Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

White House Comments on Libby Sentence Commutation; Beefed Up Security On Transit Systems; CNN Hero

Aired July 03, 2007 - 10:59   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: Well, for those of you thinking about taking mass transit to fireworks and other Fourth of July festivities, you may see some extra security. The TSA is deploying its Viper squads on transit systems in several major cities. The teams include this: dogs, air marshals, inspectors, and sometimes enhanced technology.
They're being deployed in Washington, Boston, New York, Houston, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Chicago. And this is said to be in response to the elevated security concern, and because of all the extra police expected to take transit for the holiday. But our Jeanne Meserve reports that there is no credible threat and no link between events in the U.K. and the plans right here in the U.S.

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Days after the failed car bombings in London and Scotland, the international investigation expands. Here are the latest developments.

A short time ago we learned that British authorities have made two arrests on terror charges. Police in northwest England say it's too early to say if the men are linked to the failed terror attacks.

The probe now expands to Australia, where an eighth person is now in custody. The 27-year-old Indian national was detained at the airport as he waited for a flight out of the country.

The British media reports he is a medical doctor. In fact, several of the suspects are said to be doctors.

Experts say that may signal a disturbing trend. They say Islamic extremists may now be recruiting more educated radicals to plot and carry out attacks.

Earlier today, a bomb disposal team carried out a controlled explosion on a suspicious car. It was parked outside a mosque in Glasgow, Scotland.

NGUYEN: We're going to take you back to Washington now and that White House briefing. Tony Snow speaking to reporters. Let's take a listen as we listen very closely to hear what he has to say about the Libby situation.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

TONY SNOW, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president has put together what he thinks is the proper approach and the proper way of dealing with this case.

QUESTION: Did the vice president weigh in?

SNOW: My guess is that -- I don't have direct knowledge. But on the other hand, the president did consult with most senior officials, and I'm sure that everybody had an opportunity to share their views.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) Justice Department officials, officials in his own Justice Department say normally someone would at least serve some jail time before a sentence is actually commuted. Why didn't he consult with his own Justice Department?

SNOW: Well, there are a couple of things.

First, quite often when you are dealing with sentences of this sort, they also have to deal with, as you point out, the sentences that are ongoing are sometimes cases that have gotten a bit stale and people are trying to refresh their memories about the particulars of the case. The same would be true of the prosecutor, because they're quite often consulted for the same reason.

Here, you have a case that's still ongoing in the court system. It's not like people's memories are fuzzy about the details or the circumstances.

The attorney general himself was recused, as you know, in this case.

But the answer is that it is certainly -- in some cases people do such consultations, in this case -- and they do it for the reasons I've just cited. These tend to be, "Can you go back and fill me in on what happened in that case?"

If you take a look at the rash of pardons and commutations at the end of the Clinton era, a lot of that was people running around trying to find paperwork to figure out what the facts were.

So let me just ...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Normally somebody at least serves a day in jail or a week in jail ...

SNOW: Because the president thought that jail time, in fact, was inappropriate. Therefore, he decided to ...

QUESTION: I thought he said jail time was excessive, that the sentence was excessive. (INAUDIBLE) said it was inappropriate.

SNOW: Right. He said it was excessive. And he thought that any jail time was excessive. And therefore he did not see fit to have Scooter Libby taken to jail.

Keep in mind that Scooter Libby has been convicted of a felony; that remains the same. He has a $250,000 fine to pay; that remains the same. He's got two years of probation; that remains the same.

A felony conviction has profound impacts on his ability to earn a living as a lawyer because he's not going to be able to practice law.

So this is hardly a slap on the wrist, in terms of penalty. It is a very severe penalty.

But the president also believes, for those who are arguing on behalf of a pardon, that you need to respect the jury system. Scooter Libby was tried before a jury of his peers.

And it is important to make clear our faith in what really is a pillar of the American justice system, which is everybody's right to be tried before a jury of their peers.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Does that open the door, then, on a pardon?

SNOW: Look, I think -- the president has done what he thinks is appropriate.

The reason I will say I'm not going to close the door on a pardon is simply this: that Scooter Libby may petition for one. But the president has done what he thinks is appropriate to resolve this case.

QUESTION: You're saying that you think he's done what is enough?

SNOW: He thinks he's done what's appropriate.

QUESTION: And that would be it? He wouldn't do any more?

SNOW: I don't want to read the president's mind. But on the other hand, I do not want to create expectations that somehow there will be more.

QUESTION: Does the president think that Scooter did in fact lie, that a member of the White House staff was in fact guilty of a crime? SNOW: What he believes is that he was convicted of a jury of his peers. The president was not sitting in as a fact witness on a very long case. And he does think that it's important to respect what the jury concluded because this the jury really is the group that counts here, which is ...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) but not respect what the judge said, though?

SNOW: Well, keep in mind that there is still -- he does respect what the judge said, but he also respects what -- I think if you take a look at the trial record, at what the parole commission recommended, that what the parole commission recommended was highly consistent with what the president thought was an appropriate punishment here.

QUESTION: Well, no, they talked about 16-plus months.

SNOW: There's a range of -- what you're taking a look is, this gets very complicated. You have obstruction of justice, and then you have mitigating factors that bumps it down. And the bump-down gets you, according again to the parole commission, to an area where it would be appropriate, it would be within acceptable guidelines to have such things as home detention or probation. Probation is something that is going to be required in this case.

QUESTION: Tony, as I understand it, this administration has advocated allowing judges the discretion to sentence within guidelines, and that this sentence was in fact within customary guidelines.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: How does the president square that view with his decision to commute ...

SNOW: First, he thinks that -- I would suggest you go back and read some of the trial pleadings, because there is real controversy over what the proper guidelines are.

What you're referring to are guidelines under the Espionage Act, which was never brought up as a possible violation by Mr. Libby or anybody there.

But I don't want to get into the business of trying to -- I know you're trying to get into the business of having an abstruse legal argument with Patrick Fitzgerald. Not going to do it.

I will simply tell you that the president, after long consideration, weeks and weeks of consideration, came to the conclusion that 30 months in jail was excessive and that he is comfortable with the punishment, which is still quite severe, of $250,000, a felony conviction and two years of probation.

QUESTION: And just as a follow-up, can you shed any light on the president's process of deliberations, his -- how we went about thinking about this decision which you said he considered over weeks and weeks?

SNOW: Only to a very trivial extent because, as you know, there's a very important debate going on in Washington about the importance of maintaining the sanctity of deliberations within a White House.

I will leave at this: The president spent weeks and weeks consulting with senior members of this White House about the proper way to proceed. And they looked at a whole lot of options and they spent a lot of time talking through the options and doing some very detailed legal analysis.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) outside the White House?

SNOW: I'm not going to characterize beyond that.

QUESTION: Do you know that because he told you so?

SNOW: I know that because he told me so and also others who were involved ...

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: I was not involved.

QUESTION: Was it appropriate for the vice president to weigh in about the fate of his own friend and someone who had served him for years?

SNOW: I -- you know, I'm sure that the vice president may have expressed an opinion. But the fact is, the president understands the -- he may have recused himself. I honestly don't know.

QUESTION: Did he ask for the president to spare his friend?

SNOW: We never, as you know, talk about internal deliberations. Nice try.

I mean, this is exactly what we're talking about right now before the House and Senate. And we are not going to characterize specifically any kind of advice or plea that somebody may make.

QUESTION: Doesn't the public deserve to know if the vice president asked the president to use this constitutional authority to spare his former aide and longtime friend from prison?

SNOW: Well, let me put it this way: The president does not look upon this as granting a favor to anyone, and to do that is to misconstrue the nature of the deliberations.

He spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to maintain the faith in the jury system, and he did that by keeping intact the conviction and some of the punishments. And at the same time he thought it was important to put together what he thought was a just punishment in this case, which is what he did.

But to think of this as the bestowal of a favor is simply utterly to misconstrue the nature ...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ...thought it was the bestowal of a favor when there are dozens of other people who would probably make the same case that their sentences were too heavy and should have been commuted.

SNOW: Well, I'm not sure that there are dozens of others who are -- every individual -- look it's (INAUDIBLE) -- well, again, there are many people who may have made cases in various junctures, but they're all different. The president looked at this one on its merits.

QUESTION: Was the president concerned that if Scooter Libby went to jail that he might then talk about some secrets in the White House that would damage the president?

SNOW: No, he thought it was an improper punishment. He thought it was an excessive punishment. And therefore the proper way to do this was to go ahead and leave intact -- again, the president's getting pounded on the right because he didn't do a full pardon. The idea is -- you know, but the point of this is that you do not engage in these acts for symbolic or political reasons. You don't do it to make other people happy and say, "Boy, you showed it to so and so." The point here is to do what is consistent with the dictates of justice.

QUESTION: So politics did not play into this decision at all ...

SNOW: That is correct.

QUESTION: ...a pardon versus ...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Wait a minute. A pardon versus commuting the sentence.

SNOW: That is correct.

QUESTION: And also, let me ask you this. The president and other White House press secretaries would not touch this question of Joe Wilson during the height of the investigation.

QUESTION: I'm going to ask you now, since the president is now basically saying this is over and he's done (INAUDIBLE), Joe Wilson asked for an apology for the American people because of the situation. Is the White House now willing to give the American people ...

SNOW: I'm not going to get into that.

QUESTION: Why not? Why not? It's over now. You didn't want to talk about it then, so let's talk about it now.

Do you think the American people are owed something because of ...

SNOW: Number one, there is still considerable controversy about the facts of the case, including Joe Wilson's veracity.

Number two, there is also ...

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) question about his veracity?

SNOW: ...there is also -- just very quickly, you take a look at the Senate report, his characterization of who sent him over and what he told people when he was in Niger is at direct odds with what he tended to tell the American public.

QUESTION: That has nothing to do with leaking the name ...

SNOW: I am just -- I am answering her question, what she raised ...

QUESTION: You're arguing a different case. SNOW: No, I'm arguing ...

QUESTION: But I believe (ph) the American people may want -- they may want ...

SNOW: I understand ...

QUESTION: ...have to do with the fact that the White House allowed for a breach and (INAUDIBLE).

SNOW: Again, I'm not -- this is -- number one, I believe the investigation found that the White House was not the source of the breach.

Number two, the president -- the president has said it is inappropriate to have such breaches and has apologized for them. So, beyond that, I think ...

QUESTION: When did he apologize?

SNOW: I think he said the American people get an apology ...

QUESTION: Tony ...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Karl Rove was involved in the leak. It sounds like he was involved. He talked to at least two reporters who ended up publishing this information.

In 2004 the president said -- he didn't talk about convictions or anything. He said he would fire anyone in this White House who was involved in the leak. Now that we know Karl Rove was involved, he did not fire him.

SNOW: There are two things to know.

We have also said that we do not -- we are not going to make comments in detail until the legal process is over. And it is not. There is still an appeal through ...

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: On follow-on issues like this that still may have bearing at an issue that may return to trial, we're not going to comment on it.

QUESTION: How can you stand there with a straight face and say that this is not a political act? What he did was inherently political.

SNOW: It was political in the sense that as president he has the authority to do this.

But on the other hand ...

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: On the other hand -- no, if on the other hand, if you're doing the weather vane thing, you probably, you know, depending on which constituency you would have wanted to make happy, you would have done something differently.

I am telling you that this president approaches these very carefully as a matter of principle. And the key considerations were, let's figure out what we think is appropriate -- what he thinks is appropriate in terms of punishment. And let's also do it in a way that does not do violence, but in fact shows respect for a system of justice, not going in and overthrowing the hard work and the verdict of a duly constituted jury.

That to me demonstrates just the opposite of political consideration. This is an attempt to try to figure out a principled way of dealing with what is always a thorny issue.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) palatable now, a pardon today or a pardon at the last day of his presidency? What's more palatable ...

SNOW: You're assuming that there's a pardon.

QUESTION: Two-thirds of the American people say that they wanted Scooter Libby to serve this sentence, so the president has not made them happy. Conservatives wanted a full pardon, so the president has not made them happy.

SNOW: Well, apparently, then, he did not do this for political reasons, did he?

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Did Libby directly ask the president for ...

SNOW: No, there are no direct communications and the president has not communicated directly with Scooter Libby.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

SNOW: I have no idea. You'll have to ask the Vice President's Office.

The notifications that took place yesterday were from White House legal counsel to Judge Walton, to Patrick Fitzgerald and to Scooter Libby's attorney.

QUESTION: Tony, two questions.

SNOW: On this topic or ...

QUESTION: Yes, on this topic.

SNOW: All right.

QUESTION: Among those protesting the president's refusal to allow the Libby imprisonment was Maryland Senator Cardin, who announced that he was, quote, "shocked" at what he called the president's double standard.

My question: Does the White House recall any such expressed Cardin shock at the non-imprisonment of Democrat lawbreaker Sandy Berger and Marion Barry, as well as no imprisonment of that convicted perjurer Bill Clinton, and his pardon recipient Marc Rich?

SNOW: No, I'm not familiar with that. But you know, perhaps, they are waiting to go back and revisit those issues when they have (INAUDIBLE).

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) trying to have it two ways, saying that we have faith in the justice system, and yet what the judge did was excessive even though it's within the guidelines of (INAUDIBLE).

SNOW: What I said was with the jury system.

But also, what the president did is also consistent with the guidelines. You need to understand the guideline argument better.

The question is, what are you using as your baseline?

And the parole commission, which does this for a living, had recommended guidelines ...

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

SNOW: I understand that.

The president has the power to commute, and he used it and he used it in a manner that he saw fit. That's not trying to have it both ways.

What the president said is that he is not going to go in and overturn what the jury did. On the other hand, again, he thought that the penalty was excessive.

He is certainly permitted to do that. You will concede that the president does have that power constitutionally and, furthermore, that this president has done it very carefully.

If he had decided that he wanted to commute the sentence and get rid of all punishment but still keep intact the felony, he could have done that.

But instead, what he did was he said that he believes that, when somebody is convicted of this punishment, it is worth having -- I mean, of this crime -- it is certainly worth respecting the jury's decision and having significant and severe punishment.

And I guarantee you -- a quick show of hands: How many people in this room think that $250,000 is a wrist slap, or that two years in probation or, in fact, the loss of your career is somehow a trivial punishment?

This is a serious punishment.

QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) legal defense fund that is going to cover the $250,000.

SNOW: Well, we'll have to see.

QUESTION: So it's not really excessive for him, then.

SNOW: Well, we'll have to see.

QUESTION: Most average Americans couldn't afford $250,000, but most average Americans don't have Fred Thompson raising millions of dollars (INAUDIBLE).

SNOW: Well, on the other hand, you know, he also has legal fees.

QUESTION: So the $250,000, though, is really not that much money.

SNOW: I don't know. You'll have to find out. Do you think $250,000 ...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: You said that it was a lot of money.

SNOW: I just -- yes, well, it is a lot of money.

QUESTION: But he has more than $250,000.

SNOW: You don't know that.

QUESTION: Well, in what he's raised.

SNOW: You don't know ...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ...the people who would gladly raise the money for him, and who have already been doing so.

SNOW: Well, good, the Americans are generous people.

QUESTION: How does the president justify this commutation when there are thousands of others in jail with a similar request?

SNOW: I'm not sure that there are thousands in jail with a similar request.

QUESTION: Three thousand.

SNOW: Three thousand in jail with similar -- I'm not sure that you could take anybody who has a perjury count and say that they're all the same. Every count has to be considered differently.

The president, as you know, looks very carefully at these things. And, furthermore, not every one of these cases comes before a president, as you are well aware. Attorneys quite often petition for these and that is one of the procedures by which they do it but ...

QUESTION: Can I follow on that? If there are more than 3,000 current petitions for commutation -- not pardons, but commutation -- in the federal system, under President Bush, will all 3,000 of those be held to the same standard that the president applied to Scooter Libby?

SNOW: I don't know.

QUESTION: Tony, I'm trying to get a handle on it. Are you saying this White House handled this in an extraordinary manner or in a routine manner?

SNOW: I think it handled it in a routine manner in the sense that the president took a careful look. But it is an extraordinary case by virtue of the fact that not only do you have the extreme level of publicity, but also that in many ways the hand was called by a court decision to go ahead and send Scooter Libby to jail while he was still in the middle of his appeals process.

QUESTION: But how could it not be extraordinary to grant something to someone who didn't even ask for it?

SNOW: I just think it's just the president, again, using his commutation power to do what he thought was necessary to address what he thought was an excessive punishment.

QUESTION: But absent a request, he wouldn't even have known about this case if it didn't involve his former aide.

SNOW: Well, no, I think you probably would have reminded him of it. The fact -- you talk about "if it had not involved a former aide." This is the thing that has been in the headlines for quite awhile.

QUESTION: Won't this encourage other members of his administration to obstruct justice?

SNOW: No.

QUESTION: Tony, you didn't ask a question about Karl Rove though, so why wasn't Karl Rove ...

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: The reason I said that is because you're asking a question that still may be arising -- may be a subject of inquiry and ongoing...

QUESTION: How many years is it going to take? I mean, the president made that statement in 2004.

QUESTION: Fitzgerald said it's over. SNOW: Well, Fitzgerald is not the one who is responsible for making a final decision on appeals, and I believe that -- I believe that the Libby team at this point still has before the court an appeal request.

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: The point was that some of these issues -- it certainly does, because these are things that may come up as questions within the context of further trial.

QUESTION: How does this square with the president saying, "Anybody who leaks in my office, anybody who doesn't follow the law, is not going to work for me"?

SNOW: Well, once we get -- you know, once we get final determination on that, we'll deal with it.

QUESTION: Would you react ...

SNOW: By the way, Karl was not accused of breaking any laws. He was not, in fact, indicted on anything. So you've got -- you know, I mean, there's a lot of contention in this. But you also need to stick with the fact record.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: He didn't say about breaking the law. He said involved in leaking the identity. So you've changed the standard ...

SNOW: No, no, no. I was just -- I was responding to that particular question.

Again, when we get final clarity on this through the judicial system, we'll answer the question.

QUESTION: Former Mayor Giuliani, who was involved in more than 1,000 pardons during his tenure at the Justice Department, referred to this in retrospect, in the overall scheme, as a non-crime and suggested a full pardon should have come right now.

Would you respond to what the mayor said?

SNOW: The president's made it clear that, again, he respects the importance of having a jury system and respecting that jury system, where, having listened over a long trial to the facts of the case, a jury of his peers found Scooter Libby guilty of perjury.

QUESTION: So he doesn't agree that it's a non-crime, as the mayor said?

SNOW: Again, I'm not going to try to get into parsing all the particulars. The president is not trying to serve as a fact witness in this case, or even one who is trying to analyze the virtues or defects of the case that were presented to the court.

What he does now is that a jury reached this verdict, and he is intent on honoring it.

QUESTION: Doesn't he have to decide that in order to exercise that constitutional authority? (INAUDIBLE) his own mind to have a view of whether a crime was committed or not.

SNOW: Again, I think what he does is, he understands that he's been convicted. And that to him is sufficient.

QUESTION: So he says a crime was committed?

SNOW: He accepts that the jury has rendered a verdict and found him guilty of a crime and therefore it punished him for it.

QUESTION: Does the White House have any reaction to the resignation of Japanese Defense Minister Kyuma?

SNOW: No. Let's first stay on this topic, and then for those who have other ones.

Don't have any reaction to it.

SNOW: Contact NSC later in the day.

QUESTION: You were saying that this is routine in terms of the president's procedure (INAUDIBLE) the procedure is to consult with the Justice Department. Can I just clarify, did the president talk to ...

SNOW: Again, we're not going to get into internal deliberations, but on ...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Can you say whether he did not talk to Gonzales at all about this?

SNOW: Well, the attorney general recused himself from this case. It would have been inappropriate. It would have been inappropriate to have any conversations with him.

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: I'm not aware of any, but I'm not going to -- again, I'm not going to get you -- we still have this strong belief in the importance of the confidentiality of communications.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ...because the system expects a president to consult.

SNOW: Well, no, you ...

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: No, what you've created is a perception that it is a hard and fast system that operates the same way at every time. As I pointed out, quite often what has evolved in taking a look at old cases is to go back to the prosecutors who originally did it, have them go back to their files, consult the case, and look at it in that direction.

Those are conditions that do not apply in this case, and therefore you don't have the necessity of going back and saying, "Will you tell us what went on?" I mean, we're pretty well aware of what's been going on and the issues in the case, and we are certainly satisfied that the president spent a lot of time in very careful deliberation about this to try ...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... got special handling because of who Mr. Libby is. You're making the opposite case, it seems.

SNOW: No. I think when you're trying to -- no, what it's saying is -- he got special handling because of the peculiar nature of the Libby case, which is it's ongoing and highly public. That's what we're talking about here.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... got special handling because of who he is or was.

SNOW: No, he got special handling because the nature -- because -- look ...

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: No, here's what (INAUDIBLE) what you're saying is because Scooter Libby is a public figure, therefore a highly public trial, therefore the facts are well known. And knowing the facts are well known, you do not need to do prior consultations in the way that you do in the past to try to get those facts available, that somehow all of that is attributable to, quote, "who Scooter Libby is."

No, it is ...

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: It is, in fact, a consequence of the kind of trial that you've got here. This is not something, again, where you have to go back and consult members of the Justice Department about what the facts of the case are or the circumstances surrounding it.

Furthermore, you got a trial record, and it is still at trial, so it's not the case that you have to go ask the prosecutor if he needs to burnish his memory about it.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I just want to follow.

There are some on the right who are very interested in the idea of a full pardon, and they are pointing out that a convicted felon can serve in the government. QUESTION: If Vice President Cheney wants to bring Scooter Libby back into his office ...

SNOW: (INAUDIBLE) any idea. This is not something that's come up.

QUESTION: Tony, I want to go back to the issue of an apology, and I want to state the issue (INAUDIBLE).

Are the American people owed some kind of apology from someone in this administration for the leaking of a CIA person's name -- personnel's name?

SNOW: Yes, it's improper to be leaking those names.

QUESTION: You say improper -- you say someone, someone in this administration owes the American public an apology.

SNOW: I'll apologize.

QUESTION: Tony ...

SNOW: I'm done.

QUESTION: No, it's not. That's flippant. That's a very flippant way of doing something. It's very serious. It's a very serious matter, and that was very flippant.

SNOW: Well, no, I think in some ways the characterization -- because there are so many complex issues involved in this, including the provenance of it.

And furthermore, the fact that in the Washington culture, things get leaked all the time, and I'm not aware -- how many of you have apologized for a controversial name appearing under tough circumstances in a news story? I dare say the answer is zero.

QUESTION: Tony, does the president believe that prison time for perjury is excessive, per se? And if he does not believe that, what is it about this case, beyond the fact that Scooter Libby worked for this administration, that led him to commute the sentence? What (INAUDIBLE)?

SNOW: Again, we are not going to get you into -- I'm not going to delve you into the deep considerations other than to tell you that the president considered it excessive.

QUESTION: Does he think that ...

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: As did the parole board.

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: As did the parole board. So I'm simply telling you that what you're trying to do is set up a false distinction here, acting as if this were not the sort of punishment that would be meted out in a perjury case.

SNOW: It is, so ...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ...didn't say that it was excessive.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: What I am asking you is, if someone else perjures himself ...

SNOW: It said that, in fact -- consistent with the guidelines, what it talked about were the general use of guidelines and mitigating circumstances. And it goes to some length into those considerations.

QUESTION: I'm asking though, if someone else perjures themselves, someone unknown to the president, does the president believe that prison time for that offense is excessive?

SNOW: It depends on the circumstances surrounding the case.

QUESTION: And so what is it about these circumstances?

SNOW: Again, I am not going to get you -- beyond what we've said, I'm just not going to play the game.

QUESTION: But is one day -- even one day in prison excessive for this kind of a crime? I mean, people have spent, you know, time in prison for ...

SNOW: No, this crime. This crime. This crime. This kind of crime.

QUESTION: One day is too much for this particular crime?

SNOW: This crime. The president decided it was too much for this one.

QUESTION: I mean, why not some jail time, sir?

SNOW: Tell me why, sir, as is ...

QUESTION: I'm asking you this question.

(CROSSTALK)

SNOW: No, it sounds to me like ...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ...obstruction of justice is why.

QUESTION: And he was convicted. SNOW: So you don't think.

QUESTION: He was convicted of obstruction of justice.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Am I right? He was convicted of obstruction of justice.

QUESTION: He was convicted of perjury. He lied about leaking information.

SNOW: I believe passions are running high in the press room today.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: You're trying to take the logic and change it around and make it -- you're insulting our intelligence.

SNOW: You know what? No, I don't think so.

What I'm trying to do is to insert a little nuance into a conversation that continues to try to create broad generalizations that can be used, frankly, to twist the case out of context.

Now, go ahead.

QUESTION: Does Scooter Libby owe the president something now?

SNOW: What Scooter Libby is doing is paying a debt to society.

QUESTION: Does he owe the president not to give -- ask for a pardon? Is that ...

SNOW: You know, I'm not going to try to get into what he owes or doesn't owe. I mean, that's -- ask Scooter Libby what he thinks he owes.

QUESTION: Do you think that he's happy right now that his sentence was commuted and he should not come back and ask for a pardon?

SNOW: Again, I am not going to get in -- tell somebody their business.

I will remind you that this is a guy, again, who has a felony conviction, a $250,000 fine, two years' probation and basically has lost the way he has built a living in his -- his entire life. That is a pretty significant punishment.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

SNOW: I don't know.

You know, I mean, I love the fact that everybody thinks folks get rich off books. I like Scooter, but I'm not sure that that's one that's going to go flying off the shelves.

QUESTION: Another subject?

SNOW: Have we exhausted this, or do we have any ...

QUESTION: You look pretty exhausted.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Two questions.

One, as far as immigration bill was concerned, the president was disappointed or he has still hope for this immigration bill?

SNOW: The president believes we have to do comprehensive immigration reform.

The fact that the Senate decided not to act does not mean that the world will not continue with a situation in which the laws presently on the books are insufficient for providing sufficient punishment to have employers ...

NGUYEN: All right. You have been listening to Press Secretary Tony Snow talk about the case of Lewis "Scooter" Libby. A lot of heated questions there from reporters today. And Tony Snow just reiterating the fact that the president thought it was, in Tony Snow's words, inappropriate. But the president's words, excessive, that Libby serve this sentence, this jail sentence.

But he went on to say it was hardly a slap on the wrist because the crime stays as stands, the charges remain there. There's a probation that's in place and there is a hefty fine. But there are a lot of questions as to whether the president will do more.

Will he change this from just commuting the sentence to actually pardoning it? And Tony Snow said he can't read the president's mind, he doesn't want to talk about what is to come. Possibly maybe, maybe not.

Also, he said that the president considered this for weeks. He deliberated with some senior staff members and the question was whether the vice president had a hand in that. Did he speak with the president about this? And Tony Snow said, sure, the vice president may have expressed an opinion.

On to the question as to whether Libby specifically asked the president to commute his sentence and Snow at that point said, no, there was no direct communication between Libby and President Bush.

So, that is the latest in the Libby case. Of course, more questions are to come, because, again, this was a very heated White House press briefing ...

HARRIS: Wow.

NGUYEN: ...and many legal analysts are going to be looking at that and the answers that were provided.

HARRIS: I lost track of how many times Tony Snow said the president has the power. That's the bottom line on this. The president has the power.

NGUYEN: And he used the power.

HARRIS: The president used it.

Still to come this morning in the CNN NEWSROOM, this developing story. Just days after Britain's terror scare, the U.S. government dispatching VIPR teams to guard mass transit. Live to Penn Station, coming up in the NEWSROOM.

NGUYEN: Also, on the trail of terrorists. Are they now recruiting a new kind of killer? An expert weighs in. His answers, you better watch, because they are going to surprise you.

HARRIS: The makings of a heavyweight fight, but it's really just a battle over weiners and buns.

NGUYEN: You just wanted to say that.

HARRIS: We are talking hot dogs here, friends.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NGUYEN: We're going to take you back to Washington now and CNN's Ed Henry, where the White House press briefing has just wrapped up.

Ed, it was quite a heated exchange at many moments. Take us through the highlights.

ED HENRY, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Certainly a barrage of questions for Tony Snow. I think one of the most significant parts is that Tony Snow clearly left the door open for Scooter Libby to eventually get a pardon. He originally opened up by saying the president believes this was dealt with. But then, when pressed on it by reporters, said, you never know, Libby could petition for it. He did leave the door open.

On the question of whether Vice President Cheney was consulted, whether he weighed in, Tony Snow said he did not know and he also would not name any of the White House officials who were involved. We obviously realize the White House Counsel, Fred Fielding (ph) was involved. But he would not name anyone else. But he did reveal that the president had been thinking about this, deliberating for weeks and weeks. That's a bit of new information there.

Why no jail time for Scooter Libby? As you know, officials in the president's own Justice Department have suggested that normally, you would at least do some jail time before your sentence is commuted. Tony Snow told me, when I asked, that the president thought that the jail time was inappropriate. But actually, what the president yesterday said was he thought the jail -- that the sentence was excessive. And Tony backed up a little bit there. But pressed on whether the president never fired Karl Rove, you remember in 2004, the president said he would fire anyone in his administration if they were involved in leaking this information. So, when he was pressed on the fact that now that the president has weighed in on this case, he can no longer say that he doesn't want to get involved.

Why has he not fired Karl Rove? That question was not answered, though asked repeatedly. And I also said that he said the president doesn't want to publicly comment on that, even though the president put out, obviously, a two-page statement yesterday on this case.

He also insisted -- Tony Snow did -- that this is not a slap on the wrist, that Scooter Libby will still be paying a $250,000 fine. Although, obviously, Scooter Libby has had conservatives helping him with the legal defense fund. He's raised thousands and thousands of dollars.

Also, I think it was interesting that from the White House podium, Tony Snow also took a swipe at Ambassador Joe Wilson, said that his veracity was in question himself in this case. That's obviously something that the Wilson camp will not be happy about.

But finally, when pressed on whether the White House would ever apologize to Joe Wilson and Valerie Wilson, Snow finally snapped, I'll do it now, done. Betty?

NGUYEN: Yes, and then he was called on that for being a flippant remark.

Ed Henry, boy, what a briefing that was.

HARRIS: It was.

NGUYEN: Thank you for taking us through the highlights there.

HENRY: Thank you. There were plenty.

HARRIS: Folks riding trains and subways to see the July 4th fireworks may see something extra, more security.

CNN's Senior Correspondent Allan Chernoff is live in New York's Penn Station.

Allan, good to see you this morning. Tell us about what you're seeing in terms of the stepped-up security presence.

ALLAN CHERNOFF, CNN CORRESPONDENT: No question about it, increased security for the July 4th week. And we're seeing it right behind us inside of Penn Station. If you walk around there, you can actually see these security personnel, the TSA personnel walking through the terminal. And these include air marshals as well as behavioral observation specialists.

Now, this is part of a program in eight cities around the country. It's a TSA initiative, and we understand this is not, not in response to any specific or general threat, just a precautionary move here. The TSA bringing in what it calls it's VIPR units, that stands for Visual Intermodal Protection and Response teams.

Now, as I mentioned, the TSA air marshalls, behavioral observation people, as well as K-9 bomb detections squads, although we have not seen any of the K-9 teams inside of Penn Station right now. They are also deployed, the TSA deployed over at Grand Central Terminal in New York as well. That's where we have some railroads going north and also going out to Long Island from Penn Station, behind us here.

Now, the increase that we have from the TSA comes as a compliment to increases in security. First of all, from Amtrak police based here, they've increased their staff, they tell us from 10 to 17 officers patrolling not only the terminal, but also platforms and trains. And the MTA, Metropolitan Transit Authority, also increasing its police officers on patrol and they are not only riding the trains, but at platforms, stepping off to make sure that they are visual, make sure that they're seen on the platforms and on the trains.

Let's emphasize, once again, this is not at all in response to any threat, just an increase in security in their presence as a precautionary measure before the July 4th weekend.

HARRIS: And Allan, I want to accept that at face value. But I have to ask you, was -- for example, was the VIPR team -- were VIPR teams rolled out ahead of the Memorial Day holiday weekend, a long holiday weekend, were VIPR teams rolled out to transit systems across the country or to select cities at that time?

CHERNOFF: We have seen some moves similar to this in the past. In fact, the Metropolitan Transit Authority saying that they have increased their staff since the spring, but especially now. They are beefing up even more. So certainly, the security has been quite tight. I go in and out of Penn Station every single day, and you see not only authorities from the New York Police Department and the National Guard on patrol here. They've been on patrol since 9/11 over here. But also, as I mention, you also have Amtrak and police from the Metropolitan Transit Authority.

So, certainly there is a very strong police presence here normally. And it is beefed up today.

HARRIS: OK. Allan Chernoff for us at Penn Station in New York City. Allan, appreciate it, thank you.

NGUYEN: Well, at least six doctors questioned or detained as part of the British terror probe, and some say that signals a disturbing change. Highly-educated people embracing extremist agenda. Our next guest says the new details may simply shatter a popular myth.

Fathali Moghaddam is the author of "From The Terriorists' Point of View" he is a professor of psychology at Georgetown University and he joins us live.

I have to ask you -- many people, when they hear the word that doctors were involved, they found it surprising. But, you say that's not surprising at all. Why is that?

FATHALI MOGHADDAM, AUTHOR, FROM THE TERRORISTS' POINT OF VIEW: Well, because we know that terrorism has always involved individuals who are above average education. Nor is it true that terrorists are below average in their income. It's a complete myth that terrorism arises out of poverty and out of illiteracy and low education.

NGUYEN: Why is someone who has invested so much time in their education to be doctors who essentially want to help others survive, help others live want to take on a cause that really supports terrorism?

MOGHADDAM: Well, for exactly the same reason as anybody else would. In the case of Islamic terrorism, it has to do with identity. The price of identity being experienced by Muslims in many parts of the world in relation to what they see to be threats to their belief system, their culture, their ideologies. Particularly after the post- invasion of Iraq and the mismanagement of Iraq.

NGUYEN: Let's delve a little bit more into that. What is sparking this identity crisis? Where does it live, and what can be done about it?

MOGHADDAM: Well, the identity crisis has to do with the very broad strategy adopted by the United States, the United Kingdom and other western states. First of all, let me emphasize it's a very good idea to increase the anti-terrorism strategies for the short term. It's a very good idea to increase security. But these are short-term strategies.

In the long term, the United States needs to change its policy and to decide whether it is worth pursuing stability in the Middle East and the dictatorships. We have had rhetoric from the White House now for a number of years about democracy. Unfortunately, this has not been followed up in practice. So there is rising expectation, very fast rising expectation among Muslims that they should have more freedom.

They should have greater opportunities to express themselves. However, the countries that we're talking about, such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, are being supported despite the continued dictatorships there. Of course, President Musharraf and the dictatorship in Pakistan represents exactly this.

NGUYEN: Can you say that as a whole though, that the U.S. simply supports that? Because if you look at the situation in Iraq, people came out to vote. They're trying to create a democracy there.

MOGHADDAM: Certainly that's true. I would accept the United States' initial efforts in Iraq were extremely positive. There was support for democracy. However, the mismanagement in Iraq has been disastrous. And it's that mismanagement that's going to spill over into western countries. And the United Kingdom is now the front line of the fight against terrorism.

NGUYEN: Well, let me ask you this very quickly. We've all heard the way to battle terrorism is through education and enlightenment. What you're talking about seems to fly in the face of that. So, what do you do then? How do you battle this ideology?

MOGHADDAM: That's a very good question and your focus is exactly right, I think. al Qaeda is an ideology. And the way to battle it is at the ideological level. It needs long-term planning. It needs very good focus on the couches of these areas. So the long-term strategy should be first sending the researchers, rather than the troops.

NGUYEN: Fathali Moghaddam, the author from "The Terrorists' Point of View" also a psychology professor at Georgetown University, we thank you for your time today.

MOGHADDAM: Thank you.

STARR: I'm Barbara Starr at the Pentagon. Two pilots rescued in Iraq. We'll have the first pictures coming up next in the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: A dramatic rescue of U.S. Army pilots in Iraq. New details coming in this morning, including first pictures. Live now to CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr. Were those the first pictures of this whole episode we saw going into the break just a moment ago?

STARR: That's right, Tony. A dramatic rescue. It, was yesterday, south of Baghdad when a two-man helicopter, very lightly armed, scout helicopter, was shot down, brought down by machine gunfire. This Kiowa Warrior only carries two pilots. Both of them down on the ground. Then, we'll just play this rescue video out for one second.

An Apache helicopter comes along, under fire, scoops both of those pilots up and takes them to safety. And you see here, one of them jumping down, actually after they landed safely, actually what happened, of course, is the Apache, the rescue helicopter, also carries just two pilots. So, one of the pilots gave up his seat to one of the injured downed pilots. And he rode on the outside.

On the other side, the other injured pilot rode. You can see it there, it's that white spot, of course, on the video. That's one of the pilots riding that wing, if you will, which by the way carries a weapon under it, to safety. We are told there was small arms fire, machine gunfire going off all during this time.

The two downed pilots, when they got out of their shot down helicopter threw themselves in a ditch full of water to try and hide from Iraqis that were in the area, potential insurgents. In fact, just shortly after this rescue took place, an A-10 Thunderbolt aircraft, came in, dropped a bomb and destroyed the downed helicopter. There were insurgents all over the area.

So a very successful, but very dramatic rescue, Tony.

HARRIS: Just amazing, and heartening. The lengths that the military goes, that the service personnel go to to get their comrades out of harm's way. That's just -- well ...

STARR: It's what they do. Any one of them would tell you they would do it for a fallen comrade, I think.

HARRIS: Wow. CNN Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr. Just an amazing story Barbara. Thank you.

STARR: Sure.

NGUYEN: The terror plot in Great Britain, there are new concerns that are rippling across London and Glasgow as that investigation now extends halfway around the world.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NGUYEN: Well, we go to Canada today for our CNN Hero. He is a remarkable 16-year-old who's been working to save the lives of children by giving them their most basic necessity, and that is clean water. His name is Ryan Hreljac and he is today's CNN Hero.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stand by. Go ahead, please.

RYAN HRELJAC: Every day, 6,000 children die because they don't have access to clean water. That's like 20 full jumbo jets crashing every year. I feel we shouldn't live in a world like that.

I was 6 years old and I was in my grade-one classroom. My teacher said there are people who have to walk 10 kilometers to get to a dirty mud hole, and I decided to do something about it.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ryan has told me he has been saving money to put up a well in Africa, and he said he want it in a school.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now Let us look at example one.

The well which Ryan built was the first clean water they ever had.

HRELJAC: I went to Uganda when I was 10. I was pretty excited to go see what the impact was.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You read it.

HRELJAC: Ryan's well, funded by Ryan H.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Up to that moment maybe, Ryan never knew how much this means.

The little boy who had this big dream, now look where he is, not only doing one well, but so many wells. The clean water has reached far and wide.

HRELJAC: When a well is built in a community, the health, it skyrockets, and you just see smiles light up on people's faces because they have clean water to drink. It's great to see the impact.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ryan has changed many, many lives out here, so he is a hero. He is a warrior who made it happen.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

NGUYEN: Well, there is a lot more about Ryan Hreljac and his well foundation on our Web site. You can also nominate your hero for special recognition later this year. We have all those details at CNN.com/heroes.

And we also want to update you on one of our previous CNN heroes. You may remember Tabiti Boon (ph), his literacy program has helped boost reading scores at several schools in Brooklyn, New York. And since, CNN aired his story, he has received 300 e-mails from people wanting to set up his program in their community.

HARRIS: How about that?

NGUYEN: Yes, pretty good, along with nearly $10,000 in donations, so people are putting their monies where their mouth are.

HARRIS: Now (ph), that's great, that is great.

Drivers, beware when this guy is on the road. Look at that, look at that, look at that, look at that!

NGUYEN: My goodness.

HARRIS: The escaped con who couldn't steer straight. We'll show you how this wild ride ends.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

NGUYEN: All right, get in front of your TV because we do have some amazing pictures to show you. We don't use those words lightly. See that? There it goes.

HARRIS: No.

NGUYEN: You can see this massive -- ooh -- coming down right on a street. Construction crane that just fell right in the middle of a busy street in Rome, Georgia. It was all caught on a police dash camera. And just look at the damage. Oh, man, oh man.

HARRIS: Are you kidding me?

NGUYEN: Talk about a close call. The car, a total loss. But the driver -- oh, thank goodness -- can you believe escaped serious injury? Thousands of pounds of steel just crushing down feet from her head and she was able to walk away.

HARRIS: That's great.

A wild chase turns into bumper cars. It started in Lebanon, Ohio. Things got -- oh boy -- rolling with the prison break. Police say the con stole this ride -- he kept right on driving even when his tires started peeling off the wheel rims. He eventually surrendered, and amazingly, no one was hurt despite the -- the speed and the spin out.

NGUYEN: Well, the CNN NEWSROOM does continue one hour from now.

HARRIS: "YOUR WORLD TODAY" is next with news happening across the globe and here at home.

I'm Tony Harris.

NGUYEN: And I'm Betty Nguyen.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com