Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Does the Valerie Plame rule apply to Hillary?

As the FBI investigates Hillary Clinton for sharing national secrets in thousands of emails to who-knows-where, it is time to remind people of the way Our Media Overlords skewered the Bush administration over Valerie Plame.



Here is the set-up. From the Washington Free Beacon:
A classified email chain discovered on Hillary Clinton’s private email server reportedly talked about an Afghan national’s connections to the CIA and also referenced a news article about the individual being paid by the government agency.
Fox News, citing a government official, reported: "The discussion of a foreign national working with the U.S. government raises security implications – an executive order signed by President Obama said unauthorized disclosures are 'presumed to cause damage to the national security.' The U.S. government official said the Clinton email exchange, which referred to a New York Times report, was among 29 classified emails recently provided to congressional committees with specific clearances to review them. In that batch were 22 top secret exchanges deemed too damaging to national security to release."
The emails discussing the Afghan national were sent to the accounts of former secretary of State Clinton and Richard Holbrook, then the special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Other individuals may have also been on the thread of messages.
Valerie Plame's husband claimed that he went to Africa at the behest of Vice President Dick Cheney and somehow found "proof" that Saddam Hussein wasn't buying yellowcake. Journalist Bob Novak reported that was not true and that Plame had worked as a field officer for the CIA.

The press exploded! Nobel winning columnist Paul Krugman of the New York Times stated categorically that Karl Rove had given this information to Novak to discredit a war critic: "Ultimately, this isn't just about Mr. Rove. It's also about Mr. Bush, who has always known that his trusted political adviser -- a disciple of the late Lee Atwater, whose smear tactics helped President Bush's father win the 1988 election -- is a thug, and obviously made no attempt to find out if he was the leaker."

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution said outing a CIA employee was "perilously close to treason."

Calls to frog march and perp walk Karl Rove came from a filthy, nasty leftist punditry that dominated the pages of the New York Times, Washington Post and other newspapers, as well as the airwaves of CNN and MSNBC.

A special prosecutor wasted millions of dollars to find out who the leaker was.

But Bob Novak told them on Day One -- Richard Armitage a war critic at the State Department.

Armitage was not charged with anything.

Cheney's right hand man Scooter Libby was charged and convicted of fibbing to the FBI, and reporter Judy Miller of the New York Times was thrown in jail for not disclosing sources. The press not only did not defend her, but many in the press cheered.

Plame was no longer an operative. She was a bureaucrat.

Clinton outed operatives. Her tens of thousands of unsecured emails could be the worst leak since the embassy fell in Tehran in 1979.

Those concerned about national security in 2005 are not saying a thing about this treachery.

9 comments:

  1. Short answer NO. Long answer Hell No!
    A Dem is a Dem, a Clinton is a Clinton.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm not going to hold my breath while I wait for the MSM to pick up on this. I am curious as to what the FBI will recommend. - Elric

    ReplyDelete
  3. The media want HC for some reason I don't pretend to really know so she will not be prosecuted in the press. They hated GW for sure. The anti Don left argument will be GW lied for selfish reasons but HC was just confused or misled by her aides, never had bad intentions, and no real damage can be proved(actually, revealed) Indeed,actual human Intent can never really be proved or disproved and job safety in journalism today can only be made by agreeing to the prejudice of one's corporate employer, most of whom are in the HC camp. Truth does not have the allure it once had in journalism. Deception now brings greater security and power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. an executive order signed by President Obama said unauthorized disclosures are 'presumed to cause damage to the national security.'

      What the press believes is one thing, but when it comes to prosecution by the DoJ, the law does not require proof of "intent" or proof of "harm". The act in itself is grounds for prosecution and conviction. The legal excuse of "mens rea" does not apply in this instance. She did what she did, and that's all that's required to indict.

      Delete
    2. Obama will have his PR flack say "The President regrets signing that executive order".

      Delete
  4. The media want HC for some reason I don't pretend to really know so she will not be prosecuted in the press. They hated GW for sure. The anti Don left argument will be GW lied for selfish reasons but HC was just confused or misled by her aides, never had bad intentions, and no real damage can be proved(actually, revealed) Indeed,actual human Intent can never really be proved or disproved and job safety in journalism today can only be made by agreeing to the prejudice of one's corporate employer, most of whom are in the HC camp. Truth does not have the allure it once had in journalism. Deception now brings greater security and power.

    ReplyDelete
  5. She's a Dimocrat. Dimocrats get away with murder. Just ask Mary Jo Kopechne.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And Armitage was Colin Powell's boy, and now we know what side of the fence Colin's on it wouldn't surprise me in the least that they did it to damage W.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There are no rules for the clintons!

    ReplyDelete