Posted on 10/01/2005 6:23:23 AM PDT by Maria S
WASHINGTON -- Accuracy in Media (AIM) said today that Judith Miller's release from jail in the CIA leak investigation demonstrates that her claim about protecting sources was fraudulent from the start.
"Miller has decided to cooperate with a grand jury investigation of possible criminal activity in the CIA leak case," said AIM Editor Cliff Kincaid. "This proves that her decision to go to jail, rather than testify, was a ploy all along."
(Excerpt) Read more at aim.org ...
Not without a few hours of research, however; I have known AIM and I knew its late founder since around 1973. I'm personally familiar with Kincaid. He has been around as long as I have.
My background in conservative politics exposed me to most Washington Institutions and the media as well.
I stand by my prior statement.
My paranoia tells me that the timing of her release is to coincide with the "corruption" theme pile on. Frist nothing burger, Delay witchhunt, and this.
What many aren't picking up is that this rabid Democrat special prosecuter has been waiting to show a government orchestrated conspiracy to defame Plame, and for that he needed evidence of two different offices of the administration that were deliberately leaking this "secret personal information about an undercover agent in contravention of the law" to further a political agenda. Cheney's office and Rove's office are going to be indicted.
It's all been planned.
Baloney
Whatever you say, you eloquent devil.
THe reporter would have to knowingly divulge classified information with an intent to harm the united states. It is unlikely scooter or rove broke the agee-inspired law for the same reason.
Fitzgerald has found some crimes other than the exposure of a covert agent. Miller went to jail because she would not answer questions. She set up Libby under advice of her fat attorney for some reason we do not know yet.
If you can't give a some examples of AIM's "untrustworthiness" without doing a "few hours of research," why make the statement at all?
It doesn't add to your trustworthiness to make statements that you can't or won't support.
Since Scooter had previously waived confidentiality, Ms. Miller didn't go to jail because of his testimony. She was there because she didn't want to be asked about her own criminal conduct.
She had identified that the FBI had a warrant for searching a mosque, and had called the mosque to ask if they had a statement about it. Revealing the existence of the warrant to the people to be searched was criminal. She agreed to testify after the prosecutor agreed to limit his questions to what was told her by Lewis (Scooter) Libby.
On the other hand, she may have another source (say, Joe Wilson) who she was protecting.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that such a federal "shield law" for journalists' sources already exists, but it does not. Most of the states have some version of a "shield law" but it does not exist on the federal level. Kincaid was arguing against proposals that are pending to pass a "shield law" in Congress. Given the massive, flagrant abuses of confidential sourcing by so much of the MSM, I see no reason to sanctify more journalistic malpractice with a misguided federal shield law.
See the irony in that statement?
What if journalists really had to tell the truth to stay out of jail?
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.