[cricket]

There is a treason here; but the 'hoax' the media speaks of; is on us. . .see Amici Brief 032305(Final).PDF

[cricket]

"see Amici Brief 032305(Final).PDF";corr: that would be. . .'Amicus Brief

[mvpel]

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.

[qam1]

Media Admits Rove is Innocent

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

[NordP]

Ping ))))

[SandRat]

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.

[concerned about politics]

The treason may be 'Mr. And Mrs. Wilson;

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

[ncountylee]

Hell, there you go again...fact is irrelevant to the true believer. How something, no matter how false, makes them feel trumps all!

[concerned about politics]

Ping

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

[kAcknor]

Old Media Double Standard Hypocritical Politically Motivated Save For Future Reference BTTT!

[concerned about politics]

BUMP - Move this baby up, up , up.

[Lancey Howard]

Great post!

[martin_fierro]

Based on an amused spectator's list Send FReepmail if you want on/off MSP list
The List of Ping Lists

[SevenofNine]

OMG gee Time Magazine you guys got hosed LOL!

Too good I going ping Daily Dose on this

[bill1952]

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."

See, it's like this:

I knew it for certain before I didn't.

[68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub]

Spineless US Senate would rather protect Hanoi Kerry
than deal with the anti war crowd.

Anyone who thinks Hanoi Kerry isn't behind the anti war crowd needs to get a clue.

It's time to support our troops and ignore the jelly fish in the US Senate!

There is no need to impeach Hanoi Kerry from the US Senate

He is there illegally!

WAKEUP AMERICA!

For those who "forgot" what Hanoi Kerry
did in the past read on and learn the truth.

Hanoi Kerry was still a USNR officer while he:
gave false hearsay testimony to Congress
negotiated with the enemy
helped the US lose a war
abetted in the deaths of millions
created a hostile environment for all servicemen

Why is Kerry still in the US Senate?
This is in violation of
U.S. Constitution Amendment 14 Sec 3
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html

And the FBI has proof of his treason.

Hanoi Kerry Timeline of a traitor
includes FBI files

May 1970
Kerry and Julia traveled to Paris, France and met with Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG), the political wing of the Vietcong, and other Viet Cong and Communist Vietnamese representatives to the Paris peace talks, a trip he now calls a "fact-finding" mission.

(U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953, declares it illegal for a U.S. citizen to go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power.)

http://www.archive-news.net/Kerry/JK_timeline.html

a) A person charged with absence without leave or missing movement in time of war,
or with any offense punishable by death,
may be tried at any time without limitation.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm#*%20843.%20ART.%2043.%20STATUTE%20OF%20LIMITATIONS

Distribute these url's!

Links to Anti Kerry sites
212 LINKS
News reports,
Viper's Vietnam Veterans Page

http://members.aol.com/ga1449ga/links/links.html


EXPOSE HANOI KERRY!

MUST SEE WEBSITE!!!!

http://www.kerrystreason.com/index.html

Full details on these url's!

http://stophanoikerry.150m.com

There is a backup site
if the 1st url is unavailable.

http://tonkin.spymac.net/hanoikerry1.html

Did you see this...?
(The 'Kerry's Promise Counter')
http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=6628
Polipundit even tells you how to install it on your own page!

Swift Boat Veteran For Truth John O'Neill Comments on Kerry's 180 'Release'
6/7/05
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1418592/posts

John Kerry was dishonorably dismissed from the Navy:
(statement from lawyers there at the time)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1406760/posts

Why does Hanoi Kerry continue to refuse to sign
form SF 180 and release his military records to the public?
Sam Sewell 09 June 2005

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4388.html

[Waco]

Looks like Goss may have some firing to do? So,the MSM will spin it,,,,"Bush didn't fire, he had someone else do it?"

[eddie willers]

BUMP!

[G Larry]

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.

[ThePythonicCow]

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.

[cvq3842]

This is really interesting.

The media is not the final say on whether a crime was committed. Neither are political operatives and bloggers. The investigators are. The Bush white house is cooperating - no crazy privilege claims that I know of.

But again it takes a lot of chutzpah to report on Rove as the media is doing, and not mention this.

The first question to ask in this context for me is whether this fact would have been widely reported if the shoe were on the other foot - a Democrat president being covered by conservative media outlets. Of course it would.

And I sure would like to know who that reporter in jail is protecting. It ain't Rove.