"TREASONGATE: US COURT OF APPEALS' Citizen spook

[dbeach]

Rockin along to a different drum.<br><br>the bush swan song about to come??<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/">citizenspook.blogspot.com/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>"TREASONGATE: US COURT OF APPEALS: "Special Counsel's Showing Decides The Case" <br>While Joe Wilson, who still hasn't mentioned the hovering ominous specter of 18 USC 794, is in damage control mode cowardly hiding behind the bravery of Cindy Sheehan, and Judith Miller continues to whine about being put in jail for protecting criminals and crimes, I thought it would make good reading to summarize the incendiary 83 page opinion issued by The US Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit),IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA, JUDITH MILLER so you can have some judicial perspective from the three judge appellate tribunal as to the seriousness of the crimes Fitzgerald is pursuing.<br><br>This Court of Appeals decision will be interesting to readers of this blog since it not only damns the crimes of the Bush administration, but it also backs up the issue of Fitzgerald's plenary authority as acting Attorney General for the Tgate prosecution, and cites United States v. Williams to witness authority for the argument that thefederal grand jury acts as an independent branch of the US Government.<br><br><br><br>The Court of Appeals circuit judges had to perform a preliminary adjudication of the facts and the law in Treasongate to determine if the press (Miller and Cooper in this case) were entitled to a special privilege to protect their leak sources. And in doing so the Judges put incredible anti-Bush administration statements on the record which have not been reported in the main stream media. These are crushing blows to the Bush administration.<br><br><br>From pages 32-33:<br><br>"If the court extends the privilege only to a defined group of reporters, are we in danger of creating a “licensed” or “established” press? If we do so, have we run afoul of the breadth of the freedom of the press, that “fundamental personal right” for which the Court in Branzburg expressed its concern? 408 U.S. at 704. ""<br> <p></p><i></i>

[ZeroHaven]

oh man! I'm reading the full court response doc.. and judge Sentelle is explaining why they can't suddenly agree to journalist priveledge:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>does the privilege also protect the proprietor of a web log: the stereotypical “blogger” sitting in his pajamas at his personal computer posting on the World Wide Web his best product to inform whoever happens to browse his way?</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>--in my nightie laughing my butt off! <p><!--EZCODE IMAGE START--><img src="http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a239/ZeroHaven/tinhat.gif"/><!--EZCODE IMAGE END--></p><i></i>

[antiaristo]

I've been through the whole thing, and to be honest there's not much new, except for frustration on the part of CS (join the club!)<br>What he is saying is that if you simply read the Appeal Court decision you will see that it is driven by the sheer gravity of the crime. Even a judge with a predisposition to defend confidential sources (Judge Tatel) decided IN THIS CASE that the crime was so serious that it outweighed ANY test he might construct.<br>It's big potatoes.<br>Certainly MUCH bigger than the IIPA.<br>ESPIONAGE IN A TIME OF WAR.<br><br>So why are Wilson and the press pushing IIPA rather than espionage (18 US 794)?<br><br>The only answer is corruption (no surprise to readers of this site!). <br><br>Postscript: there is good news for bloggers, who are part of "the free press"<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>"The Supreme Court went on to observe that “freedom of the press is a ‘fundamental personal right . . . not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces pamphlets and leaflets . . . . The press in its historic connotation comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.’” Id. (quoting Lovell v. Griffin, 304 U.S. 444, 450, 452 (193<!--EZCODE EMOTICON START 8) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> ). Are we then to create a privilege that protects only those reporters employed by Time Magazine, the New York Times, and other media giants, or do we extend that<br>protection as well to the owner of a desktop printer producing a weekly newsletter to inform his neighbors, lodge brothers, co-religionists, or co-conspirators? Perhaps more to the point today, does the privilege also protect the proprietor of a web log: the stereotypical “blogger” sitting in his pajamas at his personal computer posting on the World Wide Web his best product to inform whoever happens to browse his way? If not, why not? How could one draw a distinction consistent with the court’s vision of a broadly granted personal right? If so, then would it not be possible for a government official wishing to engage in the sort of unlawful leaking under investigation in the present controversy to call a trusted friend or a political ally, advise him to set up a web log (which I understand takes about three minutes) and then leak to him under a promise of confidentiality the information which the law forbids the official to disclose?... "<br><br>From pages 32-33:<br><br>"If the court extends the privilege only to a defined group of reporters, are we in danger of creating a “licensed” or “established” press? If we do so, have we run afoul of the breadth of the freedom of the press, that “fundamental personal right” for which the Court in Branzburg expressed its concern? 408 U.S. at 704. "</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[dbeach]

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4467096&mesg_id=4467096">www.democraticunderground...id=4467096</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>also at DU<br><br>Wilson may be a decoy ..and if bush did do the crime..wilson is a piece of it..but he could turn out for either side?<br><br>HI ZERO<br><br>Bush family sold nuclear weaposn to the enemies of the US Citizenry..<br><br>thats what is really B 4 your esteemed eyes and ears...<br>and your group consciousness may bring the entire cabal to its exposure <p></p><i></i>

[antiaristo]

A letter to WRH:<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>READER: EIR reports that Karl Rove's personal aide , Susanne Ralston, testified before the Fitzgerald Grand Jury then promptly resigned her position at the White House. This has lead to speculation that she has implicated her ruthless boss in a caper to destroy evidence . Press reports have focused on her testimony with regard to how Rove receives phone calls in the White House.. Reports from numerous sources indicate that Ralston testified that Rove only takes calls that pass through his personal screener, Grover Norquist. Fitzgerald was apparently probing allegations that Rove had telephone call logs destroyed after hearing word that the Justice Dept. was going to demand that all data relevant to the Plame Affair be retained and turned over to the Justice Dept. Craig Crawford of Congressional Quarterly has told MSNBC that a "reliable source" has testified to the Fitzgerald Grand Jury that Rove destroyed possibly incriminating E-mails (and other documents) between himself and alleged fellow conspirator Scooter Libby- after getting a "heads up" from White House Chief of Staff Andy Card that the FEDS were opening up a criminal investigation. On another matter which has received little attention, it sems very curious that a) Bush had his first meeting with criminal lawyer James Sharp on June 2 , 2004 . b) CIA Director George Tenet "resigned" on June 3, 2004 and c) Valerie Plame's ultimate boss, James Pavitt , the head of the directorate of Operations (DO)) "resigned" June 4, 2004. Bush hired Sharp 3 weeks before he testified to Fitzgerald ,indicating he received advance word that he had been implicated by witnessess who had testified before the Grand Jury or had been interviewed by the FBI. Did Bush fire these CIA biggies because they implicated Bush? Or did these CIA senior officials resign in protest when they received the same information that prompted Bush to hire a personal criminal lawyer ie; Bush approved the decision to publicly expose the identity of a CIA operative , operating without official cover.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> <br> <br> <p></p><i></i>

[dbeach]

Anti<br><br>Do you have a link and can you post it on my DU thread?? <p></p><i></i>

[antiaristo]

dbeach,<br>Hi. Can't post myself.<br><br>URL <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/letters/">www.whatreallyhappened.com/letters/</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>

[dbeach]

THANX ANTI<br>WRH is banned by DU nannies<br><br>EIR is Laroche and i have no problem with most of his stuff as long as it focused on bush/cheney crimes<br><br>PEACE! <p></p><i></i>