Media Admits Rove is Innocent

Pusued the following after hearing Rush today discuss the Amici Brief that had been filed by more than a few Media Outlets.

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?

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:

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.

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)

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

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...

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.

In all the circuis about whether or not Rove technically committed a crime in hinting out Plame's identity.

The question that goes begging is 'why' Plame/Wilson have not been held accountable for their actions (a media circus for sure. . .but treason by most accounts); acting as 'enemy political operatives' as they deliberately attempt to sabotage President Bush's foreign policy; while personally discrediting him with lies.

But back to your conclusion. . .this is more than a circus; the Media KNEW Rove did not commit a crime; and yet. . .that has been their focus since this story came out. . .it is a 'straw dog'; but they are treating like a genuine barking dog. . .

And Rove did not 'hint' out Plame's identity; nor was she mentioned for malice; but only in context of Demrat Cooper's 'journalistic dig' for his story on Wilson - who was well into his lies by then. But we know all this!

The whole point of this 'Amici Brief' is to show that the media KNEW; there was NO crime. . .nothing; but nonetheless, chose to participate if not foster, this farce; getting destructive mileage- again - against President Bush; attempting to taint him with a scandal - that isn't - by any law; rule or reason.

If the Repubs had the 'will to fight'; they would/should insure that Wilson/Plame pay for their game.

And get the other Demrats who shared in this slanderous, treasonous perpetration.

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.