Isn’t it true that if, in fact, that were the President’s reason that 

he could have commuted Mr. Libby’s sentence after Mr. Libby 

served 12 months or 16 months or whatever time the President 

deemed appropriate? 

Mr. BERMAN. That is absolutely right. 

My understanding, too, is that he could have also commuted it 

to a lower sentence even before that time had started but used that 

as the alternative to put in place a sentence that the President 

may have thought more appropriate. One of the useful analogies 

here might be some other very high-profile cases involving other 

prominent people who were found guilty of perjury and obstruction 

of justice in the Federal system. 

I think particularly of Martha Stewart, whose case was all the 

rage in the papers and was an issue that I followed closely; also 

of the well-known rapper, Lil’ Kim. Both of them, I believe, served 

10-month terms for, obviously, not exactly similar crimes but of 

similar kinds of misstatements to investigators. And it strikes me 

that, to the extent that we are talking about equity and fairness, 

if the real goal were to bring Mr. Libby’s sentence in line with the 

President’s conception of equity and fairness, he might have looked 

more directly to some other high-profile cases in which the rule of 

law was upheld. 

Mr. WEXLER. So let me understand this, Mr. Berman. What you 

are saying is that the President could have done at least one of two 

things if he really believed the sentence to be excessive. He could 

have let Mr. Libby serve a period of time and then could have commuted his sentence, or he could have even commuted his sentence 

downward now and have let Mr. Libby serve 12 months, 16 months 

or whatever it is the President thought appropriate. 

Mr. BERMAN. That is correct. 

Mr. WEXLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

The Chair is now pleased to recognize the only former Attorney 

General who we have in the Congress, Mr. Dan Lungren. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

You and I go back a long ways on this Committee, and I have 

great respect for you. I must say, however, that this hearing is one 

that troubles me very much. 

We now have had, by my count, since your party has taken over, 

a minimum of 300 investigations within the first 100 days, investigation after investigation after investigation. So far today, we 

have heard of Iran-Contra. We have heard of Nixon, Haldeman and 

Ehrlich. I am wondering what is next. Nixon’s dog, Checkers? 

Maybe Sherman Adams’ vicuna coat? 

To put it on the record, it is true, as was suggested by the gentleman from Florida, that the President could have done other 

things, but he did not, and the big difference is he is the President 

and you are not, and he made the judgment to exercise his constitutional authority in the way he did. 

81

I would like to put on the record one piece of evidence that has 

not been presented on the record, and that is of Mr. Rita’s case. 

The recommendation in the pre-sentence report was that he get 33 

to 41 months, and he got 33, the lower end of the recommendation 

of the pre-sentence report. In Mr. Libby’s case, it was recommended 

that he get between 15 and 21 months, and he got 30 months, 

which is double the lower end of the recommendation. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I remember very well the Committee’s 

Christmas party that we had, and I remember at that time that 

the only celebrity you introduced at that time was Ambassador 

Wilson. So I was wondering when we were going to have a hearing 

so that we could, once again, have this story told, and I did not 

know it was going to take this long. 

Mr. Wilson, let me ask you: Are you able to name any person 

who ever told the White House officials that your wife’s status was 

covert? 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, first of all, thank you for referring to 

me as a ‘‘celebrity.’’

Mr. LUNGREN. No. No. I understand that, sir, but I only have a 

few minutes. So can you answer that question? 

Mr. WILSON. I am not a celebrity. I am just simply a citizen of 

this country, and when you talk about the CIA in this——

Mr. LUNGREN. Sir, I just asked you a question. 

Are you aware of anybody who ever told the White House officials that your wife’s status was covert before Scooter Libby made 

his revelation? 

Mr. WILSON. I am not aware. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. Isn’t it true that, at the trial, there were 

several CIA witnesses who testified that they did not know that 

your wife’s status was covert? 

Mr. WILSON. That is possible. I have not reviewed the testimony 

for that. 

Mr. LUNGREN. The Washington Post said this: 

‘‘Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was clearly and 

publicly charging that the Bush administration had twisted, if not 

invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq. Conversations with journalists are in the July 6, 2003, Op-Ed. He claimed 

to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from 

Niger. It was suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the Administration. The bipartisan 

investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee subsequently 

established that all of these claims were false and that Mr. Wilson 

was recommended for the trip by his wife.’’

Do you disagree with that? 

Mr. WILSON. Profoundly, Congressman. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Is The Washington Post part of the conspiracy 

against you and your wife? 

Mr. WILSON. I have not asserted that. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Well, does that mean that reasonable people could 

differ with respect to conclusions that you have drawn? 

Mr. WILSON. It means you cannot always believe what you read 

in the press, sir. 

82

Mr. LUNGREN. I see. So reasonable people cannot disagree with 

your conclusions? 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, on October 1 of 2002—or October 2—

the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence testified to the Senate 

Intelligence Committee that one of the areas where we believe the 

British have stretched the case beyond where we would stretch it 

is uranium sales from Africa to Iraq. Within 3 days, the Director 

of the Central Intelligence had said that twice or three times to the 

White House. Mr. Hadley later submitted his resignation because, 

in fact, he had lost those documents. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Okay. 

Mr. WILSON. The day after my article appeared, Congressman, 

the White House acknowledged that the 16 words do not rise to the 

level of inclusion in the State of the Union Address; and, by the 

end of the month, the National Security Advisor had apologized or 

had expressed her regrets on a PBS newscast. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Let me ask you this: 

According to the Rob Silverman report, the national intelligence 

estimate at the time of the State of the Union concluded that Iraq 

was, quote, ‘‘vigorously trying to procure uranium or/and 

yellowcake from Africa,’’ end quote. The report, itself, found that, 

quote, ‘‘the CIA analysts continued to believe that Iraq was probably seeking uranium from Africa,’’ unquote. 

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report said that, 

at the time of the State of the Union, quote, ‘‘the CIA and Iraq nuclear analysts and the Director of WINPAC still believed that Iraq 

was probably seeking uranium from Africa.’’ That is from the intelligence report at page 66. 

Finally, the Butler report in Great Britain called the President’s 

statement in the State of the Union Address, quote, unquote, ‘‘wellfounded.’’

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report said at the 

time of the State of the Union, quote, ‘‘CIA and Iraq nuclear analysts and the Director of WINPAC still believed that Iraq was probably seeking uranium from Africa.’’ That is from the report at page 

66. 

Finally, the Butler report in Great Britain called the President’s 

statement in the State of the Union Address, quote/unquote, ‘‘well 

founded.’’ Doesn’t that suggest that there are other conclusions that 

can be drawn from the facts other than yours? 

Mr. WILSON. Certainly, Congressman. 

Mr. LUNGREN. People that draw other conclusions aren’t necessarily making falsehoods. 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, that is entirely possible. Let me just 

suggest, as I said in my article, that mine was one of several reports that were done at the time in subsequent testimony, all of 

which reached the same conclusions. I also just say once again for 

the record that the Director of Central Intelligence and his deputy 

testified both to Congress and offered their recommendations and 

went to great lengths to try and remove this from any speech, and 

The Washington Post reported in January that in response to a 

Pentagon question the National Intelligence Officer circulated a 

memorandum to the government and Vice President in which the 

83

NIO said the allegations that Iraq sought uranium from Niger are 

baseless and should be used. 

Mr. LUNGREN. That is from The Washington Post.

Mr. WILSON. That was a Washington Post article. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Which also said on March 7, 2007, the trial has 

provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking his wife’s identity and no evidence that 

she was in fact covert. 

Mr. WILSON. I would refer you——

Mr. LUNGREN. The same folks that you were referring to for 

your——

Mr. WILSON. I would refer you to Mr. Fitzgerald’s statement that 

it is hard to see there was not a conspiracy to defame, punish or 

discredit, seek to punish Ambassador Wilson. 

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair is 

pleased to recognize the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee, 

Steve Cohen. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Adams, what is the 

criteria or standard that you use, if any, to recommend or not recommend a pardon or commutation to the President? 

Mr. ADAMS. Let me describe the usual standard for pardon first. 

One, it is acceptance of responsibility. 

Mr. COHEN. I understand those things, but is there an equitable 

standard, a standard that is equity or some clear and convincing, 

do you have any standards at all? 

Mr. ADAMS. The standard is that we need to be convinced that 

this person is deserving of a pardon, by fairly clear and convincing 

evidence. 

Mr. COHEN. We talked about, I think it was Mr. Scott was asking 

you about probation and if you could have probation without jail 

time hanging over your head. Let’s assume that the commutation 

has been given, he is going to have probation and a fine. What if 

he violates his probation, what is his penalty? 

Mr. ADAMS. Actually, I think the sentence is a term of supervised 

release, Congressman. If a person violates supervised release, it 

can be revoked and he can be imprisoned. 

Mr. COHEN. Even if his sentence has been commuted? 

Mr. ADAMS. I think so. Let me get back. 

Mr. COHEN. The sentence has been commuted. You send him to 

go back to work for Vice President Cheney? What could you do? 

Mr. ADAMS. I don’t have any knowledge about the decision in Mr. 

Libby’s case. I am not going to comment on that. 

Mr. COHEN. All right. There seems to be somewhat divergence on 

this panel. The Republicans have said that the Democrats are 

howling because they are bringing up deeds that the Republicans 

have done, at least the President and the Vice President may have 

done, and yet the Republicans are somewhat howling when they 

bring up President Clinton. And two wrongs don’t make a right and 

there have been abuses I think of this system over the years. It has 

been said by Mr. Keller that this is in the Constitution. Of course 

that is incorrect because we can propose the Constitution be 

amended. And we just had our Fourth of July holiday whereby we 

celebrated the fact that we didn’t have a king, we had a democracy. 

We had checks and balances. This power is a vestige of the king. 

84

I know Mr. Rivkin said it is for equity and that the Founding Fathers got together and discussed it. Well, the Founding Fathers 

were great guys, but they were all kind of close to whoever the 

President was going to be. Kind of inside baseball, in a way. 

In 1977, there was a problem in Tennessee, we had a Democratic 

Governor that was issuing pardons and it was questionably illegal. 

At the time we had a constitutional convention, of which I served 

as Vice President, and I suggested we should limit the power of 

pardon. And to say that the Supreme Court—it didn’t pass, but the 

Supreme Court by four out of five members of the Tennessee Supreme Court would say that a pardon shouldn’t be issued because 

it would be harmful to justice, that there should be a check. 

What would be wrong with a constitutional amendment to suggest that any pardon or commutation by the President would have 

to go to the Supreme Court or some other body, let’s say the Supreme Court for now, Mr. Adams, and say six out of nine of the 

Supreme Court members would have to affirmatively say this 

should not be issue because it will be helpful to the public’s respect 

for the law or is unfair or unjust? Would that be an improvement 

on the system of justice, a continuation of our revolution of 231 

years ago, or do you think the President should have this power 

of a king? 

Mr. ADAMS. I would just answer your question on two levels. It 

strikes me as a matter of constitutional law, the Constitution probably could be amended along the lines that you just suggested if 

you went through the proper procedure to do that. Whether that 

is a wise idea or not, I have no comment on that. 

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Cochran, Mr. Berman, Ambassador Wilson. Mr. 

Rivkin is I am sure going to be against it. Any thoughts? 

Mr. BERMAN. Candidly, I would be disappointed with any rigorous substantive review because the President’s power here, 

though I think it is right to accurately describe it as king-like, is 

a power to show mercy. I fear and much of my scholarship is about 

the failure of——

Mr. COHEN. What if it doesn’t show mercy, when it is to cover 

up a crime, take care of one of your cronies or take care of a political contributor or somebody that has paid somebody in your family. That is not mercy. So shouldn’t six of the nine justices go, hey, 

the Berman rule hadn’t been met. Wouldn’t that be okay? 

Mr. BERMAN. I certainly like anything that suggests a Berman 

rule is put in place. That said, I think this oversight hearing is a 

perfect example of the opportunities that exists to in a sense push 

back, and, again, developed more fully in my testimony, I would 

welcome efforts short of a constitutional amendment. I think a constitutional amendment is not only very difficult to achieve but 

sends an extraordinarily broad statement about our country’s values. And, fundamentally, and this is why I myself have written 

about our country’s values, safeguarding liberty, and the concept of 

mercy. And candidly, and this is again something that I have spent 

a lot of time thinking about. What worries me most is not the fact 

that Mr. Libby alone got a commutation but that this President has 

pardoned more turkeys at Thanksgiving than he has shown mercy 

with respect to other offenders in our Federal criminal justice system. 

85

And so though I can understand this Committee’s concern and 

the having of an oversight hearing to look very, very closely at this 

particular commutation, the way I am inclined to make lemonade 

out of that lemon is to notice and in some sense hold the Administration’s feet to the fire that if these are principles that should be 

vindicated in Mr. Libby’s case, that other defendants, Mr. Rita with 

his years of military service on behalf of this country, the border 

agents whose cases led to calls for some sort of clemency action in 

the service of their country, that there be more of an effort by this 

Administration to exercise that its own Justice Department can 

make mistakes and that there be a more rigorous effort to convince 

the people of this country that it is not just those inside the Beltway who get the benefit of the President’s compassion and that 

every member of our country can get eaten up by an overzealous 

criminal justice system and should get the opportunity to plead to 

the executive and have those pleas taken very seriously, that justice and mercy ought to come to bear in their case. 

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. I thank you. 

The Chair is pleased to recognize Chris Cannon, the gentleman 

from Utah, who is the Ranking Member on the Commercial and 

Administrative Law Committee. 

Mr. CANNON. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

time. I just want to say, Mr. Berman, that I actually agree very 

much with what you are saying; that is, that the nature of prosecution in America is so fundamentally different from the executive 

branch that you can’t merge these two and that we probably ought 

to have a more aggressive approach in the executive branch to 

overseeing the kind of excesses that sometimes happen with prosecutors. 

This Committee I think should be fairly familiar with some of 

those prosecutions. And in fact I just want to—actually, I want to 

thank Mr. Cohen for making the point of brothers or relatives and 

cronies, which I take is a reference, bipartisan reference from this 

bipartisan Committee to the fact that President Clinton gave some 

very questionable pardons. 

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to have included in the record a story from The Washington 

Post dated March 7, 2007, entitled the Libby Verdict and the Minority Views from the Senate by Vice Chairman Bond joined by 

Senators Hatch and Burr. 

Mr. CONYERS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to is located in the Appendix.] 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a love-hate relationship with The Washington Post. I hate it because it tends to be 

left, and I hate it because they are smart and they tend to hurt 

the right when they go left. On the other hand, the fact that they 

are smart makes them readable and interesting, and this article I 

think is profound because it punctures some balloons here. 

There is, I think, no question about their saying that Mr. Libby 

did something wrong, but they are trying to balance things and 

they say relatively eloquent in what they are trying to balance. 

What they are essentially saying is we have a myth here, and that 

myth, Mr. Chairman, has been repeated by you and by Mr. Nadler 

and Mr. Wexler and by others on your side, and it goes to this neVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\071107\36605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 36605
86

farious activity of blaming or hurting or going after personally Mr. 

Wilson. In the process of that they lay out the myths that we have 

heard here today. Let me just go through those. 

One is that Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because of his 

early publicly charging the Bush administration twisted if not invented facts, action in making the case for war against Iraq. In 

conversations with journalists in his op ed he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, suggesting that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the 

matter and alleged that his report had been circulated at the highest levels of the Administration. 

It goes on to say that essentially—concludes that what was established out of all this was that all these claims were false. In 

other words, the left Washington Post calls Mr. Wilson, who is here 

today, a liar. They are saying he is not true, he is not telling the 

truth about this. 

The article points out the other myth that is here before us 

today, that somehow, as I recall, I think we have referred to this 

as a slip of the tongue on the part of Mr. Libby or was it rather 

a nefarious scheme to out and hurt Mr. Wilson. Well, the article 

points out it was Richard Armitage and that the trial provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson 

by leaking Ms. Plame’s identity, but that would be Ms. Wilson’s 

identity, and no evidence that she was in fact covert. 

Then in conclusion, the article says Mr. Wilson’s case has besmirched nearly everyone it has touched. The former Ambassador 

will be remembered as a blow hard. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby 

were overbearing in their zeal to rebut Mr. Wilson and careless in 

their handling of classified information and Mr. Libby’s statements 

were reprehensible. Mr. Fitzgerald has shown again why handing 

a Washington political case to a Federal prosecutor is a prescription for excess. 

That is why we are talking about and why Mr. Berman is suggesting we need to have a greater intervention by the President. 

Now, Mr. Wilson, your wife has given inconsistent testimony to 

the Senate and the House. I take it in your zeal for getting the 

truth out you would encourage her to come to the Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, which is evaluating that, I 

think there is a letter from the Ranking Member asking the Chairman, Mr. Waxman, to review that. I would take it given your zeal 

for truth and getting it all out you would encourage her to come 

and meet with staff of the minority and majority and discuss these 

matters, would you not? 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, thank you for your questions and 

your comments. I am a part time resident of your State, not of your 

district, and my condolence to those of your constituents who are 

suffering——

Mr. CANNON. Thank you. I have limited time. 

Mr. WILSON. The purpose of testifying is in fact to try and 

get——

Mr. CANNON. Would you encourage your wife——

Mr. WILSON. My wife has testified truthfully to the best of her 

ability to everybody who has asked her. 

87

Mr. CANNON. Yet there were substantial inconsistencies, you acknowledge that. 

Mr. WILSON. I don’t believe there were inconsistencies. 

Mr. CANNON. The record shows inconsistencies. Would you encourage her to come and clarify those inconsistencies? 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, I don’t believe that she was inconsistent in her testimony, neither does she. She testified truthfully, 

honest and the best of her ability to the Senate and the House. 

Mr. CANNON. Would you tell us whether or not you will encourage her to come? 

Mr. WILSON. I have said to her, as I said to you, as I said to Mr. 

Davis the other day in the House dining room, we are prepared to 

answer any and all legitimate questions that any Member of this 

or the other body might have, Congressman. 

Mr. CANNON. Or the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform. 

Mr. WILSON. Either body, yes, sir. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I see my 

time has expired and I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you. The Chair would inquire of Ambassador Wilson, in all fairness, did he want to make any additional 

responses to our colleague from Utah? 

Mr. WILSON. Well, with respect to some of the things that were 

in the SSCI, part 2 report, it perpetuates a number of the myths 

that have been part of this story from the beginning. 

First of all and foremost is the allegation that somehow I have 

asserted that the Vice President sent me on this trip. If you go 

back and you look at the testimony that was introduced in the trial 

and in the run-up to the trial, you will find that there were three 

articles that the Vice President and his staff were most focused on 

at the time that they launched this effort to, as Fitzgerald said, 

punish, 

defame and discredit. One was the Nick Kristof article, one was 

the Walter Pincus—one was the Spencer Ackerman article, Walter 

Pincus article, and the fourth was my article. 

I have actually gone back and taken a look at those articles and 

they all say very clearly that it was the Office of the Vice President 

that asked the question, which of course is what my wife testified 

to when she testified to the Government Oversight Committee. 

The other one of course is the assertion that somehow I was running around saying that I had debunked it. If you take a look at 

my article of July 6, which regrettably was not included in the 

SSCI report but should have been made a part of it, I believe, since 

they devoted 17 pages to discussion of this particular issue, I said 

in my meeting with the Ambassador who was resident there in 

Niger that she had said she thought she had debunked the particular issue. 

So those are a couple of comments. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Johnson, would you 

mind if Mr. Davis goes first? He has got a little time problem. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. Let 

me pick up on some comments that the President of the United 

States made when he was the Governor of the State of Texas. 

88

President Bush wrote a book called A Charge to Keep in 1999 

when he was traveling the country talking about his efforts to be 

elected President and he had occasion in the book to make some 

comments about the standards that he uses to commute sentences, 

and he made the following comments, quote, ‘‘I don’t believe my 

role is to replace the verdict of a jury with my own unless there 

are new facts or evidence of which the jury was unaware or evidence that the trial was somehow unfair.’’

The President on another occasion said in this same book: My job 

is to ask two questions, is the person guilty of the crime, and did 

the person have full access to the courts of law? And of course he 

meant two questions as to when he would use his power of commutation. 

And let me just ask the panel, to your knowledge, any of you, has 

the President of the United States raised any question of there 

being new facts that have come out regarding the Libby case since 

the sentence? Does anyone know of the President referring to any 

new facts that have come out, any member of the panel? 

Mr. WILSON. No, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. I think all witnesses are shaking their heads negatively. Does anyone know of the President suggesting that the trial 

was somehow unfair in any way? Has the President made any 

statement that the Libby trial was unfair in some way? Again, all 

Members are shaking their heads negatively. 

The judge in this case, Judge Walton, was appointed by President Bush, is that correct? The prosecutor in this case was a Republican appointee of President Bush, is that correct? You are all 

nodding your heads affirmatively. I even recall that when the Republican Party in Illinois was desperately searching for an alternative to Mr. Obama that Mr. Fitzgerald was approached about 

being the Republican nominee by Mr. Rove. 

Every now and then people make comments during campaigns 

and they change their minds and they evolve in office. So let’s look 

at the record and see if President Bush has changed his mind at 

all about his standard for commutations. 

Mr. Adams, 4,000 petitions for commutation during the last 6 

years and so many months, 3 granted. By the way, is that 3 counting Libby? 

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Libby makes the fourth. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Libby makes the fourth. Four out of 4,000. In 

fact, did Mr. Libby actually submit a request for commutation, Mr. 

Adams? 

Mr. ADAMS. Not to my office, no, sir. 

Mr. DAVIS. There are at least 4,000 individuals who did. Mr. Berman, let me pick on something that has not come out in the hearing today. A lot of people ask the question, Mr. Rivkin, you asked 

the question or raised the issue, why not just grant the pardon? 

Why engage in this business of a commutation? A lot of people 

have said to the President, Mr. President, have the courage of your 

convictions and grant a pardon. 

Mr. Berman, do this analysis for me. If the President had granted a pardon, that might have subjected Mr. Libby to being subpoenaed to testify before this or some other Committee, is that correct, 

Mr. Berman? 

89

Mr. BERMAN. I think that is possible. Sentencing is my specialty. 

The way that clicks together is beyond——

Mr. DAVIS. You tell me as a lawyer if you agree. If President 

Bush had granted a pardon, Mr. Libby could not then have invoked 

the fifth amendment if he had been called before this Committee, 

is that correct? 

Mr. BERMAN. I think that is probably right, although, again, that 

is out of my field of expertise. 

Mr. DAVIS. I understand. It is my understanding that is correct 

and I am sure Mr. Rivkin will tell me if I am wrong. If I can finish 

my questions. 

So one effect of this commutation I would submit is that it has 

had the effect of immunizing this individual from ever being called 

to testify. That is one effect of the commutation in this instance. 

That ought to be worrisome to the Committee because it suggests 

one very simple thing, if the President had given a pardon, instead 

of you all being here, as much as we have enjoyed you, I think we 

would all have rather heard from Scooter Libby on a variety of 

things. 

If a pardon had been granted, this Committee could have immunized him and brought him here. Because of the commutation, because that means an appeal is still lingering, that created a very 

different scenario. 

Mr. Wilson, final question to you, let me give you this hypothetical for a moment. Let’s say that William Jefferson Clinton had 

been President of the United States and an allegation had been 

made that his Administration had leaked the identity of a covert 

CIA informant and that the Clinton administration had done it for 

the purpose of punishing——

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Wilson, can you comment? 

Mr. WILSON. Well, let me comment by referring you to what the 

first President Bush said at the dedication of the new CIA headquarters when he said that those who would betray the identity of 

their sources, by sources he meant CIA officers, are the most heinous of traitors, something to that effect, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. The time has expired. As the Members of the Committee know, we have got bells on and I have got Mr. Issa has just 

come in, Randy Forbes is here. Let me divide all the time we can 

between the several of you. Randy Forbes, do you want to start off 

or does Mr. Issa? 

Mr. ISSA. I will be brief. Ambassador Wilson, today I think we 

are dealing with the question of whether or not we—we should be 

dealing with the question of whether or not there is a legitimate 

right if the President believes that a sentence is severe, to commute it. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. WILSON. Actually, Congressman, thank you for the question. 

My understanding was whether or not he had exceeded his commutation authority, but more to the point, as I testified, whether 

or not by having taken this action to really impede—really remove 

from Mr. Libby any incentive to cooperate with the prosecutor if he 

has a guarantee that there remains a cloud over the head of the 

Vice President. 

90

Mr. ISSA. I heard you say that but the fact is he granted no immunity, he granted no pardon, he simply said you are not going to 

jail, is that correct? 

Mr. WILSON. That is correct. That is my understanding, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. This essentially was for failure of candor/lying, not 

under oath, to Federal officials. That is pretty much it. That was 

what it was all about. 

Mr. WILSON. My understanding of the conviction, it was four 

counts of lying to Federal investigators, lying to the grand jury, 

and obstruction of justice. 

Mr. ISSA. I am going to ask you, because you are uniquely qualified. Your wife, the subject of what started this whole thing, came 

before both the House and the Senate and told us that she didn’t 

promote you for the job in Niger, and yet after I have been able 

to read her communications and documents, classified documents, 

I have come to the opinion that she perjured herself. 

So now let me ask you, because you are uniquely qualified here, 

do you think that if in fact your wife was less than candid, was not 

completely honest, or in some way shaded the truth while under 

sworn testimony before the House or the Senate, that in fact she 

should not be granted any limitation on a sentence or any pardon 

for what she has done and should be prosecuted if appropriate? 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, the question before this Committee——

Mr. ISSA. The question before you, excuse me, Ambassador, the 

question before you is appropriate because in fact this is a political 

environment, your wife has testified before this Committee, you 

have been chosen to be here on this subject through no accident. 

You are here as in fact a tangential part of the underlying investigation while issuing an opinion before us as to whether this was 

intellectually honest to commute it. 

So now I am asking you, if your wife, as I believe, has perjured 

herself before the House and the Senate, are you going to say here 

today that in fact there should be no impeding of that, she should 

be granted no clemency or pardon so that we can get to the bottom 

of why she said one thing in classified documents and another 

thing before Congress. 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, my wife answered honestly and 

truthfully to the best of her ability. 

Mr. ISSA. Ambassador, that is not just true. 

Mr. CONYERS. The witness and the Member will suspend, please. 

We are going—since there have been so many requests for time, I 

will grant you additional time when we come back. But we will 

stop at this point to answer our responsibilities on the floor. The 

Committee stands in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. CONYERS. The Committee will come to order. 

We will come back to the conclusion of the responses from the 

questions of Mr. Issa, but right now the Chair will now call upon 

the gentlelady from California. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I just walked in from chairing our delegation. If 

I could defer? 

Mr. CONYERS. Absolutely. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

91

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair will recognize Congressman Debbie 

Wasserman Schultz of Florida. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much. My question is 

of Professor Berman. Professor, forgive me, I wasn’t here for your 

testimony, I had an Appropriations Committee meeting at the 

same time. But I have followed this case and certainly spent some 

time reviewing the decision of the President. Doesn’t reducing a 

sentence for public service open up a tremendous loophole where 

the wealthy and privileged can have reduced sentences because of 

charitable contributions or whatever public service commitments 

they have made? On the flip side, those would be unavailable to 

the under privileged or working poor? And how does that factor in 

with the guidelines that are supposed to address what an appropriate sentence is that would be equitable of course if we are treating people equally as the Constitution dictates that we do? How 

does that juxtapose against that notion? 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, I think you have nicely put your finger on exactly why the sentencing guidelines have policy statements that 

tell judges that they should not ordinarily consider matters such as 

community service or family ties or responsibilities, because my understanding of the background there was that the Commission was 

greatly concerned that if it suggested to judges to consider matters 

like public service, damage to reputations, it would cut against 

Congress’ own statements as part of the sentencing format that socioeconomic class should not be a factor that is relevant to sentencing whatsoever. 

And so I certainly agree, and that is itself one of the curiosities 

I take away from the President’s statement that this seems to be 

an endorsement of the notion that damaged reputation, family 

harms are not just valid considerations, but could justify completely eliminating an entire prison term. So I guess I share your 

concern. I would resist a little bit the idea of a loophole. By that, 

I mean I do think, and I have written to this effect, that prior good 

works and a commitment to public service might be indicative of 

a low likelihood of recidivism or might suggest a diminished culpability, what I would hope both the President and Sentencing Commission and those who work in this field look for ways that those 

could be valid considerations, but don’t have the kind of privilege 

skew that I think you are rightly putting your finger on. I think 

that is the broader concern here. If we too readily endorse those 

as considerations, it will only be the privileged with well heeled 

lawyers that are able to convince that they deserve a break for 

these circumstances. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Professor Berman, you wouldn’t know 

that I asked a question as an opponent of sentencing guidelines so 

I—the whole decision is baffling to me. Not 2 weeks before you had 

a gentleman named Victor Rita, who was given 33 months in jail 

and whose case was argued all the way up to the Supreme Court—

I am sure that has been mentioned by my colleagues prior to my 

question—all the way up to the Supreme Court vigorously argued 

in support of by the Department of Justice for an obstruction of 

justice and perjury. Yet just 2 weeks after that the President issues 

a statement saying, my decision to commute his prison sentence 

leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation 

92

he gained through his years of public service and professional work 

in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young 

children have also suffered immensely, he will remain on probation. And then it goes on a couple more sentences. 

The President literally leaves the impression to the country, to 

the Nation that if you have a wife and young children and you 

have a reputation that you gained through years of public service 

that somehow there is an asterisk next to your name when it 

comes to having a sentencing guideline applied to your case. 

Mr. BERMAN. I would respond to that that those who work in the 

system know that that is an asterisk that hasn’t been utilized for 

virtually any other defendant, and that really is where my own 

surprise and disconcert was that I myself have represented clients 

who have made a mistake and wish to ’fess up to it, plead guilty, 

look to turn their lives around and assert their prior good works, 

assert their history of being responsible citizens and they don’t get 

a break. In fact the Justice Department regularly——

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Before my time expires, let me ask 

you one more question. Do you think that the higher ranking the 

employee the greater latitude the employee should have in committing crimes and escaping punishment, so that the Chief of Staff to 

the Vice President doesn’t get any jail time at all when convicted 

by a jury of four serious felonies—and not in defense of Mr. Rita’s 

action because I don’t think obstruction of justice and perjury is 

okay under any circumstances, but is there any difference in these 

two cases where Mr. Rita was a public official, a public servant, 

and does get 33 months argued by the Department of Justice in 

support of that sentence, but Mr. Libby gets a commutation of his 

sentence by the President? 

Mr. BERMAN. I certainly don’t think one’s higher status in government is a justification or an additional mitigating factor. If you 

are a believer in the current impact of the criminal law, it strikes 

me it is especially important in a high profile case to make extra 

sure. I think this ultimately was part of what drove Judge Walton’s 

decision, was that this was a case that would be closely watched, 

not just by everyone in the Nation but around the world, and that 

making a statement that nobody is above the law and they get subject to the same rules—I believe Mr. Fitzgerald emphasized this 

point as well in response to the President’s commutation. If you are 

a believer in deterrence, if anything, the higher profile, the more 

prominent the defendant, arguably the more severe the sanction 

should be. 

Mr. CONYERS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. When we went to take our votes, we had the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa, who had 1 minute and 42 seconds 

remaining and there was a colloquy going on. If you would like to 

finish up now, we will yield to the gentleman from California. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know that this hearing today is not about clemency, it is not 

about the power of clemency by the President. It is clearly quite 

frankly about whether or not we can get some more mileage out 

of the disclosure of Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. And I am sorry 

to see that, because I think that we have taken what should have 

93

been serious business and we have reduced it. And I apologize, Mr. 

Chairman, that I feel that this is a very hypocritical event, that in 

fact we are not having the discussion that we should be having, because if we were having the discussion that we should be having 

the President’s determination of whether politics plays a role in 

sentencing and therefore clemency is or isn’t appropriate is in fact 

a legitimate subject for debate. 

I happen to believe, and I will say it on the record so like your 

statement from the past it will be on the record, that in fact that 

is the fair use of clemency or pardoning. 

And I will close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that all of us together, 

not too long ago, talked about how when President Gerald Ford restored a certain amount of confidence, paying a high price for it by 

the way, by pardoning President Nixon so the Nation could get on 

with its work, pardoning him not for his sake, but for the Nation’s 

sake that he used a pardon authority, not because it was popular, 

but because it allowed the Office of the President and the rest of 

government to move on. 

I am sorry that this one will not have the same legacy, but in 

fact it should be taken in the same light. We have had a lot of politics related to this for a long time. I certainly believe Ambassador 

Wilson at his word, but I hope he believes me at my word, which 

is that in fact having read all the information, I believe that his 

wife will soon be asking for a pardon, that in fact she has not been 

genuine in her testimony before Congress and, if pursued, Ambassador Wilson and Valerie would be asking for the same sort of 

treatment, which is that in fact we put this behind us. 

So Mr. Chairman, I hope this will be the last time we use political theater in this way. I do not believe this was good use of the 

Committee’s time, because I believe that in fact this should have 

been and I hope in the future we will have a real debate about the 

proper use of clemency and pardoning so that we not have it be for 

other than healing the Nation. 

I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, let me just assure the gentleman that this 

is not theater, this is a legitimate part of our oversight and had 

the gentleman heard much of the testimony before he arrived, he 

would find out that this wasn’t about one issue or one person, it 

was about the use or misuse of the commutation prerogative that 

is constitutionally——

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I have read the written statements, I 

have been going back and forth between Committees, I appreciate 

that there was some genuineness here——

Mr. CONYERS. I don’t want to discuss the merits of whether we 

should have held this hearing. I will accept your advice on that regard. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. In all fairness to the Ambassador, I recognize him 

to make a response before we move on. 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I feel my responsibilities to speak to 

my elected representatives very seriously. Before I wrote my article, I came and spoke to the House Intelligence Committee staff 

and I spoke to the Senate Intelligence Committee staff before I 

94

went public, because my objective in this was for the Administration to tell the truth. 

My great uncle sat in this body. The statute of Junipero Serra 

in Statuary Hall was put in at the request of my great uncle who 

was Governor, a Republican Governor of the great State of California, Sonny Jim’’ Rolph. I find it an outrage for Members of this 

Congress to dare to assert that my wife, a public servant of 20 

years standing, or myself had committed perjury either before this 

Committee or before any Committee. 

What sort of signal does it send to public servants? What sort of 

signal does it send to intelligence assets, that not only can they not 

count on their government to protect them, but they cannot count 

on members of the President’s party to do anything other than to 

further defame them? It is an absolute outrage——

Mr. ISSA. Point of order. 

Mr. Wilson. It is beneath the dignity——

Mr. ISSA. Point of order. 

Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment, you have not been recognized and 

furthermore this witness who has been accused of something quite 

serious to me has an opportunity to respond. 

Mr. ISSA. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. By the way, we gave Monica Goodling the same 

courtesy. 

Mr. ISSA. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair will allow the Ambassador to finish his 

comment. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I respect that and I would like him to 

do so, but I would like to raise a point of order. 

Mr. CONYERS. I cannot recognize him for that purpose. Continue, 

please. 

Mr. WILSON. This is yet a further smear of my wife’s good name 

and my good name, and it is indeed an attempt to divert attention 

from the facts at hand. 

The facts on my wife’s participation or lack thereof are well established. One week after Bob Novak’s article appeared the CIA 

spokesman told two reporters from Newsday that she had nothing 

to do with sending me. 

The INR memo of June 10 of 2002, which is a memorandum of 

the meeting at which the trip was discussed, a meeting at which 

my wife was not present, made it very clear that it was a subject 

under active discussion at that time, also made it very clear that 

I agreed with the State Department that there was no need to 

make this trip. Furthermore, the Congressman has said that he 

has read all the information. 

Let me quote for you if I may a passage from the SSCI number 

2 report, the Senate Select Committee second report, which refers 

to testimony which should have been included in the first report 

because it was taken by them during that hearing process. This 

is—the report’s officer who my wife testified told her after the first 

report came out that in fact he had been the one who recommended. 

I quote, let me speak to what I know of where she is substantively involved. She offered up his name as a possibility because we were—we didn’t have much in the way of other resources 

95

to try to get at this problem to the best of my knowledge. And so 

whenever she offered his name up it seemed like a logical thing to 

do. I didn’t make the decision to send him, but I certainly agreed 

with it. I recommended he should go. That is the report’s officer. 

I would like to state emphatically, he continued, that from what 

I’ve seen Valerie Wilson has been the consummate professional 

through all of this from the start. Whenever she mentioned to me 

and some others that her husband had experience and was willing 

to travel, that she would have to step away from the operation because she couldn’t be involved in the decision making to send him, 

either that or in his debriefing and dissemination of the report and 

these kinds of things, because it could appear as a conflict of interest. 

That should have been in the first report, it was not. The legitimate question to ask about that is why not? At what level of cooperation and collaboration existed between the Vice President’s 

staff, President’s staff and those preparing the report and particularly the additional views? 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair now will recognize Randy Forbes. Are 

you prepared, sir? 

Mr. FORBES. I am prepared. 

Mr. CONYERS. Randy Forbes is the Ranking Member of the 

Crime Committee from Virginia. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. And let me say at the 

outset you know the enormous personal respect I have for you and 

for the Ranking Member, but I have to say I have to agree with 

the gentleman from California. I am disappointed, one, in the tenor 

of this hearing, the direction it has gone, the manner in which it 

has been conducted. 

I will just say, Mr. Chairman, I have learned some stuff today 

as I have heard about our witnesses that we need to avoid even 

the appearance of impropriety when we have witnesses here. I 

think it is careful that we not have them at Christmas parties and 

invite them there, because it does give the illusion that perhaps it 

is less than what we would like to have before this Committee. 

Let me say this, I think the Ranking Member said it as clearly 

and articulately as I can, on a hearing like this the howlers will 

howl. Fortunately, the public is a lot smarter than we give them 

credit for. They realize oftentimes that the opinions are based on 

whether the howlers are the Democrats or the Republicans. We 

hear testimony today, you can’t always believe what you read in 

the press, and yet we hear some of our witnesses who base their 

testimony on what they read in the press. 

Mr. Wexler got up here a while ago, he was very impassioned. 

He said, it is the duty of Congress to speak up when it is a bad 

clemency decision or a pardon decision that we need to speak up 

about. And yet 1999, when there was a sense of Congress on the 

floor about the Clinton pardon of a terrorist organization that had 

120 bombings in the United States, killed 16 people, and Congress 

put it to the vote, Mr. Wexler didn’t speak up for or against it, he 

voted present. 

Mr. Nadler comes up very impassioned today and talks about the 

importance of this hearing, but on February 28, 2001, when they 

96

were looking at the pardons that Mr. Clinton had done, Mr. Nadler 

says there seems to be little disagreement among scholars that 

Congress has no power whatsoever to put any restrictions or conditions or guidelines on the exercise of this power other than by 

starting a constitutional amendment. When they talked about the 

constitutional amendment, he talked about the fact that it had already been debated in the Constitutional Convention. They are a 

lot smarter than we were. 

Mr. Chairman, it would be comical, because it is oftentimes like 

a Casablanca movie and we just say let us round up the usual suspects and put them on here, if it wasn’t so damaging to the country 

because 6 of 11 hearings that this Committee has had have been 

political attacks on George Bush for constitutional executive privilege issues. 

Here is what is happening. Right now the United States is the 

number one target of virtually every significant espionage service 

on the face of the Earth. Just over 100 countries have been identified as a threat to the United States interest. China, Cuba, Russia 

and Iran are the most aggressive countries spying on the United 

States. 

We asked to look at cyber crime and espionage. Have we had the 

hearing on that? No. The answer is always we will get to that later 

because we need to get to the political stuff first. 

There are 850,000 criminal gang members in the United States. 

People at home are concerned about what is happening on the 

streets. Are we dealing with those issues? No. Answer, we will get 

to that later, let us deal with the political stuff first. 

Violent crime, there is an uptake in it. Could we be having a 

hearing by the full Committee on that? Yes. Are we doing it? We 

will get to that later. 

Terrorism, we had news articles, Mr. Chairman, that al-Qaeda 

has a cell here in the United States or on the way. Are we having 

a full hearing on that? No, because we have to do the howling first 

and do the political stuff. 

Crime victims issues, emergency and disaster assistance fraud, 

drug trafficking, all issues we put out at the beginning of the year 

and asked let us have hearings on those issues. 

That is what is resonating with people sitting in their homes 

watching this on TV today. They know we are coming in here and 

howling. That is why poll after poll corroborates that we know that 

this Democratic majority is coming in because they want to talk 

and talk and talk, or as the Ranking Member says, howl and howl 

and howl, but not face real problems and deal with real solutions. 

Mr. Chairman, with all my respect for you and for the Ranking 

Member, I just hope that we will stop the howling and start dealing with the issues that are really impacting the American people 

while we still have an opportunity to do it. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I thank the gentleman from Virginia. I don’t 

know if he was here when we told the number of bills passed in 

the 110th Congress these first 6 months and those passed in the 

109th Congress. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman——

97

Mr. CONYERS. Let me just tell you, in the 109th Congress we 

passed 15 measures out of the Judiciary Committee. In the 110th 

Congress we passed 37. 

And I would yield to the gentleman. I don’t know if he was aware 

of that. 

Mr. FORBES. I would like it if you don’t mind, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 

Chairman, the American people don’t care how many bills we pass, 

they care about whether or not we are dealing with the issues impacting them and the solutions. That is why you heard earlier 

today from the former Chairman that we named a number of post 

offices. We have——

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. FORBES. When you raise those issues, you allowed the Ambassador to do additional time. I am trying to take additional time 

on what you raised. 

Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment, sir. This is not an informal conversation, and I didn’t mean to provoke the gentleman. I just didn’t 

know if he was aware of this. 

Mr. FORBES. I was just trying to answer your question. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentlewoman from 

California, Zoe Lofgren, who Chairs the Immigration Committee in 

the Judiciary Committee. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to before asking 

my question, apparently with my other obligations today I missed 

some animated discussions here. I want to say how unfortunate I 

think my colleague from California’s comments were, especially in 

light of what we have seen, what appears to be the prosecution by 

the Justice Department of individuals based on political considerations and to even hint that an innocent person would somehow be 

in need of a pardon, especially given the service. With that background of politicized prosecution, I think it is very unfortunate. 

I would like to ask a question of Mr. Cochran. One of the suggestions that has been made to me is that while we know that Congress and I believe the courts have no power to review the pardon 

power of the executive, I believe it to be true that the rationale advanced by the President in this case is going to be used by defense 

counsel prospectively and to good effect to lessen sentences of defendants in Federal proceedings. 

Do you believe that is true? Can you advise me on that point? 

Mr. COCHRAN. I think that is true and I have to disagree with 

Mr. Rivkin, I believe that is a legitimate basis. In the President’s 

signing statement he listed very clearly the bases for the commutation in Mr. Libby’s sentence. Many of those were in fact reasons 

Mr. Rita asked the judiciary to vacate his sentence and return it 

for resentencing. 

Ms. LOFGREN. That is a different question. That is something 

that is happening. I am looking 5 years from now, 6 months from 

now. Will this be used effectively in your judgment? You are an experienced——

Mr. COCHRAN. I don’t know in terms of effectively. I do believe 

genuinely it will be used and probably will be used a great deal. 

I think we have yet to see and will only see by appellate decisions 

how effective it becomes, but it does open up an entire area for 

98

seeking reduced sentences in Federal court. And because of the 

President’s listing of those factors that he considered in commuting 

Mr. Libby’s sentence were fairly specific, I think there will be many 

defense attorneys that will use that as the basis for seeking reduced time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Now, I have a question for Professor Berman relative to the impact of—the legal impact of a pardon. I believe it is 

clear that the Congress and the courts have no power to review the 

commutation or pardoning by the executive. I don’t think—I think 

that is well settled. 

Mr. BERMAN. I think that is right. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The question is this, if the President can, any 

President, I don’t want to talk necessarily about this case, if any 

President can pardon for any reason, would that include a reason 

that was to advance a criminal conspiracy, for example, or for some 

other reason that was violative of the law? Would that——

Mr. BERMAN. The Supreme Court has said that the Constitution 

itself provides the only real limit on the constitutional power of——

Ms. LOFGREN. It would just be an impeachment? 

Mr. BERMAN. I think so. What is often true is there really isn’t 

sort of elaborate legal development of some of these parameters. 

Ultimately at the end of day Presidents historically have used their 

power with sufficient circumspection. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Here is one of the reasons why I am interested. 

I think it was during the Clinton years and there was a court said 

well, it is no problem to proceed with the civil litigation because 

it wouldn’t take any time whatsoever. I think at some point subsequent to that there were statutes at least discussed, I don’t know 

if they were implemented, to toll the statute of limitation for civil 

matters for the President and Vice President during their terms of 

office, so that civil matters wouldn’t disappear, they would just be 

deferred to the end of the term. 

I thought and I don’t think there is a similar provision for criminal matters. And so here is the question. Just as if you can fire 

somebody for whatever reason you want except you can’t fire them 

on the basis of race, you can use a pardon for whatever reason you 

want, but could you use that pardon in furtherance of a criminal 

conspiracy and if we were to toll the statute of limitation, would 

that be considered, do you think, or could that be constitutionally 

considered by a court after a term of either the executive or the 

Vice President was ended? 

Mr. BERMAN. What is interesting is we haven’t really had much 

effort by Congress to sort of test what you might say is procedural 

regulation on the operation of the clemency and pardon power. I 

think your question leads to what sorts of ways could Congress 

seek to push back or, put differently——

Ms. LOFGREN. Not put back, but for example, if there was a pardon intended by someone’s silence or to further some other wrongdoing, the political remedy of impeachment has never been 

achieved in the history of the United States. There has never been 

a conviction on impeachment in the Senate, and yet we all agree 

criminality would be wrong. And so the question is, is there some 

remedy for no man is above the law, is what was said during the 

Clinton impeachment, but there was really no remedy. 

99

Mr. CONYERS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you very much. 

The Chair recognizes Steve King, the Ranking Member of the 

Immigration Committee on the Judiciary Committee, from Iowa. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first like to start 

out with an inquiry of Ambassador Wilson. I am interested in a 

trip you took to Niger and I understand some of the work that you 

did there. Was that overt or covert on that mission? 

Mr. WILSON. I have said repeatedly that my trip was made at the 

request of my government. I made it very clear at the request of 

the CIA, and this is in the June 10, 2002 memo that was entered 

into evidence in the U.S. v. Libby case. 

Mr. KING. My clock is ticking, Ambassador. Could you just help 

me——

Mr. WILSON. I would have to go—I would have to have approval 

of the State Department and indeed of the Ambassador there. 

Mr. KING. That is a question of classified, you can’t answer that? 

Mr. WILSON. I also made it clear to my interlocutors that I had 

questions that I had been asked to do, so it was not covert. 

Mr. KING. It was not covert. 

And when you came back from there, did you deliver a report to 

the CIA? 

Mr. WILSON. I did indeed. There were two CIA officers who came 

to my house within an hour of my having returned from Niger. 

Mr. KING. Was it written report? 

Mr. WILSON. It was oral report, I also provided an oral briefing 

to another State Department employee in Niamey. 

Mr. KING. And was that report then classified, did it become a 

classified report? 

Mr. WILSON. The report was classified by the CIA, my understanding is. I never saw the written report until parts were declassified and published. 

Mr. KING. And parts of it were declassified but not all of it. Some 

of it remains classified? 

Mr. WILSON. I don’t know, because I have only seen what is declassified, sir. 

Mr. KING. That is curious, because you are the individual who 

delivered it all. The parts you have seen that were declassified 

wouldn’t be the entirety of the report so one could conclude that 

parts you have not seen would be classified to this day? 

Mr. WILSON. The role of the reports officer is to take the raw 

data and turn it into a report, it is then distributed throughout the 

intelligence community using appropriate intelligence. 

Mr. KING. I understand. 

Did you view your report that you had delivered to the CIA as 

classified in its entirety at the time? And were you bound by that 

confidentiality of classified information? 

Mr. WILSON. I did not classify it and I did not view it as classified information. It was a report that I gave to the CIA at their 

request. The mission was undertaken as a discreet mission but it 

was not a classified mission. 

Mr. KING. Let me get this right. After the CIA left your home 

and you had delivered mostly an oral report to them, did you beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\071107\36605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 36605
100

lieve that you were free to disseminate the knowledge that you accumulated on the government’s dime anywhere you chose? 

Mr. WILSON. The government’s dime, define that. As I made no 

wages for this 8 days in Niamey, Niger. 

Mr. KING. Let’s not get bogged down in that. 

Did you believe that you could disseminate that information to 

the public at will or did you believe that you were bound by some 

confidentiality at least to the level of integrity of the intel that you 

were bringing in for the government? 

Mr. WILSON. I did not. It was a discreet mission. It was undertaken at the request of my government and it was handled on a 

need-to-know basis, that is correct. 

Mr. KING. So it is classified. 

Have you then leaked any of that to the press prior to the 

time——

Mr. WILSON. ‘‘classified’’ is perhaps the wrong word. I would not 

describe it as classified, I would describe it as discreet. 

Mr. KING. Fine. 

Did you then leak any of that information to the press prior to 

your July 6 Op-Ed that you wrote? 

Mr. WILSON. First of all, I shared it with Democratic Senators at 

that trip after the President’s State of the Union Address and after 

Dr. ElBaradei testified before the U.N. Security Council that the 

documents that he had received at the Department—that was 

March 17——

Mr. KING. But none of those people are classified. 

And so did you leak any of that to the press? 

Mr. WILSON. After I spoke to the Democratic Senators a New 

York Times reporter asked me if I would share some of the details 

of the story with him. 

Mr. KING. And so was that the reporter Walter Pincus. 

Mr. WILSON. No, Nick Kristof. 

Mr. KING. I see here an article by Walter Pincus revealed June 

12th, which should be prior to your July article, that he had an 

unnamed retired diplomat that had given the CIA a negative report. Would that be you? 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Pincus learned of my name and he did call me. 

Mr. KING. So you did talk with him? 

Mr. WILSON. I did talk to him, yes. 

Mr. KING. You have referenced the 16 words that you allege to 

be—I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I picked things 

out that said today, fundamental misstatements of facts in the 

President’s State of the Union Address. I take that to mean that 

you disagree with the facts. 

Do you believe that the President intended to misinform the 

American people? 

Mr. WILSON. My view on that is that somebody put a statement 

in the President’s mouth that was not sustained by the evidence, 

and that became apparent the day after my article appeared when 

the President’s spokesman said to the press that the 16 words do 

not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union Address. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. KING. I am reading from the 16 words and they seem to be 

honest and true to this day, that the British government has 

101

learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities 

of uranium from Africa, and yet your written testimony references 

sales not seeking those quantities, but actually the sales of those 

quantities. Isn’t that a bit deceptive as a part of your testimony 

here at the beginning of this hearing? 

Mr. WILSON. In March the Director General of the IAEA testified 

the U.N. Security council that the information was provided him by 

the Department of State to undergird the assertion in the President’s statement——

Mr. KING. The President’s reference is sought uranium. There is 

a distinction, wouldn’t you agree? 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, everything the White House and the 

Administration has said since Dr. ElBaradei’s statement indicates 

that——

Mr. KING. That is not the answer to my question. Do you recognize a distinction between the two? 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman——

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. KING. I would yield back if the honorable Ambassador would 

yield back as well, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, if your time is expired then we will move on 

to the next witness, and I thank you very much, Mr. King. 

The Chair is now pleased to recognize the gentleman from New 

York, Mr. Anthony Weiner, who serves with great distinction on 

the Judiciary Committee. 

Mr. WEINER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This hearing has had its sublime moments, perhaps none so sublime as the last one that apparently we have found the last remaining person that believes the 16 words were correct. There 

have been some, I think, regrettable——

Mr. KING. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WEINER. Certainly. 

Mr. KING. Yes. I do believe they are correct and I think they are 

defensible and if you would like to point out where I am incorrect, 

I would be happy to hear it. 

Mr. WEINER. I reclaim my time. That debate has happened and 

your side has prevailed by a margin of everyone against you apparently. 

Mr. KING. That is an easy statement to make. You are not prepared to defend your statement I can see, so I would yield back. 

Mr. WEINER. You don’t control the time. We have also had moments in this hearing, one recently, that I think are truly regrettable, when the gentleman from California sought in a way to misdirect this hearing and implied in a shameful way that the wife of 

a witness was guilty of a criminal act and not only a criminal act 

but one that required pardon. And I think knowing the gentleman 

from California, given a moment or two to reflect, perhaps would 

consider returning to this chamber and expressing some regret for 

those words. 

I don’t have nearly the strident view on that that some in this 

chamber do. I think it is the President’s right. There is at least one 

person in particular that I think should get a presidential pardon. 

People who get presidential pardons are criminals. They are all bad 

guys and women, they do bad things. But when President Clinton 

102

had a large number of controversial pardons and commutations, he 

brought upon himself hearings by a Committee of this body. Government Reform and Oversight Committee had rather extensive 

hearings into those things. 

When President Bush put the 16 words in, said he was going to 

do everything possible to get to the bottom of the leak of Ms. 

Plame’s name, said he believes very seriously in mandatory minimum sentences, believes it was a law and order matter and would 

make sure he got to the bottom of who did the leak and crimes 

would be prosecuted around. If he found out someone in his Administration had done something wrong they would be dealt with. 

The President provoked this hearing. Commutations and pardons, I think we have a greater obligation to review them than 

other elements of the legislative process and judicial process because there is very little, if any, transparency to them. 

Mr. ISSA. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WEINER. Certainly. 

Mr. ISSA. I guess you asked that I come back to enter a colloquy 

earlier. I apologize, I was on the other side in government reform. 

But I am happy to not only defend——

Mr. WEINER. If I could reclaim my time, just let me finish my 

point. I had a couple of rhetorical flourishes I wanted to get to. 

Mr. ISSA. I don’t want to miss them. 

Mr. WEINER. When the President made those proclamations that 

he would get to the bottom of this by commuting the sentence of 

someone who is involved in the investigation to find out where it 

went, he in a sense was covering up activities in his own Administration. 

I think it is reasonable for the House Judiciary Committee to ask 

questions about the contradictions between what the President said 

about mandatory minimums and what he did about mandatory 

minimums, about the contradiction between what he said about 

getting to the bottom of this case and what he is doing by not getting to the bottom of this case. And at the end of the day, there 

is a very important distinction and I think, and I have listened to 

this here or on television, is a very important distinction that I 

don’t think one has said is not precedent setting, and that is this 

was the case of someone being pardoned or having their sentence 

commuted. That was as part of an investigation that was a hair’s 

breath away from the President of the United States. This was the 

Chief of Staff to the President’s singularly top adviser in all of government. And when you say well, it is just a little perjury thing, 

well, let’s remember how investigations happen. They happen because people ask questions, they tell the truth, it leads investigators to go someplace. 

This could well be an act of covering up for crimes made by the 

President of the United States. If that doesn’t rise to an important 

enough thing for us to have hearings on, then I don’t know what 

does. 

I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from California. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, I hope you understand that my assertions 

against Valerie Plame have everything to do with reviewing her 

testimony before the House and the Senate and——

Mr. WEINER. If I could reclaim my time. 

103

Mr. ISSA. The——

Mr. WEINER. So your review and the conclusion you reach thereto does not require a pardon. A pardon is a distinct thing, as we 

have learned, that is granted only to people found guilty of crimes 

before a judge or before a jury. 

By implying that someone from this important chair that you sit 

in, someone needs a pardon or may need a pardon does not mean 

you have come to a different conclusion, it means that you have 

drawn the conclusion as a Member of Congress that they are a 

criminal. That is not your place, sir, and it is irresponsible for you 

to try to make it your place simply because you disagree with that 

person. 

Mr. ISSA. Of course it is my place to draw from the information, 

both classified and unclassified——

Mr. WEINER. Reclaiming my time, reclaiming my time. 

Let me just say this, because it has now become apparent that 

my good friend does not understand that pardon is a legal term. 

It is not something—you were not saying, well, pardon me, as you 

brush by someone in the hallway, you were implying that they 

would soon need a pardon. 

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. WEINER. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. And the Chair now recognizes Tom Feeney, the 

distinguished gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I want to join 

the course on this side in the great debate as to whether or not this 

hearing has been fruitful or not. I think the majority has pointed 

out repeatedly it thinks it is an important oversight hearing, is 

what I continue to hear, we have alleged it appears to be almost 

exclusively for partisan reasons. 

It is hard to imagine we are having an oversight hearing knowing the power of the presidential clemency under Article II, clause 

2, section 1, but over whether or not that power was abused or 

used rightly in the Libby case. That is all we are talking about 

here today. Given the fact that everybody that I have heard has acknowledged that the power with the President is plenary, it cannot 

be a bridge modified or undermined by the Congress. 

It is sort of bemusing to wonder why we are here conducting an 

oversight function on a part of government that we have no oversight responsibility to conduct. And I would suggest that it is well 

established that Congress has no oversight authority because we 

can’t change it other than through constitutional amendment, in 

which case we ought to be talking about the power itself. 

One suggestion is that the pardon should not be used for political 

purposes, but one of the first major uses of the pardon power under 

Article II is when President Jefferson utilized the clemency power 

to pardon all of those convicted and sentenced under the Alien Sedition Act, which the federalists had used against the Jeffersonian 

Republicans. So he granted clemency to a whole category of people 

that I think most persons upon reflection would think that is correct. 

Mr. Wilson, you said in paragraph 1 of your statement that you 

believe fundamentally this case involves, and I quote you, the betrayal of all of our national security, specifically the leaking of the 

104

identity of a covert officer of the Central Intelligence Agency, my 

wife, Valerie Wilson, as a vicious means of political retribution. 

Do you believe that a Federal crime was committed when your 

wife’s name was leaked? 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, thank you for the question. Indeed it 

was the CIA itself that referred the matter to the Justice Department. 

Mr. FEENEY. Do you believe that a crime occurred? 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, I would just refer you to what the 

CIA itself did. 

Mr. FEENEY. You don’t have an opinion on that matter? 

Mr. WILSON. I may, but I will keep that to myself. 

Mr. FEENEY. Well, I am asking you your opinion. The only reason 

you are here is to give facts and opinions, I presume. If you don’t 

have an opinion, you don’t have an opinion. 

Mr. WILSON. Legitimate institutions of my government referred 

this matter to the Department of Justice for an investigation. They 

investigated it, the Department of Justice in the name of the Special Prosecutor indicted and convicted Mr. Libby on four counts of 

perjury and obstruction of justice. 

Mr. FEENEY. Well, now, you have really put the bunny in the hat 

now. This is the sort of gamesmanship you have been playing. 

I asked you whether a crime was committed when your wife was 

outed and you refused to answer that and instead said, yes, because Libby was indicted. But he wasn’t indicted for outing your 

wife, he was indicted for other reasons. Richard Armitage wasn’t 

indicted. As a matter of fact, the Special Prosecutor found that 

there was no violation of law here despite your position. 

Mr. WILSON. On the contrary, Congressman, the Special Prosecutor found because of Mr. Libby’s blatant lying and obstruction 

of justice he could not determine——

Mr. FEENEY. We are not talking about his testimony, but whether or not a crime was committed. You don’t have an opinion that 

you are willing to share with the Committee. You do have an opinion that the whole purpose of this talking about your wife’s role 

was a vicious means of political retribution. That is your testimony. 

And yet the Special Prosecutor which you just cited for defense of 

your proposition, which in fact he didn’t find any underlying crime 

in this case, the Special Prosecutor concluded in fact neither 

Armitage nor Libby disclosed your wife’s name for the purpose of 

compromising either your or her identity. Isn’t that what the Special Prosecutor concluded? 

Mr. WILSON. The Special Prosecutor found that as a consequence 

of Mr. Libby’s blatant lying and obstruction of justice——

Mr. FEENEY. You don’t want to answer the question. We are talking about the outing of your wife. 

Mr. WILSON. The underlying crime had been committed. He also 

said that in fact it was hard to see that a conspiracy had not been 

in existence——

Mr. FEENEY. It is pretty clear the Special Prosecutor has come 

to different conclusions. 

Mr. Rivkin, I would like you to elaborate on why you think it is 

that fundamentally in this case when a Special Prosecutor was appointed nothing good was going to happen to promote justice, nothVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:56 Jan 30, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\071107\36605.000 HJUD1 PsN: 36605
105

ing but mischief could occur. I think you are right in concluding 

that that is the only thing that has occurred is mischief. Why is 

it that you think that that was inevitable? 

Mr. RIVKIN. The only reason it is inevitable experience shows 

that no matter the individual probity of the people involved if you 

appoint an independent, a special counsel, if you free that person 

from any supervisory responsibility to justify his decisions, if you 

free him or her from any resource constraint, if you focus all of that 

person’s attention——

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. You may finish 

your answer. 

Mr. RIVKIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You are going to produce the decisions that do not comport with 

the decision of a normal justice system. Again most things happened before. It is extremely unfortunate, somebody said earlier, 

that officials receive the more favorable treatment in our justice 

system because of the possibility of pardons. I would respectfully 

submit that the reverse is true, that individuals not in Mr. Libby’s 

position would not have been subject to appointment of special 

counsel, things would not have gotten anywhere. I would much prefer the regular treatment at the front end to any favoritism to the 

extent there was one at the back end. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. The gentleman from Minnesota, Keith 

Ellison. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Let’s just say Mr. Libby cooperated fully and had not lied to the 

grant jury or the FBI, is it at least possible we would really know 

who leaked what and who disclosed your wife’s name? 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, I was not party to the investigation, 

not party to the testimony, so I really don’t know. All I can tell you 

is what Mr. Fitzgerald has said repeatedly, which is that Mr. Libby 

lied blatantly and repeatedly and obstructed justice, therefore 

throwing sand in the empire’s eyes and guaranteeing there would 

remain a cloud over the President’s head. That cloud remains as 

a consequence of the President’s commuting the sentence of Mr. 

Libby, thereby no longer providing any incentive for Mr. Libby to 

finally come forward and tell the prosecutor the truth and the 

whole truth. 

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Wilson, people lie for a reason; isn’t that right? 

If you are going to lie to a grand jury and FBI agent, you are going 

to lie in order to achieve some goal. If that had not happened, isn’t 

it possible that we would know much more about what really happened than we know now? 

Mr. WILSON. I would certainly hope so. I would think one of the 

principal objectives of our civil suit is to ensure that in fact the 

truth on this matter gets out. 

Mr. ELLISON. Do we have the truth about who leaked your wife’s 

name specifically now? I am not asking what your views are. Is it 

a matter of record? 

Mr. WILSON. I think, Congressman, it is a matter of record who 

is involved in this. I am not exactly clear that we know everybody 

who was involved in it. In fact the argument that I have tried to 

106

make is that the commutation makes certain that we are not able 

to lift the cloud over the Vice President. 

Mr. ELLISON. Let me direct my next question to—I am sorry, 

sir—the gentleman in the middle. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Berman. 

Mr. ELLISON. I do apologize, it was on the tip of my tongue. 

Mr. Berman, we have now a commutation, not a pardon. What 

does that mean from the standpoint of Mr. Libby’s fifth amendment 

rights? Can a congressional hearing or grand jury or anybody compel Mr. Libby to now answer questions more fully about what he 

knows about this case given the posture of the case? 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, I think it is very difficult in a lot of settings 

with ongoing criminal proceedings, or not yet started or not yet finished criminal proceedings, to be confident how the scope of fifth 

amendment rights play out. Oftentimes it will be quite valid disputes. 

What I think is really interesting, and this gets back to my sentencing expertise more so than fifth amendment issues, it is very 

common when a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for them to then start cooperating at that stage with an investigation in a hope of getting a motion from the prosecutor. 

Mr. ELLISON. Reclaiming my time, but now that is not going to 

happen. 

Mr. BERMAN. That is one of my concerns. 

Mr. ELLISON. Yet if there was a pardon is there at least a 

colorable argument that his testimony could be compelled? 

Mr. BERMAN. The equation changes. That is the key point, and 

one of the reasons I think I am here is the commutation is a 

uniquely different exercise of the clemency——

Mr. ELLISON. Commutation puts us in limbo, no-mans land, 

where we probably can’t compel him to come forward and actually 

come forward and talk about happened to the U.S. CIA agent who 

happens to be Mr. Wilson’s wife. 

Mr. BERMAN. I am inclined to offer a fifth amendment opinion on 

what you can and cannot compel him to do, but it certainly keeps 

the case ongoing in a way that adds complications to being able to 

sensibly ask Mr. Libby for more complete disclosure. 

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Rivkin I believe has a point of view on this. 

Mr. RIVKIN. Thank you very much. Very briefly, I do not understand this argument at all. I heard this assertion being made a 

number of times. I wish we could spend more time on it, but my 

opinion, of course I don’t represent Mr. Libby, his ability to invoke 

the fifth amendment privilege depends entirely on whether or not 

the questions you are asking him would produce information that 

may incriminate him. It doesn’t depend upon pendency or lack 

thereof of his appeal. That is number one. 

Number two, for the President to pardon him for the specific offenses of which he was charged if there are other facts in Mr. 

Libby’s past activities that if disclosed may incriminate him, I don’t 

understand——

Mr. ELLISON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Rivkin. 

If somebody said some court wanted to compel Mr. Libby’s testimony right now and if he could make a colorable argument to a 

judge that might expose him to some other criminal liability, 

107

wouldn’t the court have to say, well, I guess you don’t have to testify? 

Mr. RIVKIN. No, if he has a valid basis. All I am trying to say 

is if has a valid basis to invoke fifth amendment privilege. If he 

doesn’t, it is a very binary proposition. If he doesn’t have it the existence of commutation versus a pardon doesn’t hold up in this 

equation. If he does——

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman is out of time. 

Mr. RIVKIN. It makes no sense as a matter of basic constitutional 

law. There is nothing unique about the commutation. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chairis now pleased to recognize the Ranking 

Member of the Constitution Committee of Judiciary, a gentleman 

from Arizona, Trent Franks. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Ranking Member of the full Committee made the observation that we were given the impression that this hearing would be 

the examination of both the Bush and Clinton administration pardons earlier, and which is only appropriate since our Democratic 

colleague noted that we need to put the case of Scooter Libby in 

its proper context. 

To do that, it is true Mr. Bush has pardoned a few people, but 

the Clinton administration gives us a lot to work with when it 

comes to examining the pardoning of criminal activity. We need not 

fear that we don’t have enough evidence to compare here. Just to 

cite some sources, the number of folks close to Mr. Clinton convicted or pleaded guilty to crimes was about 44. The convictions 

during his Administration were 33. 61 indictments and misdemeanor charges, 14 imprisonments, 7 independent counsel investigations, 72 congressional witnesses pleading the fifth amendment, 

17 witnesses fleeing the country to avoid testifying, 19 foreign witnesses who have declined witnesses by investigative bodies and of 

course that one matter of one presidential impeachment. 

So Mr. Clinton also holds the record, his Administration, for the 

most number of convictions and guilty pleas, the most number of 

Cabinet members to come under criminal investigation, the largest 

number of witnesses to flee the country or refuse to testify, the 

greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions, with illegal contributions from foreign countries. That gives us quite a lot to work 

with for comparison. 

The Democrats argue this hearing serves a purpose because Mr. 

Libby’s case came down to personal considerations, because it was 

politically motivated because the aim was to protect the Administration, although all five of the witnesses agree with Mr. Keller 

that they had no evidence that Mr. Libby was going to implicate 

others in the Administration. So how do these Democrat objections 

hold up if we subject the Clinton pardons to the same scrutiny? 

Mr. Keller touched on some of them. Mark Rich, a fugitive financier who fled to Switzerland while being prosecuted for tax evasion and illegal oil deals made with Iran during the hostage crisis. 

Denise Rich, his ex-wife, contributed $450,000 to the library and 

the Democratic Party shortly after Mr. Clinton pardoned Rich. The 

FBI began to investigate whether the contributions by Denise Rich 

influenced that pardon. So I don’t know, Mr. Chairman. 

108

Carlos Vignali was pardoned for cocaine trafficking after paying 

200,000 to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s brother, Hugh 

Rodham, to represent Vignali’s case for clemency. Roger Clinton, 

the brother of President Clinton, that is pretty close, was pardoned 

by his brother for conviction on drug-related charges in the 

eighties, and he also pled guilty later in 1985 to conspiring to distribute cocaine. 

Susan McDougal, former real estate business partner of the Clintons, was pardoned. She was convicted to four felonies related to 

a fraudulent $300,000 federally backed loan that she and her husband James McDougal never repaid. Some of the monies were 

placed in the name of Whitewater Development. 

A former CIA director, John Deutch, a one-time spy chief and top 

Pentagon official, was pardoned although he was facing criminal 

charges in connection with his mishandling of national secrets on 

a home computer. 

Mr. Chairman, aside from Clinton administration officials acting 

in their official capacity, and business partners and supporters acting in support of Mr. Clinton, there were hundreds of other interesting pardons such as where Mr. Clinton commuted the sentences 

of 16 members of FALN gang, a Puerto Rican nationalist group 

that set off 120 bombs in the United States killing six people and 

injuring numerous others. 

It kind of goes on, and I think it is excellent reading and something I recommend for the Department of Justice’s Web site if they 

ever get a little down time. 

In light of those questions, Mr. Rivkin, my question is how can 

we distinguish the Scooter Libby case from the above instances of 

pardon that involve public officials acting in official capacity? And 

do any of the distinctions change the legality or the propriety of the 

treatment of Mr. Libby? 

Mr. RIVKIN. We do not. 

Mr. FRANKS. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman and recognize now Judge 

Louie Gohmert of Texas. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can’t see any warning signs, so we will just go from here. 

I am grateful for Mr. Wilson’s wife, for her CIA service. The CIA 

is engaged in very difficult service to this country, and they are to 

be applauded and appreciated. 

I am concerned, as reported in June in sworn testimony before 

the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform—in 

March of this year that Mr. Wilson’s wife denied categorically that 

she had suggested her husband, and I quote, ‘‘I did not recommend 

him. I did not suggest him.’’

We have the e-mail here that was finally disclosed by the Senate 

Committee, and it says, ‘‘So where do I fit in? As you may recall’’—

and it has been redacted, apparently—‘‘CP office 2 recently, 2001, 

approached my husband to possibly use his contacts in Niger to investigate a separate Niger matter.’’ there is a redacted part there. 

‘‘after many fits and starts’’—redacted—‘‘finally advised that the 

station wished to pursue this with the liaison. My husband is willing to help if it makes sense but no problem if not, end of story,’’ 

but that was not the end of the e-mail. 

109

Let me ask you: Were you aware that she sent this e-mail, Mr. 

Wilson? 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, first of all, thank you for recognizing 

that. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. I will take that as a non-answer. 

Going back to the e-mail, ‘‘Now with this report, it is clear that 

the I.C. is still wondering what is going on.’’ so it was not the end 

of the story, the paragraph. ‘‘my husband has good relationships 

with both the P.M. and the former Ministry of Mines, not to mention lots of French contacts, both of whom could possibly shed light 

on this sort of activity. To be frank with you, I was somewhat embarrassed by the agency’s sloppy work last go-around, and I am 

hesitant to suggest anything again,’’ but that is not the end. ‘‘however, my husband may be in a position to assist.’’

Now, it may be that, under her testimony, the definition of ‘‘did’’ 

or ‘‘did not’’ may come into play as to whether or not that was 

being truthful or not truthful to say she did not suggest or recommend you, Mr. Wilson, and reasonable minds may disagree, but 

I have a hard time appreciating that. 

Now, as far as the——

Mr. WILSON. May I respond, Congressman? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Do you have an answer yet on whether you knew 

about that e-mail when you testified before the Senate Committee? 

Mr. WILSON. No. In fact, I did not know about that e-mail, but 

my wife——

Mr. GOHMERT. She never told you that——

Mr. WILSON. I am sorry. Can I conclude? May I finish? 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, it was a yes-or-no answer, so anything else 

would be a non-answer to my question. 

Mr. WILSON. Yes. Well, I want a chance to testify that, in fact, 

the genesis of that e-mail was her supervisor’s asking her to 

send——

Mr. GOHMERT. I have read her testimony, but she did send an 

e-mail——

Mr. WILSON [continuing]. To her supervisor, which was preparatory——

Mr. GOHMERT. I am now reclaiming my time because the answer 

is not answering the question. 

You never knew about the e-mail, though—that is what you are 

testifying—before you testified before the Senate Committee; is 

that correct? 

Mr. WILSON. That is correct. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. Now, did she tell you? Because in her testimony she said she was going to go home and talk to you about it. 

Did she? 

Mr. WILSON. That is correct. She came home and talked to me 

about coming into the agency to attend a meeting that took place 

in February at which the question was raised how do we best answer the question posed by the Office of the Vice President of the 

United States relative to these documents on which they had been 

briefed. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. Apparently, the Vice President was concerned about it. Now, again, the e-mail says——

110

Mr. WILSON. Pardon me, Congressman. It was the Office of the 

Vice President, which I have said repeatedly, and that has been a 

point of——

Mr. GOHMERT. Let me go to the e-mail. 

She said, ‘‘Not to mention, lots of French contacts,’’ and it has 

been documented or at least mentioned in the media in many 

places that you have international clients that you assist, and your 

wife indicates that you have a lot of French contacts. In 2002, did 

you have French clients that included either the French Government, French business or French individuals who engaged in international trade? 

Mr. WILSON. No, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. Have you since that time? 

Mr. WILSON. No, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. So, of your French contacts, would you say 

that they are friends or would you say they are just people you 

know? 

Mr. WILSON. Congressman, I was a diplomat for 23 years, mostly 

in francophone countries. I have had a lot of dealings with the 

French Government. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So is that a yes? They are friends or they are contacts? 

Mr. WILSON. They are diplomatic colleagues and contacts. Sometimes they are friends, and sometimes they are not friends, because 

we compete with the French in a number of different areas. 

Mr. GOHMERT. That is true. 

I am also curious. Is there any requirement for CIA agents’ filing 

disclosure documents as to relations that a spouse or an immediate 

family member may have with foreign governments? 

Mr. WILSON. You will have to ask the CIA, Congressman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. You are not aware. 

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Could I just make one statement that I do not 

think you will have a disagreement with? 

The jury found that Scooter Libby had lied. I have a hard time 

ever setting aside a finding of fact by a jury, so I would not have 

supported a pardon based on the jury finding unless an appellate 

court would find otherwise. Based on the statements by the judge 

and the prosecutor, however, I do not think the commutation was 

out of line, and I appreciate the Chairman’s indulgence. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman. 

I apologize to Mike Pence, whom I should have called at an earlier time. The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Pence. 

Mr. PENCE. Thank you, Chairman, and there is no apology necessary. I appreciate your calling this hearing and your characteristic decorum in conducting it. 

You know, I must confess. This has been an interesting hearing, 

and I think the four witnesses on this end of the table have contributed mildly to my understanding of this issue. Now, I am a bit 

mystified, I would say respectfully to the Committee leadership, to 

have Ambassador Wilson here, although I admire his panache at 

a certain level. 

I do not often quote The Washington Post, being kind of a cheerful, right-wing conservative. Quite frankly, I do not often read The 

111

Washington Post. But there was an editorial entitled ‘‘The Libby 

Verdict: The Serious Consequences of a Pointless Washington Scandal’’ that was published in the wake of the verdict in the attendant 

case on 7 March, 2007. I think it bears on some of the discussion 

we have had today. 

Again, this is The Washington Post, not a world view I generally 

endorse, but it referred to this case as one, quote, ‘‘propelled not 

by actual wrongdoing but by inflated and frequently false claims 

and by the aggressive and occasionally reckless response of senior 

Bush administration officials.’’

Yes, I must say to you respectfully, Ambassador Wilson, that 

your claims early in your testimony—and I have reviewed your 

written testimony as well—again asserting that your wife was covert when, as The Washington Post pointed out in this same editorial, that there was no evidence presented at trial that your wife 

was, in fact, a covert operative and the assertion that you made 

again before this Committee that it was, essentially, a conspiracy 

to do violence to your reputation and to your wife’s reputation. 

Again, I am quoting The Washington Post that said, quote, ‘‘The 

trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy 

to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame’s identity and,’’ they 

added, ‘‘no evidence that she was, in fact, covert,’’ close quote. 

You know, you have made a number of extraordinary comments. 

They are not new allegations on your part. They have been reiterated frequently by you, which is your right as an American. You 

are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I would argue that 

you are not entitled to your own facts. 

Respectfully, Mr. Ambassador, the findings of this trial are supported by the editorial in The Washington Post. The trial had provided no convincing evidence that there was a conspiracy to punish 

you and no evidence that your wife was, in fact, covert. 

I would also say that I have actually authored a Federal media 

shield statute that I hope this Committee will actually consider in 

markup this week, and it is about some elements of the Administration being as annoyed at me as I have been with some of the 

people on this panel, but it derives, interestingly, from this case, 

from my being appalled at the image of an American journalist 

being put behind bars for being forced to reveal who her source was 

in this case. So this has had a big impact on my life. You can imagine how more appalled I was when I found out that the prosecutor 

in this case, Mr. Fitzgerald, learned early on that Mr. Novak’s primary source in this case was not Mr. Libby at all. 

Let me quote again from The Washington Post.

Quote, ‘‘In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak’s primary 

source was former Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage, 

an unlikely tool of the White House,’’ by his reputation and career. 

That was my addition. 

The Washington Post went on to say, ‘‘It would have been sensible for Mr. Fitzgerald to end his investigation after learning 

about Mr. Armitage. Instead, like many special prosecutors, he 

pressed on,’’ and, they added, ‘‘the damage done to journalists’ ability to obtain information from confidential government sources has 

yet to be measured,’’ close quote. 

112

Now, I will not reiterate because I do not believe in name-calling, 

even if I am just quoting editorials, but I will not reiterate the 

name that they called the distinguished witness of this panel. Even 

as strongly as I feel about this issue, I thought it was out of line 

and uncalled for. 

I thought it was at least worth reflecting, Mr. Chairman, that 

even though The Washington Post has a different version of this 

case than does, I think, perhaps the most celebrated witness on 

this panel that, in fact, his wife was not a covert operative and that 

the court found, in effect, no evidence that she was covert, the 

court provided convincing evidence there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame’s identity. In fact, Scooter 

Libby was not the primary source in this case at all. 

None of which is to say that I excuse Scooter Libby for committing felony perjury. I certainly do not excuse President Clinton for 

having committed felony perjury. I just think that the contrast between President Clinton, who lost his law license for having committed felony perjury, compared to Scooter Libby’s facing 21⁄2 years 

behind bars for having committed the same act before a grand jury 

impaneled by a special prosecutor, suggests that, as the President 

observed, the punishment did not entirely fit the crime. 

So, with that, I will yield whatever remains of my time to the 

gentleman from California. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

I just want to follow up on one thing you said, Mr. Ambassador. 

You said you briefed the HPSCI and the SSCI before your Op-Ed, 

and I wanted to know if you could provide us with details since, 

in calling to the HPSCI—the House Intelligence Committee—they 

can find no record, including the individuals who were tasked with 

looking specifically at the file history, of who you met with. 

Who did you meet with in the way of staff on the Republican 

side, which was the majority and the controlling side, prior to that 

Op-Ed? 

Mr. CONYERS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Please respond to the question. 

Mr. WILSON. Certainly. 

I do not recall who I met with, Congressman. I called—the Republican party, I believe, was in the majority then—and I asked 

that there be staff members from both sides of the aisle, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. But you did meet with them in person? 

Mr. WILSON. I did, yes, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. That, of course, is reflected, albeit imperfectly, in 

the SSCI report. I cannot tell you about the HPSCI report, if the 

HPSCI ever did a report. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank the witnesses. They have been exceedingly 

patient through all of the voting that has caused us recesses; and, 

of course, I commend my colleagues, as usual, who have provided 

such interesting insights. 

Might I just say that Presidents of all parties have used pardon 

powers without subjecting them to the usual or proper process. In 

my judgment, that is sometimes a dangerous practice, and it is particularly problematic when the pardon or commutation applies to 

113

a member of the President’s own Administration, as has been the 

case here and which has really created the extra interest. 

The record reflects that the prosecution in this case was legitimate and in good faith. The investigation was initiated by the Central Intelligence Agency and was pursued by the Justice Department and, eventually, by a Republican appointee, Patrick Fitzgerald, who was named as special counsel and who is a widely respected prosecutor. 

There have been a number of questions raised regarding the 

Marc Rich pardon and its appropriateness; and whatever the concerns were that were raised about the merits of that pardon, President Clinton, in my judgment, did the right thing; and hearings 

were held on that subject in both the Senate and the House Government Operations Committees and in the House Judiciary Committee, itself. 

So when that happened, the President did not assert executive 

privilege, and he allowed a number of his aides to testify, some who 

came and said that they had recommended against the pardon that 

has been repeatedly brought up here, and so we offered the same 

thing, for President Bush to send someone up here to work with 

us, and he declined to do so. 

I thank the witnesses. I thank the Members of the Committee for 

their attempts at keeping order and decorum to the best of their 

abilities. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, could I add that point of order now? 

Mr. CONYERS. No. 

Mr. ISSA. I have been waiting. 

Mr. CONYERS. I know, but—yes, yes. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. Do you know what I am going to do? I am going 

to grant you a point of order now that you are back. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. You are welcome. What is it? 

Mr. ISSA. My point of order was that the rules of the Committee, 

in fact, require unanimous consent or a vote of the Committee in 

order to exceed the 5-minute rule. My point of order was, in fact, 

that rehabilitating a witness who by this statement that now has 

been read in by another member was, in fact, misplaced, and incorrectly trying to rehabilitate both himself and his wife on nobody’s 

time is, in fact, inconsistent with our rules, is it not? Is that point 

of order not correct, that rehabilitation will require——

Mr. CONYERS. The point of order, referring to the rule, is correct, 

but there are times when I have let many of the witnesses go over 

time, and the charge that was raised, incidentally, by you was of 

such magnitude that I felt it very inappropriate. I did the same 

thing for Monica Goodling. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I am not objecting to your decision that 

you may want to rehabilitate, but my point of order, which was 

timely, would have required a unanimous consent in order to do 

that. That is the basis under which, I understand, we exceed the 

5-minute rule. Is that not correct, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on that point of 

order? 

114

Mr. CONYERS. No. I would like to take this up with our staff, 

which assures me that I am in the totally correct position on——

Mr. ISSA. Is the Chairman prepared to rule on my point of order? 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. I will rule your point of order not to be appropriate. 

Mr. ISSA. I appeal the ruling of the Chair. 

Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to table. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. This is not in particularly good faith, my friend. 

I did this for you, and now you want to have a roll call on a point 

of order. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I believe my point of order was good 

and valid, and I would ask the Chairman to take under reconsideration, for the next appropriate meeting, his ruling. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I will not only do that, but I will acquaint 

you with the details of the point of order. 

Mr. ISSA. I will look forward to that, Mr. Chairman, and I will 

withhold my quorum. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, you know, your generosity continues to confound me. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank all of the witnesses, and I declare this 

hearing at an end. 

[Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(115)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

116

LIST OF PARDONS GRANTED BY PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND PARDONS GRANTED

BY PRESIDENT WILLIAM CLINTON, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE LAMAR SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


1A-1.eps
117


1A-2.eps
118


1A-3.eps
119


1A-4.eps
120


1A-5.eps
121


1A-6.eps
122


1A-7.eps
123


1A-8.eps
124


1A-9.eps
125


1A-10.eps
126


1A-11.eps
127


1A-12.eps
128


1B-1.eps
129


1B-2.eps
130


1B-3.eps
131


1B-4.eps
132


1B-5.eps
133


1B-6.eps
134


1B-7.eps
135


1B-8.eps
136


1B-9.eps
137


1B-10.eps
138


1B-11.eps
139


1B-12.eps
140


1B-13.eps
141


1B-14.eps
142


1B-15.eps
143


1B-16.eps
144


1B-17.eps
145


1B-18.eps
146


1B-19.eps
147


1B-20.eps
148


1C-1.eps
149


1C-2.eps
150


1C-3.eps
151


1C-4.eps
152


1C-5.eps
153


1C-6.eps
154


1C-7.eps
155


1C-8.eps
156


1C-9.eps
157


1C-10.eps
158


1C-11.eps
159


1C-12.eps
160


1C-13.eps
161


1C-14.eps
162


1C-15.eps
163


1C-16.eps
164


1C-17.eps
165


1C-18.eps
166

ARTICLE FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, DATED MARCH 7, 2007, SUBMITTED BY THE

HONORABLE CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

UTAH, AND MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


2-1.eps
167


2-2.eps
168

EXCERPTS FROM MINORITY VIEWS, REPORT ON PREWAR INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENTS

ABOUT POSTWAR IRAQ, TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS, SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, 110TH CONGRESS, SUBMITTED BY THE HONORABLE

CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH, AND

MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY


3-1.eps
169


3-2.eps
170


3-3.eps
171


3-4.eps
172


3-5.eps
173


3-6.eps
174


3-7.eps
175


3-8.eps
176


3-9.eps
177


3-10.eps
178


3-11.eps
179


3-12.eps
180


3-13.eps
181


3-14.eps
182


3-15.eps
183


3-16.eps
184


3-17.eps
185


3-18.eps
186


3-19.eps
187


3-20.eps
188


3-21.eps
189


3-22.eps
190

LETTER FROM THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS, FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, DATED JULY 6, 2007


4-1.eps
191


4-2.eps
192

LETTER FROM THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS, FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, JULY 10, 2007


5.eps
193

LETTER FROM FRED FIELDING, WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL, TO THE HONORABLE JOHN

CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS, FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, DATED JULY 11, 2007


6-1.eps
194

Æ


6-2.eps