NYT Managers Sacrifice Judy to Hide Their Own Complicity

by emptywheel

I blew a lot of steam yesterday in response to NYT Public Editor Calame's assessment of the Judy affair. Now, I'd like to offer a more temperate assessment of NYT management's handling of the affair. Since last night, I've (finally) read last weekend's Judy dump closely. Now that we've got multiple pieces from NYT management laying out their best case, I think I can confidently say the NYT management is sacrificing Saint Judy in an attempt to hide their own complicity in the Plame Affair. The NYT managers are hiding their complicity in at least three ways.

• Burying key facts about editorial control during June and July of 2003
• Hiding what Judy was writing--or trying to write--during the period in question
• Aggressively touting Judy as a First Amendment martyr after they learned Libby was attempting to obstruct justice

Burying key facts about editorial control during June and July of 2003

The article leaves out crucial details of Miller's relationship with her editors.

In two interviews, Ms. Miller generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written account of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes.

So Judy won't give us details. Fine. What will the editors give us? Some details, sure. But there are gaping holes critical to this story.

On July 30, 2003, Mr. Keller became executive editor after his predecessor, Howell Raines, was dismissed after a fabrication scandal involving a young reporter named Jayson Blair.

Within a few weeks, in one of his first personnel moves, Mr. Keller told Ms. Miller that she could no longer cover Iraq and weapons issues. Even so, Mr. Keller said, "she kept kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm."

Although criticism of Ms. Miller's Iraq coverage mounted, Mr. Keller waited until May 26, 2004, to publish an editors' note that criticized some of the paper's coverage of the run-up to the war.

Keller's fibbing a little bit here. For one, according to the Observer, it wasn't until Fall that Keller took away Judy's security beat. I'd love to look at Judy's stories to tell you when she stopped--but that's impossible, because there's no discernable stop (there are lapses) in Judy's 2003 writing on security issues. So it's worse than Judy just "drifting on her own back into the security realm." For whatever reason, Keller's efforts to reel her in had no discernable effect.

Calame, in his assessment of NYT coverage, is similarly vague about who was controlling Judy's writing.

By the spring of 2003, the newsroom was overwhelmed by the Jayson Blair fiasco, and Mr. Raines and the managing editor, Gerald Boyd, left the paper. When Bill Keller became executive editor on July 30, 2003, he focused on dealing with the trauma of the Blair scandal.

These accounts hide one huge detail about Judy's relationship with editors: the Plame leak happened at a time when none of the people mentioned in the article were in charge. Howell Raines resigned on June 4, and Keller didn't officially take control until July 30 (I've got a hunch, though, he started getting involved in the Judy saga as soon as he was named on July 14). So who was in charge in the interim? Joseph Lelyveld. As the Observer notes,

One person who might have broken the tie between the two versions was missing from the Times report. Joseph Lelyveld was interim executive editor between Mr. Raines and Mr. Keller, from June 5 through July 30, 2003. That covered the entire span of time in which Ms. Miller had her three conversations with Mr. Libby. But, befitting the invisibility of editors in Ms. Miller’s world, the name of Mr. Lelyveld—who is, in a Kremlinological Times wrinkle, the companion of the reporter Ms. Scott—appeared nowhere in the entire package.

The Ms. Scott in this passage refers to Janny Scott, someone who was never named by editors as a member of the team writing this story, but who received credit at the end of the story for contributing reporting. So did Janny Scott roll over one morning and ask Joseph Lelyveld whether or not he spiked Judy's story on Plame? Well, the Observer can't tell you, because Lelyveld isn't talking.

Mr. Lelyveld did not return messages seeking comment.

Ignoring the interim editorial period shifts attention away from the period in question, June and July 2003, onto August. I suspect the shift is deliberate. It serves to hide the trouble Judy got in during her embed in Iraq (outing a source in April and deliberately ignoring an editor's directions in order to pre-empt another journalist's article). And it serves to obscure what appears to be Judy's disciplinary status after she returned. In other words, NYT doesn't tell us two critical things: Judy had already gotten into trouble with NYT management, and NYT management had responded by restricting Judy's ability to write independently.

There is further obscurity about the editors' involvement. But I'll look at that in more detail below, when I consider whether the editors--and not just Judy--were aware they were shielding Libby's possible guilt  in Fall 2004.

Hiding what Judy was writing--or trying to write--during the period in question

I have repeatedly argued that NYT has lied about whether or not Judy reported the results of her July 8 meeting with Libby. Before I reiterate--and expand--the case I've made before, let me lay out the three times they've contribtued to the impression that Judy's July 20 article reported her inteview with Libby.

• In a July 28 2005 Doug Jehl article, Jill Abramson said Judy was assigned to write on WMD for her July 20 2003 article.

During that period, Ms. Miller was working primarily from the Washington bureau of The Times, reporting to Jill Abramson, who was the Washington bureau chief at the time, and was assigned to report for an article published July 20, 2003, about Iraq and the hunt for unconventional weapons, according to Ms. Abramson, who is now managing editor of The Times.

• On October 2, the NYT issued a correction of its October 1 article reporting on Judy's testimony, replacing this statement:

She was working on an article about banned weapons in Iraq that was not published.

With this statement:

Correction: October 2, 2005, Sunday Because of an editing error, a front-page article yesterday about testimony provided by Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter, to a grand jury investigating the leak of a C.I.A. agent's identity, referred incorrectly to an article Ms. Miller was working on in July 2003. The article, about banned weapons in Iraq, was indeed published, on July 20, 2003.

• Then, in NYT's recent tell-all story on Miller's involvement, they reiterated the claim the outcome of her meeting with Libby had been published.

Her assignment was to write an article about the failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq. She said Mr. Libby wanted to talk about a diplomat's fact-finding trip in 2002 to the African nation of Niger to determine whether Iraq sought uranium there.

[snip]

Ms. Miller's article on the hunt for missing weapons was published on July 20, 2003. It acknowledged that the hunt could turn out to be fruitless but focused largely on the obstacles the searchers faced.

Now, the best way for me to show that Judy's July 20 2003 article isn't based on what we know of her meeting with Libby is for you to read it. But I understand those who don't want to support Times Select and I don't particularly want to get slapped with a copyright violation. So here's a description.

Introduction
Judy uses 17 paragraphs to describe how the Bush Administration planned to hunt for WMDs. Most of this is stuff she learned from her embed period. Indeed, she even cites her sources as those she accessed during her embed.

Interviews with soldiers and government officials over three months with the Pentagon's 75th Exploitation Task Force, known as the XTF, identified a number of problems that might explain why the search has produced so little.

Judy might include Libby under the government official moniker here, but she specifically says the contact occurred during her embed period, sometime between March and May.

She does go on to cite current officials describing the problems with the WMD hunt.

Several officials asserted that bureaucratic rivalries were partly to blame. There was strife between the Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, and arguments between the MET weapons-hunting units and their commander; and some said that Special Operations forces alienated potential Iraqi sources through midnight raids and other harsh tactics.

[snip]

By the middle of June, according to weapons experts and administration officials, the searchers had interviewed only 13 scientists among some 200 people on the government's black list of ''high-value targets'' or among the thousands of midlevel people on the so-called gray list.

But none of this would exclusively require Libby's input--both of these citations come from at least three people.And none of this information would require a face-to-face meeting with Libby, since this was readily accessible information.

Drawing Up the Plan
Judy uses 6 paragraphs to explain how the plan to hunt for WMD was conceived and to point out some faults in that plan. She cites two people directly involved in the weapons hunt and references a September 2002 meeting.

In September, defense planners, former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission, or Unscom, and officials from several Pentagon offices, including Central Command,

Unless Libby's history includes recent membership on CentCom in addition to his legislative experience (or unless Judy provided an incomplete description of meeting attendees), this reference can't be something that Libby had direct knowledge of.

Interviews vs. Searches
Judy takes 9 paragraphs to explain how the hunt moved from actual WMDs to people associated with the WMD program. She mentions Nissar Hindawi and the former Mukhabarat officer I call Yankee Fan, both stories she had reported while in Iraq. This section contains the one statement that could be attributable to Libby.

A White House spokesman declined comment on whether Mr. Bush's statement was a result of the Iraqi source's assertions, but officials in Iraq and Washington confirmed that White House officials had hotly debated the Iraqi's assertions, which they said had startled them.

''The Iraqi remains a cooperating source whose life would be endangered were his identity known in Iraq,'' a senior administration official said.

It's unclear whether this SAO statement came in April (when Judy reported on Yankee Fan regularly) or in July, when she met with Libby. In any case, it's the most likely tidbit from Libby. But it's unlikely she had to have a face-to-face meeting with Libby to get this quote, particularly since she included a similar quote--that time attributed to MET Alpha--in her first article on Yankee Fan in June.

MET Alpha, which found the scientist, declined to identify him, saying they feared he might be subject to reprisals.

Faulty Leads and Frustration
Judy ends with 7 paragraphs about how bad the intelligence was. She quotes an unnamed senior officer involved in the WMD hunt and Colonel McPhee, the commanding officer of 75th XTF.

So it's unlikely that Judy was working on the July 20 article when she was chatting with Libby on July 8. And if she was, the NYT ought to ask for their money back--the interview certainly didn't require a face-to-face breakfast meeting at the St. Regis.

Update:Judy (who is admittedly a questionable witness) actually corroborates my point. In her article, she says (of June 2003),

Now I was assigned to a team of reporters at The Times examining why no such weapons had been found.

Perhaps she was speaking only of June, and not July (although we know she was still working with a team in July, since the one article she co-bylined before she seems to have been released around July 15 is a team-written article). But if Judy's assignment was as a member of a team when this was going down, why did the article the NYT claims she was working on have a solo-byline?

There is another reason to believe there is more about that meeting--there's the issue of the second half of Judy's subpoena (PDF). Fitz subpoenaed information on Wilson--and on Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium.

seeking documents and testimony related to conversations between her and a specified government official “occurring from on or about July 6, 2003, to on or about July 13, 2003, . . . concerning Valerie Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description as the wife of Ambassador Wilson) or concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium.”

Fitzgerald, at least, was pretty sure in August 2004 that she had talked about things unrelated to her July 20 article.

In fact Judy admits as much in her mea culpa.

According to my notes, he began with a chronology of what he described as credible evidence of Iraq's efforts to procure uranium. As I told Mr. Fitzgerald and the grand jury, Mr. Libby alluded to the existence of two intelligence reports about Iraq's uranium procurement efforts. One report dated from February 2002. The other indicated that Iraq was seeking a broad trade relationship with Niger in 1999, a relationship that he said Niger officials had interpreted as an effort by Iraq to obtain uranium.

Judy even hints that she was having a difficult time getting her typical Administration stenography approved by NYT management.

I said I had told Mr. Libby that if The Times was going to do an article, the newspaper needed more than a recap of the administration's weapons arguments.

Judy never did an article detailing this intelligence (which was probably classified intelligence, even if it seems so familiar to us now that we have read the SSCI Report). So presumably, her editors (whoever they were) didn't believe Libby's rationalizations went beyond a "recap of the administration's weapons arguments."

Perhaps I'm making too big a deal of this, of what I see to be the NYT's attempt to argue Judy was working within the scope of her assignment. But I don't think so. Taken in tandem with the conflicting messages about whether or not Judy was writing a Plame article, I think there's a reason they're pretending Judy was working on an approved story when she met with Libby on July 8 (and note--this doesn't begin to explain the June 23 meeting, after which it's most likley Judy tried to write a Plame article).

It's not just NYT management who seems to be trying to hide whether Judy was working on a Plame article or not. Judy's own descriptions of whether or not she was working on a Plame story are logically inconsistent. She says she told Fitzgerald that she didn't pursue a story, even while claiming she had recommended to an editor they pursue the story.

Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether I ever pursued an article about Mr. Wilson and his wife. I told him I had not, though I considered her connection to the C.I.A. potentially newsworthy. I testified that I recalled recommending to editors that we pursue a story.

But this claim appears in the same article where she admits she called other people about Plame.

I told Mr. Fitzgerald I believed that before this call, I might have called others about Mr. Wilson's wife.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when a reporter calls multiple people about a story, isn't that usually considered "pursuing a story"? Which suggests Judy's trying to hide the fact that she couldn't get this story published--she wanted to write it, but NYT didn't want to publish it.

Calame, for his part, uses the paper's feint about Lelyveld's involvement to accuse Judy of lying.

But Jill Abramson, now a managing editor and the Washington bureau chief in 2003, would have known about such a request [to write a Plame story]. Ms. Abramson, to whom Ms. Miller reported, strongly asserted to me that Ms. Miller never asked to pursue an article about the operative. Ms. Abramson said that she did not recall Ms. Miller ever mentioning the confidential conversations she had with I. Lewis Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, who appears to be in the middle of the leak investigation. When I asked her, Ms. Miller declined to identify the editor she dealt with.

If Ms. Abramson is to be believed, and I do believe her, this raises clear issues of trust and credibility. It also means that because Ms. Miller didn't let an editor know what she knew, Times readers were deprived of a potentially exclusive look into an apparent administration effort to undercut Mr. Wilson and other critics of the Iraq war.

Again, far be it for me to defend Judy (or Abramson, for that matter). But is Calame so dumb that he believes that Jill Abramson is the only possible editor involved, after all we've heard about Judy side-stepping one editor to get another to approve her stories? Or does he just believe we're that dumb? Or perhaps the NYT had Lelyveld's gal check with him and they just just don't want to say so...

Combine a close analysis of the article and of NYT's statements about Judy's activities in July, and a couple of conclusions are probable. The most recent NYT statement implies that Judy was assigned to write on the failed WMD hunt but Scooter Libby chose instead to talk about Joe Wilson. Which is close to an admission that Judy was assigned to an article, but that nothing from her meeting with Libby went into the article. Or, alternately, the NYT wants to hide the fact that her interview with Libby went outside the scope of what she was assigned to write--they want to hide the fact she was freelancing. And the question of whether Judy tried to write a story on Plame? Calame raises more questions than he answers IMO. I suspect my guess of three months ago is still correct--that Judy tried to write a story, at which point someone tipped Wilson off to write his own story, and Judy's story was spiked because she was out of favor and because the scoop was more valuable coming from Wilson.

Update

It appears Judy agrees with an assertion I made in an earlier post--that Jill Abramson is a liar. From Jay Rosen, I discover Judy responded to Calame's piece asking the same question I did: why believe Jill Abramson?

You chose to believe Jill Abramson when she asserted that I had never asked her to pursue the tip I had gotten about Joe Wilson�s trip to Niger and his wife�s employment at the C.I.A. Now I ask you: Why would I � the supposedly pushiest, most competitive reporter on the planet -- not have pushed to pursue a tantalizing tip like this? Soon after my breakfast meeting with Libby in July, I did so. I remember asking the editor to let
me explore whether what my source had said was true, or whether it was a potential smear of a whistleblower. I don�t recall naming the source of the tip. But I specifically remember saying that because Joe Wilson�s op-ed column had appeared in our paper, we had a particular obligation to pursue this. I never identified the editor to the grand jury or publicly, since it involved internal New York Times decision-making. But since you did, yes, the editor was Jill Abramson.

 

It's actually kind of amusing to see how hard Judy's clawing to stay on-board the SS NYT--if you're vindictive at all, I advise you to click through and read the rest. Perhaps her friends have suggested she won't be so valuable to them if she does get thrown overboard?

If she does get thrown overboard, I wonder if Judy will tell some more details about internal New York Times decision-making?

Aggressively touting Judy as a First Amendment martyr after they learned Libby was attempting to obstruct justice

But that's not the most troublesome aspect of NYT management behavior. It appears that they willingly allowed Judy to protect Libby under the guise of reporter's privilege, even while they had evidence he was hiding a crime. People have noted Judy basically said she was withholding testimony in deference to Libby's wishes to avoid incriminating Libby.

Ms. Miller said she decided not to testify in part because she thought that Mr. Libby's lawyer might be signaling to keep her quiet unless she would exonerate his client.

But what I don't think anyone has mentioned is that NYT management also seems to have been quite aware of this fact--they had reason to suspect, at least, that Libby was obstructing justice by not letting her testify. To show why will require a rather big chunk of the chunky NYT story.

Ms. Miller authorized Mr. Abrams to talk to Mr. Libby's lawyer, Joseph A. Tate. The question was whether Mr. Libby really wanted her to testify. Mr. Abrams passed the details of his conversation with Mr. Tate along to Ms. Miller and to Times executives and lawyers, people involved in the internal discussion said.

People present at the meetings said that what they heard about the preliminary negotiations was troubling.

Mr. Abrams told Ms. Miller and the group that Mr. Tate had said she was free to testify. Mr. Abrams said Mr. Tate also passed along some information about Mr. Libby's grand jury testimony: that he had not told Ms. Miller the name or undercover status of Mr. Wilson's wife.

That raised a potential conflict for Ms. Miller. Did the references in her notes to "Valerie Flame" and "Victoria Wilson" suggest that she would have to contradict Mr. Libby's account of their conversations? Ms. Miller said in an interview that she concluded that Mr. Tate was sending her a message that Mr. Libby did not want her to testify.

According to Ms. Miller, this was what Mr. Abrams told her about his conversation with Mr. Tate: "He was pressing about what you would say. When I wouldn't give him an assurance that you would exonerate Libby, if you were to cooperate, he then immediately gave me this, 'Don't go there, or, we don't want you there.' "

Mr. Abrams said: "On more than one occasion, Mr. Tate asked me for a recitation of what Ms. Miller would say. I did not provide one."

In an e-mail message Friday, Mr. Tate called Ms. Miller's interpretation "outrageous."

"I never once suggested that she should not testify," Mr. Tate wrote. "It was just the opposite. I told Mr. Abrams that the waiver was voluntary."

He added: " 'Don't go there' or 'We don't want you there' is not something I said, would say, or ever implied or suggested."

Telling another witness about grand jury testimony is lawful as long as it is not an attempt to influence the other witness's testimony.

"Judy believed Libby was afraid of her testimony," Mr. Keller said, noting that he did not know the basis for the fear. "She thought Libby had reason to be afraid of her testimony."

Ms. Miller and the paper decided at that point not to pursue additional negotiations with Mr. Tate. [emphasis mine]

This whole passage describes the first time Libby and his lawyer Tate allegedly attempted to limit Judy's testimony to that which would exonerate him (the second being the negotiations this August and September). The first paragraph I quote makes it clear that Abrams let Judy and NYT management know what was going on--that Tate was making noises that sounded a lot like obstruction. It's not clear whether management heard the rest of the information included in this passage--that Libby was telegraphing to Judy what he had said, that Libby only wanted her to testify if she would support his story, that Tate clearly told Judy not to testify if it would hurt Libby--but the line "Ms. Miller and the paper" suggests the interim information was communicated to both parties, Judy and NYT management. If so, Keller's proclaimed ignorance of Libby's fear doesn't hold water. It's clear from what this passage reports that Libby was directing Judy based on her ability to hide his involvement in a crime, not to protect the First Amendment. Which might explain why people at the meeting (which presumably included the ignorant Keller) were troubled.

Scooter Libby was asking the New York Times--not just Judy Miller--to hide potential criminality behind the First Amendment privilege. The NYT--not just Judy--willfully did so. Worse, the NYT published a parade of editorials proclaiming this act as First Amendment freedom. When all they were doing was protecting a shoddy criminal.

No wonder the NYT now seems prepared to throw Judy overboard.

Their own complicity in this is just barely hidden. If they have to answer the remaining questions out there--what was Judy working on, did she try to write a Plame story, why did you hide Lelyveld's involvement--then that complicity will become clear.

A pity they didn't throw her overboard two years ago, before she contributed to the deaths of 2000 soldiers.

Comments

[aspTrader]

The truth is very simple.

Firing Judy sets her free to tell the truth about Sulzberger. Firing Keller sets him free to tell the truth about Sulzberger.

Can't have that. So the Times is locked into fulfillment of its new mission.

...the New York Times..."All the Lies We've Decided to Tell You"

[reticulant]

[apolgoies in advance for this slightly revised reposting; ew's current post is a better match to our original response]

we've only recently come across this site (via google) and particularly emptywheel -- who we find lucid, thorough, compelling.

but in the case of abramson, emptywheel may be slightly off the mark.

it sounds implausible and would certainly try a cynic's patience, but even at the times, editors can be honestly mistaken, credulous, deceived or intimidated into regrettable and/or untenable positions, especially when a certain publisher is perceived as a certain reporter's confidante. benefactor. protector.

blair/raines was a notorious though less consequential example of patronage unrequited. but miller/sulzberger is the penultimate narrative of patronage RUN AMOK, of misplaced trust that also contributed to an unnecessary war.

current news media, particularly television, is infested with warlocks and witches of mass deception, our gender-neutral response to modo's "women of mass destruction." however, miller thrived as the times post-9/11 uber-witch for one and only one reason.

pinch started his career in the family business at the washington bureau roughtly coincident to miller's start at the same (about a year following miller). miller, with better academic pedigree and the street smarts of a hustler qua loan shark, apparently befriended pinch (drinking buddy and more?) while somehow earning the latter's seemingly eternal gratitude and [trust]. the nature of this ostensibly fraternal bond proved enduring enough to ensure mutual ascendance up the times ladder.

that's why it's a mistake -- in our opinion -- to fixate on editorial mismanagement or accommodation as the [underlying determinant of] miller's ability to wreak what she wrought. at least one times staffer [already and anonymously] fingered sulzberger as the real host-culprit for ebola judy [ http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9787693/site/newsweek/ ]. [consider:] when your publisher literally acts as miller's escort/bodyguard -- as sulzberger did when miller emerged from prison -- it's not too difficult to imagine the limits of raines', keller's, abramson's authority or autonomy to investigate -- much less arrest the infection.

that pinch too was ultimately used & discarded by miller in service to her needs -- a prize-winning author fiercely protecting the credibility of her prize-winning book ("germs") using paper & employer to [preserve access to administration sources in order to] develop sequels and future works -- only amplifies the tragedy of invested though undeserved trust. if keller admits the times placed employee loyalty above the trust of its readers, then sulzberger risked the family empire on one scheming, perhaps blackmailing sister, as only the borgias or medicis might appreciate such siblings.

[Claire]

Maybe Rumsfield signed something --- you know some kind of self-destructing type of form, you know that looks like --- a piece of paper... And maybe, you know that piece of paper that he signed? ... Well, maybe it really did grant Judy a super-duper, top-secret, confidentially classified, special information authorization status. And ... and maybe the NYT's knew all about it! And ... and ... and, you know --- that's what they're trying to hide and all because maybe like, you know they're chagrined ... or maybe not...

[Reynaldo]

Lucid, thorough and compelling -- a good EW summary... In a mild attempt to contribute to thoroughness per EW's specs on Libby's strange letter to Miller, a few quotes below. May not mean anything, but may be at least interesting.

First, the refresher quote from Libby's letter: "Out west, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them."

In Joseph Wilson's book, p.434 hardcover, he uses the "cluster" word to refer to PNAC membership: "President Bush could fundamentally change the direction of his administration by firing fewer than fifteen senior officials, beginning with those signatories of the Project for the New American Century and those currently holding government posts who signed a 1998 letter that urged President Clinton to wage war on Iraq. They are clustered at the National Security Council (NSC), in the Defense and State Departments, and within Vice President Cheney's own parallel national security office."

In a June 07, 2002 article in Newsweek, by Dan Ephron and Tamara Lipper, headlined "Sharansky's Quiet Role," the following paragraph describes Wolfowitz and Sharansky walking through a forest on the way to a reception organized by Perle in a Colorado mountain town: "Sharansky is hoping he had a hand in reshaping U.S. policy. At the conference, he says, he spoke privately with Cheney for more than an hour Saturday, two days before the Bush announcement. 'More than half our talk was devoted to what would be said in the speech,' he says. Later Saturday, Sharansky and Wolfowitz were due at a dinner reception, but as an observant Jew, Sharansky said he couldn't drive on the Sabbath. Instead, he and Wolfowitz trudged through a forest on foot to get to the dinner, their bodyguards in tow. 'It gave us a chance to talk about everything -- Arafat, international terrorism, Iraq and Iran and, of course, Jewish history, our roots and so on,' Sharansky says."

[bz]

Sulzberger playing Charles Foster Kane (mimicking William Randolph Hearst)
and telling Judy:

"... you provide the prose poems, I'll provide the war. ..."

[emptywheel]

reticulant

Pinch's ultimate responsibility for this doesn't exonerate those who lie at his direction or to curry his goodwill. They are, after all, responsible for their own actions.