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 ...
"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!!!!!!!!!!!!
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!
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.
This is amazing..
Looks like they've been hoist by their own petard. Bwah hah hah hah hah....
Fyi.
Fyi.
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
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.
Those frogs are going to march.
What goes around, comes around.
Not there will be in MSM coverage of just another one of their industry's professional lapses in judgement.
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.
oh, BTW, isn't the WSJ being investigated for receiving the State Department memo about Plame? That wasn't a crime?
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!
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.
"Those frogs are going to march."
LOL!
Good memory.
Is there a chance that Joe might have to get on a work release program to play himself?
"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.
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.
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.