Will Pitt and Mark Ash of TruthOut--- do I trust their judgment?
I just simply cannot believe that these two highly intelligent men could be duped by Jason Leopold and his sources. Ash has stood by the reporting of this story rock solid. Why would he do that and risk everything he's worked for at TruthOut.
Same with Pitt... Why would Will risk everything that he's accomplished the last several years----his books, articles--etc...for something like this?
It makes no sense.
Look--- I agree, Jason has enough skeletons in his closet to make people question the accuracy of this story.
But Pitt and Ash have sterling reps in the reporting business. TruthOut has pretty much been an honest publication from the get go.... Pitt wrote two books exposing the lies of WMD's way before the MSM even considered it. The guy has given me no reason to doubt him.
My faith in the judgment of Pitt and Ash is why I think what Leopold reported is true. Could they be wrong-- sure. But it's not like TruthOut has a habit of being wrong. If they are wrong---my hope is that they man-up to it and move on. I'll be disappointed--- but so what. It's not like I'll throw my faith in them in the wastebasket.
So I'm asking all you old time DU'ers to have faith in a guy who has been with us from the beginning. Pitt's pissed off enough folks here at DU to start a small Army. So! He fights the fight and he's on our side. Isn't that what counts?
1. I am willing to believe this story until there is reason not to.
We all saw what happened to Dan Rather, and I think the same is being attempted here. I was just discussing this with my father, and he was telling me how no one quite knew what to make of Woodward and Bernstein's revelations either. If there is one thing I know for certain, I have no reason not to believe this report.
Even if the worst case scenario occurred, I am behind them for giving it an honest effort. I sense this was 100% fact but I do know the power of this administration is unmeasurable. They could easily intimidate their corporate media to remain silent.
I believe Jason and Truth-out completely. Jason is not in control of the outcome. He reported the facts which I recognize as true.
139. Where did you learn conclusivly the document was a fake?
I followed the story pretty close myself and all I ever heard was it could not be authenticated. It was never found to be fake from anything I ever read. I know that is what the right wingers were claiming but they could not back up their assertions either.
Using the word "bogus" infers that Leopold deliberately misled us with a fake story.
There may have been no announcement as of yet in regard to Rove's indictment, so could it be a sealed indictment?
As for the "24 business hours to get his affairs in order", maybe Fitzgerald was accomodating Rove's schedule (the AE speech on Monday, for example).
And speaking of Rove's schedule lately, he's been more visible than usual, as though making it a point to show that he's still got the bull by the horns. He's all about perception.
If Rove's indictment is announced this week or next, it's not Leopold's fault, imo. There's a lot going on behind the scenes that we don't know about, or that Leopold knows about, to cause variances with what he reported on Friday. Let's save the pitchforks & torches for those who deserve it.
Okay, now slam me. I know I'm in over my head replying to OLL. ;)
72. Why draw this whole issue out if you know the whereabouts of
Fitzgerald. Both you and DancingBear have stated that his whereabouts are easy to track. This entire controversy and the hundreds of threads regarding the TO/Leopold story would end if you told us what you know. Debunk the story now then. Where was Patrick Fitzgerald on Friday, May 12th, 2006?
82. "The way others have?" If they have, no one on DU seems to know
about it. Hence, all the posts regarding this. No, you don't have to "educate" me. However, you prance around the board mocking others with your "knowledge" without proving it. Start a thread with a link and proof and then poof, no more controversy.
95. See, instead of proving your arguements, you turn to putting me down
How respectful. I don't understand why you insist to mock others. I'm getting the feeling that you are having a great time. So be it. I have lost respect for you though. I did visit the website for the new pdf filings. I don't know how to find this info out. Others have asked for your help, but you choose to make them feel stupid. What purpose does it serve? Really, what purpose? If you could help other DU'ers out, that would be a great thing. All some of us have been asking is for your help. Why are you so unwilling to provide that? I thought DU was exactly for that purpose.
No, my peace is not shaky. It's just fine, thank you. No, I'm not pissed. I'm disappointed that a fellow DU'er chooses not to help others, which of course, is all part of life. I get that. I'm pissed, however, at the current administration and what they are doing to our world.
Then, people can judge for themselves. I find it strange that you won't back up your posts with links. :shrug: Time to put the kids to bed. I'm done with the back and forth. Here's to dreaming of a Rove frog march.
I'm actually with you, and against Leopold, but you are making an assertion that something exists (Fitzgeral's location on Friday) without proving you know what you're talking about. So you're making it easier for the other side to take credibility away from you.
Believe what you want. I know what I know, and if you believe what others - including me - tell you, you're a fool. That's why people need to find out their own facts. Otherwise, they're nothing but geese working on fatty livers, that's all.
just post this then? "Very easy to track" how? I'm usually a pretty good sleuth, but couldn't find it anywhere on the internets, including lexis-nexis, nor on Fitz's own website. You know, because if we had a link to that info, we could forget the absurdist kabuki theater of 15 hour lockdowns, 24 hours being divided into 3-8 hour business days , etc.
Issue: Sealed Indictment What notice is the prosecutor required to provide where the case was never filed in local court? None. People v Woodward, 197 AD2d 905, 602 NYS2d 262 (4th Dept 1993).
But what if the defendant on his own, perhaps suspecting that a case is being introduced against him at grand jury, requests to testify? Does an as-yet-uncharged defendant have any statutory right to testify before the grand jury?
CPL 190.50(5)(a) addresses the issue. The right to testify at grand jury is not limited to defendants who have been charged below. A defendant who learns of an investigation against him or her and also provides written notice to the prosecutor of the intent to testify has the right to do so.
CONSIDER a similar situation: the first indictment is dismissed. Therefore the defendant is no longer subject to an undisposed of felony complaint in local court. People v Lennon,223 AD2d 403, 636 NYS2d 334 (2d Dept 1996).
Bush Pardons 6 in Iran Affair, Aborting a Weinberger Trial; Prosecutor Assails 'Cover-Up'
"Decapitated Walsh Efforts
But in a single stroke, Mr. Bush swept away one conviction, three guilty pleas and two pending cases, virtually decapitating what was left of Mr. Walsh's effort, which began in 1986. Mr. Bush's decision was announced by the White House in a printed statement after the President left for Camp David, where he will spend the Christmas holiday.
Mr. Walsh bitterly condemned the President's action, charging that "the Iran-contra cover-up, which has continued for more than six years, has now been completed."
Mr. Walsh directed his heaviest fire at Mr. Bush over the pardon of Mr. Weinberger, whose trial would have given the prosecutor a last chance to explore the role in the affair of senior Reagan officials, including Mr. Bush's actions as Vice President." <--snip
Snip--> But not since President Gerald R. Ford granted clemency to former President Richard M. Nixon for possible crimes in Watergate has a Presidential pardon so pointedly raised the issue of whether the President was trying to shield officials for political purposes. Mr. Walsh invoked Watergate tonight in an interview on the ABC News program "Nightline," likening today's pardons to President Richard M. Nixon's dismissal of the Watergate special prosecutor, Archibald Cox, in 1973. Mr. Walsh said Mr. Bush had "succeeded in a sort of Saturday Night Massacre."<--snip
Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin explains Bush's pardon power in the context of Plamegate.
* A president's pardon power is unreviewable
* He can pardon people before they are charged with a crime or anytime after they are charged or convicted
Why Bush might pardon his cronies in Plamegate:
* To avoid being called as a witness in a criminal prosecution
Why Bush might not pardon his cronies, at least right now
* The political fallout. He is only in the first year of his second term.
The bottom line:
If important persons in the Bush Administration are indicted, and there is a significant danger that revelations damaging to the President will surface, don't be surprised if the President uses his ace in the hole-- the pardon power. Some might argue that the President simply wouldn't dare; others will insist that he would be impeached if he tries it. But what the President is likely to do depends on the alternatives if he doesn't act, and remember, the Congress is controlled by members of his own party, not by the opposition as was the case during the Clinton Presidency. This president has a knack for self-preservation; and if the pardon power is the best alternative he has, you can be sure that he will use it.
I have no bone to pick with anyone, but I do get impatient when people are fed lines of nonsense and refuse to acknowledge the reality of a situation, so the personal characterization you attempted just fell as flat as the truth of this "story."
First, where was Fitzgerald on Friday? Anyone know his whereabouts on that day?
I do. Lots of people do. You might want to find out for yourself. You'll trust the results that way, I am sure.
A sealed indictment is an indictment that is sealed until it is made public. There are various reasons for an indictment to be sealed, none of which have surfaced in this matter.
As for the "plea bargain," "fifteen hours session," "Secret Service lockdown," and the "24 business hours" nonsense, well, somebody's yanking a great big chain on people, and I think it's a shame.
so I'm going to duck such specific questions, with all due respect. I'm sure you understand.
Consider the whereabouts, though, of Patrick Fitzgerald last Friday, the day of the "fifteen-hour session at defense counsel's office, which was in Secret Service lockdown," and then your questions won't even matter.
Why did Truthout go back and EDIT Leopold's article to make the ridiculous claim that "24 hours" meant "24 business hours", or 3 days.
That part is nonsensical - what lawyer would describe 3 days as "24 business hours"?
Why edit the original article and try to pass off the ludicrous claim that "24 hours" means 3 days? It's one thing to be wrong - it's another thing entirely to try to cover your tracks in such a ridiculous way. It shows a total lack of journalistic ethics.
If they wanted to amend the article, they could've added a post-script and left the original statement intact.
<< A very poor attempt at CYA to give the story three more days and hope Fitz announces an indictment, and then find a new reason why it wasn't sealed >>
20. Do I trust their judgment as opposed to someone in the MSM?
Foxnews? CNN? Hell yes! If they got a story wrong, well at least they didn't sit on a story for a year to help the BFEE. I can forgive this, because Will Pitt is a progressive who cares about our Republic. Mercy and forgiveness, something foreign to the Repukes.
SOMEBODY'S gonna have some serious 'splainin' to do before this is all over, and entire flocks of crow will be eaten. I don't want to be on the wrong end of that! My faith in the story was never rock solid, but neither was I ever scornful of it. I have a feeling that I'm going to be glad for that ambiguity by the time all is said and done.
24. Truthout, Leopold, Pitt, Ash and a woman from TO whose name I
Edited on Tue May-16-06 06:54 PM by HereSince1628
don't remember, didn't even keep with a single story line regarding what 24 hours means, and how many sources there were. Moreover, as the identitifying characteristics of the sources changed it raised questions about whether they were adequately close to events to actually be able to give reports less than two or three people removed from first hand information.
No one would imagine that a careful, sane, sober, balanced, responsible author or editor would take such a tremendous risk knowing it was phoney. We as readers are left to our own varying capacities of belief on those points. We have no way of knowing if all four aforementioned people actually have all five aforementioned characteristics anymore than we can know if the stories (the Friday story did end up merged into the Saturday story) are actually based on any partictular number of sources ranging from 2 to 8.
Setting aside the astounding nature of the Saturday story including incredible claims like 15 hour visits by Fitzgerald to the defense law offices and redefinitions concerning the meaning of the seemingly transparent phrase "24 hours," no story should require 6 or more supporting posts and at least 2 radio appearances to secure itself. Either the damn story was sound and Truthout editors believed it or they didn't, enough said. Their willingness to shift and shuffle to accomodate questioning by readers betrayed weakness in the original product. The frequent rationalizing and tweaking went a long way to undermining faith in the quality of the original reporting and its editing, and that faith is the only thing readers had to hold their acceptance of the article as true.
Having said all that. In spite of all my personal skepticism I allowed that this damned extraordinary story could just be true. Skepticism isn't a claim to truth; it's only a claim to doubts.
34. Are We Through With The Circular Firing Squad Yet???
I still don't know what to make of Leopold's story and it didn't mean much then and doesn't now. Had he been right and Rove was frog marched on Monday, that would have made my day a lot nicer...it wasn't, but my world didn't stop, no one (except for those who thought Santa took away their brand new bicycle) in my world knew or cared about the story and it made DU look like a grade school playground with one set of kids fighting against another. In the meantime, the morons on the wingnut blogger sites were laughing their asses off at everyone's expense here who had built up their expectations and now were going after the messanger rather than keeping focused on the facts and the process.
Having worked in media, I've seen my share of "jump the gun" stories...and few ever have had to atone for their faux pas...and surely didn't face the rage the Truthout folks faced here. I firmly believe Leopold was sold on the story and he may have been used to create a diversion (unknowingly) or just put faith on some sources who either burned him or were clueless themselves. Many of us here wanted additional confirmation and when we saw it wasn't coming, there was no need to pull knives out on Leopold, Pitt or Truthout...but to view it as a mistake that happens often in the "media" and is the hazzards of the biz. Had he been right, he would be the toast of DU right now instead of the goat.
And in the bigger scheme of things, all this angst and trashing has accomplished what? Other than bruising more egos around here and setting up the next round of flame wars as surely there will be those who will use this incident as justification for flaming on the next one. Makes me wonder whose really "on our side" and not...and has really turned me off from getting more financially active here and with other sites.
I know Rove is going down........whether it's this week or later. I hope, for Leopold's sake that the story turns out to be true. I've always found his articles to be credible, interesting pieces. I feel that if he was lied to this time, it makes him look bad but I still won't hold it against him.
And the fact that Larry Johnson also confirmed the info, gives Leopold more credibility too.
And remember who we're dealing with (Rove, etc), these guys lie about EVERYTHING!! They lied about WMDs in Iraq, they lie every time they open their mouths!!! They're the ones with the credibility problem in my opinion.........
40. Will stands behind the story, I am standing behind him
I'll wait for his version.
We should all remember how often we at DU have felt we were just a few days ahead of the MSM on big stories. Often when they break news it is almost anticlimactic to DUers because we've already researched, analyzed and chewed the story to death here.
And Old Lawyer. Just telling us all to do our own research is very impolite. Several people have sincerely asked you to share information only to be greeted with scorn. Aren't we on the same side here? I remember a time that 20 DUers would have offered up the info plus links. People treated others with more civility. Maybe the story will turn out to be bogus. Tough luck. We will all have learned a lesson about pinning our hopes too high, about patience. And about standing behind our friends when they need our support.
This is my first post on this issue, because I never get my hopes up anymore. I don't get all frantic and excited everytime we are on the verge of bringing * down. While I want such stories to be true, I can wait for positive verification. I've been through this roller coaster ride enough times now I know all the twists and turns. I try not to rush to judgment. I agree with Trumad.
And if Will was here, I'd give him a bearhug. We are veterans of a long long campaign.
In the meantime, I praise Will and TO for all they do.
And I am not rushing to any judgement here either...If the story ends up not happening (ie. Rove not getting indicted), why should I lose faith in Truthout or Will? Will and TO have been amazing sources of information and Will has so much integrity.
I agree with you on the civility part too...It's very strange for me to see some folks on the DU have become so hostile of late. And regarding an old lawyer, I am utterly baffled by the posts of late. If you do some DU research, you'll see historically that there was more positive posts and even support on the whole Fitzgerald story. I don't forget these things, so frankly, I'm baffled by the Jekyll and Hyde routine.....
I have a quote from "The Secret Man," by Bob Woodward. He describes a conversation he had with Mark Felt, after he had made an error in a report on Watergate. It might be worth noting that this error was not one of being wrong per say. It had to do with a slight confusion with a source, and more importantly, with timing.
"He gave me a little lecture about breaking a conspiracy like Watergate. 'You build up convincingly from the outer edges in, you get ten times the evidence you need against the Hunts and Liddys. They feel hopelessly finished -- they may not talk right away, but the grip is on them. Then you move up and do the same thing at the next level. If you move too high and miss, then everybody feels more secure. Lawyers work this way. I'm sure smart lawyers must, too.' I recall he gave me a look as if to say I did not belong in that category of smart reporters." (page 91)
In a short time, we will look at the recent incident as mere water under the bridge.
92. Sometimimes urge to "jump forward" overcomes the "stepping backward."
to review what's there. One can always understand the urge to go forward beyond might be wiser in standing in one's spot and surveying the landscape for what one might have missed on the first go round.
I'm only directing that towards a very small group whose MO's are blatantly apparent. They just like to cause trouble and have their little special clique so they can high five each other and make themselves feel special LOL
But no way does that come close to describing everybody who is being cautious with the story. Not by a long shot. As I said, only a handful. But lord knows they like to speak loudly and post a zillion times to make themselves seem greater in number than they really are LOL Kinda sad to watch actually. I feel sorry for them.
BTW, I really don't know whether Leopold has it right or not, but the amount of vitriol against him is way over the top IMO. One thing I do not believe is that Leopold has falsified anything, either the story is true or he got duped.
Why is anyone setting themselves so firmly for or against, particularly those who have zero access to any sources whatsoever except that great-aunt who once played cards with a lady who occasionally sits in a chair once occupied by Rove's press secretary's mother's sister's next door neighbor's distant cousin, twice removed?
In a larger sense, I never understand this with anything. We get ourselves all caught up in trying to predict what will happen or might happen that we completely lose focus on what actually is happening.
If Rove is indicted, we'll know it. If he isn't, we'll know it. It TruthOut is wrong, so what? Every decent news source in the world has been wrong on occasion in the ever-present quest for the scoop.
Maybe a deal was made here? Maybe Rove was going to be indicted and a last minute deal was made with Fitzgerald? Perhaps there are things that have transpired that we do not know about? Nobody's perfect but at least some folks are trying to be real journalists, which is more than we can say about most of those in the MSM...
116. LOL. Bush flaunts our most precious freedoms like most flaunt J walking...
and we can't even get OUR party to support an article of censure.
Unregulated electronic voting machines made by know partisan, Republican operatives spread like wildfire and bills that would at least try to audit them languish waiting for, get this, a Democratic majority to support them.
But I don't trust the Bush Regime. I would not put it past them to have leaked the story to weaken the credibility of left-wing media (whomever picks the story up), and also perhaps to test their new wire traps (traps mean numbers only, no content) to see who's leaking what to whom.
I believe Leopold had sources and the sources told him what Leopold reports. These sources themselves could be dupes of a Rovian wire trap/disinformation campaign.
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.