White House Press Secretary Tony Snow gave a press briefing today. It shouldn't come as a surprise that almost every question was on the subject of President Bush's commutation of Scooter Libby's 30-month prison sentence.

Tony, to his credit, did his best at talking out of both sides of his mouth at once (a skill he excels at) in an attempt to explain away Bush's action as no big deal, a routine matter... nothing to see here... move along.

The transcript of the press conference shows Tony's mastery at doublethink. He starts off by using two completely contradictory and exclusionary statements as justification for Bush's decision, mere minutes apart. Incredibly, he comes back to both of these points many times throughout the press conference, apparently unaware of their contradictory nature.

Here's Tony answering why Bush didn't consult with the Justice Department:

Q: Why didn't he consult with 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?

MR. SNOW: Well, a couple of things. First, quite often when you're dealing with sentences of this sort, they also have to deal with, as you point out, sentences that are ongoing or 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, Ed, 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.

Got that? Presidents only normally consult with the Justice Department on pardon cases to remind themselves of the facts of the case. Not to, you know, consult with the Justice Department on whether they thought a pardon was a good thing or not for that case. This whopper was a big one (for anyone who knows how the system routinely works), but Tony didn't stop there.

Not only does the president only use the Justice Department to refresh his memory of the case, it's also the only conceivable reason why the President would consult with the prosecutor as well. Not to get input on the decision itself -- but just to remember what the case was all about in the first place.

Since Tony probably knew that unveiling this monstrous lie would be a tough row to hoe, he decided it was time to remind everyone that it's all somehow Clinton's fault. Right after a rationalization of utter fantasy: "...in some cases, people do such consultations... 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?' [sic - punctuation]"

In the reality-based community, that should read: "...in virtually every case, presidents do such consultations with Justice and with the prosecutors... and they do it to gain perspective and advice on whether the candidate for pardon is worthy of such an act."

In Tony's world, however, the only possible reason for doing consultations is to remind themselves of the facts. He backs up this as a justification for not talking to anyone at the Department of Justice, or the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, since "it's not like people's memories are fuzzy about the details or the circumstances [in Scooter Libby's case]."

So Bush didn't need to talk to anyone, because he was up on the details of the case, OK? No fuzziness on the details here. But then, moments later, Tony's arguing exactly the opposite as an argument to deflect a pertinent question.

Q: Tony, does the President think that Scooter Libby did, in fact, lie; that a member of the White House staff was, in fact, guilty of these crimes?

MR. 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 the jury really is the group that counts here.

Wait a minute, Tony, which is it? Bush is so up on the details that he doesn't need to ask anyone involved with the case a single question, or he ignored the facts that the jury considered because it was "a very long case" -- maybe Bush was just too bored with the transcript to read it all?

You can't have it both ways, Tony.

Also, notice the very careful phrasing. Bush hasn't told Tony to admit that Scooter was lying, or indeed actually guilty of anything, merely that a jury found this to be true. This isn't just Bushian chutzpah, it shows that the entire commutation (for Bush) is a political act to shore up his support with his base -- who truly believes Libby did nothing wrong, and was merely the target of a politically-motivated overreaching prosecutor.

This was immediately followed by an extraordinary exchange:

Q: Why not respect what the judge said, then?

MR. 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 took 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.

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

MR. SNOW: No, that is -- there's a range of -- what you're taking a look -- 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.

Tony comes back to this again and again, but for the record, he's... you know... lying about the facts, once again. The parole commission recommended a minimum of 15 months in prison as a sentence. Tony keeps denying this fact over and over throughout the entire press conference, even though it is one of those inconvenient "reality-based" facts.

Q: Tony, it's my understanding that this administration has advocated allowing judges the discretion to sentence within guidelines, and that this sentence was, in fact, within customary guidelines. So how does the President square that view with his decision to commute the sentence?

MR. SNOW: Look, 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.

I'll return to the point of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines at the end of this article, but once again Tony is twisting the truth. When he says "I know you're trying to get [me] into the business of having an abstruse legal argument with Patrick Fitzgerald," he's actually talking about Bush disagreeing with the judge in the case, not with the prosecutor (Fitzgerald). And, incidentally, disagreeing with that pesky parole commission. And with the guidelines, which clearly call for prison time. But Tony doesn't let that stop him from spinning a good line, again trying to make it look like a personal vendetta from the prosecutor's office.

What Tony was referring to was Fitzgerald's public response to the commutation:

"We fully recognize that the Constitution provides that commutation decisions are a matter of presidential prerogative and we do not comment on the exercise of that prerogative.

"We comment only on the statement in which the President termed the sentence imposed by the judge as 'excessive.' The sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to the laws governing sentencings which occur every day throughout this country. In this case, an experienced federal judge considered extensive argument from the parties and then imposed a sentence consistent with the applicable laws.

"It is fundamental to the rule of law that all citizens stand before the bar of justice as equals. That principle guided the judge during both the trial and the sentencing."

Doesn't sound like that abstruse of an argument to me. But then, I don't work for the White House either.

There was a humorous interlude here worth mentioning.

Q: But 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?

MR. 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 and --

Q: Why shouldn't it be thought of as a 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?

MR. SNOW: Well, I'm not sure that there are dozens of others who were -- every individual -- look, the court said --

Q: Martha Stewart.

What I found humorous about this wasn't equating Martha Stewart to Scooter Libby, but that Tony managed to say (with a straight face, I assume): "The President does not look upon this as granting a favor to anyone." Heh heh. Good one, Tony! He goes on to make another joke:

MR. SNOW: ... 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.

Q: So politics did not play into this decision at all?

MR. SNOW: That is correct.

BWAH-hah-hah! Politics didn't play into this decision at all? Stop it Tony, you're killing me!

Tony then got serious, for a moment, in order to smear Joe Wilson all over again. Once again, if there is any doubt that Bush commuted Libby's sentence in order to please his base, this exchange will lay those doubts to rest.

Q: 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. I'm going to ask you now, since the President is now basically saying this is over and he's done what he's done -- 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 --

MR. SNOW: I'm not going to get into --

Q: Why not?

MR. SNOW: Because --

Q: Why not? It's over now. You didn't want to talk about it then. Let's talk about it now. Do you think the American people are owed something because of the breach?

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

Q: What's in question about his veracity? Detail that, please.

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

Q: That has nothing to do with leaking the name of --

MR. SNOW: I'm just --

Q: She's making a good point.

MR. SNOW: I'm answering her question, which she raised --

Q: But she's making a good point.

Q: You're arguing a different case.

MR. SNOW: No, I'm arguing --

Q: The apology that the American people may want -- some may want --

MR. SNOW: I understand.

Q: -- has to do with the fact that the White House allowed for a breach. And doesn't Libby owe the President an apology?

MR. 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 has said that it is --

Q: But it's part of the Bush administration.

MR. SNOW: -- the President has said it is inappropriate to have such breaches, and has apologized for them. So beyond that --

Q: When did he apologize?

MR. SNOW: I think he said to the American people -- gave an apology, but --

Actually, Tony, he didn't. Nobody's apologized.

A little later on, after Tony attempts to explain how a $250,000 fine is not just a slap on the wrist, reporters remind Tony that people such as Fred Thompson have raised five million dollars for Scooter's defense fund, making the fine meaningless. Tony gets in yet another thigh-slapper: "Well, good. Americans are a generous people." Generous to convicted felons? Tony does not specify.

Tony stumbles a bit when asked about the 3,000 other commutation requests ("I'm not sure that -- thousands in jail with similar requests?"). You'd think he would have at least done his homework on the commutation situation, but then Bush commuted Libby's sentence so quickly after the appeals court ruled, I guess Tony's lack of preparation was understandable.

Tony then serves up another helping of the spin job he began the press conference with, uttering his two completely opposing viewpoints in greater detail. First, Bush did a careful legal analysis over weeks and weeks of time:

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

MR. SNOW: Only to a very trivial extent, because, as you know, there are -- 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 it 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.

Later (and in complete contradiction), he defends the notion that Bush hasn't actually analyzed the case at all:

MR. SNOW: The President has 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.

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

MR. 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 know is that a jury reached this verdict. And he is intent on honoring --

Q: But doesn't he have to decide that in order to exercise that constitutional authority, just in his own mind to have a view of whether a crime was committed or not?

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

Q: So he accepts a crime was committed?

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

Again, notice the careful wording. No matter how the question is asked, Tony's just not going to admit that Bush even agrees a crime was committed. But more importantly, Bush isn't "even one who is trying to analyze the virtues or defects of the case that were presented to the court." That's strange, considering that that is exactly what an executive is supposed to do in pardon and commutation cases. But then, as Bush's stint as Texas governor proves, he was never that interested in the whole "pardon" concept to begin with.

Later on, he decides to argue his original contention again:

MR. SNOW: ... 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 and very careful deliberation about this --

If you're confused, don't feel bad. It's Tony's job to confuse you. At least that's how this White House sees things.

There was one question asked which was truly chilling.

Q: I just want to follow up. There are some who -- 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. If Vice President Cheney wants to bring Scooter Libby back into his office, would the President support that?

MR. SNOW: I don't have any idea. This is not something that's come up.

Nah, they'd never be that brazen... would they?

The final exchange is a long one, but worth quoting in its entirety. The reporters finally get someone from the White House to apologize for leaking the name of a covert CIA officer for political reasons to justify their unjustifiable war. Unfortunately, it's not a very respectful apology to the men and women serving in the CIA.

Q: Tony, I want to go back to the issue of an apology, and I want to stay issue-focused and not blaming. Are there -- is 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?

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

Q: You say it's improper, so you're saying someone in this administration owes the American public an apology?

MR. SNOW: I'll apologize. All done.

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

MR. 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 --

Q: Does that make it right?

MR. SNOW: How many of you have apologized for a controversial name appearing under tough circumstances in a news story? I daresay the answer is zero.

Um, Tony, it's their job to report leaks. It's decidedly not the job of high officials in the executive branch to be "outing" CIA officers. Does he really not understand the difference? His "apology" (reeking of arrogance and insincerity) is so disrespectful that words fail me.

But I'm interrupting. Back to the transcript:

Q: 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 are the factors here?

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

Q: Does he think prison for perjury is excessive?

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

Q: I'm asking you, if someone else perjures himself --

Q: -- say that it was excessive.

MR. SNOW: It said that, in fact, the -- consistent with the guidelines that it talked about, for the general use of guidelines in mitigated circumstances, and it goes in some length into those considerations.

Q: I'd like to know, if someone else perjures himself, someone unknown to the President, does the President believe that prison time for that offense is excessive?

MR. SNOW: It depends on the circumstances surrounding the case.

Q: And so what is it about these circumstances that --

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

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

MR. SNOW: No, no -- this crime. This crime.

Q: This crime, yes.

MR. SNOW: Not this kind of crime; this crime.

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

MR. SNOW: The President decided that it was too much for this one.

Q: Why not some jail time served, as was --

MR. SNOW: Tell me why.

Q: I'm asking you.

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

Q: -- obstruction of justice, is why --

MR. SNOW: You don't think --

Q: -- convicted of obstruction of justice.

Q: For lying, perjury.

Q: Perjury.

Q: He was convicted of -- am I right? He was convicted of obstruction of justice.

Q: He was convicted of perjury. He lied about leaking.

MR. SNOW: -- running high in the press room today.

Q: No, you're trying to take the logical and change it around and make -- you're insulting our intelligence.

MR. SNOW: No, I don't think so. What I've tried 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.

Q: Does Scooter Libby owe the President something now?

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

Q: Does he owe the President not to give -- ask for a pardon?

MR. SNOW: 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.

Q: Should he just be happy right now that his sentence was commuted, and he should not come back and ask for a pardon?

MR. SNOW: You know, 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 entire life. That is pretty significant punishment.

Q: Book deal, right?

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

Have we exhausted this, or do we have any --

Q: Yes, we're pretty exhausted. (Laughter.)

Well, actually, I hope not. I hope the White House press corps hasn't exhausted itself to the point of not following up with a few pertinent questions, whether Libby writes a book or not [if Libby did write a book -- and actually told the truth about what he knows -- I bet it would fly off the shelves, but there's simply no indication he's going to write that kind of book].

Such questions should include (but by no means be limited to):

"How much does Bush know about the case? Did he do an in-depth analysis of it or not? Why are you trying to have it both ways by saying Bush spent weeks on it, but never read what the jury saw? Please clarify this contradiction."

"Does Bush indeed think Scooter is guilty of a crime? Does he agree with the jury's verdict?"

"What did the parole commission actually say? Didn't they recommend a sentence of at least 15 (or 16?) months in prison for Scooter's crime? Why do you keep denying this?"

"Doesn't the consultation process for commuting a sentence usually involve true consultation with both the Justice Department and the prosecutor of the case, and not merely talking to them to 'refresh memories' about the case?"

"How can you say with a straight face that 'this wasn't granting a favor' and that 'politics played no part' in the decision? Do you think the American people are that stupid?"

There are plenty of other unanswered questions as well. [If you've read this far in this monstrous article, you may have a few suggestions of your own -- feel free to post them as comments.]

But finally, the biggest hypocrisy of all was pointed out by Jeralyn Merrit at the Huffington Post. I close with a quote from her article, since I could not improve on her words if I tried:

At the same time Bush has his Attorney General calling upon Congress to make every federal crime subject to a mandatory minimum sentence, thereby preventing judges from imposing an individually tailored sentence based on their view of the offender's character and mitigating factors, he has no qualms making an exception for a single member of his Administration.

The proposed Sentencing Reform Act will:

Restore the binding nature of the guidelines by making the bottom of the guideline range for each offense a minimum sentence that must be imposed when the elements of the offense are proven;

Hypocrisy, thy name is Bush.