Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Appeals Court Upholds Ruling in CIA Leak (Journalists Must Testify in Plame/CIA Leak Case)
ASSOCIATED PRESS ^ | 2/15/05 | MARK SHERMAN

Posted on 02/15/2005 7:35:47 AM PST by KidGlock

Edited on 02/15/2005 8:17:37 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 next last
To: FreedomPoster

It is a long read... And some of the best stuff is redacted... But probably worth the time for anyone who is interested in really understanding why the ruling was upheld...


101 posted on 02/15/2005 4:52:10 PM PST by Zeppo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

Thanks for the ping, excellent (and somewhat surprising, but I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth!) development.


102 posted on 02/15/2005 5:06:51 PM PST by prairiebreeze (Blogs have a strangle hold on the MSM. The MSM is kicking out the windshield.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

Thank you very much for providing the link. I did read it earlier and posted an interesting excerpt at #74.

Very interesting, indeed.

BTW, did anyone here happen to watch Hardball and Matt Cooper? I would like to know if the fact that Cooper has given limited testimony to the grand jury was discussed during his appearance.


103 posted on 02/15/2005 6:14:53 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple

I have long maintained this was an organized attempt by a group of people---rogues at CIA and State plus media---to bring down GWB.

It is part and parcel, IMO, of the "Sexed Up Dossier" business that was attempted in England against Blair, and not coincidentally (in my view) was being rolled out at the exact same time.

It is more than one person and I think it is very telling that the grand jury doesn't want to know from Miller just what was said or not about Plame, but what was said about Iraq and uranium. It goes right to my theory, that they are looking at much more than the leaking of her "name" (which I believe was no crime since she more than likely hadn't been covert in years and that was settled early on). I just double checked the phrasing from the subpoena and notice it is in quotes in the ruling: "...or concerning Iraq efforts to obtain uranium".

Why would the grand jury care what was said in that conversation about that topic? Unless they are taking a broader look at the whole story...just as I have surmised.


104 posted on 02/15/2005 6:24:35 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
I agree. There is a plot which includes people in both State and CIA. The parties are Clintonistas which got civil service jobs (when they had political jobs before) in 1998 and 1999. Clinton moved a lot of his people into the "career" groups at that time.

I hope the Grand Jury is diligent and smokes these people out.

105 posted on 02/15/2005 6:28:25 PM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

Isn't there something in the uranium story about some forged documents? Perhaps the GJ is looking at that aspect of this story? Only time will tell.


106 posted on 02/15/2005 6:34:07 PM PST by Laverne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

The name of Plame's front company was exposed by the leak and because Plame used the front company name to make donations to ...who was it, Al Gore?


107 posted on 02/15/2005 6:39:45 PM PST by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Well, Novak never said she was 'undercover.' I think that honor went to the NY Times and Washington Post - [Pincus?], who implied they got that from reading Novak's article even though it wasn't in there.


108 posted on 02/15/2005 6:44:21 PM PST by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: piasa

Yep...let's see, going by memory, it was called Brewster Jennings?


109 posted on 02/15/2005 6:47:00 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Laverne

Yes, forged documents that were given to our embassy in Rome...but after Wilson's trip.

However, part of the spin he gave out was he hinted he was sent due to these forged documents. He and anonymous sources tried to imply that this administration had custody of obvious forgeries and were either too stupid or too eager to go to Iraq that they didn't realize it or acknowledge it. However, the timeline doesn't fit since he went to Niger in Feb. 2002 and I believe Oct. 2002 is when the documents appeared on the scene.


110 posted on 02/15/2005 6:52:16 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: piasa

I think Newsday was the first publication to call her undercover...I'm not 100% positive, but that's what I'm recalling.


111 posted on 02/15/2005 6:53:19 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

I think you're right.


112 posted on 02/15/2005 6:58:23 PM PST by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Miss Marple; cyncooper

It would be great if this investigation caused a bunch of civil-service-protected Clintonistas to be ousted from State and CIA.

I'm probably hoping for too much.


113 posted on 02/15/2005 7:06:25 PM PST by FreedomPoster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

Ousted? I'm a real dreamer...I'm thinking jail for some!

:)


114 posted on 02/15/2005 7:08:54 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

My mistake, as cyncooper pointed out it was Newsday.


115 posted on 02/15/2005 7:11:38 PM PST by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

Oooo - I like the way you think.


116 posted on 02/15/2005 8:01:49 PM PST by FreedomPoster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
"unnamed sources"


I would agree with you if you can explain what is the difference between an "unnamed source" and a made up source.

117 posted on 02/16/2005 5:49:49 AM PST by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CIB-173RDABN
I would agree with you if you can explain what is the difference between an "unnamed source" and a made up source.

Just how would they name a made up source?

118 posted on 02/16/2005 5:55:20 AM PST by Glenn (The two keys to character: 1) Learn how to keep a secret. 2) ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
That is my point. If reporters hide behind "un-named sources", how are we to know that what is said is true and not just made up?
119 posted on 02/16/2005 6:27:08 AM PST by CIB-173RDABN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
"...I want "unnamed sources" to feel free to rat out the permanent government."

That's just wonderful.

How do you propose then to cross-examine an "un-named source?"
What happens when some "un-named source" makes up some lies and ruins a career for political purposes?
How do you fight that?

What if the victim were YOU?

120 posted on 02/16/2005 6:41:01 AM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-123 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson