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

Skip to comments.

Nothing Happening Here, Just Move Along (Joe Wilson)
WSJ ^ | 3/25/05 | James Taranto

Posted on 03/25/2005 2:30:46 PM PST by swilhelm73

"The nation's largest news organizations and journalism groups" filed a brief in federal court Wednesday arguing that "a federal court should first determine whether a crime has been committed in the disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's name before prosecutors are allowed to continue seeking testimony from journalists about their confidential sources," the Washington Post reports:

The 40-page brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues that there is "ample evidence . . . to doubt that a crime has been committed" in the case, which centers on the question of whether Bush administration officials knowingly revealed the identity of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame in the summer of 2003.

[snip]

This column and the Journal have both long argued that there probably wasn't a crime in the "outing" of Plame, but until recently this put us in a distinct minority among mainstream journalists.

As we noted last month, editorials and columns in the New York Times were particularly aggressive in asserting that a crime had occurred and demanding an investigation. The Times did a turnabout, declaring on Feb. 26 that there is a "real possibility that the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity . . . may not have violated any law." The New York Times Co. did not sign the amicus brief, presumably because its reporter Judith Miller is a party to the case. Likewise for Time Inc.; Time's Matthew Cooper is also threatened with jail for refusing to disclose his sources.

We hope that Miller and Cooper prevail--that they keep their sources confidential and never spend a night behind bars. We also hope our colleagues in the news business learn to be more skeptical about politically motivated criminal accusations.

(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: cialeak; joewilson; josephwilson; judithmiller; matthewcooper; mediabias; pressbias; valerieplame; yellowcake
BURN!
1 posted on 03/25/2005 2:30:57 PM PST by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73; cyncooper; Shermy; Howlin; Mo1; Miss Marple
Oh my god this is RICH.....they are claiming in the brief they filed NO CRIME.....NO FOUL......LOL!

"The nation's largest news organizations and journalism groups" filed a brief in federal court Wednesday arguing that "a federal court should first determine whether a crime has been committed in the disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's name before prosecutors are allowed to continue seeking testimony from journalists about their confidential sources," the Washington Post reports:

The 40-page brief, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, argues that there is "ample evidence . . . to doubt that a crime has been committed" in the case

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!

2 posted on 03/25/2005 2:34:35 PM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Nothing like facing jail time to clear up the thinking.

As we noted last month, editorials and columns in the New York Times were particularly aggressive in asserting that a crime had occurred and demanding an investigation. The Times did a turnabout, declaring on Feb. 26 that there is a "real possibility that the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity . . . may not have violated any law."

This is a hoot!

3 posted on 03/25/2005 2:36:19 PM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dog

As I've been noting, the media is DYING to know what evidence Fitzgerald has been gathering and what's under seal.

Me, too, but the reporters are making me laugh.


4 posted on 03/25/2005 2:37:25 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

This is amazing..


5 posted on 03/25/2005 2:38:32 PM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dog
They were never protecting a Pubbie....

Looks like they've been hoist by their own petard. Bwah hah hah hah hah....

6 posted on 03/25/2005 2:39:40 PM PST by mewzilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy; Owl_Eagle; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Timeout; Carolinamom; dead; Grampa Dave

Fyi.


7 posted on 03/25/2005 2:40:48 PM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Southack; Poohbah; hchutch

Fyi.


8 posted on 03/25/2005 2:41:41 PM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: EllaMinnow

We can all use a good laugh these days and here is one for you.

They would love to know what Fitzgerald is looking at and have reached the point of crying "No mas, no crime was committed after all".

hahahahahahaha


9 posted on 03/25/2005 2:42:21 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
There are 2 posssibilities.

1)They are protecting someone...i.e a reporter or Clintonista.

2) Joe Wilson and his wifey cooked this scheme up with the above named reporters....and are looking at some serious charges.

10 posted on 03/25/2005 2:43:57 PM PST by Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

Those frogs are going to march.


11 posted on 03/25/2005 2:44:20 PM PST by advance_copy (Stand for life, or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper

What goes around, comes around.

Not there will be in MSM coverage of just another one of their industry's professional lapses in judgement.


12 posted on 03/25/2005 2:45:03 PM PST by Valpal1 (Crush jihadists, drive collaborators before you, hear the lamentations of their media. Allahu FUBAR!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73; Dog; liberallarry

I've noticed that many on the "right" were arguing that no crime was committed when it was thought (by force of Wilson's egotistical claims) that the perp was Rove, Libby, or one of the "neo-cons."

Now that it is apparent it wasn't, some on the "left" all the sudden changed there mind and said no crime was committed.

I guess WSJ is remaining consistent.

I don't know if a "crime" was committed but surely outing the identity of a CIA agent is a serious matter that must be investigated.


13 posted on 03/25/2005 2:47:07 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dog

oh, BTW, isn't the WSJ being investigated for receiving the State Department memo about Plame? That wasn't a crime?


14 posted on 03/25/2005 2:49:34 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dog

You got that right. Joe was sent to verify information gleaned by sensitive intelligence methods. I have no doubt that his proclamation to the press violated the rules pertaining to Special Access Programs. While the MSM won't address, it's pretty obvious what happened here.

DNC rogues at the CIA put the party ahead of their country.

Now, let's see some frogmarching!


15 posted on 03/25/2005 2:49:37 PM PST by Wristpin ( Varitek says to A-Rod: "We don't throw at .260 hitters.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

The WSJ didn't receive it. The article said the memo was described to the reporter.

And accurately, too, I'll note, unlike the "CIA sources" that told reporters there was no such memo. There was and Plame did in fact recommend her husband to go to Niger.

I want to know why they wanted Wilson to go to Niger. The grand jury wants to know about the trip, too, if the excerpt of their subpoena to Matt Cooper is any indication. The judges have been very pointed that fishing expeditions are not allowed.


16 posted on 03/25/2005 2:57:31 PM PST by cyncooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: advance_copy

"Those frogs are going to march."

LOL!

Good memory.


17 posted on 03/25/2005 2:59:03 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
In the Limbaugh letter there was an article last summer and Joe was quoted as wondering who would play his wife in the movie.

Is there a chance that Joe might have to get on a work release program to play himself?

18 posted on 03/25/2005 3:03:17 PM PST by carlr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper; Fedora

"There was and Plame did in fact recommend her husband to go to Niger."

Yep. Joe's obsessional denial that his wife played any role always stood out. Some say he wants to avoid the appearance of nepotism. could be. Maybe a macho thing that he doesn't want it to appear that a woman got him the job?

Then there's that thing about his vanishing second wife.


19 posted on 03/25/2005 3:04:09 PM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dog

I've never thought that so-called journalists deserved an elite statuts regarding this issue. Now they're reduced to saying no crime was committed in order to protect their sources. Too funny.


20 posted on 03/25/2005 3:13:36 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dog

Freepers could have told them this conclusion from the gitgo and saved everyone time and money.


21 posted on 03/25/2005 3:21:07 PM PST by Carolinamom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dog; cyncooper; Shermy

Heheheh. Excellent!


22 posted on 03/25/2005 3:41:53 PM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73
It would be sweet to read a New York Times mea culpa, but the temperature in Hell is hot as usual.
23 posted on 03/25/2005 4:25:51 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73

As the worm squirms. Tune in manana.


24 posted on 03/25/2005 4:53:29 PM PST by Waco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Waco

well quite frankly I think it is a valid point and remember kiddies, if they win this motion, the Dems will be crying, Wilson will be further discredited and the leakers will be safe....

I remember it well - when this brouhahaha first come to light, Mr. Wilson drudged it up again in time for his book promotion tour and in time for the middle of the Presidential campaign,

that most of the legal pundits didn't think, even if the leakers were found, that a crime had been committed with the way the particular statute is written, it was written to cover a very different set of circumstances and has a mens rea requirement ie. intent that would be difficult to prove because:

I also recall that Bob Novak claimed that the fact Ms. Plame was a CIA operative was the worst kept secret in Washington and in fact I also recall a few Washington columnists backed up Novak on that supposition...I think, now my memory fails me here, but I think Novak says he knew she was in the CIA before he was told that that she was the one that volunteered her husband Joe Wilson for the mission to Niger to check out the uranium claim.

so if you didn't think it was a secret to begin with, you haven't met the mens rea requirement of the statute

Given the Wilson-Plame cover story and photo shoot for Vanity Fair to promote Wilson's book and given Wilson was totally discredited later by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Iraq on the very issue of the uranium claim, I'm inclined to give Novak the benefit of the doubt

more puzzling however is why old Novak's butt on the line too, did he fess up?


25 posted on 03/25/2005 6:45:49 PM PST by llama hunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: llama hunter

hmmm you think Cooper and Miller are protecting a Democrat, never thought of that angle, actually I've always like Judith Miller, she had major egg on her face when Saddam had no WMD because that beat was her bread and butter....

again Novak brought the story to light and yet he's not sitting in jail....or at risk of it


26 posted on 03/25/2005 6:51:05 PM PST by llama hunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: llama hunter

Oh let me find what the Senate Intelligence report said about Wilson and his testimony, priceless, just another DNC liar,

ballsy these people are, ballsy.....

if you are going to lie, stick with it people, and make sure any evidence to the contrary has disappeared, LOL


27 posted on 03/25/2005 6:53:44 PM PST by llama hunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Yep. Joe's obsessional denial that his wife played any role always stood out. Some say he wants to avoid the appearance of nepotism. could be. Maybe a macho thing that he doesn't want it to appear that a woman got him the job?

Or maybe he was trying to distract attention from the implication that his attack on the Bush administration's foreign policy was related to his wife's work at CIA? Back when Wilson stared his denial on this, the conflict between the CIA and the Bush administration was more covert that overt, at least in the public eye. Now that it's become more overt, in retrospect it seems like Novak's article was a turning point in drawing public attention to the CIA's undermining of Bush's foreign policy. I wonder if the sources being protected here are CIA/intelligence community opponents of Bush's foreign policy.

28 posted on 03/25/2005 6:54:07 PM PST by Fedora
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: llama hunter

OK here is the synopsis of the argument that Bush was not lying in the SOTU address, he may have been wrong, I'm not convinced he was wrong
_________________________________
Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”

A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.

Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger .

Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
___________________________

{and in fact the UK's own investigation showed the British indeed had independent intelligence for the claim and they never backed down)

on to Mr. Wilson, from the same site cited above...

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.

The Senate report said the CIA then asked a "former ambassador" to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson -- who later became a vocal critic of the President's 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.

Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.

Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."


29 posted on 03/25/2005 7:04:00 PM PST by llama hunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: swilhelm73; Dog; Dog Gone; MeekOneGOP; PhilDragoo; backhoe; Southack; nopardons; FBD; piasa; ...

The lying leftist bastards at the NY Slimes are an amazing group of liars of the lying lefties.

Actually, it would be good to see some jail time for some of the top liars who pushed this bs. Apparently, Peter King is working for this justice behind the scenes, and those involved in the Yellowcake/Wilson/Plame scam are very scared of what may happen.


30 posted on 03/26/2005 7:55:55 AM PST by Grampa Dave (The MSM has been a WMD, Weapon of Mass Disinformation for the Rats for at least 4 decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

"I've noticed that many on the "right" were arguing that no crime was committed when it was thought (by force of Wilson's egotistical claims) that the perp was Rove, Libby, or one of the "neo-cons."

Probably some of the same pseudo conservatives who cheer the murder of Terri.

If we ever are able to find out how deep the funding of bs like this from $oro$ and other evil super rich left wing facists, it will be an amazing story. A lot of pseudo conservatives might have to fly to France and ask for asylum if that ever happens.


31 posted on 03/26/2005 7:58:50 AM PST by Grampa Dave (The MSM has been a WMD, Weapon of Mass Disinformation for the Rats for at least 4 decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

"Then there's that thing about his vanishing second wife."

Huh?

Please explain.


32 posted on 03/26/2005 7:59:44 AM PST by Grampa Dave (The MSM has been a WMD, Weapon of Mass Disinformation for the Rats for at least 4 decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; Shermy

That was Shermy who said that.


33 posted on 03/26/2005 8:01:21 AM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; Shermy

Thanks, I need some more coffee.

Shermy, how about Frog Walk Joe's missing wife?


34 posted on 03/26/2005 8:02:50 AM PST by Grampa Dave (The MSM has been a WMD, Weapon of Mass Disinformation for the Rats for at least 4 decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
Mark Steyn: How a serial liar suckered Dems and the media

BUSH LIED!! Not.

BLAIR LIED!!! Not.

But it turns out JOE WILSON LIED! PEOPLE DIED. Of embarrassment mostly. At least I'm assuming that's why the New York Times, MSNBC's Chris Matthews, PBS drone Bill Moyers and all the other media bigwigs Joseph C. Wilson IV suckered have fallen silent on the subject of the white knight of integrity they've previously given the hold-the-front-page treatment, too.


35 posted on 03/26/2005 8:09:36 AM PST by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MeekOneGOP

Frog Walk Joe Wilson is one of the top serial liars of the left, and they have a lot of serial liars.

Thanks for the ping and the reminder.


36 posted on 03/26/2005 8:38:42 AM PST by Grampa Dave (The MSM has been a WMD, Weapon of Mass Disinformation for the Rats for at least 4 decades.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; Dog Gone

She's mentioned in Vanity Fair. Met in Africa. Married 12 years or so. She was a French diplomat. In Vanity Fair he talks about how she and Wilson attended a dinner with one of Saddam's top arms purchasers on the eve of the invasion of Kuwait.

In his book this wife is wholly absent and unmentioned. Wilson specifies he went to the dinner "alone."


37 posted on 03/26/2005 10:49:37 AM PST by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; MeekOneGOP
Joseph C. Wilson, Valerie Plame, and a host of Walter Duranty Award Winners at the Old Gray Whore are going to model jumpsuits.

Jumpsuits and shackles,
As the blogosphere cackles,
The Left's so annoyed--
Yes. . .that's schadenfreude.

38 posted on 03/26/2005 4:35:41 PM PST by PhilDragoo (Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: PhilDragoo
bump!


39 posted on 03/26/2005 4:48:15 PM PST by MeekOneGOP (There is only one GOOD 'RAT: one that has been voted OUT of POWER !! Straight ticket GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

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