Posted on 07/18/2005 8:20:32 PM PDT by cricket
Pusued the following after hearing Rush today discuss the Amici Brief that had been filed by more than a few Media Outlets.
The treason may be 'Mr. And Mrs. Wilson; but the hoax is on us it seems.
The question is; will the responsibile parties for this slander/treason be held accountable. . .and how far will our MSM go; playing 'cat and mouse' with the truth so as to 'bring a story home' for ratings and . . .an agenda?
Media Admits Rove is Innocent
Posted by: Dale Franks on Wednesday, July 13, 2005
You probably won't hear this anywhere in the mainstream media, so I might as well do it. I hate to beat this Rove thing to death with a stick, but, I'm seeing all these reporters at White House Press Briefings, and in the papers, and on TV all hinting—without actually saying it, but strongly implying—that Karl Rove is guilty.
But what you may not know is that the legal position of the organizations they work for is that Karl Rove has committed no crime. In fact, their position is that no crime has been committed at all, in reference to the Valerie Plame case.
"Dale," you're undoubtedly asking, "how can you say such a thing? It's just wacky!"
Well, it would be, usually, except for one thing. An amicus brief has been filed in the US Court of appeals for the DC Circuit by the following media organizations:
Media Organizations
ABC Dow Jones & Co.
The New York Press Club
Advance Publications Scripps Company
The Newspaper Association of America
Albritton Communications FOXNews
The Newspaper Guild
The American Society of Magazine Editors Gannett Co. Newsweek
AP Harper's Magazine Foundation
NYP Holdings
Belo Corp.
Hearst Corp.
The Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press
Bloomberg
Knight-Ridder Newspapers
Reuters
CNN
LIN Television
The Society of Professional Journalists
CBS Magazine Publishers of America Tribune Company
Copley Press
McClatchey Co.
The Washington Post
Cox Newspapers
McGraw-Hill
White House Correspondents
Daily News
NBC
So, have I left anybody out? No? Well, that's pretty much a who's who of the Old Media. And what, exactly, is their legal position?
There is ample evidence on the public record to cast considerable doubt that a crime has been committed... At this point, the brief repeats the elements of the crime I wrote about yesterday, and continues:
Congress intended only to criminalize only disclosures that "clearly represent a conscious and pernicious effort to identify and expose agents with the intent to impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States..." They then bring up another aspect that I mentioned, which is whether or not Ms. Plame was even a covert agent at all.
Public information casts considerable doubt that the government took the "affirmative measures" required by the Act to conceal Plame's identity.
At the threshold, an agent whose identity has been revealed must trule be "covert" for there to be a violation of the Act. To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the "deep cover" required of a covert agent. See 50 USC § 426 ("covert agent" defined). She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveliong to and from, and active at, Langley.
She had been residing in Washington—not stationed abroad—for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name...
This goes to whether or not the element of the government taking "affirmative steps" to keep Ms. Plame's identity a secret applies. And, according to the brief filed in Federal Appeals Court by the Old Media, even that is doubtful.
Indeed, they hint the CIA might even have been complicit in publishing Ms. Plame's name.
Novak's column can be viewed as critical of CIA ineptitude: The Agency's response to a request by the State Department and the Vice president's office to verify whether a specific foreign intelligence report was accurate was to have "low-level" bureaucrats make the decision to send a non-CIA employee [Joseph Wilson] (neither an expert on Niger nor on weapons of mass destruction) on this crucial mission at his wife's suggestion...Did no one at Langley think that Plame's identity might be compromised if her spouse writes a nationally distributed Op-Ed piece discussing a foreign mission about a volatile political issue that focused on her subject matter expertise?
The public record provides ample evidence that the CIA was at least cavalier about, if not complicit in, the publishing of Plame's name. Moreover, given Novak's suggestion of CIA incompetence plus the resulting public uproar over Plame's identity being revealed, the CIA had every incentive to dissemble by claiming it wash "shocked, shocked" that leaking was going on...
So, let's review. The official, legal position of the Mainstream media is that no crime was committed in the release of Valerie Plame's name.
The media asserts:
a) that even if Plame was a covert agent, the release of her name doesn't meet the required elements to charge anyone under § 421,
b) that Ms. Plame wasn't a covert agent anyway, as §426 defines it, so even if the CIA didn't want her name published, publishing it isn't a violation of the section, (and)
c) the CIA didn't try to keep her name from being published.
So, the media admits, White House Press Corps hound-baying aside, that Karl Rove is legally innocent of any wrongdoing.
And, while we're on the subject, what is the deal with the New York Times? One of the things about their mouth-breathing editorial this morning is that the editors of the Times know who Judith Miller's source was.
They already know the truth. Ms. Miller doesn't, after all, work in a vacuum. Presumably, her editors know who her source is. That's they way journalism works.
Think about it: They wasted a significant amount of newsprint this morning demanding that Karl Rove publicly tell the truth.
But, one wonders why—since the editors of the Times already know the truth, and since they, you know, publish a newspaper—they don't simply publish what they know?
After all, it might have been a more interesting use of space than the anti-Rove editorial they printed this morning. And karl rove has had a waiver of confidentiality on file for 18 months.
If the public has a right to know the truth, and the editors of the Times already know what the truth is, then why don't they print it? I merely ask for my own information. TrackBacks
ping
That legal filing by the media is amazing, isn't it? I saw it last week and was stunned.
Bump
It came only to my atention by way of Rush who discussed it at length a few days ago; decided to try and find the thing. . .
. . .anyway; you 'would think'; surely by now; the media has gotten wind that people are hearing about this and that we are just waiting; waiting. . .for them to acknowledge the 'other side' of this story - without holding our breath, of course. . .
(Also waiting for the Mr.and Mrs. Wilson; to be held accountable for their actions)
I know what you mean.
At least Bush got the Supreme Court pick right. :)
Right. Although I do not look forward to the day they get any power back, the way they are acting now. I worry about a split Republican party or weak candidate in 2008 handing the Democrats a victory they could not achieve otherwise.
But again I think part of the problem is that to the extent Democrats have ideas, they are far left ideas which they and we know the electorate does not want. Say what you will about Howard Dean, one charge rarely leveled against him was that he was insincere, hiding his real positions, or a flip-flopper like Kerry. I think a poll of Democrats in, say December 2003 would show that Democratic activists were more in tune with Dean's views than Karry's. But Dean was deemed "unelectable," or at least Kerry was thought more so. That tells me a lot.
Joe Wilson told ABC's Good Morning, America back in 2003:
"In one speech I gave out in Seattle not too long ago, I mentioned the name Karl Rove. I think I was probably carried away by the spirit of the moment...I don't have any knowledge that Karl Rove himself was either the 'leaker' or the authorizer of the leak."
Then Wilson saw how the spin and lies were working and decided to keep at it.
. . .as did the Kerry/Kennedy strategists; then Demrats, et al. . .
Rush mentioned yesterday that Ms. Plame; outed herself when she donated to Kerry campaign; not using her married name; but rather her 'agent' name - 'Valerie Plame' - as well as naming; as her place of employ; a CIA cover organization (!); campaign donations being public record of course.
No question, she was rather casual about her status. And as stated here; she was not considered 'deep cover' - perhaps because she did not take it too seriously herself. . .or she just could not keep a secret. . and how can you 'feel'/be important; if no one knows 'who' you are. (She and her husband do seem a perfect match).
And still. . .the 'mystery of the investigation' goes on. . .
For what purpose did the media submit a brief...and even better question, how did the judge who saw the brief rule?
Dean has been painted as a bit crazy. Not sure if Dean could ever win a national election. The scream has hurt Dean. Many of these left wing Democrats are simply repeating talking points put out by exteme groups like Move On.Org. Now the left wing Democrats are talking heads for extemist groups. So the Democrat Party is real divided.
Not sure many of the Democrats could be elected if they are branded as left-wing kooks.
The judge ruled on the brief? Please try to constrain yourself to the facts.
not "how did he rule on the brief?"
how did he rule on what ever matter was before his court, that motivated the brief.
and it was an actual question....whenever there is brief it is done in some kind of context...the context is very important..i was simply asking what was the context?
The interesting part of this matter is how the media makes legal assertions in court, and then proceeds to take editorial positions completely opposite of their legal position. The MSM doesn't even mention their legal position. The bias exhibited by the MSM in this matter is unmatched in recent history. This is worse than CBS and their fake memo.
We don't know how the brief fit into the context of the case. It is pointless to speculate.
I guess the two things I would say is...
First when I hear the media submits a brief, I think hmm why does the media even have an interest in this case? so to me it seems like the context should be somewhat relevant.
But in terms of media bias? Well there are many possible explanation for the disconnect that have nothing to do with media bias.
The focus of the media attention has not been claiming there is public proof of a crime..rathar just proof the white house lied to the public about the facts of the case. Thats really all the media has said. I personally think it will come out that Fitzgerald has proof of a crime, but the media certainly hasnt claimed to have proof a crime. So far the media has just proof that the White House has lied about the
facts. (which of course suggests they know they did something wrong)(maybe not illegal but certainly immoral).
Agreed. But again, I think a large portion of the party elites do believe what Dean, MoveOn, etc. say. The only reason they went with Kerry is "electability." I think if they had had their choice irrespective of that they would have preferred Dean. IMHO.
The Big Media knew Kerry had more money than Dean. Kerry could buy more t.v. advertisements. Money talks louder than
Dean yells!
I know what you mean.
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.