Breaking: We May Get a Perp Walk Yet In the CIA Leak

[tailgunner]

I'll show your mine if your show me yours. Me first!

From the press conference Friday:



Source:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html

Here you go , from 36 MAJOR NEWS ORGANIZATIONS AND REPORTERS:

Case Nos. 04-3138, 04-3139 and 04-3140

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
__________________________________________________________________

In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Judith Miller
No. 04-3138

In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Matthew Cooper
No. 04-3139

In Re: Grand Jury Subpoena, Time Inc.
No. 04-3140
__________________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________________________________

MOTION OF 36 MAJOR NEWS ORGANIZATIONS AND REPORTERS’ GROUPS FOR LEAVE TO FILE A BRIEF AMICI CURIAE AND
BRIEF AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR
REHEARING EN BANC OF APPELLANTS
JUDITH MILLER, MATTHEW COOPER AND TIME INC.


Victoria Toensing Bruce W. Sanford
diGENOVA & TOENSING LLP Robert D. Lystad
901 15th Street, N.W. Bruce D. Brown
Suite 430 Michael L. Powell
Washington, D.C. 20005 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Telephone: (202) 289-7701 1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Fax: (202) 289-7706 Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20036

Entire document here: http://tinyurl.com/cwmkr

I notice that despite filing this brief the talking heads in the news do not seem to want to use these points on their broadcasts.

 

[mercedesrules]

You're kidding, right?

Well, yes, but you did admit that you answered a sincere point of mine with a curt, two-word dismissal which you won't back up, hoped someone else would bolster and which was intended basically as a "B.S." to my post. In fact, it caused JJpdxpinkpistols to try to answer it at length even though you had made no argument.

Section 1: What Is A Troll?

The WWW gives this as a definition:

troll v.,n. To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames.

I am sorry if I insulted you wrongly.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Here you go , from 36 MAJOR NEWS ORGANIZATIONS AND REPORTERS.

I am going to take the high road here and simply point out that Amici Curiae are *far* from accepted fact. Friend of the court briefs can by filed by almost anyone as long as the court is willing to listen.

If we are to take this type of document a undisputed fact, we here on this board would be very unhappy (I know *I* would):

http://www.potowmack.org/park072503b.pdf

And now, a snippet of the above Amici Curiae, compliments of it's filer, the Brady Center:

the common defense." Id. at 178-9. The plain message from the Miller Court was that the right to "keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment refers only to the means by which the state militias were to be armed, not to any right of individuals to possess and use firearms. 4/ Because

I notice that despite filing this brief the talking heads in the news do not seem to want to use these points on their broadcasts.

Perhaps they knew that this amici was nothing more than what it was: a summary statement of support intended to sway the court.

As it turns out, the fourth estate's support of Miller was quite blind, as even her editors knew nothing about that which she was withholding from the prosecutor. Therein lies the problem with accepting this Amici as a statement of "fact". It ignores other "facts" like the words "Valerie Flame" in Miller's notebook on the same page as notes of an interview with Libby. These are critical pieces of a puzzle that Fitzpatrick needs in order to get to the heart of what happened, and the intent behind the action.

Oddly enough, the presiding judge disagreed with those 36 major news organizations and reporters, and put her in jail for weeks until she was willing to testify. The knowledge she had was clearly germaine to an investigation into wrongdoing. Important enough to justify her sitting on the stainless potty for weeks.

Sorry, but I am still waiting for you to show me yours.

 

[DRZinn]

but you did admit that you answered a sincere point of mine with a curt, two-word dismissal which you won't back up, hoped someone else would bolster and which was intended basically as a "B.S." to my post

[monty pythonesque accent]a mere miscalculation[/accent] I thought someone else would step in and support it. I really don't have the time.

 

[Satch]

Perp Walk

The thing thats not talked about in this whole thing is the fact that all of Plames neighbors knew she was with the CIA. I thought our Media news would check up on this,------Yeh,right.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

The thing thats not talked about in this whole thing is the fact that all of Plames neighbors knew she was with the CIA. I thought our Media news would check up on this,------Yeh,right.

Actually, I was wondering about that. It does seem at odds with the Prosecutors assertion that Plame was indeed covert.

I had heard that the FBI was talking to her neighbors, and I really didn't hear of the results of that investigation.

It almost leads me to wonder if there is a moving definition for "covert".

Do you have any links or info on this?

Thanks!

 

[shermacman]

The only person likely to do the perp walk is that lying <bleep>, Joe Wilson. The heroes in this story are Libby, Cheney and Rove. Ms. Plame set this up for her husband to sit by a pool in Niger and interview hashish dealers about the fact that Saddam couldn't possibly be interested in Uranium.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

The heroes in this story are Libby, Cheney and Rove.

wow.

Ok, then. Since this discussion has ground to an ugly abrupt halt.

So...whatcha getting your kids for christmas? I am thinking about getting the 8 year old a bb gun.

 

[GoRon]

I am thinking about getting the 8 year old a bb gun.

Careful she doesn't shoot an eye out.

This whole investigation is political. Those of you pretending it is of great import in regards to national security are kidding yourselves. It is using the court system to further political goals. Both sides do and have done it. At least be honest with yourselves.

 

[Desertdog]

Careful he doesn't shoot an eye out.

When I was about 8, it hit his eyelid, not the eyeball.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Careful he doesn't shoot an eye out.

This whole investigation is political. Those of you pretending it is of great import in regards to national security are kidding yourselves. It is using the court system to further political goals. Both sides do and have done it. At least be honest with yourselves.

Yeah. Its political. Wanna pull the other leg? Its a little shorter.

Lets get the facts right:
Republican Administration
Republican Senate
Republican House
Republican appointed head of the CIA
Republican appointed JD headed by a republican appointed official (the AG) who recuses himself and appoints a NON-REGISTERED prosecutor from outside the beltway to investigate a Republican leak.

When they actually don't find charges are justified by the original crime, but they DO find that someone in the above groups (alegedly) tried to throw sand in the ump's eyes, its suddenly "using the court system to further political goals."

Yeah.

This isn't the Dems that conducted this investigation. Oh, sure they Got All Indignant and stomped around a bit, but that isn't anything new, is it? At any point and time, this investigation could have gotten the cold shoulder. Don't go blaming the D's cuz the party in power wouldn't stop this investigation. I think that there just MIGHT have been something fishy that bore out investigation. However, in light of the findings we can safely say: Move along, nothing to see here.

PS: its a her. She is quite an excellent shot with a rifle!

 

[GoRon]

Oh, I was hoping you wouldn't call me on that. Fact is I don't have the time to track it down, so I'll retract the statement unless some other kind soul helps out by finding the information.

Wasn't looking for it but did run across this in an article.

But an account by senior NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell raises questions about whether Mr. Russert may have known about Plame's employment well before the Novak column.

On Oct. 3, 2003, Mitchell was a guest on CNBC's now-defunct "Capital Report," where she was asked by host Alan Murray:

"Do we have any idea how widely known it was in Washington that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA?"

Mitchell replied: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who were actively engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger. So a number of us began to pick up on that."

Mitchell's "widely known" characterization flatly contradicts assertions last Friday by Leakgate Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who repeatedly insisted that Plame's association with the CIA "was not widely known."

But perhaps more importantly, if Plame's work was an open secret in media circles [according to Mitchell], how is it that her boss, Mr. Russert, who - as NBC Washington bureau chief was presumably monitoring developments in "the intelligence community" as they related to the Wilson story - would have been oblivious to this same "widely known" information?

It is a NewsMax article, the quotes from the show should be available in transcripts so the veracity of what is said shouldn't be in question.

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/3/102415.shtml

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Wasn't looking for it but did run across this in an article.
It is a NewsMax article, the quotes from the show should be available in transcripts so the veracity of what is said shouldn't be in question.

Hey, thanks for the headsup! I will check this out. Interesting that the prosecutor insisted she was undercover, then, eh?

dunno what to make of it. thanks tho!

 

[DRZinn]

Glad someone found something, so I don't look like a complete idiot.

 

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

Glad someone found something, so I don't look like a complete idiot.

Whoa!

I never said you were an idiot. Don't get all self-depricating on me!

I take this site by it's title: The High Road. I don't go off calling anyone an idiot, especially someone who is conversing intelligently, such as yourself, Doc.

sorry if I argue a bit forcefully. I have no real political feeling on this...for or against, and have been trying to keep my comments about as neutral and factual as I can. I appreciate the links, and was genuinely looking for them (the show me yours...." comment)

This whole situation makes me sad. Sad for the office of President, more than anything else.

 

[DRZinn]

I never said you were an idiot. Don't get all self-depricating on me!

I didn't take anything you said as you calling me that, but I freely admit that the statement I made, if left entirely unsupported, makes me look like an idiot. It wouldn't be the first time I've looked dumb.