Libby pays $250,000 fine

Posted: Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:32 PM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: White House, Courts

From NBC's Joel Seidman and Mark Murray

Convicted former top White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has paid the fine of $250,400.00. The U.S. District Court has posted the canceled check on the docket this afternoon. (Our question: Where did Libby get this money to write this hefty check?)

In commuting Libby's sentence, President Bush said that the former vice presidential aide had suffered enough, and that the 30-month prison term ordered up by a federal judge was "excessive." The White House still wanted Libby, however, to pay a fine of $250,000.00 and a $400 special assessment. But now there is a question on whether he will have to serve two years of supervised probation imposed by the trial judge.

The federal judge who presided over the Libby trial said by commuting his prison sentence, the probation period may be called into question. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton, who was appointed by President Bush, said Tuesday that federal law "does not appear to contemplate a situation in which a defendant may be placed under supervised release without first completing a term of incarceration."

EMAIL THIS

Comments

I don't know if Libby has suffered enough. I do know that Bush and Cheney haven't.

JIrby, Colorado (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:39 PM)

Mark, you have to ask where Libby got the money to pay the fine? What about that defense fund that was set up for him by the Republicans? There probably is several millions left in it. Chuck, please give Mark a few days off, he really needs it.

Dawn, somewhere in Kansas (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:45 PM)

ayep, Judge Walton is first sworn to uphold the law.He is secondarilly, a Republican.I would say he a standard bearer for "Lady Justice".

Desmond (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:47 PM)

Old Fred Thompson had a well funded get out of jail piled up for scooter.Accordingly of % million dollars----whoa---Scooter even made some money for keeping his mouth and brain shut.

HMT (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:49 PM)

Dawn, that rhetorical question was alluding precisely to that defense fund. Thanks.

Mark Murray (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:50 PM)

Probably got the funds from "Tricky Dick's" non executive office, before those funds get cut off from the Congress.

ddcasper, Columbia, SC (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:51 PM)

Heh.Libby may have gotton the dough from the same people that allowed the Clintons[specifically,Bill],to pay off his own fines....The Arabs.

Lee Holmes (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:53 PM)

Yeah. Mark's question is exactly on point. Scooter Libby got his commutation (a pardon to follow as soon as that isn't inconvenient for the Bush administration), his fine was paid for by the Republicans for Voldemort slush fund, and his court imposed porale is now in question. Justice for all... unless you're a Republican. The founding fathers are spinning in their graves.

John Doe, The Peanut Gallery (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:56 PM)

Mark Murray, as a journalist, don't allude. Please state the facts.

Desmond (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:56 PM)

Mark, maybe I'm the one that needs a few days off. Can't see rhetoric today.

Dawn, somewhere in Kansas (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:05 PM)

The repubs that donated to this fund paid it off. What a rotten bunch of human beings. The dummy and his ventriloquist(Bush and Cheney) are just digging themselves a bigger hole to fall deeper into.

Susan, Miami (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:07 PM)

Remember Libby was Marc Rich's Lawyer. It was probably money left over from the bribe to buy that pardon. Who knew what Clinton's price was going to be?

Dave, Tn (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:07 PM)

Why dont you all read the facts rather than rattling through the atypical comments coming from the papers. You may learn something.

Bob Wilson (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:13 PM)

Scooter had about $500,00 left in his defense fund.Supplied by Fred Thompson and Republicans that supported him.That is a fact.Remember what our President said about all those evil-doers. Follow the money.

Desmond (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:15 PM)

nice one, mark. if you guys ever have any opening in your office, i want to apply! love the msnbc political team. i'm a young professional looking to get outta my current job!

scott (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:26 PM)

Dawn, trust me -- I'm happy to take off any day I can get as busy as politics have been. Having yesterday off was nice. :)

Mark Murray (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:27 PM)

Now that Scooter has all the monkeys off his back, Cheney doesn't ever have to worry about him dragging the vice presedent into this, to avoid pumishment. looks like Cheney and Bush did it again.

Sidney, Pa (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:45 PM)

Mark Murray, all of us would like to have a day off. Guess that's we have Labor Day, instituted by the Carpentor's Union of America, way back in the 1880's. You recall. 7 day work week, children included.

desmond (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:51 PM)

Mark...I have a question for you since you chose to chime in on this specific blog.
WHY does the mainstream press give this administration such a HUGE pass on EVERYTHING?
The August 6th PDB is a prime example (read the last two paragraphs), and this thing with Libby is another.
We alll know that by commuting his sentence instead of pardoning him, Bush gives Libby the right to claim 5th amendment priviledges if he's called to testify before congress. That means he doesnt have to say a word about Cheney, Bush or Rove.
BUT, if he were to be fully pardoned that priviledge would not apply, and he would have to answer questions or be found in contempt of congress.
Why does the mainstream press allow Bush to get away with this?....and you KNOW I'm right about this, it happens all the tiume

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 2:59 PM)

Mark, hope you were able to enjoy fireworks yesterday. I can tell that you enjoy doing what you do here on First Read. I know that sometimes we give you a hard time, but I do thank you for what you do here. The next year and half will be really busy so take off the time that you can so you can continue to keep us all informed.

Dawn, somewhere in Kansas (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:00 PM)

Too bad, Libby won't have as much $$$ left over from the defense fund. So much for the swimming pool he was installing this summer. Guess he will have to go out and get one of those fancy do nothing "no think tank jobs" like Wolfowitz.

Thank you Mark. I think it is pretty cool that you are willing to interact with us of the unwashed masses. It shows way more class than the vast majority of your fellow commentators. Some make the most inane comments and then hide behind the skirts of anonymity.

Nick Dorsey (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:01 PM)

President Bush has set a precedent: it's OK for the President's men to commit perjury. If anyone in the Executive branch is caught perjuring themselves, they'll get a Presidential pardon. I hope this is OK with conservatives. Don't squeal if it happens under a Democrat. Frankly, I don't think any future Democratic admin (except possibly Hillary's) will need to pardon anyone. But, if they do, please don't complain, you self righteous, sanctimonious conservatives.

Sierra, San Francisco (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:02 PM)

There is an upside to this if Fitz' will do it. Now, with the commutation, he could immunize Libby giving him use immunity. Then take him before the Grand Jury again and he would not be able to invoke the 5th since there would be no criminal jeopardy. That means if he lied it would be a whole different crime.

You heard it here first if Fitz' has the nerve and the will to do it.

Nick Dorsey (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:11 PM)

desmond: what makes what you say fact and what others say nonsense. Im a democrat but I dont like the way this blog goes sometimes. I like to hear both sides. Frankly both sides can argue any issue presented in the light to which each sees it. That does not make ones point correct nor does it make it wrong. So what we have in political dialogue is basically opinion. That is all I get out of political arguements. Politicians on the other hand will say and do ANYTHING to get elected. that goes both ways and you know its true. See I have stated my point without dipping to calling Bush names.

Prof Gerard, Houston (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:15 PM)

Income tax question:
You are allowed to receive $11,000 dollars from a single source as a gift. Anything above that counts as income. Let's say I am on the hook for a million or so in legal fees and a quarter million in fines, and a friend raises the cash for a "legal defense fund" for me. I then use the funds to pay the bills and fines. Am I liable then for the taxes on the gift I received?

I'd say, "Yes." But given the two-tiered justice system that has developed, I doubt that little Scooter has that worry.

I'd love to see a journalist cover this angle.

David, Tallahassee FL (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:16 PM)

All of these repubs in this administration are a rotton bunch of human beings, as Susan, Miami stated. Bush is a lying wannabe cowboy, notice how he walks with his arms away from his hips pretending he has six shootor there. Cheney is a sneaky controlling tycoon of big business. The repub candidates are no better. Giuliani (a hot headed gangster) Romney ( a weirdo) McCain (an old Bush) Fred Thompson (a red neck actor). The rest of the field is not worth concerning yourself with.

Blue state baby (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:26 PM)

Mr Professor, Our president deserves to be called names. Most of us little folk have no other way to express our "shock and awe" when our LEADERS decide to break the countrys laws and start a war on false pretenses(kill our young people for no reason)and destroy this country in every conceivable way. We have to do something, to make us feel better. Bush and Cheney are all the rotten names listed and words cannot express our frustrations for these horrendous people.Helplessness is what I feel.George W. Bush is a %$+*&#(^%$tupidevil$@#**sonofab----$@#&%!!!!!Hows that.

Susan, Miami (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:52 PM)

I believe Judge Walton is incorrect about "completion" of a sentence, and Libby technically served ONE DAY by being booked and assigned an Inmate Number : )

P.S. to David:

I believe gift-taxes are payable by the donor, not the recipient. Check with your CPA however.

Jake (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 3:59 PM)

To the 3:15 post, My name is Desmond with a capital D.

Desmond (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 4:07 PM)

Susan: You have just proved his point. You can have political dialogue without resorting to the name calling. The last time I read, it was against the law to make remarks that can be understood as threatening to the president. Sometimes people say things that they probably sholnt be saying. If the Secret Service enforced this, I wonder how many would say some of those hateful things. Besides it doesnt affect Bush in the least. He just laughs it off because you are never going to please people that are against you from day 1.

If I was the pres, I would just laugh, Georgia (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 4:11 PM)

And, oh yes, 3:15 post, demoting me to a lower case d does not prove that what I have stated is not based on facts.

Desmond (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 4:25 PM)

What was the underlying crime? It's a joke that Libby's trial went forward without anything "underneath" that was wrong!

In case you missed it (because the media has done such a poor job of providing background and context), Plame wasn't covert. She worked right at Langley - in plane view of all of the foreign spies with cameras, etc. for quite some time. If she was covert, Fitzgerald would have done somthing. He did not and he knew that Armitage was the original source from day one. This whole Plame thing is another liberal/media creation that wasted several years of time, put some people in jail (journalists) and cost lots of people lots of money - for nothing.

The trial should have been thrown out. Bush should have pardoned him.

I suggest you people read up on pardons and take a look at Clinton's record if you really want to complain without doing research:
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pardonchartlst.htm

Al, Chicago,Il (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 4:40 PM)

Jake....nice try.
But, the booking process has never counted as "time served." As Casey Stengel once said..."you can look it up."

J. Merle Stanley, Westchester, NY (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 4:45 PM)

Suasan-Miami, Her last paragraph (3:52)is so well put. I am sickened to my bones by the blazen actions of these "Americans" in power. I want to cry until I realize I have two children, my brother does too, and that alot of my friends do too and that it would seem to me the people I've never met all over this country probably love their kids as well, and I think of the legacy of hate they inheret, then I want to scream and sob and wretch! The right wingers that are offended by name-calling should pull their heads out of the sand and look in the mirror for a little shame, empathy, and common sense. Clinton bashing now is like complainig of that ahngnail while walking into a valcano.

Bart, Colorado (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 4:49 PM)

Al-4:40. Please keep the Rush/Hannity jargon for your nephews at the family reunion. Plame was brass-plate, and yes covert. Wake up, didn't it occur to you yet that it was a message to others to keep quiet, that her husbands report about the lack of justification for war were what this is about? Partisan politics aside, that is treason. No ops in Iran- no good info about their actions or intent. Boogey-man in a turbin anyone?

Bart, Colorado Springs, Colorado (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 4:56 PM)

Al-Chicago, No offense, but have you noticed that alot of advertisers in that media of ours these days are for the big companies that are making a BUNCH of money off the industrial war machine like KBR? Needed a oil-rig lately? That message from shell oil meant for me personaly? Well for them to pull the funding on a media source would be devastating and that is why and who runs the media- big business.
Liberal media-yeah right!

Bart, Colorado (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 5:04 PM)

Screw upholding the constitution. A perfect example of how twisted things are. To have Watergate times a in a imperialist country celebrating adding Iraq as a new state to which I have personally sewn a star on our flag…………Go Bush I mean "Hiel Dubya"

Dan, Los Angeles (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 5:20 PM)

Geargia, Let me finish this comment without offending...It seems to me that due to dems having a little more of an openminded originating point-race, age, sex, religion (or lack thereof), I think we wern't against Bush, we were just cautious because he stole the election. I often wonder if you far right supporters think that when Bush decides the 08 election are defunct, declares a police state and is driving his militia led caravan down your main street, do you think he's going to call out to you to jump down off your porch and c'mon over to the white house for a little dinner???
(Wouldn't the conversation bore even you?) He is an elitist under-achiever that cares about only himself-NOT YOU!

Bart, Colorado (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 5:22 PM)

Al, Chicago, bush and them depend on people like you, who either (1) don't understand what they're doing, or (2) accept and/or admire what they're doing. What they really like most about people like you is they don't even have to kiss you first.

Scott in South Texas (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 5:32 PM)

Blue state baby, I am a man. The things Bush does are as far from manliness as possible. Saying to the world things like "Bring em' on", "We'll smoke him out", "I'm a war president", "I'm the commander-guy", "It would be easier if I were the dictator", War trumps peace"...these are the words of a sad little boy that isn't in touch with any sort of masculinity. He publicly followed these by repeating the filthy blood soaked montra-"Stay the course" and "I don't know where he is-I don't spend that much time on it". Sad, pathetic, phsychotic, meglomainia babble...

Bart, Colorado (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 5:34 PM)

Dan, are you serious? I hope not! I don't think you could've turned on your own computer if you were.
Is 'Walker Texas Ranger' over? If you were serious, let me ask you about a few words like 'Humility' and 'Humanity'...'Caring' comes to mind...yes go get the dictionary, and please answer me back. By the way I am a veteran and a firefighter, a father and a gun-owning liberal that will continue to fight for everyones rights. P.S. four blogs ago was my first time on a site like this...spelling is harder than it looks!

Bart, Colorado (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 5:45 PM)

Hello??? Did I ruin the party?
I'm going to tell myself to shut-up!!!

Bart, Colorado (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 5:47 PM)

Bart, she wasn't covert. You are wrong. If she was, she wouldn't have been driving to Langley - for five years. Regardless, seeing how hard Fitzgerald went after Libby, you'd think there would be an underlying crime – and there wasn’t. And Fitzgerald apparently knew about Armitage from day one.

As for her husband, he lied about his whole involvement. He had to retract some things he said after the Senate Intelligence Committee report found he had "misspoken". Then, look at the timeline for his NY Times article. It took him 6 months to write it after Bush's State of the Union. Coincidently, during this six months, he got close to Kerry. Gee, do ya think there is any connection between his political involvements with an opponent and with what he would assert to the media? Duh, of course! And, Wilson’s claim that Bush lied about the yellowcake has been proven wrong – it’s just that the liberal media hasn’t caught up (actually, they’ll never catch up). Here’s a story on this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2146475

The bottom line is the liberals put us all through another wild goose chase with the media being happy to keep pushing it along. We all suffer with Liberalism.

Al, Chicago,Il (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 6:49 PM)

Bart (5:22pm), how did Bush steal the election? What are you talking about? Gore was never ahead and he lost.

If you are referring to the Florida Supreme Court overstepping it's bounds by making law, then you need to learn how the courts are supposed to work.

First, courts are supposed ot interpret the law not make it. The Florida Courts tried to change election law. That was a no no. The Chief Justice said that their ruling would surely not hold up to the US Supreme Court and he was right.

Your illusion that Bush stole the election is just silly. Please try to learn more about how things work and then you should be able to adjust your opinion.

Al, Chicago,Il (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 8:45 PM)

Al, all I'm going to say is that in the indictment and other attendant comments, Fitz' specifically stated that Plame was a covert operative. To out such an agent is a serious felony and in my estimation and that of virtually all commentators, it amounts to treason.

The difficulty in prosecuting anyone for the underlying crime is the language of the law. The wording of the relevant federal statutes is such that it requires certain specific intent which is hard to prove under the best of circumstances. However Libby's obstruction of justice made it obviously impossible to do so.

The reason this situation is so different from Clinton other than the obvious disparity in the gravity of the underlying offense is this. Libby obstructed a thorough investigation of the degree to which his superiors, i.e. the President and VP either directly or indirectly had something to do with what occurred.
Had Libby been facing jail, it might have been possible to get the whole story out of Libby in exchange for a deal on jail time. Now regardless of what really happened, by direct intervention of the President who may or may not himself have been implicated, it will be difficult, maybe impossible, to ever know the truth. In effect by his action, Bush has become a co conspirator in obstructing the investigation that relates to potential actions by himself and the VP, or even other adminstration persons.

There is one possibility open. I believe because of the commutation, if Fitz' has the will and the courage he can immunize Libby. That means he can take Libby before the grand jury again with use immunity and since he would not have any criminal jeopardy, Libby cannot invoke the 5th. If he didn't tell the truth, that would be a whole different crime.

Go Fitz' Go!

I suppose Congress could also give Libby immunity as they did, I think it was with Goodling?, in the AG investigation. Remember how she sang like a canary.

Nick Dorsey (Sent Thursday, July 05, 2007 8:49 PM)

I'm sorry, but this whole case has shown the hypocrisy that exists on BOTH sides of the aisle. When Clinton perjured himself, Dems couldn't believe the Reps would go after him for something as insignificant as perjury. The Reps couldn't believe he could do something as serious as perjury. Now, with Libby, the Dems can't believe President Bush could commute a perjurers sentence. It's such a serious crime. And the Reps are saying that it is insignificant. Each party uses whichever argument benefits it at the time.

And then they call each other hypocrites. Then, there is the issue of pardons. Clinton pardons Marc Rich and the Reps are talking about amending the Constitution to prevent such an abuse of power. Now, Bush commutes Libby's sentence and the Dems are talking about hearings. It's enough to make you go look for a 3rd party!!

Also, someone mentioned that they don't think a Dem President will pardon anyone. Let's be honest and look at the pardons of the last few presidents:
George W. Bush has pardoned 113 and commuted 4.
By comparison, his father, former President George H.W. Bush, granted 74 in four years; former President Bill Clinton granted 396 in eight years; former President Ronald Reagan did 393 in eight; former President Jimmy Carter did 534 in four.

The last 2 Dem presidents have pardoned FAR more than the last 2 Rep presidents. The fact is that it is something that all presidents can and will do.

Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA (Sent Friday, July 06, 2007 7:02 AM)

You Go Susan, Miami!! I like you Girl!!!

Blue state baby (Sent Friday, July 06, 2007 7:12 AM)

Grimey,

I found your post regarding lies and pardons very reasonably argued. If this is how you see it, I can understand why you might think the outrage over the Libby pardon is overblown. Its true, all administrations engage in lying. What gets my goat, however, in the Libby case, is that the lies involve the administration's case for taking us to war. I remember when Joe Wilson's article about going to Niger came out...it was one of the only dissenting voices of any authority I heard. It still blows my mind that the administration's first instinct was to asassinate the critic's character. I can't get over the image of these grown men getting together and deciding to each call a reporter to spread the news Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. They say they didn't know she was covert and that blowing her cover endangered people she might have worked with. Don't these guys get training on the rules for disclosing information? And what kind of men go after a man's wife anyway? And then, the lying to the Grand Jury. Judith Miller spent months in jail to protect her source for the leak....Libby. She went to jail for a principle, and now Bush says Libby should be spared jail time because its too excessive. Why didn't Libby spare Judith Miller from serving jail time by telling the truth...that he leaked Plame's name to her? I concur with you that Clinton lying to the Grand Jury about sex with Monica and pardoning Marc Rich were despicable acts, but his behavior tells me more about his personality than it does about the policies of his administration. I don't recall him lying about the situation in Kosovo or having his aides engage in a whispering campaign against administration critics. That, to me, is the difference.

Amy B Portland, ME (Sent Friday, July 06, 2007 9:59 AM)

Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA (Sent Friday, July 06, 2007 7:02 AM)

Good going for expressing your opinion without slurs. Thank you.

Some factual clarification:

1) Most important - the issue on the table happened during the term of this president, possiby indicating guilt OF the president. That is what is so awful about this. Mr. Libby isn't the problem.

2) Mr. Clinton was never convicted of a crime. Mr. Libby was.

3) Mr. Clinton's pardons took place as he exited office which meant that they had no impact on the way that he conducted the executive branch.

3) Mr. Bush had/has declared on several occasion by voice and in print that he would not interfere with this case. He did.

The outrage is over why he did it now instead of when Mr. Bush leaves office in Ja/09. The implication is that he is covering his own rear end. If he thought the prison term too harsh, a full pardon as he left office would have cut that term in half. In his commutation statement he was careful to avoid saying that he thought Mr. Libby innocent of the charges.

That is the true reason for outrage - it has nothing to do with Mr. Libby per se.

Independent, Texas (Sent Friday, July 06, 2007 10:54 AM)

Judge Walton has ordered both sides back in court on Monday.He wants to hear arguments on how someone's sentence can be commuted when they have not served any time for that sentence.the legal implicatons will keep this case at the forefront for quite some time.

Desmond (Sent Friday, July 06, 2007 11:44 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=258877