 |
  |
| Based on an amused spectator's list Send FReepmail if you want on/off MSP list |
|
| The List of Ping Lists | |
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
And Miller is protecting what source? Rove? LOL!
|
|
| Based on an amused spectator's list Send FReepmail if you want on/off MSP list |
|
| The List of Ping Lists | |
OMG gee Time Magazine you guys got hosed LOL!
Too good I going ping Daily Dose on this
Not all the media...Did anyone hear and see Isikoff on Hannity tonight? Hannity went through all the stuff here, and then VERY STRONGLY Isikoff said the prosecutor is keeping on--he (Isikoff) was in court a couple weeks ago and the questions being asked were like a crime had been committed--said that outting Plame is not it. It is all about a memo Colin Powell had on AF 1 giving Plames name and the crime may be leaking a secret document or even using the WH and power of Admin. to retaliate. He was so d@#m adamant, it made me mad. He intimated that the WH set out to punish Wilson.
Of all the things he mentioned, you could say the Clinton WH did it--retaliated, used their power to personally destroy, leaked secret documents(even stole secret documents), etc. But now that the Bush Admin is ACCUSED of something, they have to keep going until SOMETHING is proven.
I would have liked to punch Iskoff and smarmy Colmes (who squared off with Bill Bennett) in the nose--no, better, yet, rubbed their noses in something nasty.
The MSM got away with turning the Vietnam War into defeat, especially the Tet Offensive; they turned a two bit breakin into the downfall of a Republican President, and they want to do it again.
It is a tossup who has their nose more out of joint from losing power--Dems or the MSM. Of course, they are practically interchangeable. And the thing is---they just don't "get it" and never will.
vaudine
They absolutly have nothing. just flailing and gnashing of teeth. And it so orcherstrated a 5 old could see thru thier crap.
This really is a bunch of children pitchin a fit and not able to understand that adults can discern the truth
Just wait until the Grand Jury hands down their indictments? .......
The Liberals will go after Fitzgerald like we have never seen before. Fitzgerald will be called worse than Kenneth Starr, the left will say Bush and Fitzgerald were in on this together.... Just watch :-)
Isikoff ist eine dumkopf! Eine grosse dumkopf!
Heres the thing. Rove is to smart to get nailed for this. Remember how the White House reviewed the forged memos before giving them back to CBS? They said nothing about there authenticity, but I think everyone knows now that Rove knew they were fake and CBS and Rather would burn if they went with the story. The Media blames Rove for exposing them as liars that desired taking down a Republican President over telling the truth. They will never forgive him for it, ever. Rove knows this, hell, he loves it.
Karl and the President are sitting on an full boat aces high, I just know it. They know something. They know whose guilty and it isnt anyone in the White House. They have got someone on the inside of this case and it's not looking good for some mid level CIA types right now. They know something the media dosent.
Many Libs in the press and the Government have yet to critisize Rove. They remember what happened to Dan and they have noticed that the Administration seems to be asking for punishment from the press. The Smart libs are not taking the bait. While Terry Moran / David Greggory & Co just cant help themselves. The Administration always gets out infront of stories. Yet this time they are taking punishment and not fighting back. They Sent Scott to the podium looking like a deer in the headlights for a REASON. They are going to bring the hammer down hard and it will be soon. xoxoxo
They didn't get fooled, they are COMPLICIT in a DNC smear campaign designed to bloody Rove. They have known from square ONE that this is a non-story.
Thats the attach du jour L0L... idiots
Gaosh I hope they continue L0L
They threw crap and it hit the FAN. Except that the fan was aimed towards them so all the crap came back back in their faces.
Yawohl!!
vaudine
Asked about a letter she sent the White House demanding that Rove's security clearance be suspended, Rep. Jane Harman first insisted she was certain that the top Bush's aide's source was someone in the administration.
"There's no other way that he would know [Plame's name]," Harman argued to "Fox News Sunday's" Brit Hume.
The California Democrat theorized that there was a "gossip pool in the White House emailing each other and chatting it up."
She then charged that Rove was "marketing the facts" to reporters Matthew Cooper and Robert Novak.
Hume noted, however, that according to published reports on Friday, Rove "heard about the information from reporters" - and not Bush administration colleagues.
He challenged Harman: "How do you know that's not true?"
The top House Intelligence Committee Democrat began furiously backpedaling:
"Well, I can't know absolutely that it's not true," Harman confessed, before protesting, "But it's a circle - the reporters got it from somewhere."
Isikoff ist eine dumkopf! Eine grosse dumkopf!
Yep, exactly. Then they will say: "Rove did the exact same thing" when it is not the same thing at all. They intend to use this to defend their person and call their leaker and Rove equal. They have already planted it in the mind of the ignorant that Rove leaked the name.
Oops ..agenda du jour is what I meant
I'm a little rusty on my German, but I translate that as "Isikoff is a Dumbass, a really big dumbass" :-)
Yawohl--I agree completely. However, he is a big name in "journalism", and I pointed out his position and the fact that he was deadly serious and would hardly let Hannity get a word in---he was just insistant that there is a there there--giving up on the CA name/plame/game and going on to other criminal offenses.
vaudine
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.