Aha. I see you subscribe to the immaculate leak theory of Plameogenesis.

It’s true that Novak started making that . . . → Read More: The one who used her name]]> I’m puzzled. When Karl Rove finally spoke in public about the Plame Affair last week, he said that Armitage was the one who “used her name.” But didn’t Novak look it up in Who’s Who?

Aha. I see you subscribe to the immaculate leak theory of Plameogenesis.

It’s true that Novak started making that claim after the investigation began, but a couple of months earlier he told some reporters from Newsday, “I didn’t dig it out; it was given to me. They thought it was significant, they gave me the name, and I used it.”

They?

The “two senior administration officials” who were the sources for his original column.

And who were they again?

Armitage and Rove.

But how did Armitage and Rove know about Valerie?

Well, Armitage first heard about the Wilson affair from Marc Grossman, an Undersecretary of State. I’m not sure who told Rove.

And how did Mr. Grossman know?

Marc learned the details from a Mr. Ford and a Mr. Kansteiner, who were a couple of other State Department employees whose business it was to know those kinds of things. On May 29, 2003, Grossman sent them an email asking about Wilson’s trip to Niger.

Why was Mr. Grossman interested in that?

Because, earlier that day, Scooter Libby had asked him about it. Very urgently.

Why was Scooter in such a hurry?

Because Cheney was very, very angry.

Cheney? Angry? No!

It was because of the Kristof article. NY Times, May 6, 2003. Mr. Kristof used Wilson’s trip to Africa as evidence that Cheney had manipulated intelligence to bamboozle the country into invading Iraq.

But if Cheney hadn’t done that, why would he get so mad? Why not just ignore his critics like he usually does?

Well, the forged documents were pretty embarrassing.

You mean we went to war based on forged documents?!? Who forged them? Wasn’t there an investigation?

Oh, the FBI got right on the case. After a two-year inquest, they concluded that it was a moneymaking operation. But somehow, they never interviewed the prime suspect, who just happened to be a former agent of Italian military intelligence. A couple of months later, there was a report that the FBI had reopened the investigation, but that was a year and a half ago, and there’ve been no new developments since. I think everybody’s pretty much forgotten about it. You know how we’re always moving on from one new reality to the next.

Well I, for one, am eager to learn the outcome. It’s so mysterious and exciting–forgeries, black ops, wars– where will it all end? Go FBI! You can do it!!!

1. Noah says that Libby “probably didn’t understand that Plame’s identity was a government secret.” In fact, in Libby’s indictment, we read that: Shortly after publication of the . . . → Read More: Why Timothy Noah is wrong about ‘Why Bush was right to spare Libby’]]> At Slate, Timothy Noah has written a defense of Bush’s commutation of Scooter Libby’s jail sentence that is riddled with errors, fallacies, and non-sequiturs. To wit:

1. Noah says that Libby “probably didn’t understand that Plame’s identity was a government secret.” In fact, in Libby’s indictment, we read that:

Shortly after publication of the article in The New Republic, LIBBY spoke by telephone with his then Principal Deputy and discussed the article. That official asked LIBBY whether information about Wilson’s trip could be shared with the press to rebut the allegations that the Vice President had sent Wilson. LIBBY responded that there would be complications at the CIA in disclosing that information publicly, and that he could not discuss the matter on a non-secure telephone line.

This is pretty good evidence that Libby knew that Plame’s CIA identity was classified. Furthermore, Ari Fleischer testified that Libby told him that the Plame information was “hush hush” and “on the QT.”

2. Noah says that Libby’s sentence of 30 months “was about twice as long as the prison term recommended by the court’s probation office.”

However, federal sentencing guidelines in this case suggest a sentence of 15-21 months only if cross-referencing does not apply, but 30-37 months if cross-referencing does apply. ['Cross-referencing' is the application of the sentencing guideline for the underlying crime that was being investigated (i.e., disclosure of a CIA agent's identity) to the less serious crime (i.e., obstruction of justice) being prosecuted.] The judge ruled that cross-referencing did apply, and gave Libby a sentence at the low end of the guidelines.

3. Noah asserts with no evidence that “if Libby hadn’t been a high-ranking government official, there’s a decent chance he would have gotten off with probation, a stiff fine, and likely disbarment.”

In fact, Victor Rita, an elderly gentleman who was not a high-ranking government official, was prosecuted for crimes similar to but less important than Libby’s (perjury and obstruction of justice in a case involving the sale of machine gun kits) and received a sentence of 33 months, 3 months more than Libby.

4. Noah says, “No fair-minded person can deny that the previous president committed perjury about Monica Lewinsky while serving in the Oval Office.”

On the contrary, no fair-minded person can deny that Clinton was found not guilty of those charges after a trial in the U.S. Senate.

5. Noah asks whether it is “really fair to treat White House aides more harshly than ordinary citizens when presidents get off scot-free.” This statement combines three fallacies.

a)As noted above, Libby was not treated more harshly than an ordinary citizen.

b)As noted above, Clinton was acquitted of perjury.

c)And finally, Noah equates the alleged perjury in Clinton’s case with the four separate crimes that Libby was convicted of: two counts of perjury, one of obstruction of justice, and one of making false statements to the FBI.

To sum up, Noah’s case is almost entirely fraudulent. In the case of the Libby commutation, both Noah and Bush are wrong.

Earlier in the briefing, the press was asking Tony Snow some pretty good questions about Bush’s commutation yesterday of Scooter Libby’s . . . → Read More: In which I lose my cool while debunking right wing Libby myths at the White House press briefing]]> Today at the White House press briefing, I got into a somewhat heated (on my part) dispute with John Gizzi, political editor of the right wing web magazine HumanEvents.com. It happened like this…

Earlier in the briefing, the press was asking Tony Snow some pretty good questions about Bush’s commutation yesterday of Scooter Libby’s prison sentence. Questions like (this is a paraphrase): “What is it about this particular case that makes it so special that the president commuted the sentence without Libby even petitioning for a commutation, when there are 3,000 actual requests for commutation currently languishing at the Justice Department?” Tony’s (paraphrased) answer: “This case is just really, really special.” However, I was puzzled that all the reporters were referring only to Libby’s perjury convictions, and not to his conviction for obstruction of justice. So when Tony called on me, I asked:

Won’t this encourage other members of his administration to obstruct justice?”

Tony’s response:

No.

I got another chance, though, later on, during the following exchange:

Reporter: But is even one day in prison excessive for this kind of a crime, when people have spent time in prison…

Tony: This crime. Not this kind of crime, but this crime.

Reporter: Why not some jail time served?

Tony: Tell me why.

Reporter: I’m asking you.

Me: To deter future obstruction of justice. He was convicted of obstruction of justice.

Another reporter: For lying.

Gizzi: (sitting next to me) He was convicted of perjury.

Me: (appealing to the audience) Am I right? He was convicted of obstruction of justice!

Other reporters: (silence)

Gizzi: Perjury.

I had a little more back and forth with Gizzi in private. He said he was sure that Libby had not been convicted of obstruction of justice. I didn’t know yet who he was, and when I looked at his press badge to get his name, Gizzi gave me his card. I’ve just emailed him this link from, you guessed it, humanevents.com.

As I left the White House, two members of the Pink Police were standing on the sidewalk outside the gate, shouting into bullhorns:

Georgie Porgie’s soft on crime.
Scooter Libby should be doing time.

and:

For he’s a jolly good felon,
For he’s a jolly good felon…

Update: Here’s the White House transcript for the above exchange. My lines are in bold:

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.