Contrarian Kinsley strikes again

July 5, 2007

Michael Kinsley plays to type today with an NYT op-ed that tries to excuse Scooter Libby’s sins.

[W]hen Mr. Libby was questioned by federal investigators pursuing the leaks, he too was caught in a perjury trap. He could either tell the truth, thereby implicating colleagues and very possibly himself, in leaking classified security information (the identity of Mr. Wilson’s wife), or he could lie. In either case he would be breaking the law or admitting to having done so, and in either case he could have gone to prison. Mr. Libby, like Mr. Clinton, made the wrong choice.

There is nothing wrong with a perjury trap, as long as both sides of the pincer are legitimate. The abuse comes when prosecutors induce a crime (lying under oath) by exploiting an action that is not a crime. The law about “outing” C.I.A. operatives is apparently vague enough that it isn’t clear whether Mr. Libby violated it. But let’s leave that aside.

Actually, let’s not. The Justice Department tasked Patrick Fitzgerald with investigating the leak of a covert CIA official. Naturally, this criminal probe led Fitzgerald and federal investigators to question a variety of administration officials, inside the White House and out.

At no point was this a “perjury trap” for Libby. He started dishing to Judith Miller before Richard Armitage talked to Bob Novak, so Fitzgerald needed to get his side of the story. It wasn’t a trick or a trap — it was a criminal investigation. What happened? Libby lied, over and over again, and got caught.

But wait, Kinsley says, Libby had to lie. If Libby had told the truth, Kinsley says, he would have implicated himself in leaking classified information, which might have been a criminal act and could have sent him to prison. Kinsley, however, is leaving out pertinent details — Armitage told the truth, Ari Fleischer told the truth, and Karl Rove eventually told the truth.

By Kinsley’s reasoning, all of them should have lied, just as Libby did, to save their skins. All of them would have fallen into the same “trap.” But that didn’t happen — they all told the truth; Libby didn’t.

Kinsley also tries to pin this on journalists who embraced the Plame leak.

It takes two to leak…. In fact, if journalists had a more reasonable view about this, the reporters whom Mr. Libby tried to peddle this story to would have said, “Look, outing C.I.A. agents is bad and we are not going to help you do it anonymously.” I bet that today, commuted sentence and all, Mr. Libby wishes they had done just that.

Did Kinsley forget that six other DC political journalists received the leak before Novak, but none of them ran with it?

There’s contrarianism, and there’s just sloppiness. I’m afraid Kinsley’s column falls into the latter.

There’s also raving dishonesty.

  • I don’t often see pundits contradict themselves in the space of 3-4 sentences (usually this is left to the WH Press Secretary):

    “He could either tell the truth, thereby implicating colleagues and very possibly himself, in leaking classified security information…There is nothing wrong with a perjury trap, as long as both sides of the pincer are legitimate. The abuse comes when prosecutors induce a crime (lying under oath) by exploiting an action that is not a crime.”

    So he lied to hide a crime, but it evidently wasn’t a crime. Libby was caught in a perjury trap, which isn’t wrong, but Libby’s example is wrong because it wasn’t a perjury trap, because he did nothing wrong. (gg shakes head, wears Bush-esque vacant gaze of confusion.) Huh?

  • There’s contrarianism, and there’s just sloppiness. I’m afraid Kinsley’s column falls into the latter.

    There’s also royal bootlicking, and Mr. Kinsley just got down on his hands and knees for “Dick” & Bush.

  • Do they pay money for these op-eds? Where do they come up with these guys and why would they allow them to put their opinions in the paper. I assume the NYT doesn’t fact check these pieces but still, what is wrong with their editors? There are no points in that piece that are even worth reading and it should be obvious to the editors. Maybe the authors pay the editors to print their opinions but still…they need to develop some taste.

  • Oh, c’mon CB honey, you’re being entirely too harsh and unfair to poor widdle Kinsey 😛

    …”He could either tell the truth, thereby implicating colleagues and very possibly himself”….. perhaps what he meant to say here is that it is also a crime to confirm the classified information. So if poor widdle Scooter had admitted Valerie worked for the CIA, to the FBI and a federal prosecutor, they could have gotten him on that as well. Hahahahahah, or something like that. I’m with GG in the color me confused corner. OY

  • These two thoughts should not be so close together:

    In either case he would be breaking the law or admitting to having done so, and in either case he could have gone to prison. Mr. Libby, like Mr. Clinton…”

    How is that like Clinton? He wasn’t being questioned about anything that could’ve sent him to prison. (Though there were some at the time who argued that, as Commander in Chief, the president is subject to the military law against adultery; notwithstanding the President is explicitly a civilian.)

  • Funny how quickly Neo-Con toadies become anarchists when one of their own is in danger.

    The law about “outing” C.I.A. operatives is apparently vague enough that it isn’t clear whether Mr. Libby violated it.

    Translation: I can’t be arsed to read it myself. Neither can I ask one of the many experts who’ve commented on the matter. So I’ll rely on what the Freepers have been saying.

  • Does Kinsley actually read what he writes – out loud – where he might find that what he says is completely and utterly ridiculous? Guess not.

    I still can’t believe the man is making an argument that somehow the fact that Libby found himself between a rock and a hard place because of his own actions, undertaken by choice, meant that he was entitled to lie his way out of it. That the important part of this was Libby’s ability to save himself, and blast that prosecutor for making it impossible.

    I think that’s really the part of this whole thing that disgusts me – that these people feel entitled to lie, and entitled to be rescued from the consequences.

  • I guess Mr Kinsley is fine with people lying about exposing CIA agents?

    WTF is wrong with this guy?

    From Kinsley’s piece:
    Mr. Libby will escape prison, but he won’t get away scot-free either. He faces a fine of $250,000 and two years of probation, and if he was thinking of cashing in big on K Street like so many of his administration colleagues, he had better think again.

    a) Libby’s legal defense fund is 40x larger than the fine.
    b) Bush will probably pardon Libby, and refuses to say otherwise.
    c) Libby has a cushy job offer already from some wingnut “think tank”.

    In fact, if journalists had a more reasonable view about this, the reporters whom Mr. Libby tried to peddle this story to would have said, “Look, outing C.I.A. agents is bad and we are not going to help you do it anonymously.”

    Kinsley forgets that many of the “reporters” Libby leaked to do not care what’s “bad”, they want their agendas carried out. Robert Novak continues to lie his ass off about the whole affair, and would surely do the same thing again given the chance.

    There’s some good thinking in the article, I can’t dismiss all of it, but the idea that ZERO jail time is fine for what Libby did is ridiculous, and Kinsley makes no sense defending that.

  • According to Wikipedia, Kinsley’s memorable quote is: “A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth.” Also from Wikipedia, he appears not to have a steady job these days (i.e.- he’s corruptible).

  • The MSM played an important role is getting us into Iraq, in particuliar the NYT, along with other media etc, so its no surprise that they will lead the charge to help create confusion regarding the pardon of Libby and why it was necessary.

  • in addition to the other comments already made, let me return to an issue we discussed in another thread below.

    there is no analogy between libby and clinton; libby’s lies were “material,” hence perjurious, whereas clinton’s lies were on an issue irrelevant to the paula jones lawsuit and hence not perjurious.

  • “In fact, if journalists had a more reasonable view about this, the reporters whom Mr. Libby tried to peddle this story to would have said, “Look, outing C.I.A. agents is bad and we are not going to help you do it anonymously.””

    Gawd, we’re back to the “I couldn’t help but break the law, they made it so easy!” defense…

    Anne wrote: “I still can’t believe the man is making an argument that somehow the fact that Libby found himself between a rock and a hard place because of his own actions, undertaken by choice, meant that he was entitled to lie his way out of it.”

    I think your statement encapsulates the ridiculousness of Kinsley’s article. Would Kinsley be just as eager to defend a bank robber who kills two policemen trying to make his escape? After all, he was between a rock (violent escape) and a hard place (prison) – can we blame him for his entirely self-centered and selfish thoughts of survival?

  • “He started dishing to Judith Miller BEFORE Richard Armitage talked to Bob Novak.”

    I am glad you said that CB. But why then does the right wing consider Richard Armitage the “real leaker”? …just because he leaked it to Novak?…and who/what was Richard’s source?

    • Comments are closed.