Court TV Host: Chat about the Scooter Libby conviction with Court TV's Fred Graham. Libby has been found guilty of four of five counts, including perjury and obstruction of justice, in the case over a CIA agent's identity being leaked to the press. Fred is joining us right now from the federal courthouse in Washington....

Court TV Host: Fred, what's the latest?

Fred Graham: Judge Reggie Walton released Scooter Libby after the conviction to be free without bond, although the AP said he was fingerprinted before he left the courthouse. His lawyers said they will appeal - no surprise - but the trial in general seemed to be tidy and not obviously bristling with error. There will be a pre-sentencing investigation and report on Libby for the judge to consider when he issues his sentence. Under the guidelines, he could get a prison term of about two years.

Question from m123456: I'm confused about how the jury was asking for an explanation from the judge yesterday but comes back so quickly with a verdict.

Fred Graham: We're told there was one holdout, and once the judge clarified the issue that was bothering this juror, the conviction quickly followed.

Question from greenacres: Why don't you think he was convicted on the one charge that he was acquitted on?

Fred Graham: The juror who talked to the press said there were no notes or other documents that the prosecution was able to produce on that one count, so the jury concluded that it was Libby's word against his accuser, and that was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Question from lorene: Do you think the prosecution will try to "flip" Scooter Libby in exchange for lighter sentence or none at all and do you think he'll be pardoned to prevent that from happening?

Fred Graham: The special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, said that his investigation of this case is over. President Bush may very well pardon Libby, but not as a protective measure. There are a good many people who believe that this case should never have been brought in the first place because it did not appear that any law had been broken by the leaks that Libby and others in the administration committed.

Question from lorene: The lone juror speaking to press seemed to feel Karl Rove and others should have been involved in this case also.

Fred Graham: The special prosecutor did not find evidence that the law was broken when the CIA employee's identity was disclosed. Libby was not indicted for leaking the name, but for lying to investigators and the grand jury about the case. Karl Rove apparently did not lie about it, so there was nothing to prosecute him for.

Court TV Host: About the one juror who spoke to the press - he was not only a former reporter for the Washington Post - but he'd written a book about spying - wouldn't writing a book about spying in a case so deeply connected with spying disqualify him as a juror?

Fred Graham: Many observers were surprised that the prosecution allowed Dennis Collins to serve on the jury because he was a former journalist and had written a book about spying. But his background didn't seem to influence his passions as a juror one way or the other.

Question from greenacres: Do you think that Libby and his defense team are now wishing that he had testified?

Fred Graham: That's a difficult question. The jury got to hear his side of the issue when they listened to the audiotapes of the grand jury testimony. If he had testified, he could have been cross-examined on a number of embarrassing points. The juror who talked to the press said that the jury liked Libby and sympathized with his situation. The juror did not suggest that anyone on the jury held it against Libby that he did not testify. So he probably did the wise thing by not testifying. The reality is that the prosecution had a parade of witnesses, nine in all, who contradicted things Libby said, and that was powerful testimony in a perjury case.

Question from googlicious: Ted Wells said he's going to ask for a new trial? On what basis? And on what basis might he appeal?

Fred Graham: The notion for a new trial is a formality that defense lawyers go through before they appeal. It's a way of giving the trial judge the courtesy of allowing him to correct any errors he might have made, before the defense appeals and asks a higher court to do it. The best issue the defense has on appeal is the judge's ruling that because Libby did not take the stand and testify that his mind was occupied and confused by important intelligence matters, his defense lawyers could not raise this point in their summations to the jury. The defense may claim in its appeal that Libby was penalized in his ability to mount a complete defense because he did not take the stand, which he had a right not to do.

Question from luckyga: Didn't Patrick Fitzgerald say in the press conference that Valerie Plame was definitely classified?

Fred Graham: The CIA declared that her status was classified, but leaking classified information alone is not a crime. Fitzgerald was investigating whether the leak violated a statute which prohibits disclosing the identity of a CIA agent who is in deep cover, and the CIA never said Valerie Plame was a deep cover operative.

Question from lorene: Isn't it true the only reason Karl Rove wasn't indicted is because a reporter warned his attorney about a conversation Rove had and didn't disclose, and Rove's atty went to Special Prosecutor and fessed up for Rove?

Fred Graham: That is essentially what happened, but Rove said he had simply forgotten about this and when he immediately remembered, he immediately informed the government through his lawyer. Such things are not unusual, and prosecutors almost always forgive such lapses unless they believe they can prove the lie was deliberate.

Question from igottaknow: Libby is free - and it doesn't look as though he will go to prison until the appeals have played out - isn't that rare that people who are convicted of federal felonies are allowed to remain free until their appeals are played out?

Fred Graham: This is very much in the discretion of the trial judge, and in this case, the judge obviously believes it is not in the interest of justice to hustle Scooter Libby off to prison, before his appeals are heard and decided.

Court TV Host: Thank you for joining us today.