UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
:
- v. :
:
THOMAS W. LIBOUS,
:
:
Defendant.
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

14 Cr. 440 (VB)

GOVERNMENT=S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney for the
Southern District of New York
Attorney for the United States
of America

James McMahon
Benjamin Allee
Assistant United States Attorneys
- Of Counsel -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
:
:
- v. :
:
THOMAS W. LIBOUS,
:
:
Defendant.
:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X

14 Cr. 440 (VB)

GOVERNMENT=S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in
connection with the sentencing of defendant Thomas Libous, now
scheduled for Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 11:00 AM.
I.

Introduction
Contrary to the defendant's repeated claims that his

offense conduct did not involve corruption, his conduct in 2005 and
2006, in which he arranged for a lobbyist who regularly lobbied him
to give his son $50,000, was corrupt in any sense of that word.
Contrary to the defendant's argument that his crime was victimless,
the people of the State of New York are victims whenever, as here,
an elected official abuses the trust the public placed in him by
accepting secret payoffs from lobbyists and by covering up his
conduct.

And, contrary to the defendant's plea for mercy in part

because he lost his job, the opportunity to serve in an elected

position is an honor that must be earned, not an entitlement that
should generate consolation if it is lost.

The defendant's corrupt

conduct and the institutional harm he has caused the gravity of

each of which he evidently has yet to recognize as well as the
1

compelling need for general deterrence are aggravating factors

that, in most circumstances, would call for a custodial sentence in
this case.
At the same time, however, the Court must consider the
defendant's medical condition as part of the defendant's history
and characteristics and the need for the sentence imposed to
provide the defendant with needed medical care pursuant to Section
3553(a).

The Regional Medical Director of the Bureau of Prisons

("BOP") has said that the BOP can provide the defendant with the
same medical care he now receives, most likely at the BOP's
facility in Butner, North Carolina.

The more significant factor

with respect to the defendant's health, however, is his prognosis.

Based on her review of the defendant's medical records, an oncology
expert with whom the Government has consulted shares the opinion of
the defendant's doctors that the defendant likely has one year or
less to live.

As a result, the Government will not seek the

custodial sentence it otherwise would have believed to be

appropriate in this case.
The aggravating factors identified above -- and, most
particularly, the compelling need for general deterrence here -still call for a sentence that sends as strong a message as
possible that our community will not tolerate corruption and
obstruction of justice by elected officials.

The Government

submits that the sentence recommended by the Probation Office of

probation with a significant period of home confinement is
2

appropriate.

Since the defendant has managed to amass a net worth

in excess of $3.4 million (and readily liquid assets of more than

$500,000) after 27 years in the New York State Senate, PSR at 63,
a substantial fine would be an important component of a reasonable
sentence.

Such a sentence would have a sufficient punitive aspect

for this defendant and, therefore, would hopefully deter others

from engaging in corrupt or obstructive conduct.
II.

The Offense Conduct

The evidence at trial proved that the defendant, then a

New York State Senator, made false statements to the FBI during an
interview on June 24, 2010.

The defendant made his false

statements to cover up his corrupt conduct in connection with his

efforts to find his son, Matthew Libous, a job with an inflated
salary in the fall of 2005.

Contrary to his false denials during

the FBI interview, the evidence showed that the defendant:

1) was

actively involved in getting Matthew, then a licensed attorney, a

job at the former Santangelo, Randazzo & Mangone ("SRM") law firm
in Westchester, for $150,000 a year and an $800 monthly car lease
allowance; and 2) caused Ostroff Hiffa, an Albany lobbying firm
that regularly lobbied him, to contribute $50,000 a year toward
Matthew's salary at SRM.
In September 2005, Matthew Libous was working as a lawyer
at the New York Liquidation Bureau, a New York State agency that
was then part of the New York State Department of Insurance.
Matthew and the defendant believed Matthew was not making enough
3

money there, even after the Liquidation Bureau gave him a $10,000
raise effective September 12, 2005.

That raise brought Matthew's

total salary to more than $86,000.

The defendant began his scheme to find Matthew a job that
paid more money on September 17, five days after the $10,000 raise
became effective, by turning to his friend, Fred Hiffa.

Hiffa was

a lobbyist at the Albany lobbying firm of Ostroff Hiffa who

represented clients in the transportation industry, such as the New
York State Association of Town Superintendents of Highways; the
Liquid Asphalt Distributors association; Adirondack Pine Hills New
York Trailways; and Fahs-Rolston Paving Corp.

At that time, the

defendant was the chairman of the Senate's Transportation

Committee, which gave him influence over how New York State spent
its transportation dollars.

At that time, Hiffa met with the

defendant to lobby him on behalf of Ostroff Hiffa's transportation

clients as often as once a week or once every two weeks.

Hiffa and

the defendant were also personal friends who socialized with each
other outside of work hours.
In addition to calling Hiffa, the defendant also called
Nicholas Spano, who was then a New York State Senator from the
Westchester area, on September 17.
friends as well as colleagues.

The defendant and Spano were

Spano was also the defendant's

contact with Anthony Mangone, who was Spano's Senate counsel and
former chief of staff.
defendant knew Mangone.

Mangone was also a partner of SRM.

The

Mangone would often have dinner with the

4

defendant, Spano and others in Albany when the legislature was in

session.

Mangone also traveled to Florida with Spano, the

defendant and others on annual trips sponsored by Spano on the

Martin Luther King Day holiday weekend.

The defendant called Spano

because he wanted to see if Mangone would hire Matthew at his law

firm.

Mangone testified that he first heard about the defendant's

interest in getting Matthew a new job through Spano.

A.

The Defendant Arranged for His

Son's Job in the Fall of 2005
1.

The Defendant's Initial Contact with Mangone

After speaking on the telephone with Spano, Hiffa and

Matthew for weeks, the defendant called Mangone directly on October
14, 2005.

The defendant asked Mangone if SRM would be interested

in hiring his son as an associate for $50,000 a year.

The

defendant explained that he had already arranged for Ostroff Hiffa

to pay his son $100,000 a year.

Mangone responded that he believed

his firm would be interested in hiring Matthew.

Immediately after he hung up with Mangone, the defendant
called Matthew and spoke to him for 15 minutes.

This call was the

longest call the defendant had with Mathew in the phone records the
Government has for 2005.
at 5:10 PM.

Matthew and Mangone spoke later that day

These calls between the defendant and Matthew and

Matthew and Mangone confirm Mangone's testimony that the defendant

spoke with him about hiring Matthew on October 14.

2.

The Defendant's Trotters Dinner

Meeting with Mangone and Santangelo

Three days later, on October 17, the defendant and

Matthew had dinner with Mangone, Santangelo and Spano at Trotter's
restaurant in White Plains.

The evidence, including the

defendant's credit card records and hotel bills, showed that he was
in this area on the night of October 17 and that he left his staff
at the hotel and went out to dinner that night.

Mangone's credit

card records confirm this dinner meeting as well, as they show

charges totaling more than $1,000 at Trotters on October 17.
Mangone, Santangelo and the defendant talked about
Matthew's new job at SRM.

They talked about how the firm would pay

Matthew $50,000 a year and Ostroff Hiffa would pay Matthew $100,000
a year.

The defendant told Mangone and Santangelo that he would

help them get so much new business for the firm that they would
"have to build a new wing" onto their office to handle all the
work.

The deal for Matthew's new job was largely cut at that

dinner.
3.

The Defendant Made the Final

Arrangments with Mangone
Following the Trotter's Dinner

Following the dinner, there was increased telephone

contact between Matthew and Mangone as they talked about Matthew's
starting date and other details.

The defendant also kept in touch

with Mangone in the days after the Trotters dinner, including a

direct call from the defendant to Mangone at some point between

October 19 and October 28.

The evidence showed the defendant

talked about two things with Mangone after the October 17 dinner:
1) the arrangement by which Ostroff Hiffa would pay part of
Matthew's salary; and 2) whether SRM would make lease payments for
a car for Matthew.
a.

The Defendant Arranged for

An Albany Lobbyist to Pay
Part of His Son's Salary

The defendant's original plan had been for Ostroff Hiffa

to pay Matthew $100,000 a year and for SRM to pay Matthew $50,000 a
year.

In the days following the Trotters dinner, the defendant

proposed switching the amounts so that SRM paid $100,000 a year and
that Ostroff Hiffa paid Matthew $50,000 a year.

The defendant told

Mangone that Hiffa was uncomfortable paying Matthew $100,000 if he

was going to be working full time for Mangone's firm.
agreed to this arrangement.

Mangone

He did so even though Matthew's salary

from the law firm alone of $100,000 -- much less his total
compensation of $150,000 -- was far above the market rate for an
attorney of Matthew's experience in Westchester at the time.
Mangone paid his more experienced associates less than $100,000 a
year.
The defendant was also worried about the public
perception of a lobbying firm that lobbied him paying money to his
son.

He asked that Mangone's firm to take the $50,000 in from

Ostroff Hiffa and to pay it out to Matthew, apparently to prevent

anyone from seeing money going straight from Ostroff Hiffa to
7

Matthew.

Mangone agreed and papered over this arrangement with a

retainer agreement.
At the same time, Hiffa was working to convince Richard
Ostroff, the principal owner of Ostroff Hiffa, to "retain" SRM so
that Ostroff Hiffa could contribute $50,000 toward Matthew's
salary.

Ostroff did not see a need for Ostroff Hiffa to retain a

law firm.

He was also concerned about the perception of Ostroff

Hiffa retaining a law firm that had just hired the son of a state
Senator that it lobbied on a regular basis.

The $50,000 payment

was also a large expense for Ostroff Hiffa, which had annual
revenue of $1.8 to $2 million a year at that time.

Despite these

concerns, Ostroff eventually agreed to the arrangement.

At trial,

he was unable to identify or describe any work that the law firm or
Matthew Libous did for the $50,000, despite having conducted a
search for such work product in response to a subpoena.
The $50,000 came into SRM from Ostroff Hiffa in
increments of $4,166 a month.

While Matthew was working at the

firm, SRM took out deductions for taxes and FICA and paid the rest
to Matthew.

After the firm fired Matthew in or about September

2006, SRM simply paid out the entire $4,166 to Matthew within days
of receiving that money from Ostroff Hiffa each month.

That

indicates that Ostroff Hiffa was not really a client of the firm
and the money was not really for legal work.

Mangone testified

that had Ostroff Hiffa been a firm client, the firm would not have
passed all the money through to Matthew.
8

The firm would have taken

some of the money for overhead, such as support staff, rent,

telephone, the copiers and electricity.

Further, had Ostroff Hiffa

actually been a legal client of Matthew's, Matthew would have told

them when he left SRM and Ostroff Hiffa would then have sent the
legal fees to him.
b.

The Defendant Arranged for SRM

To Make His Son's Car Lease Payments

The second thing the defendant discussed with Mangone in

the days after the Trotters dinner was that the defendant wanted to
be sure that Matthew got a car as part of his pay at SRM.
agreed to that.

Mangone

He did so despite the fact that he did not give

his other, more experienced, associates any payments for a car.

Matthew then leased a Range Rover at $1,100 a month on
October 27.

When Mangone learned about the Range Rover a few weeks

later, he told Matthew that SRM could not, and would not, make
lease payments in that amount.

SRM eventually ended up

contributing $800 a month to Matthew's lease payments and Matthew

was liable for the remainder.
In his application to lease the car, Matthew claimed that
he had been working at "Sirvino & Santangelo" 1 for one month and
that he made $12,500 a month, which works out to be $150,000 a
year.

That document shows that the deal that SRM would pay Matthew

Servino & Santangelo was the name of SRM in October 2005. Among other things,
Matthew's lease application belies the defendant's suggestion at trial that Matthew
started work at the firm in October 2005. Matthew obviously was not all that familiar
with the firm at the end of October 2005 because he spelled the firm's name wrong on
his lease application.

a total of $150,000 and a car was done by the time Matthew executed
this lease application on October 27.
4.

The Defendant Met Mangone Again

For Dinner in New York City

Mangone and Santangelo went to a fundraiser the defendant

held on October 27, 2005 at the Penn Club in New York City.
testimony confirms that Mangone was there.

Trial

He testified that a

former football player for the New York Jets, who had played for
the Jets in the 1969 Super Bowl -- the one and only year the Jets
won the Super Bowl -- was at the fundraiser.

Mary Lee, the

defendant's long-time employee on his Senate staff, also testified

that there was a former Jets football player who played in the
Super Bowl at the fundraiser.
Following the fundraiser, Mangone, the defendant and
Santangelo went out to dinner at the La Cite restaurant.

Credit

card records confirm Mangone and Santangelo attended this dinner.

B.

Matthew's Drunken Behavior at the SRM

Holiday Party Jeopardized His New Job
SRM held a holiday party on Saturday, December 17, 2005

at Emilio's restaurant in Harrison.

As the firm's new associate

who was scheduled to start work that January, Matthew attended the
party.

Lisa Santangelo, who was Michael Santangelo's wife at that

time, also attended the party.

Ms. Santangelo had broken her leg a

few days before and was in a cast.

She testified that Matthew got

drunk and, in her words, "hit on" her.

Ms. Santangelo was unable

to move away from Matthew because she didn't have her crutches.
10

Someone had to bring her crutches to her so that she could move to
another table.
The pattern of telephone calls that night and the next
few days confirms that the defendant realized that his son's
conduct was going to be a problem.

As the defendant's cell phone

records show, the defendant was in Florida on the night of the

holiday party on December 17.
minutes at 9:09.

The defendant called Matthew for two

At 11:32 that night, the defendant called Matthew

again for a two minute call.

The last relevant call that night was

from Matthew to Mangone at 1:11 AM for a minute.

Matthew's call to Mangone at the late hour of 1:11 AM
indicates that Matthew knew how serious a problem he had.
had already resigned from the Liquidation Bureau.
there was December 23, the next Friday.

Matthew

His last day

If Mangone's firm did not

take him on as planned, Matthew would be out of a job.

Matthew went into damage control over the next several
days.

He spoke to his father over the next few days and also had

several calls with Mangone.

Mangone testified that he and Matthew

were talking about the impact Matthew's behavior had on his pending
job and whether he would be able to work at the firm at all.
Within a few days of the incident, Matthew had apologized over the
phone to Ms. Santangelo and sent her flowers.
The defendant also engaged in damage control.
Mangone and Santangelo to meet with him in person.

He asked

Mangone and

Santangelo went up to Albany on January 4, 2006 and met with the

11

defendant in the defendant's office in the capitol office building.

During this meeting, the defendant assured Mangone and Santangelo
that Matthew would not repeat his behavior.

He repeated his

promise to steer work to SRM.

Mangone had held off on bringing Matthew on board but the
defendant's repeated promise to steer work to SRM was enough to
convince him and Santangelo to go ahead with the plan to hire
Matthew.

As the firm records show, Matthew started work at the

firm on Friday, January 6, 2006, two days after Mangone and

Santangelo met with the defendant in Albany.
C.

Matthew's Performance at SRM

SRM initially paid Matthew at a rate of $150,000 a year.

Within a few months, Santangelo and Mangone reduced Matthew's

salary to $100,000 a year because the defendant had not referred
any work to the firm and because Matthew had not performed well.
Matthew's attendance was poor.

He once failed to appear in court

and he lied to Mangone and Santangelo about where he was when he

should have been in court.

Santangelo and Mangone eventually

discovered that Matthew had secretly continued with his own

practice of law on the side.

In or about September 2006,

Santangelo and Mangone let Matthew go.

As described above, SRM

passed through to Matthew the entirety of each of the $4,166

payments it thereafter received from Ostroff Hiffa each month
through December 2006.

12

D.

The Defendant's False Statements to the FBI

On June 24, 2010, the FBI conducted simultaneous

interviews of the defendant, Matthew, Hiffa and Ostroff as part of

its investigation into this matter.
defendant in his Albany office.

The FBI interviewed the

During the interview, the

defendant made the following statements, each of which was charged

as a materially false statement in the indictment:

1)

he could

not recall how his son began to work at SRM; 2) no deals were made
to get Matthew the job at SRM; 3) he was not aware that Ostroff
Hiffa had paid any part of Matthew's salary at SRM; 4) he never
promised to refer work to SRM; 5) he was not involved in his son's
decision to work at SRM; 6) he had no personal or business
relationship with SRM; and 7) he did not know of any relationship
between SRM and Ostroff Hiffa.
III. Application of the Relevant Section 3553(a) Factors
An analysis of the relevant Section 3553(a) factors shows
that the sentence recommended by the Probation Office, along with a
substantial fine, would be the appropriate sentence in this case.
A.

The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

The defendant's crime was a serious one.

He lied to the

FBI to cover up his conduct in 2005 and 2006, which conduct can
only be characterized as corrupt.

The evidence proved that the

defendant sought, and received, a $50,000 payoff over twelve months

in 2006 from a lobbyist that regularly lobbied him, then as
Chairman of the Senate's Transportation Committee, on behalf of the
13

lobbyist's clients in the transportation industry.

There is little

practical difference between the defendant's arrangement for, and

acceptance of, this $50,000 and a hypothetical passage of $50,000
in cash from lobbyist to legislator in a brown paper bag under a
table in a diner.

The breach of public trust and the corrosive

effect on our political system is the same.

Few lobbyists would give a legislator $50,000 without a
reasonable expectation of getting something in return.

That is

particularly true where, as here, the $50,000 was paid by a firm

that had $1.8 to $2 million in revenue in 2006.

There was also no

temporal limit on Matthew's employment at Mangone's firm and the

defendant likely hoped that the lobbyist's monthly payments would
continue indefinitely.

That hope is in direct conflict with the

defendant's duty to the people of New York to spend the State's

transportation dollars as efficiently and effectively as possible,
without regard to personal interests.

The people of this State did

not get the objective review of transportation projects and

contractors to which they were entitled from their Senate
Transportation Committee chairman.

Further, contractors and

vendors in the transportation industry who did not know enough to

retain the lobbyist that was paying off the Transportation
Committee chairman and his son did not get the fair hearing and
consideration that they expected and to which they were entitled as
well.

14

The defendant knew the payments he arranged from the

lobbying firm to his son were wrong, as evidenced by the steps he
took to conceal the payments.

First, as Mangone testified, the

defendant proposed laundering the payments by having SRM bill the

lobbying firm to create the appearance that the payments were legal
fees.

That testimony was corroborated by the false retainer

agreement between SRM and the lobbying firm, as well as by the

monthly bills from SRM to the lobbying firm that the Government was
able to find.

Second, the defendant obstructed the FBI's

investigation of this matter when he lied to them repeatedly about

it during his 2010 interview.

Third, the defendant repeated some

of those lies to the public, including his constituents, in a press

release and press conference in 2012.

The defendant, in falsely

denying Mangones account when he knew full well that Mangone had
simply told the truth about what transpired between the two men,
went so far as to say he would pray for him because he needs
help. 2

The
press
trial
which

Government will provide a copy of the audio recording and/or a transcript of the
conference, which the defendant gave following Mangones testimony in the Annabi
and the resulting guilty verdicts, should the Court request it. The portion to
the Government herein refers was the following:
Q:
Senator Tom, your opponents would say the jury believed you- uh
Mangone, the he was under oath. Why should we have uh
reason to doubt his credibility?
A:
Well Im not so sure the jury did believe him. But I will tell you
this that, uh, it was reported by um by a couple of lawyers in the case
that he was a serial perjurer and that he was morally bankrupt um I would
say that, uh, you would have to believe my word over his. And I would ask
my constituents based on the trust that I have given them, to trust me
and believe me over someone whos, uh, who has admitted perjury. (Pause)
Any other questions on this topic? As you can tell that I feel rather
serious about this. This has not been a a good three weeks for me, um, to
see my name dragged through the media. But I understand. Im a public

15

The corrosive effect of the defendant's corrupt conduct,

and conduct like it by other elected officials, is undeniable.
Every time a public official commits a crime, his conduct taints
the body in which he serves and the government as a whole.

It

helps perpetuate the belief, now common among New Yorkers, that New
York's government is hopelessly corrupt. 3

It taints unfairly those

elected officials who are law-abiding and who serve their

constituents with integrity.

Finally, one of the most damaging

effects of corrupt conduct is that it discourages many honest

citizens who would otherwise volunteer for public service from
getting involved at a time when their service is sorely needed.
B.

History and Characteristics of the Defendant

Rather than now owning up to his serious unethical,

destructive, criminal conduct, the defendant continues to minimize

the nature of his offense by claiming repeatedly that his conduct
was not corrupt.

His statements since the jurys guilty verdict

official. I have to be exposed to these things. But I would hope that

you, uh, you would, uh, heed what I am saying to you today and, um, give
me now the opportunity to have my statement, um, out there. Yes, sir?
Q:

If you were in a room with Mr. Mangone, what would you tell him?

A:
You know what Jeff, I am Christian and I feel- I feel badly for
him. He is a flawed character. I mean if you read the articles published
by your sister newspapers and whatever, um, about the gambling debts and
about his life and alcoholism and drugs, um, you know what? I would would
pray for him because its sad. But on the other hand, on the other hand,
I am certainly not happy about what he said but I would, I would- I would
pray for him. He needs help.
3

That such a belief is common among New Yorkers became apparent on the first day of
trial in this case, when the Court asked the courtroom full of potential jurors if
they had seen any stories in the media about politicians being charged with crimes.
The responding laughter from the potential jurors spoke volumes about the lack of
confidence the public in New York has in its state government.

16

show that he is either unable or unwilling to acknowledge the

serious nature of his conduct.
For example, the defendant told the media on the
courthouse steps immediately after his arraignment that "[t]heres
no bribery charges, theres no conspiracy charges . . ..

You cant

compare that to some of the other charges that I think some of my

colleagues have [been] through.

"GOP State Senator Indicted on

Charge of Lying to FBI," New York Post, July 1, 2014.

Two weeks

later, he said during a radio interview that "[y]ou know there was
no bribery charges. There were no corruption charges. Um, you know
like, I know people are saying, uh, ya know, everything thats
going on in Albany, but there was no bribery, corruption,
conspiracy, nothing like that."

Gov. Ex. 13 (attached hereto but

not admitted at trial).

Even though these pretrial statements went beyond a mere
denial of guilt, they could still be viewed as efforts by a
politician to put the best spin on a bad situation.

The defendant,

however, showed he really believed what he was saying when he

continued with his denials of corruption after the trial, after he
left the Senate, after there was a need for him to cultivate voters
and after it would have been in his interest to acknowledge the
serious nature of his offense.

In his sentencing submission, the

defendant continued to deny that his actions were corrupt.

Def.

Br. at 5-6 ("Defendant's actions were not 'corrupt' as that term is

traditionally defined").

He also suggested that his conduct in

17

2005 and 2006 was nothing more than his "assist[ing] his son in
obtaining a job."

Def. Br. at 6.

In his letter to the Court, he

said only two things about his conduct:

1) that he never sent

business to SRM; and 2) that he did not propose bills that "would
benefit the lobbyist that hired the law firm." 4
13.

Docket No. 73-13 at

The defendant, however, misses the points that he took the

$50,000 from the lobbyist, that he created a clear conflict of

interest as a result and that he concealed his conduct by causing
the payments to his son to be laundered and by obstructing the
FBI's investigation of his conduct.
Not surprisingly, the defendant has been able to muster a
substantial number of letters from his friends and family and those
whom he has helped in the past.

While the Court should consider

these letters, the voices of those who have been betrayed by the
defendant's conduct -- the citizens of New York -- must also be
heard.

Further, a review of the letters shows that many of the

authors, while well-meaning, did not fully appreciate the serious

nature of the defendant's conduct.

Instead, they repeated the

defendant's theme that the defendant had lied about nothing more
than obtaining a job for his son.
It is curious, to say the least, that the defendnat would
offer his public service and good deeds as mitigating factors.

It

was, after all, his position as a public official that gave him the
4

The defendant, however, did presumably have an influence over how the State spent
its transportation dollars and voted on transportation budgets during the relevant
years. Undoubtedly, the lobbying firm recognized that the defendant enjoyed that
influence.

18

ability to persuade a lobbying firm to pay his son $50,000 for

nothing in return.

While the defendant may have done good deeds

for his constituents, as described in many of the letters, those

acts must be viewed in light of the fact that the defendant was
elected and paid to serve his constituents.

The good deeds

described in the letters describe the kind of conduct that is to be

expected from a State Senator toward his constituents -- especially
a State Senator who hopes to generate goodwill that can lead to reelection.
Charitable works by professionally successful defendants
rarely, if ever, are materially mitigating factors at sentencing
because courts recognize that it is usual and ordinary for such
defendants to be involved in charities and churches.

See, e.g.,

United States v. Barbera, 2005 WL 2709112 at * 12-13 (S.D.N.Y.

2005), citing United States v. McClatchey, 316 F.3d 1122, 1135
(10th Cir. 2003)(community involvement not out of the ordinary for
high ranking businessmen; "[l]ikewise, excellent character
references are not out of the ordinary [for white collar
defendant]; one would be surprised to see a person rise to an
elevated position in business if people did not think highly of him
or her");

United States v. Kolbach, 38 F.3d 832, 838 (6th Cir.

1994)("it is usual and ordinary, in the prosecution of white-collar

crimes involving high-ranking corporate executives . . . to find
that a defendant was involved as a leader in community charities .
. . and church efforts") (emphasis in original); United States v.
19

Haversat, 22 F.3d 790, 796 (8th Cir. 1994)("high-level business

executives . . . enjoy sufficient income and community status so
that they have the opportunities to engage in charitable and
benevolent activities").
The defendant's argument that the loss of his seat in
the State Senate should be a mitigating factor is misplaced.

The

defendant abused the influence that came with his position by

causing the lobbying firm to pay his son the $50,000.

He then lied

about that conduct to cover up what he knew to be his wrongful act,

which led to his conviction.

He can hardly now point to his

expulsion from the Senate as a factor to be considered in his

favor.

Further, the opportunity to serve in an elected position is

an honor that must be earned, not an entitlement that should

generate consolation if it is lost through a wrongful act.
The defendant's continued denials, minimization and lack
of remorse for his conduct are aggravating factors that the Court
should consider in fashioning an appropriate sentence in this case.
C.

Need for the Sentence Imposed to Promote Respect

for the Law and to Afford Adequate Deterrence
The public perception that New York's legislature is

corrupt is not baseless.

Since 2010, thirteen New York legislators

have been convicted or found guilty of felony charges and

additional cases are pending.

Given the harm caused by public

corruption and the extent of the corruption problem in New York,

the sentence here needs to send a message that violations of public

20

trust will not be met simply with tough talk but with a significant
sentence in order to deter others.

While the defendant is no

longer in the State Senate, his refusal to acknowledge the serious

nature of his conduct and his lack of remorse are factors
demonstrating the need for specific deterrence as well.
D.

Need for the Sentence to Provide Just Punishment

As described in more detail above, the serious nature of

the defendant's offense and related conduct, his lack of remorse

and the need to deter others warrant a significant sentence in this
case.
E.

Need for the Sentence to Provide the Defendant

With Medical Care and the Kinds of Sentences Available
Should the Court impose a custodial sentence, the Bureau

of Prisons would be able to provide the defendant with the same

medical care he receives now at Memorial Sloan Kettering.

If the

Court imposes a probation with a condition of home confinement, an

exception could be made to permit the defendant to leave his home
for medical treatment.
F.

The Sentencing Guidelines

To the extent that the Court determines it must resolve

disputes between the parties regarding the application of the

Sentencing Guidelines, the Government notes additionally that it
agrees with the Probation Office regarding application of the twolevel enhancement for the defendants abuse of a position of public

21

trust.

U.S.S.G. 3B1.3. 5

The defendant argues that this

enhancement is inapplicable because (1) no identifiable victim

entrusted the defendant, and (2) he did not hold a position of
public trust with respect to the offense of conviction, that is, he
did not abuse a position of public trust by lying to the FBI.

For

the reasons below, the Government disagrees.

Section 3B1.3 sets forth a two-level enhancement that
applies [i]f the defendant abused a position of public . . . trust
. . . in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or
concealment of the offense.

The Guidelines specify that [t]he

determination of a defendants role in the offense [under Section

3, Part B, which includes the adjustment for abuse of a position of
public trust], is to be made on the basis of all conduct within the
scope of 1B1.3(a)(1)-(4) [relevant conduct], and not solely on
the basis of the elements and acts cited in the count of
conviction.

Relevant conduct includes, among other things,

conduct that was part of the same common scheme or plan, which
includes offenses that are substantially connected to each other
by at least one common factor, such as common victims [and] . . .
common purpose.

U.S.S.G. 1B1.3(a)(1)(2) and App. Note 9.

Courts have found that when a defendant is convicted of making

false statements, the conduct he sought to conceal by making those
5

The Government also took the position with the Probation Office that upward
departures were warranted because the offense level substantially understates the
seriousness of the offense, see U.S.S.G. 2B1.1 Note 20(A)(i), and because the
defendant committed the offense in order to conceal the commission of another offense,
see U.S.S.G. 5K2.9. While the Government still believes these departures would be
warranted, it also believes it is unnecessary for the Court to rule on these
departures given its recommendation of what the sentence should be.

22

statements may be relevant conduct.

See United States v.

Friedberg, 558 F.3d 131, 133-34 (2d Cir. 2009)(basing 3B1.3

enhancement on relevant conduct); see, e.g., United States v.
McConnell, 273 Fed. Appx. 351 (5th Cir. 2008)(unpublished); United
States v. Lewis, 113 Fed. Appx. 336, 337-39 (10th Cir.
2004)(unpublished) ([T]he district court did not err in finding
the conduct was part of a common scheme or plan under USSG
1B1.3(a)(2) since [the defendants] false statements were designed
to evade detection of her thefts.).
Here, the defendant abused his position of public trust
in connection with the bribery scheme in which he participated in
violation of, among other things, 18 U.S.C. 666 or 1341, 1343
& 1346.

These offenses were part of a common scheme with the

offense of conviction for the defendants making false statements.

The defendant, while head of the Senates Transportation Committee,
solicited and obtained from a transportation lobbyist a $50,000
payment for the defendants son, for which there was no business or
other purpose.

While his son received the monthly installments of

this bribe, the defendant engaged in official acts to the

lobbyists benefit, such as by meeting weekly with the
transportation lobbyist, who lobbied the defendant on matters that
were the subject of the Senators discretion as an elected official
and head of the Transportation Committee.
The defendant thereby abused his position of public
trust, as the citizens of New York State had entrusted him to act
23

in their best interests, not the financial interests of his family.

And the defendants bribery scheme, and his lying to the FBI about
the bribery scheme, were part of a common scheme.

They had common

victims the citizens of New York who expected the defendant to

act in their interest and not to cover up their failure to do so
when it is under investigation and a common purpose the
enrichment of the defendants son through the secret use of the
defendants power.

24

CONCLUSION
The sentence in this case should send as robust a message
as possible under the circumstances that corruption in government
will not be tolerated and will be met with vigorous prosecution and
punishment.

The Government submits that, for the reasons stated

above, the Probation Office's recommendation, along with a

substantial fine, would strike the right balance in this case.
Dated: November 9, 2015
White Plains, NY

Respectfully submitted,
PREET BHARARA
United States Attorney
/s
By:

cc:

_________________________________
James McMahon
Benjamin Allee
Assistant United States Attorneys
(914) 993-1936/1962

Paul DerOhannesian II, Esq. (by ECF)

25

GX 13-T

DATE:

July 8, 2014

LOCATION:

New York, NY

PARTICIPANTS:

Thomas Libous
Bob Joseph

ABBREVIATIONS: (UI) = Unintelligible

____________________________________________________
BOB JOSEPH:

We welcome back to the program New

York State Senator Thomas Libous.
Good Morning, Senator Libous.

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Good Morning, Bob Joseph. How are

you?

BOB JOSEPH:

Im ok, but more importantly, how are

you?

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Well, Im good. Im very good actually.

Um were doing good, um, you know,
unfortunate circumstances last week, but
um, um were confident that things will
go well, very confident actually. And, uh,
um, you know were just gonna work
through it and continue to do my job as
the Senator for the people of the 52nd
district.
1

GX 13-T

BOB JOSEPH:

Now I was away last week, a week ago

today, so, and, and of course sadly, uh,
well news travels fast and bad news
travels faster. So, even though I was
away, I heard quickly about the
announcement from the FBI and from the
U.S. Attorney, Preet Bharara that you and
your son had been indicted. Tell me about
the sequence of events. What happened
last Tuesday? How did this all transpire
at least as so far as you were concerned?

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Well, we, we, we got a call from our

attorneys on Monday, and uh, they told
us that uh, an investigation that had been
going on, at least with me, I can speak for
me better, uh, had ended and that I uh,
that I was going to be um, arrested on a
charge, of one charge of lying to an FBI
agent. And um, at that time uh, I said to
my attorney what do we do next, and I
met him in White Plains, and we went
through the arraignment. And, um, the,
the process actually was, was a good
process. They were very respectful. We
went through the arraignment process and
um, and then uh, it was completed. We,
we came back uhactually I was in New
York for treatment. Im in New York for
treatment this week. And I do want to
2

GX 13-T

Bob, hopefully youll save some time so

that I can dispel any rumors that are out
there because I think thats very
important about my health, and I want to
be able to do that. But um, in the process
was completed, and um, as I said, as I
said, several years ago and I said recently
um, you know um, were, were innocent
of these charges, were, were not guilty
of these charges, and um, were gonna
fight them. You know there was no
bribery charges. There were no
corruption charges. Um, you know like, I
know people are saying, uh, ya know,
everything thats going on in Albany, but
there was no bribery, corruption,
conspiracy, nothing like that. There were
no, there werent even any charges here
that dealt with anything that was alleged
about me and my son. It was just, uh, the
only charge is that I lied to the FBI, or...I,
I, I prefer to say false statements to an
FBI in an interview, which I didnt do by
the way. Im not guilty of.
BOB JOSEPH:

But, and again, as you provide the

context here, it certainly is a case that
differs from many of the other highly
publicized uh, corruption cases over the
years involving some Democrats and
3

GX 13-T

some Republicans in Albany and New

York City. The fact is even one count of
lying to the FBI, this a very serious
matter.
THOMAS LIBOUS:

Oh, theres no question about it. If you, if

you did it or if it took place, it is a very
serious matter, but um you know, the one
thing that I just want to continue to, to
stress is that um, you know, this situation
um, did not, this indictment did not, you
know again, have any conspiracy,
bribery. Uh, its, its really not a
corruption charge. Its a, its a charge of a
false statement. And, yeah, it is, it is
serious. And um, were gonna have our
day in Court. We look forward to it. Um,
were gonna, were gonna prove that we
are, that we are not guilty of any of this
um, of this particular charge and uh,
were gonna move forward.

BOB JOSEPH:

Now the assertion according to the

indictment, according to the news release
that was issued a week ago today, FBI
agents interviewed you a little over four
years ago. It says June 24, 2010 as part
of a grand jury investigation. And, their
assertion is that uh, during the interview
you could not recall how your son began
4

GX 13-T

working at a law firm. I believe thats the

law firm that weve talked about in the
past because of testimony that came up in
an unrelated uh, case in Westchester
County. So, they make certain, certain
stipulations, certain allegations. So, they
seem to be pretty sure of themselves. It
seems to me that Preet Bharara, the U.S.
Attorney, would not move on something
this serious unless he felt there was a
reasonable chance of, of prevailing if the
case actually goes to trial.
THOMAS LIBOUS:

Bob, all I, all I can really share with you

and your listeners at this time is that,
look, Im very confident. My attorney is
very confident that um, well be able to
um, prevail and well go to court
sometime soon, I dont know when. And
um, I would ask that the people who have
supported me so strongly over the past 26
years would um, would be patient and,
and look at the, you know, at the good
things that Ive done as Senator and not
presume guilt before one is been proven
innocent. And, that is our court system in,
in this country and Im telling you that
Im very confident of, um, of, of winning
this case and um, were not guilty of, of
the charges, and I really cant get into too
5

GX 13-T

much more at this time because it will

um, it will all come out and prevail at the,
at the right time. Um, I feel very good
about it and I mean that.
BOB JOSEPH:

Well, its 9:37 and were talking live with

State Senator Thomas Libous. Im Bob
Joseph from the Binghamton Now studio.
Senator Libous is um, joining us now by
phone from New York City. Now a little
over a year ago Im sure youll recall, we
had a prolonged discussion after
Bloomberg put out a report that, that
suggests the FBI was looking at some of
your personal financial dealings. And,
and one of the things that we talked about
at that time was of course a couple years
ago, then Binghamton Mayor Matthew
Ryan, filed a formal complaint with the
Joint Commission on Public Ethics,
JCOPE, um, because he wanted some
matters looked into. Uh, we, after the
Bloomberg story came out, in fact, it just
coincided I think that day when we were
already scheduled to speak, I asked you a
bit about people uh, who had questioned
you regarding various things. And this is
just a portion of that interview that goes
back to May of last year:
6

GX 13-T

So, have you been interviewed by

any JCOPE representatives?
THOMAS LIBOUS:

BOB JOSEPH:

Are you asking me now?

Have you been um, contacted at all

by the FBI or any other state
investigators?

THOMAS LIBOUS: No.

BOB JOSEPH:

Do you expect to be?

THOMAS LIBOUS: Um, I, you know, I dont know. Its

just that this is a, obviously a
statement that somebody made to a
reporter. I dont know what the
content means and uh, um, I cant, I
cant answer that. I really cant
answer that.
BOB JOSEPH:

Ok, now Senator Libous were back live.

Now the reason I played that excerpt
some people who heard that from May of
last year wanted me to ask about the
assertion that you hadnt spoken with
anybody from the FBI, and they wanted
me to at least ask you to clarify because
obviously now that um, the indictment
7

GX 13-T

says that you had conversations with FBI

agents going back to 2010.
THOMAS LIBOUS:

Um, those conversations in 2010, I think

uh, I thought were, were a little different.
When you asked me that question I
thought you were talking about recently.

BOB JOSEPH:

Ok, so uh, and this

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Im not, Im not, and you know what

when your--, when theres an
investigation going on um, those, those
um, issues um, um, are, are not issues
that you were instructed to talk about.

BOB JOSEPH:

In fact, when, in, in excuse me for asking,

it sounds uh

THOMAS LIBOUS:

No, go ahead.

BOB JOSEPH:

...because again, un-, fortunately for me I

hadnt had to be questioned by, by
Federal investigators, but when they are
investigating allegations, and as you
know, you know as much as anybody
else, anybody can make allegations and
allegations are made, they ultimately,
frequently are investigated. When federal
officials, FBI agents or others are, are
8

GX 13-T

asking you questions, do they also say

afterwards that you, you really had better
not talk about this while were
investigating?
THOMAS LIBOUS:

Well, Im not, Im not gonna get into

that. I mean, you might wanna reach out
to them and theyll talk to you about how
they do their investigations.

BOB JOSEPH:

Okay.

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Its really not a place for me to go right

now.

BOB JOSEPH:

Okay, well, then youll understand

though my, uh, need to ask, just...

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Yeah, no, sure, but

BOB JOSEPH:

So, now what happens we, we have heard

for example, the State Republican
Chairman Ed Cox has said its his belief
and many other Republicans, and some
non-Republicans around the state they
contend that the action by Preet Bharara
and the Justice Department is politically
motivated. Whats your impression?

GX 13-T

THOMAS LIBOUS:

I, you know, I wasnt privy to that. Im

down in the city this week, uh, Im
finishing up some treatments and Ill be
very honest with you, Im, Im not, Im
not privy to Ed Coxs statements, or
where he made those statements.

BOB JOSEPH:

You dont, uh, have a personal opinion

about whether politics were involved?

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Bob, people, people can make whatever

statements they want. I will tell you this.
Um, the, the charges against me deal with
a false statement to the FBI. Um, we will
deal with those charges. We are innocent
of those charges, and um, um, were
gonna continue to do our job every day,
the job that I was elected to do. And, um,
other people can make whatever
comments they want. And, they can
make whatever assertions they want. Uh,
but my, my uh, my plan here is to
continue to work on the behalf of the
people of the 52nd district. Ive got some
things that we, we need to continue to
work on every day as they do Im doing
my job. Im working around my health
concerns and uh, you know, other people
will make whatever comments they want.
Im not gonna, Im not gonna get into, to
10

GX 13-T

uh the validity of peoples--, everybodys

has an opinion, everybodys entitled to
make.
BOB JOSEPH:

I would want to ask for your reaction to

this though; Rob Astorino, the
Republican candidate for Governor, the
other day tweeted, and, and uh, at a link
to the New York Times editorial, which
uh, cited your, your recent indictment,
Rob Astorino, Westchester County
Executive and Republican candidate for
Governor, tweeted, that it stands as a
reminder that Mr. Cuomo has failed to
make good on his promise to clean up
Albany. Thats a pulled quote from the
New York Times editorial. So, Rob
Astorino, the Republican candidate, is
using your current indictment situation
to, to suggest that this is tied into
Governor Cuomos efforts to improve the
ethical situation in Albany. What was
your reaction to that?

THOMAS LIBOUS:

My reaction is thats unfortunate and he

shouldnt.

BOB JOSEPH:

Were you surprised?

11

GX 13-T

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Um, Bob, Ive been in politics for a long

time. Nothing surprises me at this point.
Nothing surprises me. As I said, people
are entitled to their opinion and uh, hes
running for Governor. Hes gonna do
whatever he I guess ah, has to do to get
elected Governor. And, thats his
business, but uh, Im, Im not gonna
waste any time, you know, thinking about
what people say. Im gonna work
forward. I will tell you this. Um, over the
course of the last week, I have gotten
hundreds of emails and letters and notes
from people and uh, of encouragement
from the district and I think thats great.
And, Facebook page, we got over a
thousand likes on some of the statements
we made. So the support from my district
for me, uh, has been overwhelming. Im
excited about it and gonna keep working
hard on behalf of people that I worked
hard for for over 26 years. And, I will,
um, when this thing has its day in court, I
would ask everybody to be patient, but,
uh, give, give me that opportunity. Um,
I, I know that were gonna win. Im very
confident that were gonna win.

BOB JOSEPH:

Just a few days before the indictment was

announced, you appeared in (UI) with
12

GX 13-T

Governor Cuomo at uh, a signing

ceremony for the, the package of heroin
related bills, and before the Governor
signed that legislation, he had effusive
praise for you. Its, its well known that
you and Andrew Cuomo have a very
good working relationship, and
apparently a very good personal
relationship. Um, has the Governor
spoken with you since the indictment was
announced?
THOMAS LIBOUS:

Um, he did leave a message for me and I

have not had a chance to hook up with
him, but we have not spoken directly, but
he did leave a, he did leave a message for
me on my phone.

BOB JOSEPH:

And, without divulging a specific

personal message, did he express support
for you?

THOMAS LIBOUS:

You know, I, I think, again that, that sort

of thing I dont see why he wouldnt, but
that sort of thing you have to ask the
Governor directly. Im not gonna, Im not
gonna start, you know, sharing what
message people left on my phone and um,
what support they leave and what have
you. But, hes always been uh, very
13

GX 13-T

supportive and I would expect him to be

supportive moving forward.
BOB JOSEPH:

Speaking with State Senator Thomas

Libous live on Binghamton Now. And
uh, as people have, have noted the timing
is, is curious. Were very close to the, to
the cut off of, of the date for candidates,
both Republican and, and Democratic
candidates to be circulating signatures.
So, you know that um, uh challenges that
didnt exist prior to a week ago suddenly
are, are rising. And I guess thats to be
expected. I guess you being a very uh, um
astute student of politics, cant be
surprised that suddenly uh, at least one
Republican, and at least one Democratic
are preparing to challenge you when just
a week ago, they had no intention.

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Well, Im gonna continue to run on, on

the good things that Ive done for the
people of the Southern Tier. Im very
proud of my record. Um, Im very proud
of my position in Albany. And um, I
think Ive, um, Ive helped the Southern
Tier move forward. And if, if people
choose to run against me now because of
a particular situation then thats certainly
their business, but Im, Im gonna run
14

GX 13-T

hard and Im gonna continue to talk about

the um, accomplishments that weve had
and um, you know people are gonna have
to challenge me. And um, as Ive said,
Im moving forward. This is uh, this is
something that I think moving forward in
the election is um, will, will give people
the opportunity to um, talk about what
theyre gonna do for the people of the
Southern Tier.
BOB JOSEPH:

About four weeks ago when Carl

Palladino was on this program, and you
probably heard about it. He, he made the
suggestion that you would not be on
ballot in November. He said on
Binghamton Now that although your
people have been circulating ballot
petitions in preparation for re-election,
Palladino said that you fully intend to use
a committee on vacancies to ultimately
appoint another candidate. And Palladino
said in other words, hes picking his
successor and nobodys saying a word
about it. Now, the one thing that I found
interesting when I contacted your office
for a reaction we never did get any kind
of response to Carl Palladinos assertion
about some sort of plan that would uh,
possibly have another Republican
15

GX 13-T

candidate running in the district in

November instead of you.
THOMAS LIBOUS:

Well, you shouldnt have found anything

interesting about it, Bob. I mean, I wasnt
about to give Carl Palladino any validity.
I didnt know he was my doctor and I
didnt know, um ya know, he had any
um, intimate uh, knowings of whats
going on with my health quite frankly.
Um, look let me make this very clear. My
petitions are being circulated. Theyre
gonna be filed this week. Um, I am, um I
am not gonna drop out and, and, and have
a vacancy committee pick. Theres only a
very small opportunity for that. Um, you
know, Ive uh, Ive spoken with my
doctors. And, my health is being
managed and my doctors have um, my
doctors have given me the green light to
go, to go forward and they think I should
run. They think Im very capable of
running and managing my disease and
thats something that um, I expect to do
and wanna do. And, um, um so I would
not put too much uh, uh faith in any
statements that others may have made on
this program. Im telling you and
everybody that Im, Im filing petitions,
and Ill be running this Fall.
16

GX 13-T

BOB JOSEPH:

During your court appearance a week

ago, on Tuesday afternoon, you did give
uh, a public assessment of your health
and it sounded far more serious than
anything youve said up until that point.

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Well, its, its, its all in how things get

written. Um, there were um, some, some
discussions on my health. There was a
number of reporters there. Um, I will tell
you this, that while my cancer is not
curable, it is being managed um, and I
have had discussions with my doctors
about running and they all feel that its
the right thing for me to do, and that Im
very capable of maintaining the busy
schedule that I have maintained this year
and that uh, if I continue with treatment,
which I will continue because I need to
continue. Um, I can do the job that the
people have asked me to do. So um, I, I
feel good, I feel good and pretty
confident about it. You as I said before
Bob, I think its important for people like
myself and now certainly the county
executives going through it, to show
people that there are many of us that are
managing our diseases and go to work
every day and that are contributing to
17

GX 13-T

society. I think thats very important um,

for all of us to do.
BOB JOSEPH:

Some people have expressed concern that

this type of development, being indicted
even on one count of lying to FBI agents
is a serious count at this juncture where
youre facing a very serious health
challenge, that this could be potentially
devastating that it could have a negative
impact on your ability to fight the
disease. Do you believe that that could
occur?

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Well, you know, look everybody is

entitled to their opinion. I know that my
treatments have been going well. My
doctors have been consulted and um, no,
I think look, I have the energy to, to uh
move forward. I want to move forward if
the people will have me, and the only
thing I ask of them is please be patient.
Do not, you know, do not make a
decision without getting all the facts. You
know, Ive worked hard on behalf of the
people of the Southern Tier. Im still the
same person I was two weeks ago. Um,
and, I know that there are people out
there um, that will continue to support me
and there are people out there that will
18

GX 13-T

not, but I just uh, I believe that well

come through this. As I said, Im very
confident that well come through this.
Uh, I want to continue to serve and um,
Im, I think Im very capable of doing
that, both uh, both going to treatment and
managing my health and also Im going
through this challenging time.
BOB JOSEPH:

One of the people who has spoken out

publicly uh, expressing a great deal of
support for you is the former Senate
majority leader Joseph Bruno and Senator
Bruno certainly knows a thing or two
about fighting uh, allegations and a long
fight it was before he ultimately was
acquitted after another trial. Uh, I take it
youve heard at least uh the public
comments of Senator Bruno. Have you
spoken with him about uh, about this
situation and, and how he prevailed?

THOMAS LIBOUS:

I actually listened to him and Fred

Dicker. Fred Dicker was somewhat
shocked at the charges himself. I mean
he, in that same program, Fred Dicker
was, um, very concerned about what had
happened and um, I was pleased, I guess
um, you would call it support from a
radio host. It seemed to me that there
19

GX 13-T

was uh, at least he was speaking

positively on my behalf and yeah, Ive
spoken to Senator Bruno. Senator Bruno
has been a friend for a long time and he
uh, he told me to uh, ya know, to stay
strong and I told him that um, were
gonna, were gonna fight this and move
forward.
BOB JOSEPH:

So you sound so committed to fighting,

and, and obviously you dont have much
of a choice about, about

THOMAS LIBOUS:

I didnt do anything wrong. I know in my

heart. I sleep nights. I know in my heart I
didnt do anything wrong. Im being
accused of something that I didnt do.
Um, I am committed to it. I am strong to
it. Um, I mean when people get accused
of something that they didnt do and they,
and they, they feel rather adamant about
it as I do, I mean, uh, Im, Im Im gonna
fight this and I just ask the voters of my
district to have the faith in confidence
that theyve had in me for the last twentysix years that this is gonna come out
okay. And, um, um, I guess if you dont
have that faith and confidence then thats
fine do whatever you need to do. But,
20

GX 13-T

um, I, I, I believe that this is gonna come

out fine. I really mean that.
BOB JOSEPH:

Have you heard from some friends and

family members who say yes focus on
fighting the charge, but why dont you
consider stepping down from the Senate
and, and enjoying some time to relax
after, after serving in the Senate for well
over two decades. Are you hearing from
some people say, yeah you actually owe
it to yourself , uh given what youve been
through over the last several years, health
wise and, and now this thats to, to step
back and, and just appreciate uh, life and,
and, and get out of the glare of Albany,
spend some time to relax in the coming
years?

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Well, Bob, Ive had, Ive had like I said

hundreds of calls, and emails and people
are encouraging me to go forward. They
believe that Ive done a good job. They
want me to continue. Um, you know one
of the first things they say is we need you
there, uh, we need you for the
community. Uh, you know those are the
kinds of things they start with. Yeah, Ive
had probably one or two family members
say to me, uh, you know, maybe you
21

GX 13-T

wanna retire, but you know what? Um,

again, Im, Im managing a disease that
uh, that is a tough one. Im not gonna sit
home. Im not gonna retire and sit home.
I worked you know the last month of
June in session. I ran the Senate floor. I
worked 15 hours a day. Um, I still have
the energy to do it. Um, Im very proud
of my record. Um, Im very upset about
these charges. They upset me, uh,
tremendously because I know theyre not
true, and, and I want to fight hard. I want
to show the people of the Southern Tier
that, that this is the same guy youve
elected time after time. Nothings
changed. And, um, um, Im real proud of
some of the things Ive done. Im proud
of saving the psych center this year. Im
proud of cutting a deal for the, for the
developmental center. I wanna build that
pharmacy school at BU. These are the
things that I was elected to do and again I
would just ask the people to, to be fair
and let me have my opportunity. In the
meantime, Im going to continue to work
every day, Bob.
BOB JOSEPH:

Were you shocked when your attorney

told you that he had received a call about
your indictment?
22

GX 13-T

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Um, I, I, I just um, shock...its not

something you look forward to. I guess I
dont know if shocked is the word.

BOB JOSEPH:

Well, or given what had transpired over

the last few years had you sort of braced
yourself for this eventuality.

THOMAS LIBOUS:

I dont know, I dont know. I dont think

youd ever brace yourself for that. I
always believed in my heart I did nothing
wrong. I still know today in my heart I
did nothing wrong. And, then when I saw
the charges, um I knew there was no
corruption. I knew there was no bribery. I
knew there was no conspiracy. I knew
that there was nothing along those lines
and then when I saw the charge of giving
um, giving the false statement to an
agent. Um, I just said um, I gotta deal
with it. Again, thats why I say to the
people that are listening, Im sure theres
people that are listening this morning that
are gonna say you know what, you know,
Im not, Im happy with this guy, but I
would ask everybody remember that this
is America, give me the benefit of the
doubt, and at the end of the day I am
saying that I am very confident that well
23

GX 13-T

come out of this, uh, without being guilty

of this charge.
BOB JOSEPH:

Also on Tuesday your son was indicted

and he faces several charges regarding
allegations, failure to report income from
various sources. How is Matthew Libous
doing?

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Hes doing great. Because again, he um,

he knows and he, he knows that he, uh,
didnt commit any of these charges and
hes um, you know, doing what he has to
do to get the right experts and the people
to prove, or if he moves forward that um,
that he is innocent and, uh, you know, I
really, I really dont wanna get into this
too much because it kind of, you know,
its his business, and he um, likes to deal
with his business. He doesnt, you know,
he doesnt need to be on the public end.
You know, Ive said this publicly, I love
my son and Im, Im confident that hell
come out of this, uh, in a very positive
way.

BOB JOSEPH:

One other thing and you mention youre

in New York City again

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Yeah.
24

GX 13-T

BOB JOSEPH:

...for the treatments you need every three

weeks. Now the Governor has signed the
medical marijuana legislation. Weve
discussed medical marijuana in the past,
this compromised measure that was
signed into law over the weekend, does
not allow for the use of, of marijuana
being smoked, but in other ways,
restricted ways. So, under those
circumstances now, is that something
now, now that its legal and the process is
in motion for medical marijuana for
people with cancer and other certain
diseases to be able to avail themselves of
this medicine. Is that something you now
might consider trying?

THOMAS LIBOUS:

Uh, Im not sure anybody is ever gonna

get the medical marijuana that was
approved the way the system was set up.
Um, you know, I did vote against the bill
and I voted against it and I gave a very
compelling speech on the floor, which is
available on YouTube, if people wanna
look at and listen to, and, uh one of the
problems with the medical marijuana is
that you can only buy it if you have cash.
You cant buy it through an insurance
fund. And um, what I thought what was
25

GX 13-T

very bad there iss, uh, you know theyre

making it only available to people that
have money and um, its gonna be
eighteen months to two years before it
gets up and going. Uh, I dont, Im not
sure its ever gonna be available in New
York, Bob.
BOB JOSEPH:

New York State Senator Thomas Libous,

I appreciate your answering the questions
at length. Youve been available on this
program in the past and I trust that you
will be in the future. I wish you well in
the coming weeks and months.

THOMAS LIBOUS:

I thank you and uh, well be talking again

in the future. Thanks, uh, for giving me
an opportunity this morning.

BOB JOSEPH:

Thank you. New York State Senator

Thomas Libous live from New York
City.

[END]

26