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
**
I've seen that pic before, but I still ROFLMAO every time.
Thanks!!
Thanks. . . Yes, the brief reads. . .'Amici Brief 032305(Final.PDF) . . .more than forty pages long. . .'plural for sure; but 'brief' not ;^) (Blog had it as Amicus - referencing (mistakenly) entire document as 'one', I guess.)
The nut-ball came on "Meet The Press" and broke an egg right on his forehead, in front of the world.
"Aimici is plural."
Actually, Aimici is mis-spelled.
Report to Miss Kaufman's classroom
at 7:30 tomorrow morning for personal
make up. You will have to conjugate
the complete paradigm of Sto.
And bring your handkerchief. You know
how she hates people wiping their noses
on their sleeves.
My guess is they're double agents. That's why they're so rich !!!
Hanson also flashed his cash, just like Wilson.
Pleeeease. I've got money riding on it. Pooooolease!
. . .and I have been as curious, as I have been frustrated these past few weeks; watching their (Fox News) response to this story.
'Balanced' may include giving equal weight to Wilson's lies' but it is not fair in my book.
See post #11. Corrected myself.
Amicus would be 1 person filing a brief...Amici is a group filing the brief...
For the Left; there are so many way to skin a cat. . .the Rove connection is failing. . .
. . .so let's just back up and find another Repub. . .'oh. . .Colin Powell'. . .(no use to us (Demrats) anymore; so why not?)
Desperate people saying desperate things. . .pathetic.
But why don't the Repubs just announce a new investigation of Plame and Wilson. . .their lies and their motivations. . .their treason.
If they do not have the 'stomach'; then they better had go home; because this 'Left' has a stomach made of iron.
BUMP and ping!
Great point about Hanson flashing cash.
Double agents angle is interesting. Perhaps Ms. Plame leaked sensitive information to her husband and that also could be part of the investigation.
I'm truly concerned that we may have a run-away prosecutor and grand jury here. I also think it is beyond despicable that a prosecutor would even take a case like this to a GJ. I think its worse than despicable, in a time of grave danger to this nation, that the prosecutor would not step forward and clear the air. If Rove or anyone else close to the POTUS and VPOTUS are being raked over the coals by the media -- but are not guilty of any offence -- then the prosecutor should come forward and say so.
If they are guilty of some chargeable offense, then the sooner the prosecutor brings an indictment, the better off the country will be, because we are in a genuine world war and can't afford to take our eye off the ball.
The various people ensnared in the web of these murky special counsel things are exposed to the danger of accidentally stepping into a peripheral crime, such as "obstruction of justice," when the matter that started it all isn't even a crime. In almost every one of these special prosector investigations, the central matter never goes to court. Yet the costs to the taxpayer and the people ensnared in the investigation's web is extraordinarily high. That's why the Congress let the special counsel law expire.
These are nothing but high-tech witch hunts. Plain and simple. If Fitzgerald can somehow snare himself a big-wig it makes his career, fame and fortune. That's a powerful incentive to keep pushing at people in the hope that they trip over their own memories of events. Same goes for any of the grand jurors in an era in which any one of them could walk out of there and sign a book deal.
I do not trust Fitzgerald and I do not trust this GJ.
Double agents angle is interesting. Perhaps Ms. Plame leaked sensitive information to her husband and that also could be part of the investigation.
Yeah. Rove is innocent, so there's no reason to investigate him for 2 (that we know of) years. By leaking info about "Rove", they keep the democrats and Co. from fleeing the country.
'Children pitchin a fit' are in fact just that; children. . .innocent. . .at least, a work in progress. . .
These people are not 'child-like' by any stretch. . .they act totally, without moral boundaries; without rules/fairness. . .they are utilitarian; the 'end' THEY desire; justifies ANY means. . .their's is a 'self-serving' MO; couched in an imagined and arrogant, 'collective good'.
They are political terrorists, really. . .with allegiance not to their Country. . .or to anyone/anything. . .save a 'collective' goal that refuses to recognize that 'words mean things'; and that laws; rules. . .a society; a culture; must have a moral base to survive as relevant - meaningful and worthwhile.
Wish that they were just children. . .because we know, usually, they 'grow up'.
The prognosis for these Leftists is not so promising.
Bush can't cave on Rove because it would have the effect of encouraging the mindless, liberal, cowards into continuing attacks on anyone or anything he promotes now or in the future.
Yeah...Thats what it is they are..... ALL incompetent.. Yeah thats the ticket
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.