Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Salon's Daou Report on Jason Leopold's Credibility

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Unmarked Poster Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:36 PM
Original message
Salon's Daou Report on Jason Leopold's Credibility
Jason Leopold and the Alleged Rove Indictment - I've been watching with intense interest as Jason Leopold has written a series of stories that scoop every major news outlet in America. I've watched with intense interest as thousands of bloggers and message board users have welcomed his writing uncritically and have questioned why the traditional media have ignored his groundbreaking reporting. His latest piece is a seemingly authoritative report about Karl Rove's indictment, a report that has now apparently been refuted by Rove's spokesman in a conversation with Byron York at The Corner: "I talked with Rove defense spokesman Mark Corallo, who told me the story was completely baseless. "Part of our conversation: Did Patrick Fitzgerald come to Patton Boggs for 15 hours Friday? No. Did he come to Patton Boggs for any period of time Friday? No. Did he meet anywhere else with Karl Rove's representatives? No. Did he communicate in any way with Karl Rove's representatives? No. Did he inform Rove or Rove's representatives that Rove had been indicted? No."

I write this not to undermine two news organizations - Raw Story and Truthout - whose staff and senior editors I consider friends. I simply want to understand what's going on. How is Leopold the only reporter in America with access to such high-level (and such garrulous) sources in the White House, the RNC, and the prosecutor's office? In his story, Leopold writes the following: "Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House, where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee." Is it possible that low-level staffers know about the indictment but not a single news story other than Leopold's has been written about it? Nothing from the dozens of reporters covering the story? Nothing from a Murray Waas who has been two steps ahead of the traditional press? I just don't get it.

From everything we've seen in public reports, it's very possible Rove will indeed be indicted this week. In fact it's looking more and more likely he will be. What was done to Valerie and Joe Wilson is a travesty and there will be justified celebration across America if Patrick Fitzgerald brings everyone who was involved in this repugnant and dangerous act to justice. Nevertheless, something just isn't adding up. I don't pretend to know what it is. This blog post is more a question mark than a statement. Perhaps other bloggers with more detailed knowledge of the investigation can weigh in.

My concern - and the reason I write this - is that Leopold's ubiquitous reporting has set expectations very high in the blog community. We're at a moment when blogs are under assault by prominent media and establishment figures. I wouldn't want to see him used as a cudgel to flog the progressive netroots as a bunch of conspiracy nuts. There's enough of that already. We don't need to provide ammo to our opponents.

http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=0c...

(Reprinted with author's permission)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. I repeat: Rove's head or Leopold's rear.
We'll have one on a silver platter.

If it's the latter, too bad. But Rove's head is a much bigger issue than egg on the collective face on the blogosphere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sheelz Donating Member (869 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. It's their own doing or undoing.
It's not necessarily an either/or, it could be both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #17
32. Well, I've been thinking about this more seriously...
I read FDL religiously because it has great legal analysis. Over there it looks like Leopold is a dunce when it comes to understanding the legal angle. Problem: This is a story about a federal prosecution. Big problem.

It looks like Leopold doesn't understand how sealed indictments work. So, he wasn't able to properly digest what he was being told by his source. Word has gone around to other reporters that stuff is in the works so there probably was a source saying... something. But Leopold was not eminently qualified, in spite of much reporting on this issue, to understand the legal niceties of what he was being told. So even if he's broadly right, he's still making himself look like a dunce on understanding the law while reporting on a law beat. This is a problem for him.

I'm not ready to throw him to the wolves yet. After all, the business week doesn't start for several hours still...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 01:37 AM
Response to Reply #32
47. I've been wondering too. Leopold perhaps not having the legal context &
Edited on Mon May-15-06 01:43 AM by Garbo 2004
and understanding to as you say "properly digest" what he presumably was told. And maybe some of his sources didn't either. I think there was a rush to get the story out and wasn't as clear as it could have been. Was it first reviewed by anyone familiar with fed procedure in such matters? It wouldn't have hurt and if there was a rush to get a scoop and be ahead of the pack, well clearly no one else was stepping out on that particular ice covered pond to test the ice this weekend.

And of course there is the matter of his sources. Leopold IIRC was quoted as saying on a radio program that his sources were "bulletproof?" I cringed when I saw that. Almost as an unfortunate a choice of words IMO as "slam dunk" and "unsinkable." ;)

And I still also wonder if Tweety was really just simply fooled by the usual grand jury schedule and his own exuberance and incautiously planned and promoted a Roveathon program in anticipation of maybe something happening. Or whether he had other info that really led him to believe that something serious was going down on Friday but it simply didn't turn out as he expected, with a public announcement?

I find it all very interesting to speculate, but await a public announcement from Fitz's office before I celebrate. Later the backstory info will inevitably follow. Time will tell.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #47
70. A quick side issue, but did Tenet claim at any time that he....
...did indeed say the phrase "slam dunk"? I'm under the impression that Woodward allegedly sourced that comment from one or more NeoCons who were present at a meeting in Crawford, TX. Interesting sources considering how that was the first step in Tenet's eventual disgrace and firing from his position with the CIA.

If I remember correctly, Tenet was testifying before a Congressional committee when he was asked about the "slam dunk" quote. Tenet initially denied that he had been at the Crawford meeting. Something caused him to reconsider his denial during the lunch break in the hearings that day. When Tenet returned to the hearings, he made a quick statement along the lines that although he did not personally remember being at that Crawford meeting, a note in his calendar for that day indicated that he had been there. I got the impression from Tenet's response that Tenet had never seen that note before.

That is not the first time that Woodward has been the only source of an alleged damning quote from a CIA Director.

Woodward also allegedly gained a quote from a dying and comatose Bill Casey about taking responsibility for the Iran-Contra operation, a "confession" that got Poppy Bush off the hook for that particular fiasco. Casey's family was quoted later stating that Casey was comatose and unable to speak.

Additionally, Woodward is not what he claims to be, IMHO. He is a Yalie, a member of a secret Yale society, and a former active duty Naval officer who was on a fast-track Naval career before he allegedly opted to live active duty. He was also a member of the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), a rival organization to the CIA, and had ended his active-duty career as a briefing officer in the Pentagon. His big break came with his Watergate reporting, a mere one and a half years after choosing journalism as his career after allegedly leaving the Navy. There are some who believe that Woodward has been an ONI asset since his departure from active duty, used in much the same way as the CIA used operatives for Operation Mockingbird.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #1
55. This is about "sourciness" if it is not true. That is the story. Nothing
wrong with Leopold gathering the news in the same manner that journalists have for 100 years. They use multiple sources. Leopold is just going along like he always has. This story has nothing to do with him on either end.

He is doing his job the only way his job can be done. If someone has changed the meaning and practice of sources.. then it is a new phenomena (well not for Judy Miller) called "sourciness".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
No Exit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-17-06 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #1
89. Hey, look, pardon me, but let's get to the important stuff, already!
Is Robert Luskin's cat's stool completely healthy now, or not??? :bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. This may not be a fight that the establishment wants to take on...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:40 PM
Response to Original message
3. Welcome to DU, Unmarked Poster
:hi:


And thanks for the article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unmarked Poster Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Thank you
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northamericancitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. Who is that daou guy. Is he credible? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. I think he was known as PeterNYC?
I think he was big on Kos' site at first? Someone who knows better can correct me. But in this case he's not really fighting supposed facts with facts. He's providing an opinion educated by experience. He definitely has experience to draw on so from that perspective, he has credibility. That's why Salon hired him.

But we'll all see this week what unfolds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unmarked Poster Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. His bio from the About page of his site:
"The Daou Report is published by blogger and political consultant Peter Daou. In 2004, Peter directed online rapid response and blog outreach for the Kerry-Edwards campaign. He has appeared on MSNBC as a blog analyst and has served as an online communications consultant to leading political and public policy institutions including the United Nations Foundation, Media Matters, AARP, The Patriot Project, Nuclear Threat Initiative, and Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial Foundation. In addition to the Daou Report, Peter administers News Unfiltered (in partnership with U.S. Newswire) and UN Dispatch, a blog about the United Nations."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressivebydesign Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #9
42. Wasn't he PeteNYC here on DU during the campaign?
Because I swear I remember him pushing John Kerry constantly here, vociferously, yet not revealing his was working for Kerry-Edwards at the time. Does anyone remember that?? I don't remember him identifying himself as staff at the time. But I do remember his moniker here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northamericancitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Thanks. It will be an interesting week. I just hope that people
will calm down a bit.

nac
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kstewart33 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:46 PM
Response to Original message
6. My concerns exactly.
Jason has quite an interesting history as a reporter, much of it spent getting in trouble for inaccurate stories. It is very frustrating to see DU take his reporting as fact given his history and the questionable accuracy of recent stories. I don't want to hammer him or Will Pitt but the questions are piling up.

Until they are answered one way or another, be skeptical, stop getting your hopes up so high based on this reporting, and let's see how things play out. Those of us who are deeply skeptical of his recent work may end up providing a big apology to him and to Will Pitt. But I doubt it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:48 PM
Response to Original message
8. I didn't see a date, time or any comments on the article. ???
Did I miss something or was this just written? :*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KC21304 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
10. Leopold has said he will out his source, (sources ?)
if this turns out to be false. From his reporting it seems he has a pretty high source. I can't believe he would make it all up. Hope he hasn't been set up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. He supposedly has multiple sources. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
11. So you think Byron York and Rove's paid liar are telling the truth.
Okay.

But I'm keeping my champagne chilled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skinner ADMIN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:52 PM
Response to Original message
13. I think Daou pretty much nails it.
Jason Leopold and Truthout have stuck their necks waaaaaaay out there on this one. If they end up being wrong, then they will do it spectacularly and publicly. I cannot imagine that they would stick their necks out this far unless they believed that their story was airtight. But damn, right now they are out there all alone on this one. I find it very hard not to be skeptical.

They must be sweating bullets over there at Truthout. They put it all out there. Fucking ballsy.

If they're right, they will be right spectacularly and publicly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katinmn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
21. and some have gotten "testy" at wonderings such as this.
May calm heads prevail.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. And there are people who would do anything to make them wrong
Edited on Sun May-14-06 10:10 PM by linazelle
Even though the story is very likely true--thus, the silence.

I have very little doubt that this is a credible story. The only question is on the timing. When will the announcement be made?

And in the meantime, we have "multiple sources" here at DU trying--once again--to tear down the credibility of those on the web (Jason Leopold/Truthout, Will Pitt, Lala RawRaw...) which is the ONLY reliable source of news these days.

I, for one, LOVE the fact that Leopold's expose points to the fact that there are leakers in the White House. They spy on us. They have infiltrators within even though they think they've fumigated the place. Let them fucking quake as they try to figure out who their internal leakers are. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wrinkle_In_Time Donating Member (664 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
41. That may be true. There are also people who really don't...
...want them to be wrong for several reasons:

1) Truthout.org publishes some wonderful articles by some outstanding authors. Just go look at their home page http://truthout.org / . I don't want that to be tarnished with any questionable reporting.

2) They will instantly become "the story", thus distracting the media and people from the real issue. Do you remember what happened to Dan Rather regarding the expose of bush's TANG service?

PS: Unlike you, I don't consider "Jason Leopold/Truthout, Will Pitt, Lala RawRaw..." to be "the ONLY reliable source of news these days". I urge you to check out DailyKOS, Talking Points Memo and Media Matters for America as other sources of news or for a perspective on what is reliable. I'm sure there are more: those are just the ones I read regularly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. It's pretty distressing...no matter which way one looks at it at this
point though. We have to hope it works out okay in the end...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
katinmn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. It's distressing because we want it now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
29. Agreed Completely. Shit, Even I'm Getting Nervous LOL I Posted In
a different thread that I have an immediate relative that works directly in the newsroom of one of the big networks. He and his team were up all night last night trying to verify Jason's story and couldn't, and they were scrambling to make sense of it. There were some things my relative (don't want to reveal which relative) said that concerned me a little, but I think overall they just haven't been able to corroborate anything so they are being cynical about this story right now.

But the most important point of note, as you mentioned, was that my relative mentioned Jason Leopold's name. He never would've known his name before really, but now everyone in the network rooms know it and know truthout.org (My relative actually kept repeating the website name, they definitely all know it now. He actually made a joke about wishing the site had an easier name to say outloud without getting his tongue twisted lol). So yes, succeed or fail, it will be spectacularly and publicly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bumblebee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. I'm sure your network relative was not alone. It's a sensational story and
despite what some people here believe, every MSM outlet wants to be the first to "officially" break it. 15 hours is not the only area of concern; another one is, with all due respect, if all these people on the other side wanted to leak it, why go to Leopold as opposed to Isikoff or Shuster, who have been out there collecting every tidbit they could find? Frankly, I can only think of a sinister reason to do so -- and I hope I am wrong. I just wish the story was not as definitive and breathless. As Skinner says, they did stick their necks out -- but our own necks as enthusiastic consumers and believers are now out there as well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #35
50. Well no doubt Rover's buds were sources for last weekend's preemptive
articles in WaPo and Newsweek (IIRC), providing Rovian spin in advance of an anticipated indictment. Getting ahead of the story both for the publications and the spinners.

Rover's legal team has denied not only that Rove had any involvement but then later when that clearly wasn't the case, that Rove was in any serious jeopardy. Despite the obvious fact that he has been in jeopardy since Cooper testified.

In any such reports I wonder who is talking and why. Some of Rover's alleged friends and associates may not be or no longer be friends and associates since Rover appears one way or the other to be going down and in his circles diminished power doesn't buy you a lot of loyalty especially if you are considered unwanted baggage that should be jettisoned. There are a variety of reasons some folks may find it convenient to throw Rover under the bus. (Assuming this isn't some ploy, as some can't help but wonder, to discredit the lefties. But would Leopold and TO be the most apt vehicle to do that or simply the most convenient? I don't know if I buy that scenario either.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #29
37. Would this be a network that
misscalled the election in 2000 and/or has ignored the fraud in the election in 2004 and/or has given rove a free ride? Oh and ignored the Downing Street Minutes?

No offense to your relative but no thanks. I'll go with truthout.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. I Agree. In My Similar Post In A Different Thread I Said To My Relative
that I trust T.O. 100% and he'll realize why in a few days time. I was just providing recently gained info on what the network newsies are actually doing right now and how frantic and cynical they are. Believe me, I trust T.O., Will Pitt, Rawstory and Good ole DU'ers more than any network newsie. I say to my wife all the time "shame on him, he works there and can put a stop to this media * administration pussyfooting". Then she yells at me. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proud2BlibKansan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #38
43. Well you are just a name on the internetS
but I trust you more than the MSM. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #38
56. I am much more curious about the implication if it turns out true.
Sure, if the story is wrong they were set up, big time. But if it is true, how does this blackout occur? If someone can kill this story, what kind of story would be too big to kill?

I am hoping that they got it right, that the sealed indictment issued Friday, but isn't that outcome a whole lot more terrifying than KKKarl Rove bagging a few more victims? If the story is true, we are in a whole lot deeper than just the propaganda that we already know about. The game may be over for us.

Or, I may be overreacting. It isn't as if they could nuke Iran without us finding out about it, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
33. Why was "Rove defense spokesman Mark Corallo" so willing to be quoted
Edited on Sun May-14-06 10:49 PM by TahitiNut
... on the record? In a story lasting for so long where the 'sources' on both sides have been extraordinarily shy about having their names or positions identified, why is Corallo being so candid and 'plain-spoken' on a story that's only been published in the Land of Blog? I find this a bit bemusing. Why not wait and let the fuse fizzle and the expectant mobs rage against the blogger who cried Wolf? Why not let those who hunger tuck their napkins in deeper and whet their appetites until they're ravenous and willing to eat the messenger? There's something very Rovian going on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #33
58. "There's something very Rovian going on."
Why do I have the same feeling? :shrug:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 02:11 AM
Response to Reply #13
52. .
Edited on Mon May-15-06 02:18 AM by WilliamPitt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. Whoa, Will...
Drink a cup of coffee... that wasn't what Skinner was saying at all... you may want to reconsider posting this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #53
54. I'm too fast for you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazz2006 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #54
60. Not fast enough....
Edited on Mon May-15-06 05:14 AM by Jazz2006
...since it's been reproduced in its entirety elsewhere on the internet.

Joe is certainly not going to be very happy with you.

And your slagging off against Skinner is shameful.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #60
72. ?
"already reproduced"? Where?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #60
79. Link, please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #54
63. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Caro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #63
87. I really don't see any difference any more...
... between Democratic Underground and FreeRepublic.com.

You are an incredible disappointment to the grassroots movement.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #54
75. Will, you have a private msg from me...
Steve
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #13
78. It's clear to me the story is at least partially wrong
"Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment"..

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml

A "head's up" to allow a Defendant to show up in court at a certain date and time to be served with the indictment and arraigned, fine, but service of a sealed indictment ahead of time? Sorry, cannot be done.

If the indictment was not sealed it would be a public record available to anyone and then, sure, the Defendant could be served with it. But if it is sealed (as Libby's was), it cannot be served on anyone, even the Defendant.

Leopold is dead wrong on Rove being served with an indictment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ksec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
15. Expectations were already high
And I dont care what media thinks. Remember thats the same media who got this war started by giving Bush a free pass. And they also called an election before it was over and got it wrong. They have no room to talk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jumpoffdaplanet Donating Member (676 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:54 PM
Response to Original message
16. Of course the media will ignore this
So I wouldn't use that as a means to measure credibly.

In fact the media ignoring almost proves it's true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. The media has to be 100% sure it's true before they run with it
They might be 98% sure and have just enough doubt to hold back. If it fell through then the media would look like complete fools and Bush and Rove could then attack at will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. and we all know what the RoveMachine can and will do! damm!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
30. has to be 100% sure it's true??? - A GOP handout is repeated with NO
checking - and indeed with NO ONE even pointing out logic errors or contradictions via prior statements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #30
34. But if they miss on this it would look extremely bad. It's too big a story
Some things they can run with even if they are not 100% sure but if they ran with a story like this and it turned out not to be true then the media would look like Dan Rather did. You can't say Rove is indicted and have it all over the news and papers and then turn around and say you were wrong. It's too big a story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:30 AM
Response to Reply #34
71. The captive MSM has looked bad for a long, long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #18
44. Judith Miller for the NYT?? Her 'source' for Iraq's WMD and our trip into
the hell that is Iraq, we now know was a drunk and a liar, according to those who know him. 'Curveball', long discarded by the CIA as a liar and a drunk and totally not credible. Her editors at the NYT have been given a pass on being 100% WRONG on a story that had far more dire consequences to this nation than this Rove story.

I won't even go into the rest of the media. Or Drudge whose every breathless 'developing' story ie 'Kerry is having an affair' etc, is repeated by the MSM. He has been wrong so often I don't know why anyone bothers with the site, yet there have been no consequences for him, apparently. But here we are saying that if Jason Leopold is wrong about this one story, he and Truthout are finished???

Sorry, but the reason they are not reporting on Jason Leopold's story cannot possibly be because they care about being 100% right, they don't. Maybe he was set up, to destroy the liberal blogosphere whose track record was beginning to look pretty good and no doubt made Rove pretty angry lately. I don't know, but I do know that I don't trust the MSM. It could be that it's a weekend and none of them are working too hard.

I don't know why someone in the MSM doesn't simply call the lawyers who Leopold says met with Fitzgerald. If they did, why have they not said so and reported their response?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. You got that right. The silent treatment is becoming a way of life for
them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
19. i`ve said this since this started-let`s wait and see
i`ve had my doubts about the sourcing of this story. i`ll wait and see
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
24. I can answer one of your questions to your full satisfaction.
Edited on Sun May-14-06 10:15 PM by autorank
"How is Leopold the only reporter in America with access to such high-level (and such garrulous) sources in the White House, the RNC, and the prosecutor's office?" Well maybe it was the Salon reporters question.

"How is it that Bob Woodward can get exclusive access to so many heavy weights?" The Salon question begs the question. Exclusive access is easy to conceptualize and imagine.

The real question is does Leonard have it right. I've always enjoyed his stories in the past and admired his boldness. I think Salon is piling on. It's all part of a broad based alternate media filled with people who dream of breaking the big one! So when it appears one of this group has done it, how do people react? Well, IMHO, with pure jealousy.

I won't be crushed, people won't jump from their computer desk to a certain sprained ankle. Life will go on. But I'm betting that he's right and pulling for him, particularly when I see this Hollywood type cattiness.

I think Salon started out great. I remember when they broke the Hyde adultery story. What a coup! I was stunned when Salon joined what I consider the apologists for Stolen Election 2004 (you know what I'm talking about). That was just pathetic. I like many others canceled my subscription that day and have not gone back much since. Salon needs to concentrate on rebuilding its credibility and nerve instead of apologizing for the theft of the 2004 presidential election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
understandinglife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
31. "Well, IMHO, with pure jealousy." ... Exactly. The entire corporate ...
... media, including Salon, know that if Jason has scooped all of them, he is immediately in the category of Woodward/Bernstein and that is not something any of them are going to be thrilled. The fact that Jason has made it crystal clear that his sources know he'll expose them if they've been taking him for a ride makes it even less likely that he is incorrect in what he has reported.

I doubt if Jason or Truthout are sweating anything at this point. The folk who are all sweating are Jason's sources and the entire corporate media establishment, including Salon ... oh, and, well of course, Rove, Cheney, Bush, Rice, Hadley, ..........


Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 04:14 AM
Response to Reply #31
57. Thank you for that "understanding" ....
Ahoy! :hi:

Your clear statment now has me excited at the outcome. Salon is on its "uppers" and can now be referred to as "Locker Room" ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #24
85. Salon lost me with their 2004 election coverage, too.
I was stunned when Salon joined what I consider the apologists for Stolen Election 2004 (you know what I'm talking about). That was just pathetic. I like many others canceled my subscription that day and have not gone back much since.

I'll second that! What a dark day for Salon. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:17 PM
Response to Original message
26. Why would PeteNYC (Peter Daou) quote the National Review
the National Review and Byron York as credible sources???? I find that interesting in itself not to mention surprising given his previous activity on DU during the 2004 elections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pachamama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
28. How is Jason Leopold any less or more credible than the MSM is these days?
Seriously....I look at our corporate owned/controlled mass media and how they miss the boat and almost completely avoid covering stories. Or how they will focus on Natalie Holloway and the Duke Rape scandal more than other topics.

And, who is to say that Jason isn't reporting something he got and believed to be credible, but he's being set up? The Bush Administration wouldn't be beyond purposely planting a story in such a way to have a blogger and site such as Truthout look bad. They fear the internet and the bloggers and anything they can do to discredit them, the better.

But, that said, I'm waiting to see what happens. Jason Leopold may prove to have broken the biggest scoop or had bad info.

We will see....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 11:06 PM
Response to Original message
36. Pete NYC. Come on. Leopold is a TREASURE!
Even on a bad day, the guy's better than most whor--oops, "working" for Corporate McPravda.

By himself, Leopold's been more spot-on than most news organization's entire staff -- especially on the really BIG stuff.

It was Leopold who spread the word about Dick Cheney's connections to AQ Khan...



March 8, 2004

The Veep and Pakistan

Cheney Helped Cover-Up Nuclear Proliferation in 1989, So Pentagon Could Sell Pakistan Fighter Jets


By JASON LEOPOLD

When news of Pakistan's clandestine program involving its top nuclear scientist selling rogue nations, such as Iran and North Korea, blueprints for building an atomic bomb was uncovered last month, the world's leaders waited, with baited breath, to see what type of punishment President Bush would bestow upon Pakistan's President Pervez Musharaff.

Bush has, after all, spent his entire term in office talking tough about countries and dictators that conceal weapons of mass destruction and even tougher on individuals who supply rogue nations and terrorists with the means to build WMDs. For all intents and purposes, Pakistan and Musharraf fit that description.

Remember, Bush accused Iraq of harboring a cache of WMDs, which was the primary reason the United States launched a preemptive strike there a year ago, and also claimed that Iraq may have given its WMDs to al-Qaeda terrorists and/or Syria, weapons that, Bush said, could be used to attack the U.S.

Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and top members of the administration reacted with shock when they found out that Abdul Qadeer Khan, Pakistan's top nuclear scientist, spent the past 15 years selling outlaw nations nuclear technology and equipment. So it was sort of a surprise when Bush, upon finding out about Khan's proliferation of nuclear technology, let Pakistan off with a slap on the wrist. But it was all an act. In fact, it was actually a cover-up designed to shield Cheney because he knew about the proliferation for more than a decade and did nothing to stop it.

Like the terrorist attacks on 9-11, the Bush administration had mountains of evidence on Pakistan's sales of nuclear technology and equipment to nations vilified by the U.S._nations that are considered much more of a threat than Iraq_but turned a blind eye to the threat and allowed it to happen.

In 1989, the year Khan first started selling nuclear secrets on the black-market; Richard Barlow, a young intelligence analyst working for the Pentagon prepared a shocking report for Cheney, who was then working as Secretary of Defense under the first President Bush administration: Pakistan built an atomic bomb and was selling its nuclear equipment to countries the U.S. said was sponsoring terrorism.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold03082004.html



Counterpunch?
Did Leopold
name any names?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 11:32 PM
Response to Original message
39. This is what I keep saying...
...over and over and over. It can't be said enough:

I wouldn't want to see him used as a cudgel to flog the progressive netroots as a bunch of conspiracy nuts. There's enough of that already. We don't need to provide ammo to our opponents.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-14-06 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
40. I suspect he's 90% right.
This is Rove we are talking about. I think Rove is going down, but maybe some of these sources wanted to burn Jason on some details. Make some short term hay and seed credibility questions with the entire LW bloggosphere. We have a midterm election coming up and they'd sure like to marginalize us. This is something the MSM would be happy to buy into. They see us as a longterm threat as much as the republicans do. So maybe they fed Jason some bogus details that the Right can use to smear us....while the core story of Rove's indictment gets redirected.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #40
46. If he's 90% right, do you really think "some details" will matter?
I understand the RWers and Rove's operatives would work diligently to get those seeds to take root, but the facts that a) Rove is indicted sometime this coming week, and that b) Leopold and Truthout broke the story, all by themselves, those facts will soak up all the discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 01:27 AM
Response to Original message
45. What I hate Worse than Mistaken Reports are so called Liberals
Edited on Mon May-15-06 01:28 AM by radio4progressives
Worried about looking like "conspiracy nuts".

I think i almost dispise this meme as much as i dispise Faux news. Actually I dispise Lilly Livered Liberal Gatekeepers of "journalism" even MORE than i dispise the lying reich wing bush bots.

I dispise them (Lilly Livered Librul "Journalists" and their Gatekeepers) for their cowardice. I dispise them for their willingness and complicity to allow the corporate fascists to decide what information will be reported, what questions should/will be raised and I dispise them for the guttless paranoia of being accused as a "conspiracy theorist" when the whole entire administration and every fucking thing they do is a fucking conspiracy, and any breathing thinking human being with a half a brain knows it!

Leopold has reported several stories that were FACTUAL. Suddenly, he's not to be trusted because he's scooped the MSM. How fucking hard is it to scoop the MSM?

Downing Street Memo anyone?

Do i need to list more items for this crowd to be reminded of the plethora of stories that the MSM SHOULD HAVE REPORTED AND NEVER DID??????






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #45
48. Whoa! All I can say is....
well said!

:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #45
49. Well, that will win friends and influence people
Dispise (sic) whom you will, but I won't lower my standards because others do. As for mainstream media, I had no problem when I was dealing with legitimate issues - it's a matter of understanding that they don't work for us ... and never did. That's why I did my part to support alternative media, including this website - I paid for my star and proud of it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:43 AM
Response to Reply #49
80. Was anyone talking about you personally? What standards....
...do you think have been lowered, and who do you think has played a role in doing that?

I'm not sure I understand the meaning of your post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fredda Weinberg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #80
81. I did the progressive journalism thing for a while
and was disgusted by the absence of standards. A mirror of our opposition, anything goes in the name of "the cause."

It's not personal - I'm proud of what I've done because it held up ... and made a difference in the next election cycle. But another issue in which I was involved became a quagmire to the point where otherwise sympathetic outlets have thrown up their hands and walked away - need I name names?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #45
51. Agree. As if there isn't always a stick to be found or be invented
to beat the blogs with.

Come on. This is the "We don't want to look like sore losers" loser thinking.

This is the "We don't want to look weak on defenses" weakness.

This kind of thinking puts you squarely in the control of your observer. Is that really where we want to be? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 04:47 AM
Response to Reply #45
59. What R4P Said. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #45
77. Excellent post! Agree 100%. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Is Comin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 05:29 AM
Response to Original message
61. Two cents.
Edited on Mon May-15-06 05:37 AM by Justice Is Comin
Jason Leopold is not that stupid to risk his entire career on a scoop.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
62. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
64. Did Patrick Fitzgerald come to Patton Boggs for 15 hours Friday?
LOL. That alone should have been enough to tip any intelligent person off.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:04 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. Hmmm. Are you stating that Fitz didn't visit the Patton Boggs....
...office at all?

Is it possible that the "15 hours" was accomplished over more than one day last week, with the last few hours being completed last Friday in the Patton Boggs office?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #66
83. LOL - Well, given that "24 hours" now means "6 days".....
.... It's up in the air what "15 hours" means....

I'm sure the evidence-less Truthout defenders have a ready-made explanation though!

(Which is not to say Truthout is wrong - I'm only lampooning the evidence-free nature of all of this)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 07:51 AM
Response to Original message
65. Oh, they've already been toasted by a whole crowd
of important democrats and progressives, including Hillary Clinton, and a lot of lawyers..

But it wasn't a Champange toast, it was total and abject HUMILIATION over an Internet RUMOR..

All these heavy hitters PUNK'D by a RUMOR.

Here's the link..

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

Yeah, I'm sure that Hillary and all these big time spenders for the left are going to be calling up Leopold anyday now to "congratulate" him for making them ALL LOOK LIKE FOOLS..

Wait until the right gets ahold of this footage for the election cycle..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #65
74. Back at it again, symbolman?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
symbolman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #74
84. Hey, you know what
me and a few other people have started to notice that if we stop too fast that we find your nose in our ass? Other than you having a Brown nose, which you may like who knows, what is your gig?

Are you the grand protector of this poor excuse for a journalist?

Back at WHAT? telling the Truth, yeah, people need to know that Leopold is basically a con man, criminal type that most people wouldn't let their daughter date let alone take seriously if they knew ALL of his unethical dealings which more and more people are sending to me every day.

Might make a great book.. The Man Who Took Down the Left.. I'd be interested in seeing who is funding some of these newer sites and how they seemed to come out of nowhere, full funded and shot straight to the top, unless people now accept tabloid journalism and it's all over..

but what am I even talking to you for, you seem to be the one who hulks around and plays the Official Shit Stirrer no matter what thread it is.

You're SPOOKY you know that? Not scary Spooky tho, and in a way that's kind of funny :) more like some old Melodramatic radio show..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demobabe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #74
86. Are you Jason Leopold?
Just wondering.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
67. A lot of emotional responses to this, see responses to my Op-Ed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flubadubya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. Oh, that locked one?
}(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #68
69. Exactly
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #68
73. it's unlocked now
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #73
76. Under "Editorials", instead of LBN where it was originally posted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lala_rawraw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-15-06 04:41 PM
Response to Original message
82. Rs is not listed on his blog
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Loge23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-16-06 06:41 AM
Response to Original message
88. WSJ today features Leopold's report
In a page 4 article in today's WSJ, the Leopold "scoop" is given fair treatment. The article neither confirms or denies the truthout article, but points out the growing infuence of bloggers in reporting. Quote:
"Mainstream news organizations say bloggers can say something is going to happen every day for months and then claim to be ahead of the pack when it does - or forget about it when it doesn't."

Mr. Fitzgerald, consistent as ever, has declined to discuss any aspect of the story. Mr. Fitzgerald, according to Rove's lawyer, was in Chicago on the day of the suggested "15 hour" meeting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov 18th 2019, 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC