TalkLeft: Truthout vs. Team Rove, Round II

[Coexist]

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014903.html

<snip>
First, the Truthout article: Not only is Truthout not backing down, they are flat-out calling Rove spokesman Marc Corallo and Rove Lawyer Robert Luskin's denial false.

Truthout adds a new twist: Rove "may" be cooperating and becoming a witness for Fitzgerald and Cheney may be in Fitzgerald's cross-hairs.

Now for Mr. Carallo's response:

1. Truthout's claims remain demonstrably false. They are "utter lies. There is not a shred of truth to them."

2. Neither Rove, his lawyer Bob Luskin or Patrick Fitzgerald were at Patton Boggs on Friday or Saturday. There was no meeting and no communication of any kind.

3. Karl Rove has not been indicted. He has not been told he has been indicted. He has not been told he is a target. His status remains unchanged.
4. Those reporting to the contrary are "bald-faced liars or completely delusional or both."
5. There have been no discussions of any deals whatsoever between Fitzgerald's team and Rove's team. Not once in all the years this has been going on.

6. Truthout does not have sources in position to know what they claim they were told. There is no one at Patton Boggs who provided this information. It's laughable. If any sources exist, they have lied to Truthout.

7. Corallo did give Marc Ash's phone number to Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post. He knew that Kurtz was writing a story about how the mainstream media had to "follow up on the lunacy and these frauds who are passing themselves off as legitimate journalists."

[stepnw1f]

1. Rove's Defense Sounds a Bit "Prickley" and Personal

Why would I believe known liars over TO? This is Rove we are talking about here.... drip, drip, drip.

[benburch]

3. I would expect the same response true or false.

ESPECIALLY if Rove has "turned", because knowledge of same would be perilous to his personal safety. To say the least!

[stepnw1f]

4. Very Solid Point

Right now this Administration is in serious political and legal trouble as is. I expect them to very prickley in their defense.

[stop the bleeding]

6. besides that we are dealing with Rove, would he EVER tell the truth?

This should be another interesting week to say the least.

I am relieved that TO has been addressing this.

[benburch]

8. More to the point, a defense lawyer's JOB is to lie.

You cannot expect anything else.

[Justice]

17. No, a defense lawyer's job is to zealously represent his client - it is

not to lie.

I am not supporting Rove or his attorney, just sayin' the truth.

[thefool_wa]

28. Zealously represent his client...

regardless of the truth.

That's close enough to "his job is to lie" for me.

[DancingBear]

20. Oh, come on Ben

A defense lawyer's job is to DEFEND his/her client.

Perish the thought, but what if Rove is innocent? (caveat: I don't believe he is in ANY way, shape or form)

Deflect the truth? - I'll buy that.

But if I'm innocent, I damn well want my attorney full front and center, giving MY side of the story.

[benburch]

36. In other words. Lie.

You can dress that up in nice words, but when you utter things you know or even suspect not to be true, you lie.

[The Doctor.]

85. LOL... no... when I murder someone,

I sure want my Lawyer to tell the truth about the holes in my case.

- I've dealt with enough lawyers, BB is right.

[H2O Man]

37. A defense lawyer's job

is indeed to defend his/her client. Where I would differ slightly from you is on the "innocent" bit. A defense lawyer isn't actually focused upon proving their client "innocent." The prosecutor has to prove the client guilty beyong a reasonable doubt. The defense lawyer's goal is "not guilty," which is distinct from "innocent."

[Jigarotta]

79. I know Rove is a liar, a given.

what I want to know is the TO story.
I deep down believe they didn't intentionally lie,
but believe they just ran with something not credible for the purpose of some credibility on a roulette wheel.

no matter how this all ends up, it was the handling that was false, more so than the story.

[AndyTiedye]

2. Would Corallo or Luskin Admit It If Rove Is SINGING Like a Canary?

[bahrbearian]

29. I like that

Good job

[corbett]

67. Remember, KKKarl's Ultimate Goal Is Carlyle Group

He can't gain entry to the most elite of the elite movers and shakers club if he's indicted of willfully divulging the name of an undercover operative. As it stands right now, the sealed charges against him are perjury and lying to investigators - not endangering national security. If he doesn't sell out Cheney and Fitz goes after him with additional charges of obstruction of justice and breaking an operative's cover, his days as a top-level global power broker are over.

[AndyTiedye]

77. It Might Also Make Dick Cheney Very Angry

[Skinner]

5. Just in case there is any confustion about what the mods and I are doing.

When there is a new piece of information about the Truthout/Rove story -- like this one -- we are permitting one new thread about it to remain open.

But we are not permitting members to start threads to start their own "what I think" threads. If you want to share your opinions, you should do so in the exisitng news threads or the "official" thread.

Skinner
DU Admin

[benburch]

9. You are doing great, Skinner.

Don't let folks get you down. I can't imagine any other rational way to deal with this.

[Justice]

18. Agreed, much easier to follow/no duplicates. Thanks.

[Divine Discontent]

23. That's a great idea, I have one concern

boy those numbered threads were fun!


Anyhow, I have a problem with DU's decision to place that original "truthout" (whoever they are) story on the front page of the DU home page. I told my Mom I saw on DU (because there's no point in telling her "truthout" because she has no clue what that is either) on the main page, that DU was choosing to represent the story, by choice, that was being reported (Rove was indicted).


Well, as you can imagine, this has caused some embarrasment in coversations, and I wonder if anyone did apologize at DU for placing that on the front page, what reason it was done, who did it, and what steps are going to be taken to prevent the slight nick on DU's credibility for placing at the top of the home page from happening again.

I'm sure there's been great discussion by the DU Team talking about this whole mess, please don't hide from us what's been discussed like the Bush Adm. or something (and if this has already been discussed openly, just let me know the link, there's just so much written about this situation).


I love DU, I don't want to see something like this happen again, even though we didn't report it, it was put on the cover page for reporters and users to see, and think how many of us told people Rove was being reported as indicted.

GROVELBOT's work is almost done - just 100 more DU! http://www.democraticunderground.com/donate.html
www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[Skinner]

38. I put it on the homepage.

I feel that we handled the story appropriately, and I do not feel an apology is necessary. I believe that one reason why members come to this website so because they will learn almost *EVERYTHING* that is being discussed on on the Internet, including the rumors and other stuff that has not made it (or may never make it) into the mainstream media. Discussion forums are different from newspapers or magazines or TV news -- intelligent people should expect that not everything posted here is reliable. We believe a large number of our visitors are capable of making their own judgments about the reliability of the information they get here. You are not children, even if some of our members act like it sometimes.

But just to be sure, it is worth noting that when we posted both Jason Leopold stories on our homepage, we changed the titles to indicate that this was *the word of one guy*. In both cases, when we posted the articles on our homepage, we preceded the titles with the name "Jason Leopold" to indicate it was him talking. Check it out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/index.php?page=4

Title as posted on the forum: ROVE INFORMS WHITE HOUSE HE WILL BE INDICTED
Title as posted on DU homepage: Jason Leopold: Rove Informs White House He Will Be Indicted

Title as posted on the forum: KARL ROVE HAS BEEN INDICTED.
Title as posted on DU homepage: Jason Leopold: Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators

On that second one, I also took the fairly uncommon step of adding my own editoral comment: "At the moment, Truthout appears to be the only only media outlet reporting this. Time will tell if they are correct. --Skinner"

That editorial comment should have been a BIG RED FLAG to anyone reading the post that they needed to exercise their own judgment.

And, just for good measure, on Monday morning when there were reports that the White House was denying the report, we put that on the homepage too: Rove Indictment Report Denied (By White House)

On that one, I added another editorial comment: "Not taking sides here. But I figured I should put this on the homepage in the interests of keeping DUers informed. --Skinner"

Bottom line: People come here to get the stuff they can't get anywhere else. If you read a nugget of inside poop on DU that you don't read anywhere else, you really should be skeptical.

[Divine Discontent]

52. Thanks Skinner!

From the sounds of that response, with it's detail, it sounds like I'm the first to ask for the reasoning. Sorry if I sound like I'm bitching, I just wanted to know what goes into deciding things.

I don't have the "news source", "blogging", "reporting" background that you or others have by any means, and I just went with the "only media outlet reporting" comment and thought that the news was breaking and it would reach MSM soon, because of the wording.

This was such a huge story, I think I still would've held off, but that's me, obviously, you're saying you'll still move these "scoops" from the boards to the front page of your site, as big as this one in the future as long as they come from a media outlet that you trust. I am certainly not in the minority thinking I will take it with a grain of salt until I see it in the papers or the BBC, or certain TV hosts. Ahhhh, the world of news reporting, isn't it fun!

I appreciate the detailed response, and I certainly will keep my homepage set to msnbc.com for news, and then come here to discuss issues. I certainly had no problem asking you what was going on, and you get a hearty thank you for giving me what you knew and why it was done!

:thumbsup:

[Divine Discontent]

75. public apology to Skinner

I made an impolite error in making it sound like Skinner did NOT place some type of comment when he moved the post from the discussion board to the home page, when he DID.

I tend to think of things, my fault I guess, on the homepage as true or they wouldn't be there, as I can find gossip inside the forums, especially when I didn't know what Truthout was, and saw the words, "media outlet" and rejoiced that Rove was going down.

I recall reading later in the forums, that someone said it probably should be moved to discusion out of breaking news until it was substantiated. Not for me to decide.

This whole situation is unfortunate, I commend Skinner for being a gentleman throughout it and his response to me (I liked the "ahem", I need that silly picture of him that was on here a couple years ago, so I can look at it and picture him going, "ahem"). We all want Rove to be indicted. It will hopefully happen sooner or later. The people at Truthout were the ones hurt by this, no one here. I don't even think WillPitt can be blamed for making one of the OP (I think he and another DU'er made the OP's).

[TahitiNut]

26. Such a post regarding practices is VERY GOOD, sir.

Good communication between mod/admin and 'other' DUers is essential, imho. Good on ya. :thumbsup:

[Divine Discontent]

27. right on tahitinut!

I couldn't agree MORE. communication is key. I hope someone answers my post above yours...
There was no note when that story was first posted on the DU homepage about anything like, "DU cannot guarantee this story" or anything, and until it was determined it was real, it should've remained in the body of the website. Someone else said, and I agreed then, that it should've been moved IMMEDIATELY to the general discussion - politics forum, and not doing so was a huge mistake.
They can make me a mod anytime they want... lol

I love your beautiful colors flowing in your tag...

[thefool_wa]

30. Posting a story from a typically reliable source

is nothing to apologize for. Bringing this front and center made all of us focus on it, brought the "Rove Hounds" out to try and quash it and showed the cards of a couple MAJOR "journalistic" institutions whose credibility (IMHO) has been wanning way more than either Truthout's or the DU's.

There is an automatic caveat to any story posted here that the DU cannot guarantee its legitimacy, even when from main stream news sources. The fact that Truthout has only half apologized for this fiasco, maintains that they have credible sources, and has not been requested to retract the article means that the DU is doing just fine. This attention is keeping our eye on the ball and hopefully forcing those in power into what I truly believe will be damning, embarrassing lies.

I understand your displeasure and frustration at the news not having the immediate payoff originally promised, but that is not the fault of the DU or the decision to move the story into the spotlight. Who knows how this will turn out, but the DU is right on the money keeping our attention focused on the Rove, Whitehouse and MSM responses (or non-responses) to the TO scoop.

Good on ya guys!

[Divine Discontent]

35. I tend to disagree with one part of that

That huge of a story, the indictment of Karl Rove, needed a disclaimer at the top of it by whomever plastered it up on the front page of the DU homepage, because it wasn't coming from the AP, the mainstream TV networks, or a newspaper reporter.

I've never heard of truthout even though I've read thousands of posts, but there have been 22 million posts on DU, and I would think some caution would be used in placing a blog by someone who isn't working for a well known, long running organization, to prevent this from occurring.

This has done more harm than good. I could have said I spoke with 'froggy-throat' who works as an aide to a White House official who told me he heard them say Rove was indicted, when I felt it was going to break in a few days anyhow, just to get my name out there and hope what I saw in the news cycle as the apparent ending to the Rove story coming soon being right!

Sorry, but they said it would be done nearly a week ago, and it wasn't. They were false in their prediction. Having Rove getting indicted was a probable in everyone's eyes to begin with because Fitz has had Rove come have some fun talks with him so many times! I think he will be indicted, and sadly, TO was wrong, and they get no credit for the story when it finally happens. Their responses have been LAUGHABLE.

[Skinner]

39. Ahem.

There was a disclaimer:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/index.php?page=4

Jason Leopold: Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators

At the moment, Truthout appears to be the only only media outlet reporting this. Time will tell if they are correct. --Skinner

[Divine Discontent]

48. Yes, I remember that statement,

however, I didn't know "Truthout" was not a real new source (I don't know all the real MSM sources). And it was called a "media outlet" in that predicated statement you made. I, and others in the discussions early on thought it was ill advised to place the information on the front page without it being certain after I read that TO was just a website with some guys who do claim to be journalists, a few days later.

I guess what I learned from this, especially with the influx now of DU Journals being on the home page, is that by that post being placed on the front page, I need to remember that even the front page of DU is STILL just a discussion website, not a news site. I always took things inside the "body" of the site as "could be true, we'll find out", I just think of things as being on the front page of sites as being substantiated.

About the decision to post it on the home page, the breaking news feel to it mixed with the "media outlet/time will tell comment", might have included a small bit about what TO was, and frankly, if that kind of statement had to follow the report, why not leave it in the body of the website until it was substantiated.

I can appreciate how hard it must be to run this website.

Anyhow, my hard earned money is going to the most trusted Democratic site I know of at the time, and I know you all try and do your best.

kudos...

[Autonomy]

95. This post bewilders me.

What makes a news source "real"? What makes a story "substantiated"?

The only useful objective standard for measuring "real-ness" is the use of standard objective journalistic measures.

As long as one adheres to the principles of journalism - truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability -- as well as the accepted methods -- verifying information by use of multiple, corroborating sources -- then one is a journalist.

Since TO claims to have used five independent corroborating sources, the story is journalism, and from a "real" news source.

Was "Dewey Defeats Truman" from a "real" news source? Had The Chicago Tribune dropped on your porch on November 3, 1948, would you have wondered if the headline was substantiated?

Right or wrong on the Rove story, TO is a real news source, and it belongs on the DU homepage.

One could say that the NYT is just "some guys who claim to be journalists". What makes them objectively different from TO? FOX News could be said not to be journalists in that they don't adhere to the journalistic principles of impartiality and fairness, despite their trademarked tag line, yet their stories are reprinted and repeated to such an extent that they may well have elected a President of the United States with their "journalism".

How could someone have been on DU for so long and not known truthout?

I don't recall having ever been so bewildered by a set of assumptions in a post on DU.

[thefool_wa]

76. Thanks Skinner

I had actually forgotten about that.

[Divine Discontent]

42. and......

calling it the "TO scoop"

is stretching it reallllllly thin. Their "scoop" as you choose to call it, said he was indicted and he had just a few hours to prepare. That was, oh by my clock, about 200 hours ago.

They were wrong.

And wrong is wrong.

Rove will be indicted soon enough, and my prediction is THURSDAY, yes, I boldy predict THURSDAY. My sources tell me this. Who are my sources? Mr. Pringles, who sits before me, and Sarah McLachlan who's singing to me. Goodness, I hope I haven't put Mr. Pringles and Sarah in harm's way by outing my sources.....

:crazy: :rofl: :crazy: :rofl: :crazy: :rofl: :crazy: :rofl: :crazy: :rofl: :crazy: :rofl: :crazy: :rofl: :crazy: :rofl:

[thefool_wa]

78. OK, now you're just poking fun

Hindsight is always 20/20, and given the fact that they did disclaim it, I still say the DU is absolved of any responsibility for posting this story out there where everyone could see it.

We all make mistakes (though I still contend that the DU made no mistake by bumping up the visibility on this story). Its nice to know there are those out there who lord over being able to point them out. :sarcasm:

I hope more than ever that the story is true and the egg ends up, in the end, on the faces of Rove and his legal team, not TO, Leopold, and those of us who want to believe.

[thefool_wa]

80. There is something to be said

for a private, independent news team trying to scoop the AP, and it HAS happened before. This situation can be blamed directly on over zealousness on the part of TO, but come on. The DU has a responsibility to bring this type of thing to light and the only reputation that is harmed here is that of TO if the story turns out to be false (which, in the facts related to timing, it seems it was).

If it turns out to be true (and just because it didn't hit the news stream a week ago doesn't mean it didn't happen) then not only is it a success on their part, but they also get the notoriety they seek.

Has TOs credibility been harmed? Yes, most certainly. Has the DU's? No way.

What is amazing to me isn't the adverse affect this has had on either of the parties involved here, but the drastic and radical MSM response to this issue. You would think if TO was without credibility then everyone would just let it go, right? But instead the WP jumps on a story to discredit them entirely in an attempt (I'm sure) to put a bad light on the entire blogosphere. This stinks, in some way, but for now my intuition tells me to let it go and see what happens. Something new is up, I'm sure we'll know soon what it is.

[tavalon]

83. Um, the fact that you had never heard of Truthout

does not mean that the majority of the people who come here haven't heard of Truthout all the time (and Buzzflash and Smirking Chimp and TPM and DKos)and have considered it a credible source for a very long time.

[Divine Discontent]

88. well, um..

you'll forgive me then for never hearing of them and the first I time I do hear of them, they made some type of blunder in their reporting, and caused a giant case of "there go those crazy bloggers" again that we're now hearing.

I've made it clear in several posts, which you couldn't have read because there's 22 million posts on this site, that I accept there are those within DU who spend a lot of time researching and talking about websites.

Please don't get so testy because I come and see on the front page that a media outlet is reporting that Karl Rove has been indicted and it'll be announced Monday, and then nothing happens, so I voice obvious concern about why they're a "credible source for a very long time". I asked for reason and it was explained. No need for the "um". Just say, a lot of people know who they are, apparently they screwed up, but that's obvious isn't it? So the purpose of your post was just to be snippy.

[tavalon]

96. Apology

I guess looking back it was snippy. I'm sorry.

[bleever]

107. I think this is the very first civil apology I've seen here in days.

My compliments.

:thumbsup:

[Divine Discontent]

108. Nice of you! I blundered much worse, and apologized quickly to SkinnerN/T

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

89. Yep. I think that the handling of this issue on DU has been...

...very good. I have used the word "deft" to describe it in other threads.

I haven't noticed deployment of the restrictive one-thread-with-100-posts-and-then-another-thread mechanism (hilariously labeled as "the kiddie table" or "the nutjob thread" by some DUers) since the Gannon/Guckert deluge of early 2005. Tempering it later with a few cautiously open threads as things settled down was a nice touch. I think this was a very effective way of managing a contentious issue that was destined to generate a lot of posts. I know that I was responsible for a few myself.

Good call.

[annabanana]

33. Thanks for the clarification... (one request though)

When the one "going" thread hits a couple-a hundred posts, can a "replacement" thread be substituted?

[Scoody Boo]

7. I'll keep my backflip mat...

locked in the closet and break it out only when someone else, even the Enquirer or Weekly World News says that Rove has been indicted before I believe anything Truthout has to say.

I heard Jason Leopold has to have someone else call his dog for him because not even he does not believe him anymore.

[dogday]

10. Sealed Indictment's Information- A Must Read

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1250919&mesg_id=1251852

[gorbal]

24. So I guess if could be long time before we know for sure.

Phooey.

Rove should at least take some comfort in that this whole shebang has gotten us arguing among ourselves.

Thanks for the link to info:)

[CTyankee]

25. Maybe it was Rove who got us to argue among ourselves

in the first place, hmm?

[savemefromdumbya]

81. and when there is an indictment we won't believe it?

[countingbluecars]

11. Give me a break.

"I have just gotten off the phone with Karl Rove's spokesman, Mark Corallo, who provided me with his response to the below quoted portions of the article. (He was at an event making cotton candy with his kids and only saw my email with the quote."

How sweet. Certainly a guy who makes cotton candy with his kids wouldn't lie.

[H2O Man]

40. This was after

he volunteered time at the homeless shelter, delivered meals to shut-ins, and visited the neediest of the needy to share what little he has. The cotton candy was actually a gift from a choir of heavenly angels, so moved by the purity of his actions that they were moved to tears.

[Jim__]

12. I can't get to TO's "detailed new article" from the link in TalkLeft.

I'd really like to read that article. Does anyone have a link that works?

[Skinner]

14. Check the DU homepage.

A DUer posted a screenshot of the TO article, and I put a link there.

[Jim__]

32. Thanks - I couldn't get that link to work either - but I'll try again

later.

[Skinner]

41. No, I'm referring to the link that says

"Screenshot from Truthout here on DU"

It goes here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1250919&mesg_id=1251360

[Jim__]

45. ah - I get it now. Thanks.

[gordianot]

13. This will make a really interesting movie someday.

DU is one of the few places the prequel is playing. It boggles the imagination.

I still remember what a surprise it was when Agnew indicted. I wonder what key Rove must be singing in? There must be some fascinating skeletons in that closet?


:popcorn:

[Seabiscuit]

92. Yeah - "Da Truthout Fuckup Code"

[GrantDem]

15. Is this "fact" an indicator of anything??

"We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone.

Wouldn't Rove and his "team" have requested such if it were false???

Just wondering.

[Scoody Boo]

16. They don't request a retraction...

because the longer this story is out there, the worse Truthout, Pitt and Leopold look. I would not ask to have it pulled and in fact would drop little snippets just to keep it going.

There was never a retraction demanded from CBS either.

[NanceGreggs]

19. WOW!!!

"Kurtz was writing a story about how the mainstream media had to follow up on the lunacy and these frauds who are passing themselves off as legitimate journalists."

I had no idea Kurtz was writing his autobiography - when will it be published?

[spooky3]

21. good one, Nance!

[Catrina]

44. *rotfl* ~ Nance ~ Kurtz I feel certain, does what Rove tells him to do so

it's no surprise that it would be he who would be called upon in the MSM to write a story about this and that Rove's spokesperson would give TO's editor's phone # to him. That was a little revelation that sort of confirms for me what I always thought of Kurtz. This ought to be good.

I have a question though. In a post in one of the other threads, someone said that even a sealed indictment must be registered with the court. If so, has anyone checked with the court in question to see if there were any filings that day? I don't know what court that would be ~ also, being that it is supposedly sealed, would the court verify it even it was filed? Shouldn't some 'intrepid investigative journalist' have already done that? Just wondering .....

[bleever]

53. LOL. I mean, I really guffawed.

:7

[Spazito]

106. LOL! Perfect post!

:thumbsup:

[Cocoa]

22. does the bluster do anyone any good?

Truthout admitted they crapped out with that gamble of a story, so why act like they're kicking ass?

[Divine Discontent]

31. can someone within DU reply to post #23 at some point please

or direct me where the response is at?


THANK YOU

[Skinner]

46. I responded.

Feel free to respond to my responses.

[bleever]

54. Maybe you're on "Ignore", accidentally.

:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

62. Ha! Just try it.

:rofl:

[madrchsod]

34. when this all started i said wait and see..

i guess i was right. enough of patting myself on the back...

but who did these guys talk to? if they had sources that they said they did, what the hell happened? did they get set up?
my speculations is that rove may be cooperating on this investigation now and the extent is unknown to any one but the players. or rove is still under investigation and the grand jury wants more time or testimony before handing over to fitz their recommendations. i wouldn`t want to be in karl`s shoes...

[Quixote1818]

43. Truthout's story makes sense

A sealed indictment is what is going on here! The reason for the delay in Fitzgerald's indictment announcement is that it's plea bargaining time, and they want to get as much info about the "conspiracy" as possible before making the public announcement. I agree with Marc Ashe on that point. We'll just have to wait and see the whole story.

Of course Roves people are going to deny he has been indicted because they know their is a slight chance they can bargain their way out of it.

I think Rove is toast or if he doesn't get indicted then Cheney will go down in flames!

[H2O Man]

47. Watching the river flow ....

"Would a staunch Republican have disregarded the facts and offered findings from Niger that were different than mine? Intelligence collection is not party-specific. Perhaps a republican would have allowed the lie to pass without comment, but if so, that is a Republican problem. The national security question is always the same: Did we go to war under false pretenses? I am not prepared to argue that Republicans per se endorse the practice of government officials lying and distorting the facts, but it may be that Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff do."
--Joseph Wilson; The Politics of Truth; page 442

[H2O Man]

49. Watching the Wheels ....

"According to my sources, between March 2003 and the appearance of my article in July, the workup on me that turned up the information on Valerie was shared with Karl Rove, who then circulated it in administration and neoconservative circles."
-- Wilson; page 443

[H2O Man]

50. Instant Karma ...

"Apparently, according to two journalist sources of mine, when Rove learned that he might have violated the law, he turned and Cheney and Libby and made it clear that he held them responsible for the problem they had created for the administration."
--Wilson; page 444

[H2O Man]

51. Footnote:

Ambassador Joseph Wilson used Will Pitt as a source of some of the information in his book "The Politics of Truth." It's a great book, and the articles by Mr. Pitt that Ambassador Wilson used remain, in my opinion, some of the better works on the scandal.

[MelissaB]

55. Wait a minute.

The pronouns are confusing in this sentence (at least to me).

"...Cheney and Libby and made it clear that he held them responsible for the problem they had created for the administration."

Who is that "he"?

[H2O Man]

56. Karl Rove. n/t

[MelissaB]

59. Thank you!

:hi:

[H2O Man]

63. You are most welcome!

Does it make sense, in the sequence of three quotes?

[MelissaB]

68. Yes, it does.

"Apparently, according to two journalist sources of mine, when Rove learned that he (clearly Rove) might have violated the law, he (clearly Rove) turned and Cheney and Libby and made it clear that he (Rove) held them (Cheney and Rove) responsible for the problem they had created for the administration."
--Wilson; page 444

[H2O Man]

74. Also

from the first quote, we see that VP Cheney and Scooter are being put on the "hot seat" for lying the nation into war; next, they direct Karl to conduct the smear campaign against the fellow putting them on that hot seat; and third, Rove is furious at Cheney and Libby for putting him at risk when they had him do what they knew was illegal.

It fits where things are today.

[KoKo]

87. Rove's lawyers are covering their butts

OR...is it Libby and Cheney's lawyers covering THEIR butts and so Rove has "copped a plea" under pressure and maybe "TO's" article gave pressure to Rove to give more evidence than Rove had been willing to before leaks came out that Fitz was on Rove's tail and had an "indictment" (not sealed yet as "TO"'s article stated)...but close enough that it caused Rove to tip and spill more info that got him off the hook "one mo' time?" :shrug:

IOWD's...Some miscommunication was in that "TO" article as to dates and timeline...but did it cause something to happen with Rove?

[H2O Man]

99. Good questions.

You may recall that in the summer of 2004, probably in August, I had done a little, informal psychological profile of Mr. Rove. I think that the things I wrote about 21 months ago are coming true today. You are 100% correct to focus on the role of the attorneys: Team Libby can only protect Scooter, and Rove's lawyers are only out for Karl. We are at an exciting time, and rather than speculate on those things that have many people unsetlled, it is far better to focus on what we know is real -- and the role of the attorneys, and indeed their ultimate goal, is one of those things.

What is the goal of Team Libby? Of Luskin? And how does each attempt to reach those goals? That's what is most important right now. Thank you.

[Divine Discontent]

60. yeah, it sounds like

Rove was ticked that Cheney & his ass. really screwed the Administration up and therefore, who's to say Rove won't out Cheney???

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

90. Letting the days go by...

And you may find yourself living in a shotgun shack
And you may find yourself in another part of the world
And you may find yourself behind the wheel of a large automobile
And you may find yourself in a beautiful house, with a beautiful Wife
And you may ask yourself-well...how did I get here?

Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by/water flowing underground
Into the blue again/after the moneys gone
Once in a lifetime/water flowing underground.

And you may ask yourself
How do I work this?
And you may ask yourself
Where is that large automobile?
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful house!
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful wife!

Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by/water flowing underground
Into the blue again/after the moneys gone
Once in a lifetime/water flowing underground.

Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...

Water dissolving...and water removing
There is water at the bottom of the ocean
Carry the water at the bottom of the ocean
Remove the water at the bottom of the ocean!

Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by/water flowing underground
Into the blue again/in the silent water
Under the rocks and stones/there is water underground.

Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by/water flowing underground
Into the blue again/after the moneys gone
Once in a lifetime/water flowing underground.

And you may ask yourself
What is that beautiful house?
And you may ask yourself
Where does that highway go?
And you may ask yourself
Am I right? ...am I wrong?
And you may tell yourself
My god!...what have I done?

Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by/water flowing underground
Into the blue again/in the silent water
Under the rocks and stones/there is water underground.

Letting the days go by/let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by/water flowing underground
Into the blue again/after the moneys gone
Once in a lifetime/water flowing underground.

Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...same as it ever was...
Same as it ever was...same as it ever was...

Once in a Lifetime - Talking Heads
Sorry, but Your subject lines inspired it.

[CornField]

57. So... why don't they sue?

Luskin is a lawyer for Rover? Corallo is a spokesman? They are "flat-out" yelling their denial?

Why hasn't TO already been served?

Hmmm

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

100. You can't use that as a measure of truth. RWers tried to do that to Kerry

when he didn't sue the Swiftboaters.

[CornField]

104. Frankly, he should have sued.

I guarantee if someone wrote an absolute falsehood about me in an attempt to ruin my reputation, I'd be suing.

[Patsy Stone]

58. This one with the cotton candy.

The other with the sick cat. Oh, brother.

[bleever]

64. .

dupe

[bleever]

65. Scoundrels all.

I'm guessing none of them are having a relaxed weekend right now.

:hi:

[Patsy Stone]

70. You're probably right.

Too many phone calls while they were making cookies. :hi:

[KayInMaine]

61. I don't believe a word coming from the Bush camp

They've been wrong on everything and are caught in lies or some kind of distortion everyday, so there is no way that little Corallo is going to change my mind! I can't think of a time when Truthout.org was wrong on any articles or pieces that they posted and I believe they are right on the Rove story too. You know, there could be some truth that the right wingers are using this as a ploy to discredit the left wing blogs (which are the powerful blogs on the Internet). On Meet the Press two Sundays ago, Tim Russert asked Newt Gingrich if the voice of the bloggers and the Internet should be 'lowered'. So, it's possible that Truthout.org did get the correct information and the truth will come out about Rove (and even Cheney) in a few weeks but in the meantime....the right wingers will use it to their advantage. That's my take on it.

[Quixote1818]

69. It's a sealed indictment and they are plea bargaining now

I think the reason for the delay in Fitzgerald's indictment announcement is that it's plea bargaining time, and they want to get as much info about the "conspiracy" as possible before making the public announcement. I agree with Marc Ashe on that point.

Rove's people don't want it to get out that he was indicted because their is a slight chance they could bargain their way out of it. If that happens then Cheney is toast. Cheney is probably toast anyway. This is going to end up taking down a number of people eventually.

We'll just have to wait and see the whole story.

[MelissaB]

71. Welcome to DU, KayInMaine

:hi:

[Patsy Stone]

73. Welcome to DU, KayInMaine!

:hi:

[progressivebydesign]

66. I bet Bush already pardoned him. n/t

[savemefromdumbya]

82. I'm sure we'd hear about that!!!

[Semblance]

72. Laura Flanders talking about this now on Air America

with Christy Hardin Smith from FDL

http://www.airamerica.com/

[VP505]

84. "They are "utter lies."

"There is not a shred of truth to them. Karl Rove has not been indicted. He has not been told he has been indicted. He has not been told he is a target." And don't forget GWB has a 95% approval rating, the insurgency is almost completely wiped out, we found all the WMD'S, we are finishing up on rebuilding Iraq, Ben Laden surrendered, unemployment is down to 1%, Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis were found alive running a small Night Club in Mexico. Everything is wonderful!

[jazzjunkysue]

86. Cheney and Bush/Rove have never been tight. It's possible they're all

at each other's throats right now trying to assign blame.

Cheney is never at Crawford or hanging around camp David. He's always in an undisclosed location. Like shooting people at a GOP patron's hunting lodge. George doesn't get invited to those. Would you invite George? After all, his job is to act like a president at all those foreign dignitary thingys.

I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP only gave the original Ok to the B*** candidacy if he promised to let Dick pull his strings.

Now, they all see themselves as being "used" by each other. Rove isn't the elected official. On paper he has no career: He's hired help. Why should he rot in jail for them?

Cheney is just the babysitter...He shouldn't have to pound rock, either.

And the Boy King will claim that he was just doing what everyone around him kept demanding. Richard Clarke's book does state clearly that B*** didn't become a neocon until 9/12. But Cheney and Rice and Wolfie and Perle and Bolton wanted Iraq back in 98. (PNAC) So, he doesn't think he outed Plame for himself, either.

Each sees himself as just serving the other, and therefore blameless.

If there were ever a time to be a fly on the whitehouse wall, this week would be it.

Poor Laura. To think she got herself wrapped up in all this nasty business. No way out now, hon!

[bleever]

94. This is very cynical

which is unfortunate, given how patently true it is.

The center cannot hold.

[Sydnie]

97. You might find some interesting background in this thread

You had some good posts there too.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5219312&mesg_id=5219312

[jazzjunkysue]

103. Thanks for looking that up. I forgot this has been brewing for a while.

I think we're finally onto the real crux of the matter. There may be a few little details that we've lost or confused, but, the basic scheme of Libby outing Rove, outing Cheney sure does make sense.

I've found in life that when the answers settle into a clear obvious pattern, you're probably done looking. Not that things don't keep changing every day. Of course they do. But the basic organization of Bush as puppet and Cheney as puppet master and Rove as Bush's posse doesn't. Their goals don't change, either. And these positions on the gameboard do not need to be proved.

We also have a motive for the leak and more than enough proof of who's been doing the leaking. They involved so many journalists that this could not remain a secret.

It also meant something that Miller was willing to waste away in prison. You knew it was for the biggest reason of all: To hide all of this. As soon as she had to cough up her papers, it started the paper trail that lead straight to Bush, through Rove and Cheney. Otherwise, she never would have sat there rotting.

Suddenly, the secret letter from Libby to Miller makes total sense. The aspens are turning. They're connected at the roots....Makes sense now. They all knew they were breaking the law and covering it up.

I think the Bush adminisstration's biggest mistake was to underestimate the power of the internets (Us!) to foil their evil plan. With us collecting and sifting all the little details: Who appeared in who's office when, etc, there's no way to hide this kind of treason.

I really belive they're going down, and their silence is the proof. No one will touch them, and the conservatives have now jumped ship, too.

The rats really are jumping the sinking ship. The Monkey in Chief will be the last to believe that his pretend administration is really finished.

[Seabiscuit]

91. Hey! Where are the "business hours"? I demand more "business hours"!

This whole TO story is dead. Without more "business hours" to chew on, it's starving to death!

[Seabiscuit]

93. Oh, man! Pitt and Ash sure have mastered the art of deceiving DU'ers.

That seems to be their only motivation - playing DUers for attention.

Call Carullo and Luskin and Rove liars for denying Leopold's story.

That sure bolsters TO's credibility, eh?

And cook up a new twist about a sealed indictment, plea-bargaining, Rove turning state's evidence against Cheney, etc., etc., ad nauseaum and DU'ers lap it up like manna from heaven.

There still remain dozens if not hundreds of DU'ers that fall for ever scrap of trash the rogues at TO toss them to keep them feeding at their trough of adulation.

And DU'ers get so caught up in the new deceptions they fail to see how many times and in how many ways TO has continued to move the goalposts.

Five reliable sources from the White House plus two from the RNC. Than four from the White House. Then Wilson and some of his independent sources get tossed into the mix. Now there are just THREE "reliable sources". Yet the story keeps changing. Fitz is at Luskin's office "Over half a day Friday, May 12". Then in the same article, he's there "fifteen hours". Later on it seems Rove brought along a band of Secret Service agents who "locked down" Luskin's office. Now there are no more secret service, but the entire building is in "lockdown" from late Friday night, May 12, to early Saturday morning, May 13. And we're supposed to believe any of that and that Fitz was "locked down" in there for 15 hours???

This is pathetic.

[symbolman]

98. Don't forget that TO "reported" that Rove and Luskin

had received a Target Letter on or before April 26th..

How many Target Letters and Indictments has Fitz delivered to Rove and Luskin?

That alone makes me doubt, not to mention there's now more "poop in the soup, more moving of the goal posts on a story that fallen apart" (Gee, they don't like Cheney, proof they are going to flip on him), just keep adding more until it's nothing more than a shit stew, and when legals and those on Kos who actually know what they are talking about start screaming that none of this makes any sense, that it's ludicrous, impossible, then people start lapping up the latest "conspiracy" or put forth scenarios dripping with irrational paranoia..

People, speculation is NOT news, and saying that something is true when it's not might as well be a con, especially when someone has something to gain, and others are willing to be told what they wish to hear.

If Rove was Indicted he would have to step down, period, so it's not true.

Only Fitz knows and Rove's people will of course, lie, the rest is speculation - but if something looks like a rose and smells like a rose, it's probably a rose. I sure hope Fitz is running his prosecution better than the "evidence" (speculation), and "sources" (witnesses) we have been presented by TO and Leopold.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

101. When I first heard about this story, and then saw that the author was the

same guy who was the only source of the unverified "target letter" story, my heart sank.

[oc2002]

102. The prosecution seems to run at a snails pace, slooooow.

Fitz may or may not have a case, but I hope he makes it before I die of old age.

of course, so did Clintons investigation ran for years. Although those where fishing expeditions, this seems to be clear cut.

[bj2110]

105. "passing themselves off as legitimate journalists." - pisses me off

Seems that the primary pre-requisite of being a "legitimate journalist" in the eyes of most of the administration and Washington is to be supported by high dolloar corporate interests. If your parent company doesn't have a lobbyist on Capitol Hill, then you can't be a journalist. What happened to reporting based on personal interview, sources, distinguished fact, etc...? Isn't that what makes a journalist?