TRUTHOUT UPDATE 5/21/06 - Thread #2

[DancingBear]

(I hope it's OK to do this) :)

original is here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1250919

[grytpype]

1. I still say it's bullshit.

I still say it's impossible that three people in the whole world know that Rove has been indicted, and they only talk to Jason Leopold and NO ONE ELSE knows.

All signs point to BULLSHIT.

[DancingBear]

2. And those signs are REALLY big

And neon.

[Jigarotta]

12. looks like a huge Kick Me sign. to me. nt

[Kerry fan]

5. And, how can you be sure noone else knows?

Chris Matthews seemed to know.

[MADem]

56. I think he talked to the same lousy source, smelled bullshit, and backed

off when he couldn't confirm. If there was a secret pal, he or she probably dropped that little turd on Chris as payback for Tweety's call to Wilson, informing him that his wife was fair game.

Could be a GOP disinfo strategy, and Leopold was either too naive, too eager, or too sloppy to check up on it and get some solid confirmation. He ran with a juicy rumor, is what it looks like.

But the only person who really knows who's pulling the strings is "the source." And the source could be anyone from a GOP dickweed to a voice in Leopold's brain.

But that said, 24 business hours have come and gone, again and again, and we ain't got squat to show for it but a bunch of speculative threads and a few rudies getting tombstoned. Oh, and a non-apology from TosstheTruthOut.

[Kostafarian]

6. My $.02

These people gave us hours in notice and they still post something this sloppy? How many people work for TruthOut, how many editors do they have, how many on staff writers are there?

Did Ash have anyone proof read this thing before they sent it out, the much anticipated follow up to the "the biggest story (they) have ever covered"?

Please don't get me wrong this isn't nit picking grammar or spelling, it is word usage and clarity. If the goal was to take the original and follow up on the major claims this is dreadful.

The original claims...

1. Rove indicted. (May 12th)
2. Fitz at Boggs for 15 hours (May 12th) handing Luskin indictments.
3. Boggs locked down Rove present with SS detail.
4. Rove has 24 hours to ready himself.

Follow up

1.Attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13.
2.We know that the 4th floor of that building ...was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday NIGHT. (NO FITZ, NO ROVE, NO SS)
3.Several purposeful variations of "things that make you go Hmmm."



And, he basically put the kybosh on Jason outing his sources, which in my opinion is the honorable thing to do. You live by your sources you should die by them as well. But with that noble gesture comes the blatant insult to the intelligence of its readers with a follow up that ignores most of the original claims and contradicts those it does address. To top it all off it throws in several conspiracy theories (that's exactly what they are) so that the readers can be further marginalized by critics.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

23. Nine days since the indictment was handed down

Nine days?

Oh, I'd say the kindest thing you could call it would be "bullshit".

WHALESHIT is more like it, and we're heading into even bigger territory each day this sad saga drags on and more "beliefs" appear.

[Jigarotta]

51. how about a Planet Shit?

now how huge would that be?
next week perhaps we'll be talking about galaxy excrements.
black hole turds.

[Clarkie1]

134. Truthout has destroyed their own credibility. They have NONE.

Let's focus on 06', who gives a damn about Rove it's not important!

And this little web-publication called Truthout is even less important than Rove!

[Maddy McCall]

3. Someone explain to me how the number of Leopold's sources began at 9 and

now has diminished to three.

[Scoody Boo]

4. It will get down to the actual number...

of zero soon enough.

[Kerry fan]

7. I haven't seen nine.

Most I read about was 5.

[HereSince1628]

9. I saw 8 in the Friday story that was folded as part of the Saturday story

On Friday there were 6 White House and 2 RNC'ers who reportedly were sources who said Rove had warned the WH he was about to be indicted.

When the stories were folded together the number of sources changed, and then with the various buttressing and updates the number that Leopold seemed to be claiming became very uncertain.

[Maddy McCall]

18. Yep, and add Joe Wilson, who supposedly verified those sources...

and you have nine.

Now there are three. Will keeps telling us that there are three who work for the MSM but whose "superiors" won't let them make the story public.

No mention of MSM sources in the original article or suplimentary comments by Will (some of which were deleted).

Now there are three sources. And he's told us that there are three MSM reporters who have to story. Are those the same three and have the other nine been ditched?

[IsIt1984Yet]

29. Ack, the whole Wilson thing is driving me NUTS!

I got into it in the last thread pretty good. Wilson MAYBE heard the same rumor that Leopold heard, or that Leopold STARTED? The Wilson "verification" is completely circular. Wilson and Leopold heard the same rumor indirectly from the same place. So, what did Wilson say - maybe "yeah, I heard that too" when asked about a rumor?

[Maddy McCall]

34. Yep.

:thumbsup:

[MADem]

61. Isn't that the same shit that Rove and Libby tried to pull re: Plame??

Does Joe's wife work at the CIA? Yeah, I heard that too....never mind that I STARTED the story on its rounds!

[Jigarotta]

46. bid panels up! 5, 8, 9, 3?

should tell us something, no?

[MADem]

62. We'd have better odds of getting something out of that if we

bet that number on the daily lottery!!!!

[Maddy McCall]

16. In the beginning, there were at least "half a dozen sources"...

that Will claimed were verified by Joe Wilson. There were "several" sources close to the investigation.

Now there are three--which appear the three Will keeps telling us work for mainstream media who know the story to be correct, but their "superiors" won't let them run the story.

So, what happened to the other "half a dozen" and "several?"

Are they still "reliable" and "well-placed?"

[King Coal]

32. Gad. Give it a rest. We know already. Take a break.

[Maddy McCall]

36. Don't reply to me if you don't want to talk to me.

You certainly won't shush me.

And I took a nice break this week--four nights at a beautiful resort--but I'm home now, so you're just going to have to put up with my uppity mouth. :D

[springhill]

45. You know we have heard this all before....

and the tone of your posts suggests you just can't wait until this story is proven wrong.

[Maddy McCall]

48. You can hear me speak? My posts have tone?

Wow! Please tell me how you acquired that wonderful power! From the "magic man?"

:hi:

[Jigarotta]

55. LOL. 'the tone'....

Maddy, you shouldn't be screetching like a fishwife. tone it down . after all, the story doesn't matter, it's 'your tone' – that's the story.


:rofl:

[springhill]

69. She doesn't have a story and neither do you.......

Because you just don't know any more than the rest of us whether it is correct or not. And yes a post does have a certain tone to it by the words and phrasings that you use. Is that too difficult to understand?

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[springhill]

78. Name calling..............

Wow! You really are superior to me aren't you?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

81. Yes, thanks for noticing, and since you offer nothing,

and you can't defend anything you're so badly attempting to assert, beyond insulting and calling "tone," you now dwell in IgnoreLand.

<click>

[Jigarotta]

82. I never pretended to know anything insider on this story...

but I know a bit about human nature.

I want to be a dog.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

67. Tone?

Oh, honey, that's what people start to whine about when they realize they're standing there, with their pants down around their ankles, their naked genitalia all out there, looking silly.

How's THAT for tone?

Maddy speaks truth. And her tone is direct and dead right on.

Now, pull your pants up.

[springhill]

73. Well Honey...........

Tell me what proof you and Maddy have that this story is false? Really, other than your guesses and assumptions, please tell me what you know. Because if you positively know the story is false then I think the rest of us should have that same information that you obviously must possess.

[IsIt1984Yet]

75. By THAT logic, leprechauns and faeries and bigfoot are real.

Well, I can't prove they're NOT!! :eyes:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

77. You first

You're the one who's insulting and challenging, so you go ahead.

The fact is that we who doubt possess no special information, as you seem to think you do.

We're simply saying that there is no evidence that any indictment has been handed down.

You claim otherwise.

So, let's see your proof.

[Maddy McCall]

80. Ever heard of critical thought?

You read an article, and if the "facts" don't add up, you are left with doubt. In time, if the "facts" still remain to be proved, your doubt is pretty much confirmed.

There are no indictment papers with May 12.

Stories of the law firm being locked down by Secret Service seem implausible.

24 hours cum 24 business hours.

15 hours, no half a day, no all day in which Fitz met with Rove's lawyer and presented an indictment.

None of it pans out.

If you make an assertion, then it's YOUR duty to prove that it's right, with verifiable facts and sources.

Skeptics aren't charged with providing proof. Those who make the assertions ARE, and, as of yet, we have seen no proof.

[DancingBear]

102. "Tell me what proof you and Maddy have that this story is false?"

Where have I heard this line of reasoning before?? <tapping fingers>

Got it! From every right-wing talk show host on every show in America.

Have you stopped beating your wife??

There are 20+ threads on this topic - go read them.

The answers lie within.

And, BTW, show me proof - any proof - that the story is true.

Sealed indictments. Fifteen hour lock downs. Nine, no eight, no six, no three corroborating accounts. :rofl:

P.S. Do you know where Fitzgerald was on the 12th?

[carolinalady]

191. Watch it Lefty-I called someone Honey last night and got blasted

I guess that is a new insult here. LOL.
:crazy:

[King Coal]

I was talking to the damn frog.

[Maddy McCall]

87. And my damned frog said...

"bite me."

Damned frog--I just can't control him. :eyes:

[MADem]

60. I thought it was seven

And then there were six guys and a fellah or or a gal with an eyepatch who checked the story for accuracy (a baker's dozen eyes reviewed the work). Or maybe it was thirteen people, all with eyepatches...over their one good eye!

[Jigarotta]

93. and a shitdog load of groupies that will...

just go along witht he lead dog shit.
I can appreciate not wanting a santa claus bludgeoned before your itty bitty eyes. But wonder why so many are so rheumy and closed.

[DancingBear]

10. Those are business hours sources

Jeez, even the frog knows that. :)

[Maddy McCall]

19. Shaddup!

:spank: :hi:

[Jigarotta]

15. allbeefpatty SPECIALSOURCE lettuceonionsonasesameseedbun.

the 3 sourcerors: Ash, Leopold and Pitt.
make me eat my words, I'm hungry.

[Miss Chybil]

154. You forgot the cheese and pickles. nt

[Jazz2006]

164. Fast food jingles from the past... hmmm, this one leaps to mind....

Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce, special orders don't upset us; all we ask is that you let us
serve it your way...... have it your way, at Burger King... have it your way, at Burger King...

But on truth(less)out, it's:

Hold all logic, hold the presses, nonsense stories don't upset us; all we ask is that you let us con you our way.... have it our way, at truthlessout... have it our way, at truthlessout...

[OldLeftieLawyer]

25. Dyslexia?

Or someone squared 3 by accident and then fixed it?

Group suicide?

THE RAPTURE CAME AND TOOK THE SIX?

Just sayin'..........

[Maddy McCall]

27. Or the six got onto the plane with the drunk pilot...

never to be seen again? :rofl:

[Jigarotta]

58. burmuda triangulation? nt

[Maddy McCall]

65. ...

:spray:

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

155. You horrible, horrible person!

Do not say anything as funny as "bermuda triangulation" without first clearly indicating that the reader should swallow that mouthful of a really nice red wine or at least direct the spray away from the LCD display and/or the cat.

That was just cruel.

[Jigarotta]

156. I see you didn't see the fine print.

do not read with mouth full of wine, expect spray with whatever fluids you may have, beastial saliva included. Reading this may make your toenails fall off in your Dom Perignon glass, your liver compose into a baseball mitt, or you may have tendencies for not having any bloody tendencies at all...

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

158. Shit. There go my toenails. n/t

[kstewart33]

8. There will come a time when truthout will have to explain

exactly what happened. With each communication, they seem to be sinking deeper and deeper into a hole, and seem to be positioning themselves against total humiliation.

I expect the DU community to demand that they do, and if they do not respond, to treat truthout as we have treated Wayne Madsen--ban all of truthout site material from DU. We have DU's integrity to protect.

[Maddy McCall]

22. Monday, May 15 th, would have been as good a time as any.

[springhill]

47. Oh, please........

They believe they have the goods, and just because you don't believe it does not make them corrupt. Get over yourself.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

70. I sometimes believe

I am six foot five and can leap tall buildings in a single bound.

That belief, however, does not make it real.

Try publishing "beliefs" on any page of any reputable news publication, and see how far it goes.

And stop being rude. After all, you're not wearing any pants.

[mike_c]

161. "the goods" is a copy of the indictment or of Rove's mug shot....

Anything else is someone's statement that can only be accepted or rejected based upon faith in their veracity. Since events haven't corroborated TO's story, I think they owe their readers, and indeed Karl Rove, either a retraction and apology, OR they owe them an explanation that includes enough information about the "sources" to make the rest of us share TO's continued enthusiasm for them. This is just plain unprofessional.

[Carni]

175. JMO I think they got "Hatfielded" or "Dan Rathered"

When I read that Leopold has so called skeletons in his closet the whole "Fortunate Son" Hatfield incident popped into my head (they pulled the same shit on CBS with the air national guard papers--take a true story but leak it via fake documents or wrong info etc)

I think it's very possible that the Rove camp leaked the indictment news themselves JMO

Whatever the case is I am disappointed but won't rag on anyone until there's more info on what exactly happened.

[Nederland]

183. Agreed

And the funny thing is that there are still diehard believers on DU that will tell you that the Rather documents are real. Just like, I expect, six months from now there will be people here that will say that Rove really got indicted on May 12th...

[mmonk]

11. This has all been quite interesting.

Truthout better hope it's true. And also, it seems some here better hope it isn't.

[IsIt1984Yet]

13. Huh? You said "some here better hope it isn't {true}"???

What does that mean?

[BlooInBloo]

28. People here are pretty much completely unable to distinguish....

... the TRUTH of a claim from EVIDENCE for that claim.

A lot of people (myself included) have questioned the evidence for truthout's claim. Better: we would LIKE to question the evidence - if only there were any.

And no matter how many time people throw it out, HEARSAY IS NOT EVIDENCE.

In any case, people (usually the credulous faith-based I-don't-need-no-stinkin-evidence crowd) take this issue with the EVIDENCE, and deceptively twist it, pretending that we're claiming that the truthout story is FALSE.

Hence, according to that mendacious logic, we have something to "answer for" if it turns out that truthout is right. Hence, their deceptive logic concludes, we are hoping that truthout's claims are false.

But some of here recognize the deceptive practices of the don't-need-no-evidence crowd, and just say "no, I'm not saying that truthout's claims are false, I'm just saying that there has been no publically verifiable evidence provided that makes it rational to believe in what they say."

[IsIt1984Yet]

31. Ah, I am in the "I think we're being played" crowd. I HOPE to Jebus I am

wrong, or that Rove will be indicted, but I am really blown away by the blind faith.

[enough already]

169. Why would Will Pitt and Jason lie about this?

It makes no sense. I still believe there's a lot of truth to this.

[mmonk]

128. As you can tell

from the replies that follow, the certitude people have. With that vested certainty, one should hope the facts match that absolute.;-)

[Jigarotta]

21. it's all in the delivery, baby.

regardless of the possible merits of the story, the handling of it was pathetic.

[Maddy McCall]

26. Yep. From the get-go.

This scoop has turned to poop, and TO is trying to dig out from under it. Good luck to them, but it seems inevitable that they'll have to either front or admit their goof pretty soon.

[Amaya]

35. "some here better hope it isn't "

honestly i've never seen this place so nuts.
after i'm done reading some of these truthout threads i feel like i need a shower.
yuk. just gross.

[mmonk]

139. When one speaks in absolutes,

that person should hope they are right. Many here with absolute certainty say there was no indictment, yet they have no proof as they acuse Leopold of no proof and bad or false journalism. What if there were but they were derailed? What if there are indictments and it is a squeeze by Fitzgerald that changed dynamics of the case and is yielding results of some sort? Unless people here are all knowing, I personally think they need to sit back a bit and see if anything more happens. Burnt bridges are hard to repair.

[BlooInBloo]

14. Is there any publically verifiable evidence in here?

Damn.

[DancingBear]

17. One would think that TO would attempt to raise the bar a bit

I don't know if they could release verifiable evidence (since I'd bet it doesn't exist), BUT in order to validate their position they should come up with something a little stronger then "trust us."

The more I read that lame-ass "update" the madder I get.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

30. Calm down

Eat an onion.

Actually, when you watch all this, it's funny.

The betrayal of trust isn't funny, though, but watching people dig in and refuse to accept what's staring right at them, well, that's not funny, either. But I'm hoping they'll realize soon what's happened and make their peace with it.

Now, go make onion soup or something.

[Jigarotta]

40. was it Blake that said:

I'd rather sit on a pumpkin all to myself than be crowded on a velvet cushion.

for some reason this makes sense right now to me.
but, hey, I'm only me.

edit:
the only groupie I have is my dog. It's his nature, and I take major Advantage of it. ;)

[DancingBear]

42. Chomp, chomp

My B-I-L makes garlic soup every year for Thanksgiving.

All his family loves it.

I think it sucks.

And I really like garlic.

My other B-I-L makes home-made garlic bread, but not for Thanksgiving.

We stole his recipe. It's good.

BTW, you're right. What saddens me is watching good, caring people fall for this whole "hold on it'll be here any day now" TO con job.

I hope they make their peace as well, for we've got a very long road ahead in undoing what our REAL enemies have already done, and will continue to do.

[springhill]

52. You know, I just don't get it.......

Do you want them to admit a mistake when they don't believe they have made one? Just because the indictment hasn't been announced and played out the way you would like does not mean that there are things happening behind the scenes now, outside of the original story, that we don't know about.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

59. I want nothing from anyone

I want the good people who put their trust in an obviously false story to have their faith renewed and their trust honored in any way that works for them.

I want truth to be more important than obsession or personality.

I want people to use the good sense and intelligence in positive ways and not limit themselves because of bloodlust.

I want people to learn the reality of how the legal system works and not ever again be bamboozled by known liars.

That's what I want.

There is no indictment. Just saying that there is one does not make it so. That's what people must understand.

[stepnw1f]

68. You Want the Truth? That's Funny

I think you just enjoy being disrespectful and enjoy telling people they shouldn't even hope TO was right. That if they do they are stupid, dellusional, etc. That's what I think.... besides, you yourself keep reminding folks posting, how much you find all this entertaining. You don't seem to be looking for truth...

You've made up your mind that you already know the "truth". Who ya foolin'?

[The Magistrate]

153. To Be Fair, Sir

There is a great difference between hoping Rove is indicted and hoping Leopold's account is true. One may easily do the first and yet be quite convinced Leoplold's account is a bogus concoction. Nor will whether or not Leopold's account is true have the slightest impact on whether or not Rove is actually indicted before Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation concludes.

Examining the available evidence on the matter, it is pretty hard to avoid the conclusion Leopold's account is in error. There is certainly some reason to suspect he may have known it was false when he produced it.

Perhaps the worst available reason for believing a thing to be true is wanting very badly for it to be true....

[stepnw1f]

168. Yeah But... Nobody Really Knows the Truth

My statement towards the person I responded to still stands. There is no reason for rudeness. Sorry, but somebody needs to say something and I did. I only wish Admins would do instead of me.

[tridim]

76. "I want the good people who put their trust in an obviously false story"

Give me a single fact that shows conclusively the TO story is "obviously false". You know no more than any of us do, unless you work for Rove or Fitz.

I suppose you'll say, "Rove hasn't been indicted". That's not a fact, that's a guess.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

79. It's obviously false,

because no one can prove that any indictment has been handed down, and no one can prove one single item in that story ever occurred.

Rove has been indicted?

How do you know this?

Let's see your proof.

Go ahead. We're patient.

[tridim]

94. I've never claimed the story is "Obviously true"

I have no proof, just like you have no proof.

Yet you've posted about 500 times in the past week that you are sure it's false. Until you present proof, you're just talking out of your ass. Sorry to be so blunt, but that's the vibe I get from you lately.

I'll be happy to eat crow if and when we know the real story and it turns out Leopold made it up.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

97. You claim a positive -

that there is an indictment - which demands proof.

I am claiming a negative, that there is no indictment, and that does not demand proof.

So, go ahead. How did you come to possess this information, and how can I verify it?

Or, how can you verify it?

Simple logic.

[tridim]

101. Where did I make that claim?

Leopold made the claim, not me.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

103. OK, so you don't believe him?

Ah, that changes everything.

So, you're defending what, then?

You're defending someone's right to print untruths as truths that "might come true later"?

is that your side?

There is no indictment.

[tridim]

107. I don't know if he printed an untruth, and neither do you..

Why don't you listen?

I'm defending nothing except patience.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

115. There is no patience with news

Either it happened or it didn't.

Your advocacy of patience is misplaced.

As someone sagely asked in another thread Iand I paraphrase), "Will this mean that George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq will be viewed as a success in ten years if it's peaceful there then?"

It was supposed to be "news." Now, almost ten days later, people have to admit they've been had.

I listen. You just speak in garbled and complicated ways about concepts that are irrelevant in this matter.

And, if you're still waiting, you're already a believer, by definition. Readers read news, they don't "wait."

Your morning paper arrives blank, and then it fills up during the day, doesn it?

Good luck.

[Catrina]

160. You could have gone to Judge Walton's court and checked to see

whether or not any sealed indictments were presented to him last Friday. As it happens, apparently there was at least one. That, imo, raises the possibility somewhat that Jason Leopold may have been right. It doesn't prove him right, but it does raise the possibility.

You have made many absolute statements regarding the law. Most of us respected your opinion, because you said you are a lawyer in DC. But you were proven wrong on at least one of those assertions. That caused some of us not to be so certain that you are always right.

I do have a question for you. I know that if I were a lawyer in DC with as much interest as you appear to have in this situation, I would have gone to the court to see if there were any indictments (sealed) handed to Judge Walton on Friday ~ I wonder why you didn't do that, being a lawyer, presumably fairly well known in DC. I am seriously interested in why you would not have done that ~

Meantime, now I am leaning a little more towards the possibility that Jason Leopold (despite his many previous personal problems) could have been right. We'll have to wait and see, the indictment could have been for something else. I just prefer not to take a position one way or the other since I am not psychic, and I don't have any way of knowing one way or the other. Nor do you, if you don't mind my saying so.

[dogday]

174. Information on Sealed Indictments

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

[oregonjen]

145. OLL needs to understand what some of us are asking

"You claim a positive -
that there is an indictment - which demands proof," OLL says in post #97. Well, 300 threads back, OLL claimed that Fitz's whereabouts are public knowledge. I still don't know how to find out where his whereabouts were, after Googling and looking elsewhere. OLL claims a positive, which according to her demands proof. Well, I ask again, where is the link that tells us where Fitz was on May 12, 2006? I asked for that info and got "Do your own homework" as a reply. Well, using your quotes, you need to provide proof as well.

I have no "side" to take on this issue. The story is either true or false. However, it would be nice to see the entire administration go down.

[dogday]

170. I know that papers were filed

Friday May 12, 2006 late in the evening in the Libby investigation. These papers were the evidence of Cheney's role in the outing... Whether or not any other papers were filed were not mentioned.

I also know this information on sealed indictements...

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

[sheelz]

185. IF...

"The sealed indictments put the attorneys for the accused in a touchy position because they will be told their client has been indicted but not what the charge is and how many counts, making it difficult to defend."

How does Leopold know what Rove was charged with ---> Perjury and Lying to Investigators?!


:think: :silly:

[dogday]

193. The only way to know would

be to have access to the actual indictments or to know someone who did....

[sheelz]

195. Which Leopold has NO proof ....

and that would make them unsealed.

There are no indictments dated May 12th with specific charges.

[dogday]

196. I never said there was...

I am posting facts on the subject about seal indictments.. I am still waiting on all the facts and figures to come out before making my final decision... I appreciate your sharing yours :hi:

[sheelz]

198. Your reference is from the Duke case

and you're using ABC News as your source??

[dogday]

199. I am stating how sealed indictments

work... Last I checked ABC news was an acceptable source to post on DU... Yes it was for the rape case, but it can apply to all sealed indictments, not this particular case... Again thank you for your interest :hi:

[Jigarotta]

104. just check your watch/clock or sun dial or granny Clampetts beetle.

even 24 business hours is about up by now.

let's get some time machine people on this.

[MADem]

74. It's not a question of belief

Rove had 24 hours to get his affairs in order, they said. Hell, I was gonna go help him move out of his office--I had some spare cardboard boxes I would have GLADLY let him have! Then that morphed into 24 business hours. Don't know what a "business hour" is?? Well, you don't NEED to know, see..you have to take it on FAITH! It is what it is!!!!! And you can wait a week...or more!!!

And there was no mention of a SEALED indictment. Any other kind is a matter of public record. But there's nothing in the public record that bears them out. You'd think a reporter with so many particular facts would know that the indictment was SEALED, and say, maybe MENTION it in the article?

I can't get into that kind of "believing." Where I come from, it's called bullshitting.

[blogslut]

111. Leopold did mention a sealed indictment

..in his preceding May, 12 article: Rove Informs White House He Will Be Indicted
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml

Paragraph 10:

Late Thursday afternoon and early Friday morning, several White House officials were bracing for the possibility that Fitzgerald would call a news conference and announce a Rove indictment today following the prosecutor's meeting with the grand jury this morning. However, sources close to the probe said that is unlikely to happen, despite the fact that Fitzgerald has already presented the grand jury with a list of charges against Rove. If an indictment is returned by the grand jury, it will be filed under seal.

[Jigarotta]

159. but geeeeze! I thought even Rove wouldn't know if it was sealed....

so how would TO?
I'm way over my head on all this and shoud probably shut up.
but I won't.

[dogday]

171. Read this about sealed indictments

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

[MADem]

204. It woulda been smart of him, then, to mention it in the current article

When I read a piece in any mainstream rag, they spend some time reviewing the salient points. The story, as written, did not stand on its own. Any journalist who expects people to run a search on previous articles to find something that applies to a current article is a lousy journalist, at best. I mean, how hard is it to put the word SEALED in his opus magnus that has caused all this brouhaha?

In their more recent Sunday opus, http://forum.truthout.org/blog/ this sentence stands out: We know that this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever covered, and that we are learning some things as we go along.

I hope they've learned at a minimum to state clearly important, indeed KEY specifics, like whether or not indictments are sealed, and not play "move the goalposts" or "change the text" or "vary the number of sources" when things don't go as they suppose they might.

I'm still in the 'huge, hunking grain of salt the size of the Empire State Building' category. And that's when I am feeling charitable.

That said, I hope for a Rove indictment. However, I remain unconvinced that these guys know anything more than I do.

[AngryAmish]

20. They are honor bound to reveal their sources

Ever since this story broke everyone hear put their reputations on the line defending it (mostly). Knowing who is telling lies to reporters is itself news and could be the subject of journalism independent of this particular story.

[Maddy McCall]

24. No, they have the good fortune of having sources that refuse to be named..

Which means that they can pretend to be an organization of integrity by not revealing their sources--yet still running with a story that can't be verified.

It's a vicious circle that they can play out as long as they want. And people will keep on holding out hope--putting faith in sources no one can verify and in an author with his own closet full of professional skeletons.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

38. Here's an interesting dynamic......

I've watched all these threads closely and been really involved with them, trying, trying, trying to explain why things don't work the way the Leopold article said they did.

And a lot of people have been really upset with me - and the others who have done the same thing. Really upset to the point of personal attacks on all of us at one time or another.

These people don't know any of us who have banded together to try to show the truth and reality of how things happen in situations like this, yet they didn't believe us and made sure we knew they didn't believe us, sometimes in not-very-nice ways.

BUT, these same people are happy to trust, to believe, and to defend in the most vociferous ways a known liar, plagiarist, scam artist, and thief named Jason Leopold, a man I would guess they'd also never met in person. Just as they've never met any of us in person.

So, they made their choice, and they went with the established and well-documented liar and plagiarist with a history so bad, he should never have been allowed to write anything for anyone. They chose to believe him.

There's no accounting for human behavior.

[Maddy McCall]

43. But WILL spoke for Leopold.

We are just run of the mill DUers. :D

If you notice, the most frequently stated reason for "faith" in the story is "Will's a good guy, and I have no reason not to believe him," seconded only by, "I heard Will speak (or "I had a beer with Will"), so I believe him."

Objectivity has taken a back seat to personal feelings about the person who vouched for the story's authenticity.

That's fine with me. But I'll keep on speaking my mind, as long as the owner of this site allows it. If their only recourse is to attack me, let them attack.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

49. How long after the story came out

was this defense made by Pitt?

I don't know him, never met him, never had any interaction online with him, never read truthout.org, so Pitt's an unknown quantity to me, except in reference to the meltdowns I've read about (and read) and some other behaviorally questionable stuff. But, he's a DUer, so that's allowed sometimes, no?

So, you think it's a cult of personality rather than objective, rational thought that's brought this unfortunate incident to this point, with some people still hanging on and believing and defending those beliefs?

That sounds just like the 29% who support George W. Bush, doesn't it? "Hey, he's a good guy. I'd have a beer with him." But, they're not looking at the debris littered all around Fuckface.

Free speech, baby. We all still got it.

[Maddy McCall]

53. Yep, I do.

Cult of Personality on one hand, and so much desire to see Rove "frogmarched" that even if the Keebler elves told them it was about to happen, they'd believe it.

Me? I'll believe it when Fitzgerald announces it. Not before.

[Jigarotta]

64. I'm not sure what I believe.. lots of fracas about.

but I surely know when unbelievable things hit me in my face, I say.

hahhahaah, you gotta be kidding!

edited to make clearer.

[MADem]

86. Wasn't he a bit under the weather at the time?

The removed 'cretin' post and all that....

[Maddy McCall]

89. Yeah--he had rye n' hops flu.

;-)

[MADem]

203. That's sorta what I was endeavoring to infer!

I guess it must be a local expression! "Three sheets to the wind" is probably in more common useage!

[hippiechick]

135. Bi-polarism strikes when you least expect it ...

:evilgrin:

[King Coal]

98. It's not you, it's that damn frog.

[Maddy McCall]

100. The damn frog said "bite me."

Are you hard of hearing? Did you not catch my "tone?"

[King Coal]

95. Hey Lefty, have you ever heard of the Mormons?

They followed a known liar, plagiarist, scam artist, and thief named Joseph Smith. That was accounted for, wasn't it? Speaking of which, it's almost time for Big Love. I think I'll unwind a watch it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

99. Hey,

that was another Cult of Personality, only With Benefits. <wink, wink, nudge, nudge>

Unwind. It's a good thing.

[many a good man]

138. Congratulations to the "truth and reality" brigade !!!

For the most unintentionally hilarious line of the the entire Rove-Leopold saga!!! :rofl:

Seriously now, I admit that a healthy dose of skepticism and iconoclasm is required if one wants to be a thinking, truth-seeking person. This "band" has done us a service by educating us all about some areas that we have no experience in and pointing out flaws in Mr. Leopold's story that may have initially escaped our radar. However, I find it disappointing that this knowledge sharing has often been punctuated by condescension and snideness, which unfortunately is de rigeur for anonymous message boards.

However it is beyond the pale when a fellow member of DU is accused of deliberately lying or of using his good will here to intentionally deceive us. There is no evidence to the "truth and reality" that Will Pitt is maliciously deceiving us. Long-time DUers know Will has opened himself up to us on a scale unprecedented for a respected author and journalist. This is not idol worship, it comes from a long acquaintance with a brave, talented man who has dedicated so much of himself to fighting the good fight.

Will is a public figure and so he must be considered "fair game" to those who want to question him or throw stones. But he is also a member of our community, a human being many of us respect and admire despite his shortcomings. Will is not DU and DU is not Will, but he's a good man and he's on our side. He deserves better than what has been heaped upon him in the past week. If you are truly dedicated to truth and reality, you will not prejudge until all the facts are in.

[Karmakaze]

182. The thing about Will Pitt...

is that before DU he was a teacher - not a "respected author". He was just the same as any other DUer, but he was good with language and with encouragment and help from other DUers published a book. Now, 4 odd years later, Pitt is a "respected author", a self proclaimed "magic man", and Skinner, one of the people that made Pitt's rise to "respected author" possible, is a "cretin" in the words of said author. If anything is beyond the pale, THAT is.

Pitt has been given far greater lattitude than any other DUer - If I replied to a Skinner post calling him a cretin, Im sure I would be tombstoned - and yet you say there is no "idol worship" involved? In fact this very line in your post shows there is:

"Will has opened himself up to us on a scale unprecedented for a respected author and journalist."

Remember he was a TEACHER before DU made him what he is, NOT the other way round. He WASN'T a respected author and journalist who came to DU, DU MADE him into a repected author and journalist. By the way, don't take this to be some sort of slam on teachers - I am just saying that he was not some high and mighty author and journalist who deigned to come speak with the little people, he was ONE of the little people.

I remember the posts where he would be given advice on his writings (both for his books and TruthOut) and I remember that those people helped him not for money or fame, but to get the truth out and to help a friend. Then he came here the other day calling himself the "magic man" and acting like WE owed him, and because we weren't kissing his arse we were cretins.

"He deserves better than what has been heaped upon him in the past week."

He was the one that started the "heaping". People asked questions, and he (and his unquestioning fans) insulted those questioners with all sorts of accusations such as being freepers and "cretins" - including Skinner. If ANYONE deserved better treatment, it was Skinner. Skinner made DU - and Will Pitt's career - possible and for daring to ask a mild question was accused of being a traitor. I just can't forget that. No matter what the result is, whether Pitt was right or not, THAT was not kosher.

Pitt's ego has gotten so big, that now I do have doubts as to whether he might support a lie to protect his own reputation. I still can't quite believe he would be in on making up the lie in the first place, but if protecting his own ego meant lying to us here at DU as to how accurate that story is, then I wouldnt be surprised if he did.

[many a good man]

205. People

I want to thank you, Karmakaze, and salute you for a thoughtful, reasonable, and civil response. :thumbsup:

Voices like yours are often muted when feeding frenzies like this occur. I understand and respect your opinion because I can tell it comes from your heart and not your ego. Anonymity sometimes encourages people's baser instincts to come out. It makes it easier for us to express ourselves in ways that aren't productive but lets us vent our spleen.

We all live with partial knowledge of the world around us. Around here its easy to miss out on important posts or threads or background. There are many posters here whom I respect and admire one moment, but am horrified by the next. But most people here I am convinced are deep-down good people and I'm always ready to give them a second chance. Maybe its because every person I've ever met has disappointed me at some time. But to give up hope for redemption is to give up hope for humanity. We'll see how it all turns out.

Peace.

[Sydnie]

207. Ummm ... except Pitt was writing for PDA first, not TO

just saying ... your timeline doesn't quite add up. :shrug:

[princehal]

33. Why

would Truthout lie? What is in it for them to make shit up? If they are wrong, it could destroy them. So, someone please tell me why?

[IsIt1984Yet]

37. I don't think it was malicious or intentional. Just amateur.

As I said in another thread, they were bamboozled, conned, deceived, deluded, duped, flimflammed, hornswoggled, jerked around, misled... and fell for it. Hook. Line. And Sinker.

[Maddy McCall]

39. Let's see.

A scoop on watergate made Wood/stein.

Jason Leopold's career had certainly bottomed out. Maybe he was looking for a way to dig himself out of the cellar of irrelevance. Maybe, with his newly published book, he wanted to create a swirl of controversy around himself, so that people'd buy his book.

Maybe Truthout put too much faith in a reporter with bad credentials.

Who knows WHY?...supposing why Truthout allowed Jason to publish on their website is as difficult to do as supposing why they won't kill the article already.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

41. Check our jails

Ask the inmates in jails - or prisons - why they did what they did that got them there.

Ignore their claims of innocence and setup. Just ask them.

There is no answer. People are strange, and they do strange things.

A big question is: Given that Jason Leopold's history is so easily learned, WHO WOULD HIRE HIM AS A NEWS REPORTER?

[MADem]

84. I think they either heard a lousy rumor, or made a bad guess

Didn't double-check the lousy rumor, and ran with it. Figured that it's GOTTA be close at hand, and seeing as how the Grand Jury is meeting once more, well, take a shot. Ya could hit paydirt and get credit for it! Even if it's just stuff pulled out of their asses!

[Jigarotta]

148. roulette 'journalism'... sure.

makes me feel informed.

[Seabiscuit]

165. Lousy rumor + incompetence + hubris + craving attention + misplaced

priorities (valuing a "scoop" over a thoroughly researched and fact-checked story) = captivating story full of absurdities and internal inconsistencies + numerous subsequent vague spins in which many facts are changed, new absurdities ("business hours", Joe Wilson, ever-reduced number of "reliable sources" from different quarters, etc.) are introduced, and emergence of new focus (Rove now supposedly plea-bargaining so Fitz will aim at Cheney) + no retraction, no explanation, no apology and not one question answered, all milked for all the attention it can gather for 8 days and counting.

Stephen Glass couldn't have invented this monumental fuckup in his wildest dreams.

[Nederland]

188. Why would Truthout lie? One word: Traffic

This story has undoubtedly increased Truth Out traffic. To a website site like TO, that's money in the bank.

[Maddy McCall]

44. Oh, and...

*jumping for joy and K/R-ing!*

:D

[DancingBear]

50. And I'm on high-speed satellite

Whaddaguy. :)

[Taxloss]

54. "[Patton Boggs] was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night."

(Per Ash's latest article.)

"Locked down" sounds fairly tight and serious. However, it didn't prevent Jason Leopold talking to several sources with "intimate knowledge" of the meeting on Friday evening and Saturday morning before writing his story. What, exactly, does "locked down" mean, then, if people are free to come and go, make phone calls, and give details of what is going on inside?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

57. In the finest Watergate mangled language tradition,

(you'd have to be familiar with the patois spoken back then by John Ehrlichman), it was a "modified limited" lockdown.

Ah, I get so nostalgic for the old days ..........

[Taxloss]

63. Maybe it was "casual Friday", so they had a "casual lockdown"

The kind of relaxed, friendly lockdown one expects from a modern, trendy law firm, with people alerting news crews, wandering in and out of the building, calling everyone they know - "Who am I talking to? Oh, just some reporter from a left-wing website. What do you mean that's not cool? Fred called him first!" - snogging Ally McBeal in the toilets ... whatever fills up 15 hours. Or 30 hours, since we now count Saturday. Doesn't that mean Leopold ran the story while the office was STILL LOCKED DOWN?

It's interesting that the firm is also now thought to have worked through Saturday, when Pitt told us that NOTHING happened or was going to happen on Saturday. And it's interesting that this hu-mega-lungous meeting produced NO VISIBLE RESULTS.

Ash really should stop digging. Now.

[MADem]

91. And as Ron Zeigler would say "This story is no longer operative!" n.t

[DancingBear]

66. Remember, though, on the 12th it was locked down with Secret Service

Now, however, it's just an ol' run of the mill regular lockdown.

Which, as everybody knows, is open season for Intimate Knowledge Gossip, or IKG as those of us in the know (or ITK) like to say.

"Say, this whole area is completely locked down, but if you'd like details as to why just step right in here..."

It's like picking cherries, isn't it?

[Taxloss]

71. Oh, it's fun when it's locked down by the Secret Services.

They bring pizza, everyone gets into pyjamas, you watch a couple of videos, make some prank calls to internet journalists - those guys are a riot.

[DancingBear]

83. Do they REALLY do The Mexican Hat Dance with automatic weapons?

That is, like, so cool.

[Maddy McCall]

85. Not to mention the orgies!

I say that there were drunken orgies, complete with Crisco and sheets of visquene down the hallway, during the lockdown, and that Secret Service agents participated, and that Jenna and Barbara emceed.

Prove me wrong. Go ahead. Find one person to proove me wrong.

My sources (actually, my imagination) said it's true. It's YOUR burden to prove me wrong.

Got it?

:rofl:

[DancingBear]

88. I would if I could stand up

The damn floor is so slippery, and someone has passed me a note:

"For a good time, call Jason at 1-GOT-ITW-RONG"

Ruh-roh.

[Maddy McCall]

96. LOL.

:rofl:

Mudwrestling in the transcription room.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

90. Great post.............

But, I suspect, it's a case of

before

[MADem]

92. Is your refrigerator running? Do you have Prince Albert in a can?

:rofl:

[Jazz2006]

105. I like this tidbit about the two news crews outside....

Odd, since on the 13th, Pitt was here on DU claiming that the story was "exclusive" to truthout.

:P

Edit to add link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1179819#1179922

[Maddy McCall]

108. Yes, that's true.

Exclusive means that only one news service has the scoop. What were two other news agencies doing there, if, indeed, it was a scoop.

Oh, yeah. I remember. It was a Rovian ploy.

[Jazz2006]

109. And yet truthout now appears to be using the very fact of its NON

exclusivity as some kind of proof of truthout's veracity.

The mind wobbles.


:silly:

[Maddy McCall]

114. If you think about all of this, it makes your head hurt.

So don't think--just trust.

[Jazz2006]

118. Ha! I'm not from Missouri...

but ya' still gotta show me :D

[DancingBear]

110. If you keep interjecting facts in here you'll be asked to leave

No free airplane ride, either.

So there.

[Jazz2006]

117. How about a free scoop?

[Maddy McCall]

119. ooops!

[Jazz2006]

162. Hee hee - even more appropriate, that

:D

[Seabiscuit]

166. Would you like your "hours" and "lockdown" plain or shall we supersize

them for you as "business hours" and "secret service lockdown"?

I get better service (and my appetite better quenched) at McDonald's, which isn't saying squat.

[theboss]

176. It was so locked down

That Rove's attorney was making BBQ in his backyard on Saturday.

I'm trying to imagine a DC law firm in "lockdown" on a beautiful Friday night in May.

How many times were "Fuck you, I'm going to Dewey" uttered?

[Maddy McCall]

106. Did y'all see skinner's post in the TalkLeft thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1251492&mesg_id=1252455

********************************************************
/snip

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.
*******************************************************************

[DancingBear]

113. Maddy, I HAVE to know this!

Is your use of the phrase "y'all" part of your "tone"???????

:hi:

[Maddy McCall]

116. I'm a southern uppity woman...

y'all!

:D

[johnnie]

112. This has gotten pretty funny

There are over 100 posts on this thread and it seems to just be four or five people talking to each other that everyone should not follow this story and they should move on..lol.

[Maddy McCall]

120. Ho ho ho ha ha ha...

And 24 hours, no 24 business hours, no eight days later, you're still clicking and making irrelevant comments.

:hi:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

122. The idea of Fitzgerald

walking around for ten days with a sealed indictment - a phrase that really should never have been introduced here, since it's been so woefully misused - is so funny, it beggars description.

So, when it's a year, do we get a cake?

[DancingBear]

123. He is going to be on I've Got A Secret next week

The panelists are from TruthOut.

Fitz sits down with a briefcase handcuffed to his arm.

None of the panelists guess correctly.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

124. HAHAHAHAHHA!!!!! It's not in the briefcase, though......

I maintained from the beginning that it's tucked inside the waistband of his boxer shorts.

I like to think that.

It's my personal cult of personality, if ya get my drift........

[HereSince1628]

125. I've got a source...(right) close to Fitz that says he wears jockeys.

Fitz NEVER takes a chance on getting his undies in a bundle, or hanging on the wrong leg of an argument.

[yourguide]

127. I'd like...

to be that close to Fitz...

[Maddy McCall]

130. At least you'd be able to read the "sealed indictment."

:7

[OldLeftieLawyer]

133. HEY!

Is that a cult of personality remark, because, if it is, I was there first?

:eyes:

[yourguide]

136. I would promptly...

unseal that indictment and then I would *edited so as not to get myself any more worked up at the thought of it LOL*

[Seabiscuit]

167. My source swears Fitz only wears jockeys for the half days he spends

in plain old vanilla flavored "lockdown" in Luskin's office. The other 15 hour overnight marathons he spends in Luskin's office during those tortuous "secret service lockdowns" he wears boxer shorts. Similarly, when he's got only 24 boring, ordinary hours to make an announcement he wears jockeys. But when he's got those 24 extra-special "business hours" he wears boxer shorts. After, all, sometimes a man's just gotta breathe!

[dogday]

172. Sealed Indictment Information

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

[sheelz]

197. Why are you using ABC News as a reference

to define sealed indictments?

[dogday]

200. Because it is an acceptable

resource here at DU...

[DancingBear]

121. And your contributions are what again??

I don't recall them.

Refresh my memory, if you would.

[HereSince1628]

126. Ouch! Citizens for Legit Gov't slapped Truthout!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2639160

[Maddy McCall]

129. TEXT OF LEGITGOV'S RESPONSE TO MARC ASH:

To Marc Ash: "We" don't care what you "believe but cannot confirm." "We" don't care who calls you on your cell phone. "We" believe that this latest little self-aggrandizing tactic will backfire on you with redoubled force. "We" believe you are out of your mind and have actually reached a point called "delusion" by professionals. That's what "we" believe. Your beliefs are not founded in reality, but in delusions of grandeur. That's what "we" believe. --Michael Rectenwald, Ph.D., Founder and Chair, Citizens For Legitimate Government

I agree with Michael Rectenwald. :thumbsup:

[mmonk]

131. A Phd in psychiatry?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

132. No, but he's got some impressive credentials

Check him out here - http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~mdr2/

Now, compare them with Jason Leopold's credentials.

[HereSince1628]

137. Holy Creepy shit Kos reports Walton ruled on sealed vs sealed

Last friday. speculation is it was Fitzgerald vs Gonzales via McNulty
thread already started...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1253266

[yourguide]

140. oh, this is evil...

if this is indeed the case this is friggin evil!!!!

[HereSince1628]

141. immediately took me back to Nixon's Sat. Night Massacre...

Cheney was on the scence back then too.

[Maddy McCall]

143. That's just bullshit. Talk about a huge leap.

There are any numbers of sealed cases that could be on the docket, certainly not all related to Fitz' work.

For anyone to conclude that it HAS to be the Rove indictment is just malarkey. Why wasn't the Libby indictment killed, or any number of other influential Republicans' indictments?

It's speculation, backed up with nothing.

[HereSince1628]

147. True it's way deep speculation. I only linked it so it would be in this

thread. Not because I accept it.

[jazzjunkysue]

181. Right. What's Libby wasting his money on if it can get killed?

Why did Abramoff plead if they could just get him off?
Why is Delay quitting?

[Cameron27]

151. I don't think the AG has that authority over

a fed. special proscecutor....and Gonzales is recused

The only thing I could find was back in 68, if anybody has a better link, I'd appreciate it (I'm no lawyer, but this just smells like the same old BS}


http://www.brookings.edu/gs/ic/Genesis/jaworski.htm


CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
TITLE 28. JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER I. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART O. ORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
SUBPART G-1. OFFICE OF WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE





In exercising this authority, the Special Prosecutor will have the greatest degree of independence that is consistent with the Attorney General's statutory accountability for all matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice. The Attorney General will not countermand or interfere with the Special Prosecutor's decisions or actions. The Special Prosecutor will determine whether and to what extent he will inform or consult with the Attorney General about the conduct of his duties and responsibilities. In accordance with assurances given by the President to the Attorney General that the President will not exercise his Constitutional powers to effect the discharge of the Special Prosecutor or to limit the independence that he is hereby given, the Special Prosecutor will not be removed from his duties except for extraordinary improprieties on his part and without the President's first consulting the Majority and the Minority Leaders and Chairmen and ranking Minority Members of the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives and ascertaining that their consensus is in accord with his proposed action

[Cameron27]

152. Is the code of regulations changed when a new special prosecutor is named?

[Garbo 2004]

163. That has to do with Watergate special prosecutor. Not applicable.

Fitz was appointed and designated Special Counsel for purposes of the CIA leak investigation per statutes, not regulations, that authorize the AG to delegate powers.

[Maddy McCall]

142. Anyone notice that Madsen's got Leopold's back?

Re the sealed vs. sealed theory, that Rove's indictment was killed by Gonzo's proxy (which is utter bullshit), read this comment on Dkos:

Let's see... (2+ / 0-)

One of the guys who has been sticking up for Leopold finds an excuse to exhonorate Leopold in the eyes of his fans. "Leopold was right, it's just that THEY stopped it from coming true!"

Folks, I don't care which side of the aisle you're on, bullshit is bullshit. It's not that I don't want Leopold to be right, it's just that he's not right. He's a liar, he's an asshole and the fact that so many people are now going to excuse him thanks to YET ANOTHER lie about this just pisses me off.

by Arken on Sun May 21, 2006 at 05:57:41 PM PDT

[HereSince1628]

144. Maybe but Pitt has been very tough on Madsen

I think there's evidence in DU archives of what could be interpreted as reason for Madsen to not help Truthout.

[yourguide]

150. did you guys see the hit on DU from Madsen today???

from that ****'s site...I used to check madsen, no more after this...

One other note on the Rove story. Rove likes to use surrogates, some with clever disguises, to spread around his nasty form of abuse and disinformation. That type of material is found on most right-wing web sites but also on one that claims to be "Democratic" operating in some sort of an "underground." The content there about this editor and this web site is highly suspicious and is just the kind of thing in which Rove and his minions excel. The web site in question attracts those who don't like Hugo Chavez, don't like Arabs or Muslims, don't like The DaVinci Code, don't like Ray Nagin, don't like Fidel Castro, don't like Evo Morales, don't like Vladimir Putin, don't like Dan Rather, don't like a number of progressive web sites, don't like stories about vote fraud; in other words, they don't like the same things and people that Rove doesn't like. Take them for what they're worth -- neocon lickspittles looking for another nickel in their rusty tin cup.

[democrank]

146. I`m taking a wait-and-see position.

For me, this is a time for patience, as difficult as that is. I see no point in jumping on an anti-Truthout, anti-Leopold bandwagon in the interim because it does nothing to advance the truth but does plenty toward ill will.

Here`s what I believe: Karl Rove is in some kind of legal jeopardy. It`s highly possible that a sealed indictment was returned against him. It`s possible that Leopold`s scoop was true as written on that date, but something changed to alter Fitzgerald`s course. Maybe questions about Rove`s lawyer`s behavior, maybe a lead from Armitage, maybe Fitgerald really started putting the squeeze on Rove and Rove started singing. Something is going on.

Nobody here knows the truth just yet, including me. While I`m waiting for answers, I`m going to remember that Leopold is not the enemy, even if he spoke prematurely or was given false information. The villains in this sorry Plame saga are those traitors in and out of the government who were willing to "out" an intelligence operative because they thought it would advance their political agenda and their bloodthirsty calls for war.

[Maddy McCall]

149. Here's the truth.

Jason Leopold was wrong.

[Avalux]

187. excellent post -

I to am taking a wait-and-see approach. If the indictment was sealed, it was done so for a reason, and no one is going to say one way or the other if Rove was indicted. Leopold's story has neither been confirmed (the meat of it, the indictment) or categorically denied.

:hi:

[Catherine Vincent]

157. Why isn't Thread #1 locked?

And why is the Ash/TO article down?

[sabra]

173. Byron York attacks Truthout....

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjYwZWJmNDkwZTJhODhjNWZjYWM4ZmY4YTM2MmY3MTM=

<snip>

Yet Truthout is sticking with its story. “We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13,” Truthout editor Marc Ash wrote Sunday. “We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about.”

But how to explain the absence of an indictment? The indictment was, it turns out, a secret. “We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed,” wrote Ash. “Rove may be turning state’s evidence.” Indeed, some other anti-Rove commentators have also suggested that the indictment was sealed. Wayne Madsen, another Internet writer who has claimed that Rove was indicted, wrote on Saturday that, “With a sealed indictment in hand, the special prosecutor could have been negotiating a plea agreement with the Rove camp during the last week.”

But like other parts of the indictment scenario, the claim that charges against Rove were sealed—a claim needed to keep the indictment story alive once time had passed without confirmation—appears to be without foundation. The decision to seal an indictment is based on several factors, and it appears none of them are present in the Rove case. “The usual and most common circumstance is the fear that the defendant, or one of the defendants if there are multiple defendants, will flee if he learns that he is wanted before he is placed in custody,” says National Review Online’s Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor. “The government will ask the court to seal the indictment and issue arrest warrants.”

...

Another theory shot down. But for the moment, it appears that nothing will stop the sort of viral speculation that is going on about the CIA-leak case. Even if Rove were indicted—and no one outside Fitzgerald’s office can say with any confidence whether or not that will happen—everything that has been reported in this latest round of theorizing would still be wrong. And if in the end Rove is not indicted, there will undoubtedly be confidently worded reports that he was saved only by some sort of corrupt dealing. What this latest round of Internet theorizing shows is that there are people who have a deep emotional investment in the belief that Rove is a criminal, and that those people will suspend their critical faculties to accept almost any scenario that supports their belief. Nothing that happens—or doesn’t happen—will change that.

[patcox2]

177. Truthout is desperately treading water, hoping an indictment will appear.

Obvious what TO is doing; they are trying to just keep treading water until an indictment happens, when they can say "see, we were right, we just got the timing wrong."

[arwalden]

180. Kinda Like Sylvia Browne Predicting Earthquakes In Turkey...

... she's continually predicting a likely event, and even though her timing is always off, whenever one DOES occur (and one always eventually does) she holds it up as "proof" that she was right, but that her timing was a little off.

I thought the National Enquirer and Weekly World News were the two primary sources of this type of "predictive journalism". It's not like we really NEED another one.

[Beausoir]

186. I LOVE the Sylvia Browne theory.

It perfectly sums up my thoughts about this whole thing.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

178. typo...supposed to be "240" business hours, not "24"

[arwalden]

179. I Wouldn't Be Surprised...

... if someone tried to do that. The folks who so eagerly accepted the 24 hours = 24 "business hours" will probably be just as willing to accept that 24 was supposed to be 240.

So... if we do the math... 240 divided by 8 = 30. That's thirty days... or SIX BUSINESS WEEKS!! :rofl: Plenty of time for things to pan-out. All we need to do is just wait!

You're sneaky! :thumbsup: Have you considered a career in with Truthout? :eyes:

[SmokingJacket]

184. IF the Truthout story was a Rovian plant...

...and I have no freaking idea or even opinion if it was -- it sure did WORK BEAUTIFULLY!!!!

I have NEVER seen DUers so divided and mean to each other!!!!!

:(

[sheelz]

189. You're giving Rove too much credit.

and Leopold too. This story was written by a con, and handful of people still believe the con's story. In the end, nobody is changing their vote!

[enough already]

190. If it's wrong

and I don't believe it is, I have no doubt that Rove is behind it.

[sheelz]

194. You've been punked!

Leopold wrote that story not Rove. Leopold punked you not Rove. Leopold is wrong and that's the truth. Put the blame where it belongs.

[enough already]

201. There's no proof that Leopold or Pitt are wrong

None whatsoever. If you don't think Rove is capable of pulling off something like this, you're naive.

[sheelz]

202. There is no proof that Leopold is right...

that is up you to prove. Leopold wrote this story and he did it to himself.

edit to add: They are both CONS!

[JuniperLea]

192. All this blathering over nothing...

I don't even care anymore. I'm just disgusted at the tarring and feathering going on here. It truly sickens me. There's no proof the articles were correct or incorrect, yet the mud is being slung in such frothy fervor from all directions. It sickens me that so many here are getting their rocks off over this slam fest.

What is truly troublesome to me, other than the repulsion I feel over Will Pitt and TO being dragged through the mud, is the clear and undeniable fact that so many here are basing opinions on nothing, and expecting this administration to actually play by the law or by the rules. Unfreakingbelievable.

[byronius]

206. What you said.

sheetz kind of sealed it for me, there. Old Leftie Lawyer, though -- he's usually on. Still, just perusing everything, the vitriol seems quite odd. Don't get it. Will Pitt's fine by me. It would take a lot more than this to degrade my trust in him. Hmmm. It's all very interesting, this non-action. I think, in the end, I will find it far more disturbing if Karl Rove is not be indicted at all. As disturbing as brazen claims of the legality of massive domestic surveillance by right-wing ideologues. As disturbing as talk of unilaterally nuking Iran.

So many disconnects. No much nonaction. So few penalties. The outright flaunt. The ensuing silence.

Perhaps we are a nation in shock, still. Numb and paralyzed and demoralized down to the very philsophical core. To such a nation could such a thing happen -- that a powerful man be indicted and yet not be indicted, at the same time.

If Karl Rove is not to be indicted, it is as it has been. Down we go. If he is indicted, well, there's some justice for you, a bit of crabgrass in our "perfect lawn of misery", to quote another DU-er without attribution.

I personally think we'll find our way through. Scarred, spiritually burned, alive. It is my whimsical belief.

Karl Rove Unindicted? Pfwahhh. Nonsense. On this the Universe turns, and it's Time.



Did that sound pretty good?

[Sydnie]

208. Seems more like the behavior one would expect to see

on the "site that shall not be named". I bet they are copying these threads over there and not even adding anything ... just reading them and laughing.


We are better than this ... at least, I thought we were. There are enough "outside sites" that are willing to "take us down", it's so sad to see us doing it for them.

[MADem]

209. There's definitely proof that there were factual inaccuracies

...no matter how much wishing and believing went on. From the 24 hours/business hours, to the number of sources, to no mention of a sealed indictment in the piece, and then, there's the troubling background of the author, from journalistic falsehoods to sock puppetry in his recent past. And that latest couple of articles, from the non-apology for 'getting ahead of the news cycle,' to the "what we know and what we believe" diatribe, well, that flush you hear is their credibility swirling down the pan...

And I have to say, most of the nastiness came from those who were angry at those who refused to "believe." Polite and reasonable questions were met with some astounding rudeness. It all went downhill from there, but the "nonbelievers" didn't start out nasty, it was the TO 'unquestioning supporters' who cast the first stones. And they threw them hard and fast at anyone who asked the most simple and open questions.