Plamegate: The must-see movie of the summer!

You know the old joke, where the film critic writes, "This film could have been sensational. Unfortunately, it's a pile of crap," and the studio quotes the critic as believing the film " . . . Sensational! . . ." in a newspaper ad? Apparently the same nonsense is at work in the Plame-Wilson case. Byron York has the details. One example:

But it appears that the Wilsons and their legal team are basing their claim of a “concerted effort” not so much on the statements of Patrick Fitzgerald but on a Washington Post report on the statements of Fitzgerald. In a front-page story published April 9, the Post reported that Fitzgerald had “for the first time described a ‘concerted action’ by ‘multiple people in the White House’ — using classified information — to ‘discredit, punish or seek revenge against’ a critic of President Bush’s war in Iraq.” The quotes came from a government court filing, dated April 5, in the Libby perjury case. But a look at the actual document shows that Fitzgerald’s statements are less definitive than the Post, or the Plame/Wilson legal team, suggest.

Fitzgerald used the phrase “concerted action” once, in a footnote on page 30, in which he made the point that whatever the White House did or did not do in the CIA-leak matter would not affect the question of whether Libby lied to a grand jury. “The existence vel non of concerted action by White House officials is not dispositive of whether defendant committed perjury…” Fitzgerald wrote.

The Latin phrase vel non means “or not.” A legal dictionary defines it as “a term used by the courts in reference to the existence or nonexistence of an issue for determination.” So rather than making a straight assertion of fact, Fitzgerald was saying, in effect, “The existence, or not, of concerted action” by the White House would not affect the question of Libby’s truthfulness. (Wilson’s lawyers undoubtedly know what vel non means; they use the phrase, in another context, in the Plame complaint itself.)

Heh.