Your insider information is probably incredible, and I, for one, am breathless with admiration for your special status.
An honest scoop?
More like a bent ice cream scoop.
Now, can you - or Leopold - say "triangulation"? Hard to respect a "journalist" who doesn't know how to do legwork.
But, rest assured, your "insider information" is dazzling. Just the announcement of it has caused the villagers to run into the streets. There is much gnashing of teeth, moaning, rending of garments, and they're probably going to light the torches at sundown - all in your honor.
3 crows 1 Tbsp lard/shortening 1 pint stock or gravy 2 Tbsp cream 1/2 cup mushrooms salt and pepper cayenne pepper
Clean and cut crows into small portions and let them cook a short time in the lard/shortening in a saucepan, being careful not to brown them. Next, add to the contents of the pan, the stock or gravy, and salt, pepper and cayenne to taste. Simmer 1 hour, or until tender, add mushrooms, simmer 10 minutes more and then stir in cream. Arrange the mushrooms around the crows on a hot platter.
118. You Have "inside communications"... Well Color Me Impressed.
Who do you know? Rove? Leopold? Wilson? Fitz? Helen Thomas? Tony Snow?
Or did you just get a PM from Pitt a few minutes ago?
Just asking... I mean... ANYONE could up and claim "inside communications" for appearance's sake. I hope you'll forgive those of us who see it as being a bit pretentious and viewing it with a healthy degree of skepticism.
Is it a vicious attack to point out what other blogs have said about some of the players? Are stories that challenge the reliability of past articles by one of the players on the same or similar subject not relevant to an non-biased person's judgment of the May 12 article?
there are several people out there who have been judge, jury, and executioner on this matter about TO instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to see how this plays out. They(TO) could have retracted the story on Monday but they didn't, in fact they ratcheted it up a few more degrees by putting themselves out further with interviews and articles since then. This sticking your neck out on line speaks volumes and until it is proven either way I think people should give TO the benefit of doubt and wait see. People are entitled to their opinions, but not when those opinions are thrust upon others in the form of an attack disguised as a concerned opinion
WilliamPitt (1000+ posts) Wed May-17-06 04:02 PM Original message
31. Why do you never offer something constructive to the discussion
You are a lawyer aren't you? Or do you just play one on DU? Perhaps you could share your experience and knowledge of sealed indictments. Or would that require a pay pal account for your retainer?? No pro bono work? It is tax deductible ya know.
39. Not that I'm interested in the names of these folks...
..but if Leopold is wrong I'd like to know who he thought were reliable sources on this point. I'm exagerrating a bit for effect, but if it turns out his source was a janitor at Patton Boggs, well......
Of course, I'd also like to know who fed him bad information. The only problem is that he risks hamstringing himself in the future if he shows a willingness to divulge his sources. No one else will be that interested in talking to him anonymously for fear of being outed.
You know... I think that everyone is entitled to a certain amount of good will and benefit of the doubt... but drunken egotistical displays tend to use up whatever stockpile of good will may have accumulated.
122. Right. And the poster in question was never provoked by days....
...and weeks, and months of derogatory and downright nasty comments by the posters to whom he was responding, was he?
Being attacked every time you post on the DU boards has to take a toll, especially if you're trying very hard to provide the kind of information not provided by the MSM.
I think it's safe to say that several posters have repeatedly exposed themselves over time as the nasty bottom-dwellers that they really are. In fact, it's hard for me not to see a concerted effort by some of those posters to drive Leopold, Pitt, and TO off the DU boards and/or completely discredit them.
I don't blame the poster in question for responding the way he did...I'm just surprised that he lasted as long as he did.
I asked this question at the end of the first thread. Is it possible that there are multiple people named in this indictment that has prevented it from being filed as of yet? Is it also possible that this is an extension of a "so called sealed indictment" that may have come from the first GJ? Is it also possible that there are more serious charges in this indictment that has prevented it from being filed as of yet?
108. If anyone knowing Patrick who talks to him and is telling him
all the things he allegedly has definitely done, and is doing--according to the blogs, he must be getting quite a kick out of the firestorm he can create. And how some of it is so off base compared to the facts.
Someday maybe he'll have time to sit back, prop his feet up with some popcorn and have a good laugh looking through the blog archive posts.
Whenever you're ready Patrick. I'm having a few bags now. :popcorn:
79. There was no sealed indictment from the first grand jury
And if there is one now there is no way to know until the Judge decides to unseal it.
At this phase of an investigation a lot of activity is going on in private. Until Rove or anyone else is charged, Fitzgerald has to be very, very careful not to reveal anything about what is going on. However, Rove's side is free to throw more sand and muddy the water as much as they wish.
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.