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

Skip to comments.

Media Admits Rove is Innocent
The QandO Blog ^ | Wednesday, July 13, 2002 | Dale Franks(E-mail Jon Henke;McQ;Dale Franks)

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


TOPICS: Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: amicibrief; blog; cary; cia; cialeak; hoax; media; plame; rove; treason; wilson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-158 next last
There is a treason here; but the 'hoax' the media speaks of; is on us. . .see Amici Brief 032305(Final).PDF
1 posted on 07/18/2005 8:20:33 PM PDT by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cricket
"see Amici Brief 032305(Final).PDF";corr: that would be. . .'Amicus Brief
2 posted on 07/18/2005 8:23:24 PM PDT by cricket (Just say NO U.N.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cricket

You may want to use the < blockquote > tag in order to offset the quoted text - it would make the changes in voice in this article more evident and easier to read.


3 posted on 07/18/2005 8:24:39 PM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cricket
Media Admits Rove is Innocent

You will only see one or two sentences on page 47 publically admitting this

4 posted on 07/18/2005 8:25:04 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

Ping ))))


5 posted on 07/18/2005 8:26:01 PM PDT by NordP (Keeping America Great - Karl Rove / Jack Bauer in 2008 !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub; Kathy in Alaska; Fawnn; HiJinx; Radix; Spotsy; Diva Betsy Ross; ...

Guys you gotta see this. MSM admits it got suckered on the Rove thing. Can't wait to how Schumer and the rest of the Dems wipe the egg of their faces on this one.

6 posted on 07/18/2005 8:26:15 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mvpel

You are right and I meant to make this more readable; just trying to hurry as I have to 'walk my dog' and it is late; should have waited until morning! Sorry. . .I wish it read better as well. Already correcting my mistakes ;^(


7 posted on 07/18/2005 8:27:07 PM PDT by cricket (Just say NO U.N.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cricket
The treason may be 'Mr. And Mrs. Wilson;

I hope so. I've got money riding on these two being indited.

8 posted on 07/18/2005 8:27:19 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("A people without a heritage are easily persuaded (deceived)" - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cricket

You were right the first time. Amicus is signular. Aimici is plural.


9 posted on 07/18/2005 8:29:18 PM PDT by Keith in Iowa (Talk Nerdy To Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Its good to see their desperation


10 posted on 07/18/2005 8:29:25 PM PDT by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa

Amici is plural...


11 posted on 07/18/2005 8:30:02 PM PDT by Keith in Iowa (Talk Nerdy To Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cricket
Hell, there you go again...fact is irrelevant to the true believer. How something, no matter how false, makes them feel trumps all!
12 posted on 07/18/2005 8:32:04 PM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Howlin
Ping

Here's a pleasant article for you. It smells like Lilly's. Political cemetery Lilly's.

13 posted on 07/18/2005 8:32:11 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("A people without a heritage are easily persuaded (deceived)" - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandRat
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?

HawwH00oooo!

14 posted on 07/18/2005 8:33:29 PM PDT by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: cricket
Old Media Double Standard Hypocritical Politically Motivated Save For Future Reference BTTT!
15 posted on 07/18/2005 8:37:27 PM PDT by kAcknor (Don't flatter yourself.... It is a gun in my pocket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cricket

BUMP - Move this baby up, up , up.


16 posted on 07/18/2005 8:37:35 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("A people without a heritage are easily persuaded (deceived)" - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mylife

Talk about not being able to connect the dots! Sheesh!!!!!


17 posted on 07/18/2005 8:37:45 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SandRat

Theyre so blinded by thier partisan ship they forget the basics

snicker


18 posted on 07/18/2005 8:39:14 PM PDT by mylife (The roar of the masses could be farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: mylife
Muttly thinks so too


19 posted on 07/18/2005 8:41:50 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cricket

Great post!


20 posted on 07/18/2005 8:41:50 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-158 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