Will Pitt and Mark Ash of TruthOut--- do I trust their judgment?

[trumad]

I just simply cannot believe that these two highly intelligent men could be duped by Jason Leopold and his sources. Ash has stood by the reporting of this story rock solid. Why would he do that and risk everything he's worked for at TruthOut.

Same with Pitt... Why would Will risk everything that he's accomplished the last several years----his books, articles--etc...for something like this?

It makes no sense.

Look--- I agree, Jason has enough skeletons in his closet to make people question the accuracy of this story.

But Pitt and Ash have sterling reps in the reporting business. TruthOut has pretty much been an honest publication from the get go.... Pitt wrote two books exposing the lies of WMD's way before the MSM even considered it. The guy has given me no reason to doubt him.

My faith in the judgment of Pitt and Ash is why I think what Leopold reported is true. Could they be wrong-- sure. But it's not like TruthOut has a habit of being wrong. If they are wrong---my hope is that they man-up to it and move on. I'll be disappointed--- but so what. It's not like I'll throw my faith in them in the wastebasket.

So I'm asking all you old time DU'ers to have faith in a guy who has been with us from the beginning. Pitt's pissed off enough folks here at DU to start a small Army. So! He fights the fight and he's on our side. Isn't that what counts?

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. I am willing to believe this story until there is reason not to.

We all saw what happened to Dan Rather, and I think the same is being attempted here. I was just discussing this with my father, and he was telling me how no one quite knew what to make of Woodward and Bernstein's revelations either. If there is one thing I know for certain, I have no reason not to believe this report.

[JNelson6563]

2. I trust them more than the corporate media

[benburch]

3. If there were reason to retract this story, TO would do so.

Which means they have NOT found reason to retract it.

[liberalnurse]

4. I'm with the Truth-out!

Even if the worst case scenario occurred, I am behind them for giving it an honest effort. I sense this was 100% fact but I do know the power of this administration is unmeasurable. They could easily intimidate their corporate media to remain silent.

I believe Jason and Truth-out completely. Jason is not in control of the outcome. He reported the facts which I recognize as true.

[stevedeshazer]

5. How many times have they been right vs. wrong?

Compare to your local and national media outlets.

Rinse and repeat.

Seriously, the jury's still out on Jason Leopold. There's a lot more to this story...there has to be.

Patience, DU friend. We'll see.

[Snivi Yllom]

9. how many times?

This is not an encouraging track record......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Junkdrawer]

6. Rove has fooled Dan Rather and CBS....

Why would Rove do this? See:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

51. You're mistaking being fooled with being railroaded. Rather was....

...railroaded pure and simple, and none of the rest of the cowardly captive MSM stood up for him.

Maybe you need to review what actually happened in that case.

[Junkdrawer]

63. I followed it closely...A true story was "salted" with a fake document.

I'll bet the real document was redone in MS Word and then planted.

But it was enough to trash the real story.

[Bandit]

139. Where did you learn conclusivly the document was a fake?

I followed the story pretty close myself and all I ever heard was it could not be authenticated. It was never found to be fake from anything I ever read. I know that is what the right wingers were claiming but they could not back up their assertions either.

[Junkdrawer]

140. I found this convincing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate

...and I've never seen a better match with any 70s era typewriter.

The way some on FreeRepublic looked at their TV screens and instantly knew it was a fake also clue me in to the "salted fraud" idea.

[BlooInBloo]

7. I don't for a *second* believe that a wait-and-see skepticism....

... due to lack of publically verifiable evidence or corroboration is in and of itself a knock againt *Pitt*.

No matter how much folks try to link the article with Pitt, in an attempt to confer "credibility by association". I hold the two separate. Why? It's not Pitt's article.

I'm happy to wait and see, tho - is that good enough?


Oh btw - exactly how long do I have to wait? 24 hours? /snark

Sorry - couldn't help myself... bad bloo - bad! (But by god that's a crappy thing for a writer to do!)

Was serious bout the wait&see part tho....

[Kire]

106. 24 business hours

which was up today

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. Well, there is this fact:

There is no indictment.

After that, the conclusions are fairly simple to draw.

It's a bogus story. And an absurd one.

Tell me again that "fifteen-hour session at defense counsel's office while it was 'locked down'" story, which is really funny.

Oh, and the idea of a "plea bargain" being worked out before charges are filed? That's funny, too.

Let's not forget the "24 business hours to get his (Rove's?) affairs in order," because that's also a classic.

Oh, and there's no indictment.

No one knows anything.

[Maddy McCall]

16. That's your mantra, and you're stickin' to it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

17. Damn right I am

Someone has to be sane and correct, so it might as well be me.

Where's Sonny Bono when we need him?

"The beat goes on ............... "

[DancingBear]

19. We at some point NEEDED Sonny Bono??

Damn, take one quick nap and miss everything....

[OldLeftieLawyer]

80. See?

Without him, we'd have no "The Beat Goes On."

And where would we be then?

[Maddy McCall]

91. With just Cher. And that's tragic.

Because would Cher have ever been Cher had she not been Sonny and Cher?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

93. Of course not

I miss Cher.

I miss Ethel Merman, too, come to think of it.

[Maddy McCall]

109. I miss Dean Martin.

I had the hots for him. He passed before I ever got a shot at him, tho.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

53. So much for your credibility on this issue. Thanks for playing.

[Kire]

107. It's longer than Leopold's mantra.

by one word: "NOT!"

[Maddy McCall]

110. ...

[pacalo]

26. Why so harsh?

Using the word "bogus" infers that Leopold deliberately misled us with a fake story.

There may have been no announcement as of yet in regard to Rove's indictment, so could it be a sealed indictment?

As for the "24 business hours to get his affairs in order", maybe Fitzgerald was accomodating Rove's schedule (the AE speech on Monday, for example).

And speaking of Rove's schedule lately, he's been more visible than usual, as though making it a point to show that he's still got the bull by the horns. He's all about perception.

If Rove's indictment is announced this week or next, it's not Leopold's fault, imo. There's a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't know about, or that Leopold knows about, to cause variances with what he reported on Friday. Let's save the pitchforks & torches for those who deserve it.

Okay, now slam me. I know I'm in over my head replying to OLL.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

32. You are confusing "harsh" with "direct"

There is no indictment.

Where was Patrick Fitzgerald last Friday? His whereabouts are very easy to track.

The story is bogus because none of it is true. Words matter, so using the proper word here is important.

Bogus.

There's a lot going on behind the scenes that "we don't know about"? Well, then, how do YOU know that?

See how easily you can make statements that are absurd?

There's one true fact here and that is that no one knows anything.

[oregonjen]

72. Why draw this whole issue out if you know the whereabouts of

Fitzgerald. Both you and DancingBear have stated that his whereabouts are easy to track. This entire controversy and the hundreds of threads regarding the TO/Leopold story would end if you told us what you know. Debunk the story now then. Where was Patrick Fitzgerald on Friday, May 12th, 2006?

Okay, I have said my peace.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

79. It's a matter of public record

If you want to know, just find out - the way others have. I'm not here to educate you.

Oh, and there's no controversy - there is no indictment. Hence, no controversy.

I like your command: "Debunk the story." That was cute.

I like your sign-off, too - "said my peace."

Peace, indeed.

[oregonjen]

82. "The way others have?" If they have, no one on DU seems to know

about it. Hence, all the posts regarding this. No, you don't have to "educate" me. However, you prance around the board mocking others with your "knowledge" without proving it. Start a thread with a link and proof and then poof, no more controversy.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

87. No one?

Gee, they don't read newspapers?

Prance?

Darling, your peace is getting shaky.

There is no controversy, except you're pissed that you can't figure out a simple matter of public record.

And that's funny, too.

[oregonjen]

95. See, instead of proving your arguements, you turn to putting me down

How respectful. I don't understand why you insist to mock others. I'm getting the feeling that you are having a great time. So be it. I have lost respect for you though. I did visit the website for the new pdf filings. I don't know how to find this info out. Others have asked for your help, but you choose to make them feel stupid. What purpose does it serve? Really, what purpose? If you could help other DU'ers out, that would be a great thing. All some of us have been asking is for your help. Why are you so unwilling to provide that? I thought DU was exactly for that purpose.

No, my peace is not shaky. It's just fine, thank you.
No, I'm not pissed. I'm disappointed that a fellow DU'er chooses not to help others, which of course, is all part of life. I get that. I'm pissed, however, at the current administration and what they are doing to our world.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

97. Do your own homework

It's not "helping DUers," but a matter of people who want to know have to find out for themselves. Otherwise, why should they believe what I say?

Why should you?

It's a message board, not a classroom.

Peace, honey. Relax and enjoy.

Let's use our energy to crush those bastards in the White House and Congress and force the Democrats to get busy and angry and noisy and productive and proactive and make our country ours again.

[oregonjen]

103. Exactly why you post a linky, linky

Then, people can judge for themselves.
I find it strange that you won't back up your posts with links.
Time to put the kids to bed. I'm done with the back and forth. Here's to dreaming of a Rove frog march.

[Kire]

112. the burden of proof is on you

just like I told some other people who were claiming Leopold is right

If you say that something exists, you have to show where it is. Not tell someone, and then demand they go find it themselves. That violates the common law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

I'm actually with you, and against Leopold, but you are making an assertion that something exists (Fitzgeral's location on Friday) without proving you know what you're talking about. So you're making it easier for the other side to take credibility away from you.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

114. "... burden of proof ..."?

HAHAHAHHAHA!

Yeah, right.

So you don't know where Fitzgerald was on Friday.

Like I care.

Burden of proof. Oh, honey, that was delicious!

"... the other side......."?

Believe what you want. I know what I know, and if you believe what others - including me - tell you, you're a fool. That's why people need to find out their own facts. Otherwise, they're nothing but geese working on fatty livers, that's all.

Honey, it's a message board. Relax.

[Kire]

117. You post flamebait...

...you reap what you sow.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

127. Well, if you're a farmer,

I guess that qualifies as a "deep" statement.

Now, go spread joy, sweetie. Life's short.

[Moochy]

102. Bitter much?

> And that's funny, too.

[deansyawp]

119. Okay, would someone

just post this then? "Very easy to track" how? I'm usually a pretty good sleuth, but couldn't find it anywhere on the internets, including lexis-nexis, nor on Fitz's own website. You know, because if we had a link to that info, we could forget the absurdist kabuki theater of 15 hour lockdowns, 24 hours being divided into 3-8 hour business days , etc.

[Kire]

108. "It's not my fault, It's not my fault"

the desperate cry of a guilty person

If "There's a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't know about", how do you know?

[Halliburton]

48. or that Rove sat in on the meetings with his secret service detail

totally outrageous. where does leopold come up with this stuff?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

57. Shhhhhhhh

Don't disturb the "lock down".

[Breeze54]

100. Just asking -

- Could he be charged and pardoned without it being disclosed? A "deal" ?
Sort of like Bush Sr. and Casper Weinberger?

http://www.mcacp.org/issue5.html

Issue: Sealed Indictment
What notice is the prosecutor required to provide where the case was never filed in local court?
None.
People v Woodward, 197 AD2d 905, 602 NYS2d 262 (4th Dept 1993).

But what if the defendant on his own, perhaps suspecting that a case is being introduced against
him at grand jury, requests to testify? Does an as-yet-uncharged defendant have any statutory
right to testify before the grand jury?

CPL 190.50(5)(a) addresses the issue.
The right to testify at grand jury is not limited to defendants who have been charged below.
A defendant who learns of an investigation against him or her and also provides written notice
to the prosecutor of the intent to testify has the right to do so.

CONSIDER a similar situation: the first indictment is dismissed.
Therefore the defendant is no longer subject to an undisposed of felony complaint in local court.
People v Lennon,223 AD2d 403, 636 NYS2d 334 (2d Dept 1996).



=======================
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-pard...

Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up'

snip-->

"Decapitated Walsh Efforts

But in a single stroke, Mr. Bush swept away one conviction, three guilty pleas and two pending cases,
virtually decapitating what was left of Mr. Walsh's effort, which began in 1986.
Mr. Bush's decision was announced by the White House in a printed statement after the President
left for Camp David, where he will spend the Christmas holiday.

Mr. Walsh bitterly condemned the President's action, charging that
"the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years,
has now been completed."

Mr. Walsh directed his heaviest fire at Mr. Bush over the pardon of Mr. Weinberger,
whose trial would have given the prosecutor a last chance to explore the role in the
affair of senior Reagan officials, including Mr. Bush's actions as Vice President." <--snip

Snip-->
But not since President Gerald R. Ford granted clemency to former President Richard M. Nixon
for possible crimes in Watergate has a Presidential pardon so pointedly raised the issue of
whether the President was trying to shield officials for political purposes.
Mr. Walsh invoked Watergate tonight in an interview on the ABC News program "Nightline,"
likening today's pardons to President Richard M. Nixon's dismissal of the Watergate
special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, in 1973.
Mr. Walsh said Mr. Bush had "succeeded in a sort of Saturday Night Massacre."<--snip

================
I wouldn't put it past them...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

105. He doesn't even need to be indicted,

in order to be pardoned.

Remember Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, who was an "unindicted co-conspirator."

[Breeze54]

115. wow...

OK...hmmmm - Thanks!

Okay...found this - http://talkleft.com/new_archives/012813.html

Friday :: October 21, 2005

PlameGate and Bush's Pardon Power

Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin explains Bush's pardon power in the context of Plamegate.

* A president's pardon power is unreviewable

* He can pardon people before they are charged with a crime or anytime after they
are charged or convicted

Why Bush might pardon his cronies in Plamegate:

* To avoid being called as a witness in a criminal prosecution

Why Bush might not pardon his cronies, at least right now

* The political fallout. He is only in the first year of his second term.

The bottom line:

If important persons in the Bush Administration are indicted, and there is a significant danger that revelations damaging to the President will surface, don't be surprised if the President uses his ace in the hole-- the pardon power. Some might argue that the President simply wouldn't dare; others will insist that he would be impeached if he tries it. But what the President is likely to do depends on the alternatives if he doesn't act, and remember, the Congress is controlled by members of his own party, not by the opposition as was the case during the Clinton Presidency. This president has a knack for self-preservation; and if the pardon power is the best alternative he has, you can be sure that he will use it.

===================
Thank You very much!!!

[BeatleBoot]

10. Did you hear Mr. Leopold on Ed Schultz ?

From a previous post of mine...

He's rather confident in his sources. More than two sources corroborated the story in amazing detail.

Said that the 4th floor of Rove's Lawyer's office was sealed off (Secret Service) last Friday and that there was a marathon session trying to get a plea deal.

If he' wrong he's finished. It's too big for him not to be right.

Plus Pitt's cool.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

12. HAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, right. Because someone insists it's true, you believe it.

You really do?

The story's absurd.

Secret Service are now in on the story?

Oh, it gets funnier and funnier.

[BeatleBoot]

18. I don't have a stake in any of this...

But it sure sounds like you have an old bone to pick with someone.

Maybe. Maybe not.

If you are an old lawyer, then what does a "sealed indictment" mean?

I'm asking (politely) because I don't know.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

21. There is no indictment

That's the big news.

I have no bone to pick with anyone, but I do get impatient when people are fed lines of nonsense and refuse to acknowledge the reality of a situation, so the personal characterization you attempted just fell as flat as the truth of this "story."

First, where was Fitzgerald on Friday? Anyone know his whereabouts on that day?

I do. Lots of people do. You might want to find out for yourself. You'll trust the results that way, I am sure.

A sealed indictment is an indictment that is sealed until it is made public. There are various reasons for an indictment to be sealed, none of which have surfaced in this matter.

As for the "plea bargain," "fifteen hours session," "Secret Service lockdown," and the "24 business hours" nonsense, well, somebody's yanking a great big chain on people, and I think it's a shame.

[benburch]

23. Repectfully, an ex-prosecutor friend of mine thinks TO could be right.

He explains the odd terminology by the analogy of the three blind men describing the elephant.

[BeatleBoot]

25. Thank you for the definition of a "sealed indictment"

That's just speculation on my part, of course.

Your impatience in the matter is understandable.

As far as knowing where Fitz was that day...I'm a little too busy to go research that on my own - unless that's easy to do...

Maybe you could share that info with the rest of us. I mean that kind of info would be a ball-breaker to the story.

[DancingBear]

28. It's pretty easy to find out

But you may not like it when you do...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

29. Naw,

inquiring minds do their own research.

And it's hardly a secret.

The story never had balls.

[BeatleBoot]

31. Okeee-Dokeee

Thank you.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

54. You act like you've got enough for everyone. If you're so sure....

...that Leopold is wrong, what sources do you have on this story, and who are they?

[Sparkly]

27. OLL, please tell me if I have this right...

A "sealed indictment" is not one that's served? Or is there such a thing as an indictment document of some kind that is served yet sealed?

An unsealed indictment is public record, yes?

Plea-bargains happen in court, not before charges are filed, yes?

Is it possible (or likely) for pressure/negotiations etc. to occur before charges are filed? ("Rat out your boss and I'll only charge you with this, not that?")

Thanks in advance!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

30. Too much like practicing law online,

so I'm going to duck such specific questions, with all due respect. I'm sure you understand.

Consider the whereabouts, though, of Patrick Fitzgerald last Friday, the day of the "fifteen-hour session at defense counsel's office, which was in Secret Service lockdown," and then your questions won't even matter.

[Sparkly]

37. I understand.

I need a hint about his whereabouts -- I've searched Google News by date and all I can find is his court filing from Friday. Am I close?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

65. Why stop now? Haven't you been "practicing law online" since...

...this story was first posted?

Seriously, why don't you give us the benefit of your vast law knowledge on this story and tell us exactly why you believe it's false?

[stepnw1f]

73. hehe....(nt)

[Halliburton]

83. Leopold has no common sense

why would Rove and the Secret Service sit in on this meeting and shut down an entire floor just to make sure that no one gets to one room. The article defies logic.

[Halliburton]

59. Leopold should be a comedian

These assertions are actually quite hilarious when you think about them.

[Cleita]

11. This isn't over yet and just because nothing has become

public up until now, doesn't mean it isn't true. Even if it proves to be an inaccurate story, should we kill the messenger, who has brought us many good and accurate stories for one mistake?

[tritsofme]

13. I gave him the benefit of the doubt until "24 business hours"

There is no such term in common usage, anywhere, three business days days would have been the proper terminology.

A very poor attempt at CYA to give the story three more days and hope Fitz announces an indictment, and then find a new reason why it wasn't sealed.

I think Pitt and Truthout took this story because they were desperate to have the scoop, now it seems his credibility will be the price of that gamble.

[DisgustedTX]

38. BINGO! "Report" the OBVIOUS and hope for timing

SH TRUTHOUT! SH!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

62. Succinct,

and a very astute characterization.

Hats off to you for this one, my friend. Well done!

[arwalden]

138. Why Did They EDIT The Original Story?

Why did Truthout go back and EDIT Leopold's article to make the ridiculous claim that "24 hours" meant "24 business hours", or 3 days.

That part is nonsensical - what lawyer would describe 3 days as "24 business hours"?

Why edit the original article and try to pass off the ludicrous claim that "24 hours" means 3 days? It's one thing to be wrong - it's another thing entirely to try to cover your tracks in such a ridiculous way. It shows a total lack of journalistic ethics.

If they wanted to amend the article, they could've added a post-script and left the original statement intact.

<< A very poor attempt at CYA to give the story three more days and hope Fitz announces an indictment, and then find a new reason why it wasn't sealed >>

That's the perfect summary.

[Vinnie From Indy]

14. Pitt has made his bones as a serious journalist

Even if Leopold's story turns out to be a load of hooey, Pitt will still be believable to me. I do not agree with everything he writes but I do respect him.

[katty]

15. alot more to the story...and Cheney is a big part of it

[5X]

36. Could be...JL either connected to or manipulated by OVP.

or not.

[Rex]

20. Do I trust their judgment as opposed to someone in the MSM?

Foxnews? CNN? Hell yes! If they got a story wrong, well at least they didn't sit on a story for a year to help the BFEE. I can forgive this, because Will Pitt is a progressive who cares about our Republic. Mercy and forgiveness, something foreign to the Repukes.

[mike_c]

22. I'm withholding judgement for the moment....

SOMEBODY'S gonna have some serious 'splainin' to do before this is all over, and entire flocks of crow will be eaten. I don't want to be on the wrong end of that! My faith in the story was never rock solid, but neither was I ever scornful of it. I have a feeling that I'm going to be glad for that ambiguity by the time all is said and done.

[AspenRose]

131. Ditto.

eom

[HereSince1628]

24. Truthout, Leopold, Pitt, Ash and a woman from TO whose name I

don't remember, didn't even keep with a single story line regarding what 24 hours means, and how many sources there were. Moreover, as the identitifying characteristics of the sources changed it raised questions about whether they were adequately close to events to actually be able to give reports less than two or three people removed from first hand information.

No one would imagine that a careful, sane, sober, balanced, responsible author or editor would take such a tremendous risk knowing it was phoney. We as readers are left to our own varying capacities of belief on those points. We have no way of knowing if all four aforementioned people actually have all five aforementioned characteristics anymore than we can know if the stories (the Friday story did end up merged into the Saturday story) are actually based on any partictular number of sources ranging from 2 to 8.

Setting aside the astounding nature of the Saturday story including incredible claims like 15 hour visits by Fitzgerald to the defense law offices and redefinitions concerning the meaning of the seemingly transparent phrase "24 hours," no story should require 6 or more supporting posts and at least 2 radio appearances to secure itself. Either the damn story was sound and Truthout editors believed it or they didn't, enough said. Their willingness to shift and shuffle to accomodate questioning by readers betrayed weakness in the original product. The frequent rationalizing and tweaking went a long way to undermining faith in the quality of the original reporting and its editing, and that faith is the only thing readers had to hold their acceptance of the article as true.

Having said all that. In spite of all my personal skepticism I allowed that this damned extraordinary story could just be true. Skepticism isn't a claim to truth; it's only a claim to doubts.

[trumad]

33. Like I said above---

Pitt and TO have in my mind, have always shot it straight. If they missed on this one--- they missed.

I give the benifit of the doubt to Pitt and Ash because of their past deeds. That's all I'm saying.

[KharmaTrain]

34. Are We Through With The Circular Firing Squad Yet???

I still don't know what to make of Leopold's story and it didn't mean much then and doesn't now. Had he been right and Rove was frog marched on Monday, that would have made my day a lot nicer...it wasn't, but my world didn't stop, no one (except for those who thought Santa took away their brand new bicycle) in my world knew or cared about the story and it made DU look like a grade school playground with one set of kids fighting against another. In the meantime, the morons on the wingnut blogger sites were laughing their asses off at everyone's expense here who had built up their expectations and now were going after the messanger rather than keeping focused on the facts and the process.

Having worked in media, I've seen my share of "jump the gun" stories...and few ever have had to atone for their faux pas...and surely didn't face the rage the Truthout folks faced here. I firmly believe Leopold was sold on the story and he may have been used to create a diversion (unknowingly) or just put faith on some sources who either burned him or were clueless themselves. Many of us here wanted additional confirmation and when we saw it wasn't coming, there was no need to pull knives out on Leopold, Pitt or Truthout...but to view it as a mistake that happens often in the "media" and is the hazzards of the biz. Had he been right, he would be the toast of DU right now instead of the goat.

And in the bigger scheme of things, all this angst and trashing has accomplished what? Other than bruising more egos around here and setting up the next round of flame wars as surely there will be those who will use this incident as justification for flaming on the next one. Makes me wonder whose really "on our side" and not...and has really turned me off from getting more financially active here and with other sites.

[tulsakatz]

35. I still believe it.........

I know Rove is going down........whether it's this week or later. I hope, for Leopold's sake that the story turns out to be true. I've always found his articles to be credible, interesting pieces. I feel that if he was lied to this time, it makes him look bad but I still won't hold it against him.

And the fact that Larry Johnson also confirmed the info, gives Leopold more credibility too.

And remember who we're dealing with (Rove, etc), these guys lie about EVERYTHING!! They lied about WMDs in Iraq, they lie every time they open their mouths!!! They're the ones with the credibility problem in my opinion.........

[Clarkie1]

39. No, I do not trust their judgement. Trust must be earned. n/t

[trumad]

42. Trust must be earned?

Maybe to you---but it already has for me.

[Dunedain]

124. Trust can't be earned

It can only be given.

[Generic Other]

40. Will stands behind the story, I am standing behind him

I'll wait for his version.

We should all remember how often we at DU have felt we were just a few days ahead of the MSM on big stories. Often when they break news it is almost anticlimactic to DUers because we've already researched, analyzed and chewed the story to death here.

And Old Lawyer. Just telling us all to do our own research is very impolite. Several people have sincerely asked you to share information only to be greeted with scorn. Aren't we on the same side here? I remember a time that 20 DUers would have offered up the info plus links. People treated others with more civility. Maybe the story will turn out to be bogus. Tough luck. We will all have learned a lesson about pinning our hopes too high, about patience. And about standing behind our friends when they need our support.

This is my first post on this issue, because I never get my hopes up anymore. I don't get all frantic and excited everytime we are on the verge of bringing * down. While I want such stories to be true, I can wait for positive verification. I've been through this roller coaster ride enough times now I know all the twists and turns. I try not to rush to judgment. I agree with Trumad.

And if Will was here, I'd give him a bearhug. We are veterans of a long long campaign.

In the meantime, I praise Will and TO for all they do.

[Pachamama]

126. I too stand with Will and Truthout....

And I am not rushing to any judgement here either...If the story ends up not happening (ie. Rove not getting indicted), why should I lose faith in Truthout or Will? Will and TO have been amazing sources of information and Will has so much integrity.

I agree with you on the civility part too...It's very strange for me to see some folks on the DU have become so hostile of late. And regarding an old lawyer, I am utterly baffled by the posts of late. If you do some DU research, you'll see historically that there was more positive posts and even support on the whole Fitzgerald story. I don't forget these things, so frankly, I'm baffled by the Jekyll and Hyde routine.....

[Hutzpa]

41. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you

here is a man with enough common sense to understand when we're being debunked.

[H2O Man]

43. Interesting message.

I have a quote from "The Secret Man," by Bob Woodward. He describes a conversation he had with Mark Felt, after he had made an error in a report on Watergate. It might be worth noting that this error was not one of being wrong per say. It had to do with a slight confusion with a source, and more importantly, with timing.

"He gave me a little lecture about breaking a conspiracy like Watergate. 'You build up convincingly from the outer edges in, you get ten times the evidence you need against the Hunts and Liddys. They feel hopelessly finished -- they may not talk right away, but the grip is on them. Then you move up and do the same thing at the next level. If you move too high and miss, then everybody feels more secure. Lawyers work this way. I'm sure smart lawyers must, too.' I recall he gave me a look as if to say I did not belong in that category of smart reporters." (page 91)

In a short time, we will look at the recent incident as mere water under the bridge.

[Chomp]

46. Libby>>>>Liddy?? lol

[H2O Man]

60. Yikes!

An insult to G Gorden!

[Chomp]

76. Too funny...plus ca change...n/t

[KoKo]

92. Sometimimes urge to "jump forward" overcomes the "stepping backward."

to review what's there. One can always understand the urge to go forward beyond might be wiser in standing in one's spot and surveying the landscape for what one might have missed on the first go round.

Is that what you are saying?

[meisje]

44. Merry Hoaxmas!

[Vinnie From Indy]

47. LOL!

Quit makin me laugh!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

45. Agree. I Posted An Innocent Sentiment Similar Last Night.

Course, the same tired ole handful of expected posters bashed and bashed and twisted the intent to be so overdramatized it cracked me up LOL

I hope the same doesn't happen here, as I think yours is an innocent and well spoken sentiment as well. I agree with you completely.

[Bluebear]

71. 'the same tired ole handful of expected posters'

Why couldn't one be at least agnostic about this story without being labelled a cretin or freeper? Just sayin'.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

104. Most Can Do So Without Being Labelled Such.

I'm only directing that towards a very small group whose MO's are blatantly apparent. They just like to cause trouble and have their little special clique so they can high five each other and make themselves feel special LOL

But no way does that come close to describing everybody who is being cautious with the story. Not by a long shot. As I said, only a handful. But lord knows they like to speak loudly and post a zillion times to make themselves seem greater in number than they really are LOL Kinda sad to watch actually. I feel sorry for them.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

49. No problem here....happy to support them. K & R.

[WiseButAngrySara]

50. I have absolute faith in Will Pitt and T.O. and Dan Rather. ...n/t

[Kingofalldems]

52. Has anyone heard from Mr. Pitt lately?

BTW, I really don't know whether Leopold has it right or not, but the amount of vitriol against him is way over the top IMO. One thing I do not believe is that Leopold has falsified anything, either the story is true or he got duped.

[Jacobin]

58. Its not nice to fool DUers.

And he did that...Jason, that is.

By now, that much is crystal clear and only the blue koolaid drinkers believe otherwise

[Media_Lies_Daily]

67. Incredible. So much hate, and life is so short.

[Jacobin]

77. Yes. its so much nicer and easier to

praise the vainglorious warriors who march off a cliff and sing them songs that their grandchildren will hear of their courage and power and and and.....

WTF are you talking about?

I'm not hating anyone. I'm just saying that it is perfectly obvious that Jason punked Will and Will punked DU. How is pointing out the truth hate?

Can you expound on the benefits of believing LIES over knowing factual data?

[Bluebear]

68. Which reminds me....

I don't know if you go back this far

[Jacobin]

74. Yes. I'm afraid I do

[Maddy McCall]

81. Where did you find that photo??? I searched the nets thoroughly...

a couple of weeks ago, looking for her photo.

I'm stealin' it, whether you like it or not!

[Bluebear]

85. She's all yours :)

PS yahoo photos, searched: mother nature chiffon

[Maddy McCall]

90. When I was a kid...

her admonishments used to scare me.

I loved that commercial.

Did you ever used to watch the Dean Martin variety hour? It was my favorite show when I was a little ol' thing...like three years old.

I cried the day that Dean Martin died...he was my biggest crush ever.

[AspenRose]

132. Great...thanks for reminding me how old I am.

[Jacobin]

55. Trust is earned and it can be lost

Shit happens.

People make mistakes.

Mea culpas are hard for people with especially large egos.

I'm sure we'll get one because Will is a great writer an invaluable resource and a great guy. He's also young and will learn from this bitter experience.

[Maddy McCall]

84. Ahem...

Mea culpas are hard for people with especially large egos.



Do you recall him telling Skinner in Skinner's "Everyone calm down" that he'd be back at DU after the indictment was announced to rub everyone's nose in it?

I'll be much more gracious to him when he returns than he would have been to me, if the shoe were on the other foot.

[RoyGBiv]

56. What I don't understand ...

Why is anyone setting themselves so firmly for or against, particularly those who have zero access to any sources whatsoever except that great-aunt who once played cards with a lady who occasionally sits in a chair once occupied by Rove's press secretary's mother's sister's next door neighbor's distant cousin, twice removed?

In a larger sense, I never understand this with anything. We get ourselves all caught up in trying to predict what will happen or might happen that we completely lose focus on what actually is happening.

If Rove is indicted, we'll know it. If he isn't, we'll know it. It TruthOut is wrong, so what? Every decent news source in the world has been wrong on occasion in the ever-present quest for the scoop.

[0007]

61. Something happened on the way to the forum.

I have faith.

[madokie]

64. I'm just glad they're on our side.

or if need be I'll be on their side.
kkkarl rove is a punk who is gaming the system at the moment. buying mear minutes, nothing more

[Ksec]

66. I agree trumad

Thats my opinion also.

Im sticking with them. I think we need to give these guys the benefit of the doubt with their track records.

[garybeck]

69. the Bottom Line

I won't believe anything until Fitz gives a press conference.

If TO is right, it will be a huge shot in the arm for alternative media and blogs.

If TO is wrong, it will be a huge problem for Jason and Will, mainly their credibility. They clearly have put their reputation on the line for this.


It's useless now to argue about which is right. Let's just see what happens.

[MelissaB]

70. Well said!

[KAZ]

75. I'm with you. Don't know Jason, but I feel like...

... I know Will. Sticking with him.

[kentuck]

78. Sometimes deals are made....

Maybe a deal was made here? Maybe Rove was going to be indicted and a last minute deal was made with Fitzgerald? Perhaps there are things that have transpired that we do not know about? Nobody's perfect but at least some folks are trying to be real journalists, which is more than we can say about most of those in the MSM...

[Halliburton]

86. I guarantee that's what Leopold will say

that's what he said in October when his reports of Rove and two other administration officials being indicted didn't exactly pan out! Leopold's article does not make any sense. It defies logic.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

89. This has happened before?

Really?

No, really?

I'm still enjoying the Secret Service lockdown part. I think I like it better than the 15-hour session part, but not as much as the 24-business-hours part.

It's so hard to pick a favorite.

[Halliburton]

101. how about the sealed indictment

it's definitely not considered common practice to be serving up attorneys with sealed indictments but I guess that what happens in Leopold's fantasy world!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

88. You don't 'make deals'

with grand juries.

That's where indictments come from - not from Patrick Fitzgerald.

[kentuck]

94. Can they not change the timing of the announcement ?

or when the indictment will come down...once a decision has been made? I'm a novice here...just asking.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

96. I don't understand what you asked.

When an indictment is handed down, it becomes a matter of public record. Anyone can find out about it.

Oh, I think I see what you mean.

Well, there's no reason not to announce an indictment when it's handed down. Remember when Scooter Libby was indicted? That's how these things work. It's all by the book, very simple.

[kentuck]

98. Can the grand jury agree to announce an indictment at a later date?

Once they have decided to indict? Say, for example, at the request of a high profile defendant?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

99. They hand down the indictment

If it needs to be sealed - which sometimes happens, but for specific and very carefully monitored reasons - the court orders that to be done.

But, the profile of the defendant - Scooter Libby is high profile, don't you think? - has nothing to do with any of that.

It's a matter of equal justice for all, and, for the most part, all indicted parties are treated the same. By the book.

Think Tom DeLay. Jack Abramoff. All those guys we just loathe.

See?

[Junkdrawer]

111. You describe a country I once heard about....

Did it ever really exist? Who knows, but if it did, it's dead now.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

113. I live in that country

It exists, and it is secure. I love it.

I'm sorry your country is dead.

You should move to my country. It's very good here, but it needs a lot of work.

[Junkdrawer]

116. LOL. Bush flaunts our most precious freedoms like most flaunt J walking...

and we can't even get OUR party to support an article of censure.

Unregulated electronic voting machines made by know partisan, Republican operatives spread like wildfire and bills that would at least try to audit them languish waiting for, get this, a Democratic majority to support them.

Secure indeed.

[canichelouis]

118. Touche

[Tulum_Moon]

120. I will stand behind them all the way

I am a beliver and a reader and a fan!
I love you guys!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Peter Frank]

121. Bottom Line - Never Publish a Story w/o More Than One Source... n/t

[Peter Frank]

122. Two is Good, but Three or more is optimal... n/t

[SeveneightyWhoa]

123. Didn't he have, like, five sources? n/t

[Peter Frank]

125. From what I understand (and I could be wrong)...

Pitt relied mainly on Leopold (who allegedly had many sources).

[lapislzi]

128. OK--the short answer is YES

I trust Will's judgment. Always have. He is a person I would defend to the death if called upon to do so.

Now that doesn't mean I'm not going to wait and see like everybody else, but if he turns out to be wrong, I'll forgive him.

[gordianot]

129. People need to be prepared for disappointments. Times are bad.

Human infallibility is inevitable.

[patcox2]

130. There's a difference between a polemicist and a reporter.

They have different functions. If you only want to get your news from, and you only trust, extreme partisans as news sources, then you are as bad as Bush, who does likewise.

[arwalden]

137. Excellent Observation.

Blind-faith, standing-strong, hoping-for-the-best, and an overall unwillingness to observe and accept the changing facts is NOT a virtue.

[Inland]

133. I think they made the mistake of trying to scoop secret proceedings.

For reasons I've stated before, nobody who really knows what's going on with the GJ is talking or, in the case of defense attorneys, reliable.

And because a "scoop" of an indictment TBA two days later isn't worth a fart anyway.

They deserve a handslap for poor judgment.

Now, the people who imply that unity and standing together means that the truth of the matter isn't important, well, they can't be excused.

[davekriss]

134. I trust Pitt and Ash

But I don't trust the Bush Regime. I would not put it past them to have leaked the story to weaken the credibility of left-wing media (whomever picks the story up), and also perhaps to test their new wire traps (traps mean numbers only, no content) to see who's leaking what to whom.

I believe Leopold had sources and the sources told him what Leopold reports. These sources themselves could be dupes of a Rovian wire trap/disinformation campaign.

[Orsino]

135. Their judgment is now in question.

Strong evidence exists that they were seriously misled.

After we all know exactly what happened, we can decide who's trustworthy.

[alfredo]

136. this controversy has hurt Truthout's fund raising. Guys and Gals

they have been doing a great job for years. Don't forget that. they are the good guys.