From The Anonymous Liberal:

… What I don’t understand, however, are the people like Marty Peretz and Alan Dershowitz, who clearly don’t suffer from the same partisan psychosis as the Mark Levins of the world, but nevertheless share the view that Libby’s prosecution was some sort of liberal conspiracy. Today, in the midst of a totally unhinged rant, Peretz wrote:

This case has been a foul one from the beginning, if for no other reason than that the special prosecutor already knew the name of the federal official–Richard Armitage–who had leaked Ms. Plame’s name–arguably not a violation of any law–when he set out to trap Libby on perjury counts . . .

That’s quite some perjury trap Fitzgerald set given that Libby had already given his false story to investigators months before Fitzgerald was appointed to the case. And as a factual matter, Libby had leaked Plame’s identity to Judith Miller well before Armitage leaked the same information to Bob Novak. It’s pure happenstance that Novak ran with the information and Miller didn’t. But Marty doesn’t care about the facts. This is the realm of truthiness.

Remarkably, though, Alan Dershowitz has a post over at the Huffington Post that actually makes Peretz look sane by comparison. In it, Dershowitz accuses not only Fitzgerald and Judge Walton (both Republican appointees) of being partisans out to get Libby, but he levels the same accusation against the panel of Appeals Court judges who affirmed Walton’s bail decision. As Orin Kerr points out, that three-judge panel included “Federalist Society favorite David Sentelle and solid conservative Karen LeCraft Henderson.” In Dershowitz’s alternate reality, however, all of these Republican appointees are somehow engaged in a political battle with the White House and Libby is just some poor schmuck who got caught in the middle.

Now I realize that both Dershowitz and Peretz hold neoconservative views that make them more likely to view Libby sympathetically. But I can’t for the life of me understand how anyone who isn’t hopelessly blinded by partisanship could think that Libby is the victim of a political prosecution. As Professor Kerr, certainly no liberal himself, recently observed:

The Scooter Libby case has triggered some very weird commentary around the blogosphere; perhaps the weirdest claim is that the case against Libby was “purely political.” I find this argument seriously bizarre. As I understand it, Bush political appointee James Comey named Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the Plame leak. Bush political appointee and career prosecutor Fitzgerald filed an indictment and went to trial before Bush political appointee Reggie Walton. A jury convicted Libby, and Bush political appointee Walton sentenced him. At sentencing, Bush political appointee Judge Walton described the evidence against Libby as “overwhelming” and concluded that a 30-month sentence was appropriate. And yet the claim, as I understand it, is that the Libby prosecution was the work of political enemies who were just trying to hurt the Bush Administration.

I find this claim bizarre. I’m open to arguments that parts of the case against Libby were unfair. But for the case to have been purely political, doesn’t that require the involvement of someone who was not a Bush political appointee? Who are the political opponents who brought the case? Is the idea that Fitzgerald is secretly a Democratic party operative? That Judge Walton is a double agent? Or is the idea that Fitzgerald and Walton were hypnotized by “the Mainstream Media” like Raymond Shaw in the Manchurian Candidate? Seriously, I don’t get it.

Yeah, me neither Orin.