24. Perhaps if you referred to those folks in different terms it may help
Calling them/us "anti-Pitt/anti-Leopold" doesn't help too much.
Unless you'd like to be called "sycophants."
Speaking for myself, I just believe that a demonstrably false story should be treated as such. Honestly, I really don't like to be viewed as some kind of right-wing mouth breather because I find serious faults in a story. Lots of us do, and to us whether or not Rove ever gets indited isn't the point - it's the fact that we were told things were fait accompli, and it's now clear that they were not.
Let the folks discuss it. It'll soon blow over - like most things here - and we'll re-unite again for the common Democratic good soon enough.
29. I certainly have no quarrel with those who question the veracity of...
...the story itself. But many (not including you, of course) seem to be attempting to disprove the Leopold story by assassinating the characters of both Pitt and Leopold (by bringing up Jason's former drug problem & Pitt's drunken rant from the other night).
52. Well, it didn't help his professinal image, but I'm old school
I guess I should have read that new Blog Journalism 101 much more carefully cause there seem to be new rules for proper journalist behavior on the internets. Clearly blogging allows interactions and writers can respond to issues raised by readers. But, I never had a clue that it's ok and forgivable for "professional" blogjournos to get pissed off and apply vulgar ad hominem attacks on readers and blog administrators.
It's a strident bunch we've got on here today, that's for sure, and it's a thin line between character attacks and using something like the aforementioned diatribe to make a point.
For me, that rant you spoke of was beyond the pale, and (to me, at least) did great damage. For others, perhaps not. The responses to it, again to me, seems to be goose vs. gander, and seemed to be in-bounds, because they are in the context of the article and how those responsible for it chose to respond.
Character assassination designed to do nothing more than that (i.e. outside this political context) has, as you say, no place on this board or anywhere else, but demonstrating a pattern of dismissals and firing is within the lines, I think. I'm not dismissing the whole drug thing that you spoke of, it's just that that is the one thing I had not heard about (can't believe I actually missed a thread on that one...)
48. "Demonstrably false story"? Hmmm. You're welcome to your opinion....
...and yes, your opinion does place you in the "anti-Pitt/anti-Leopold" faction. That's not an abusive or insulting phrase, it's what you've proven yourself to be.
But, if you think you're being perceived as "some kind of right-wing mouth breather", that's not the case at all. Did someone actually call you that, or are you getting defensive in some way not warranted by the facts?
As far as Leopold's article goes, why don't you want to see this played out?
It places me in a faction that looks at a story that had "DONE" stamped all over it, then said "MAYBE NOT", then said "SOON", now says "WE"RE PRETTY SURE." To think that someone is anti-anything because of that is not correct.
Please, stop with the straw man "you don't want to see this played out" argument. According to the story it HAS been played out. It's already done. Over. Karl should be packed and gone. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.. Now you want me to just have faith. When does the faith end? If Rove gets indited next week, was TO correct? Next month? Next year?
The facts are these: TO said he was already indited. He has not been. They were wrong. If he gets indited, I will do the mother of all happy dances from now until my legs fall off. But the fact will still remain that the story was wrong.
That is ALL the argument has ever been about. Not about who we like, or who we don't. Not about whether we think Karl should get 20 years, or 10. Not about whether certain folks are too strident, or too docile. It's all about having journalistic responsibity for what comes off your keyboard. If you don't think so, then replace "Rove" with "Hillary", have Drudge post an article that says she has been already served with new(!) Whitewater papers, and she has 24 hours to get her affairs in order. The next day, read where Drudge has clarified the 24 hours into 24 business hours, then watch day after day go by without anything coming to fruition. I don't know about you, but I'd be screaming BS for all I'm worth.
If you let emotion enter into it then you may as well pack it in, because your conclusions will meet your expectations every time.
104. Well, you're welcome to your opinion. As far as....
...I'm concerned, the story has not yet played out. You can call my opinion a "straw man" all you want, but that's the way I'm currently looking at it.
But, even if the story does fall apart, that still doesn't give me the right to call Leopold and/or Will Pitt a liar. IMHO, it doesn't give ANYONE the right to call either one of them a liar, but they're doing it as fast as they can.
But I would point out, with all due respect, the that flaming was started by the pro-Leopold side, and escalated by the pro-Leopold side. "Fuck y'all", "cretins", "cockroaches", "Freeper plants". I haven't seen anything that strong from the naysayers.
Read what I wrote again - never did I say that EVERYONE who questions the veracity of the story are Pitt/Leopold haters, but there's a faction here that are more interested in bashing RS, Pitt, Leopold & TO than interested the Rove indictment story.
Your post says this: We should have peace, you freaking tag-teamers. That's passive-aggressive.
My post says this: I don't like your bullshit characterization. That's just plain old aggressive.
The fact is that your use of tag teamers is, I suspect, wrong. Tag teaming implies some coordination, and there is none. It just happens that many people are drawn to these threads, on both sides. To characterize your side as just being drawn while suggesting that the other side is engaged in some coordinated attack is - apart from plain old childish and stupid - an incorrect imputation.
YES I was forced to hear CNN in the background of my breakfast in (humid but so pretty) Puerta Vallarta. No indictment of Rove. But heh-I think I got the date as good as Jason Leopold. I'm hoping we are both right.
I understand WHY people are so pissed. It's being told Santa is coming and the tree is bare. It's just NOT done.
what a thread - that was right after a became a member of DU again, for the record the 1st time was right after the stolen elction of 2004, I was walking around in the fog of war and found this site via BBV.com
I had to re-sign up because I had forgotton my old passwords and what not.
7. I don't have enough posting experience to know how to fix this
On thread 4, I posted something silly. I was just goofing around, but someone misunderstood me. I think. What is proper form for this? Continue here or just let it go? I am having a hard time just letting it go...
stop the bleeding (1000+ posts) Thu May-18-06 03:03 PM Response to Reply #69 122. That may be your opinion that one has to earn it, but your opinion differs from mine. I come from the school that people have the benefit of the doubt until all of the facts are in.
I know as well that the body of your message was not directed at me, but at JL, can't say I agree on that either, but we are not here to agree.
I realize we all have different takes on this, but I also realize that people always don't have to agree to be part of the same team.
I guess I just place a higher value on such things. It's not something that I give away as freely as others do.
There are many things that I take into consideration before deciding to give someone that "benefit". Their own reputation and humility have a lot to do with earning respect. Those things can also serve as a multiplier of any good will that they might be entitled to simply for being "on the same team". But, as I pointed out earlier... that well is already dry.
Warning: she's talking about the W*yne M*ds*n's article.
She also doesn't seem to think that Fitz walking around with GJ indictments in his pocket (without having filed them with the court) is impossible.
One last note: I've been talking a lot about a sealed indictment, but if Fitzgerald just sat on the Indictment after the grand jury returned it without filing it, there's no reason for him to ask for it to be sealed now. He'd just file it Friday a few minutes before the press conference. I still think there are issues with Rule 6(e) if he shared the signed Indictment with Luskin and Rove ahead of time, as it would be a "matter occurring before the grand jury." Of course, as I also pointed out once before, he could have shared a list of the charges he intended to submit to the grand jury, or a proposed plea agreement that contained the charges on which he intended to indict Rove.
131. Will this grand jury be finish this Friday and will that mean
that Fitz could ask for new one? Thought I read this on an earlier Leopold thread. Also, what does sealed indictments mean? What would be the reason, could it be that Fitz is going to get a new grand jury?
With fewer and fewer resources spent by big media to actually cover real news and do serious reporting, it's bound to happen: groups of independent reporters, highly motivated and resourceful, will start scooping the big media.
My ENTIRE reaction to this is the blind following of groupies that, literally in some cases, are saying that they will follow JL and TO 100% regardless of anything that happens. That is silly and foolish.
Then when those same people don't have their bullshit dectectors go off when the "24 business hours" explanation comes out, it seems too much for me to take. TO said that the indictment was made on Friday. TO said that Rove was given 24 hours to get everything in order. And now it is Thursday with nothing at all in sight. And for some reason, those of use that call bullshit on Leopold are the just spreading vitriol.
And you said this:
"I must say, witnessing the obsessive vitriol of a small minority of posters is really something...people here who are holding out hope for the accuracy of this story do not deserve the type of mockery and scorn that is being heaped upon them by a small, but obsessively vocal few...I have seen it said that "no one knows anything". I suggest that advice be heeded unless it can be shown otherwise by both skeptics and those holding out hope." ----snip---
Ummm, where did I tell you to shut up???? I said to heed the advice that no one knows anything. You obviously think YOU know something. That's not telling you to shut up. Discuss it all you want, but keep in mind, none of us really does knows anything. Call bullshit all you want on anything you want, spew vitriol, derision and scorn all you want. I will continue to call it as I see it, and I see it as unwarranted, but by all means, keep it up. I've got plenty of questions too, but there's civil ways of going about discussing these things w/ people who are not your enemies and who may be misinformed or deluded by false hope.
It's disengenous to put words in my mouth that I neither said, nor meant, I too will call you on that bullshit. Eye of the beholder, heh. Bullshit.
You clearly haven't been reading my posts
For this past week, I've delivered all the legal information you might want in order to adjust your thinking and understand that this Leopold story is bogus. Other attorneys who frequent DU - specifically "Seabiscuit" - have also been spending time trying to explain to non-lawyers that how these things work is NOT how they are portrayed by Leopold in this obviously bogus piece on nonsense.
Before you condemn - which is what you're doing - understand that there are not two sides to this matter.
This is a set of lies without any kind of triangulation or verification of a sort that a responsible journalist would employ.
And there are seasoned and experienced lawyers - I've been in DC for 30 years now - trying to explain how none of this could ever have happened the way Leopold claims it did.
I've seen vitriol, all right, and it's all come from the folks who, for whatever reasons, can't bring themselves to face the fact that Leopold (and Pitt) have conned them.
Heh, see, there's the problem. That bit about Leopold and Pitt conning people. You know this how? There's no other possibilities in your narrow world view, such as perhaps they were conned? You know nothing, and have said as much and yet you continue to speak in absolutes and as if you think you know a whole lot. Which is it? To think that there are not two sides to this matter is absurd. Of course there's at LEAST two sides. What sort of world of human interaction do you think you live in (especially as a lawyer) that you think there's only one side to ANY event?
The only vitriol I've seen has been very, very one sided and it's mostly coming from you. If it's come from elsewhere then it's possible I've missed it, especially if it's happened before today as I've haven't been around (that goes for seeing any other of your posts), but if you don't think you're being vitriolic and obsessive about this, you need to take step back. You are really quite obsessed w/ this thing, but hey, that's your perogative. Keep it up. You think I'm condemning you? Whatever, perhaps that's your conscience speaking. I have no dog in this hunt and have plenty of unanswered questions myself, but those holding out hope are not enemies, at worst they are misinformed and deluded. As I said, freepers and bushbots deserve scorn and mockery, DU'ers holding out hope don't. Just calling the way I see it, by all means keep it up if it makes you happy, but I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are to yours.
but what OldLeftyLawyer is saying is that her legal knowledge tells her that the process described are NOT the processes actually used. So your argument about there being two sides to the story is a lot like the Evolution\Intelligent Design debate - there is only one LEGITIMATE side to the story in her eyes, because the other side is not factually based.
For example it is a fact the Moon orbits the Earth. But say you didn't KNOW that, and someone argued it didn't. Would that persons argument be a valid "side to the story"? Or just a factually wrong assertion? To you it may appear to be two sides to a story, to a scientist there is NO DOUBT that there is only ONE side - the truth.
Is OldLeftyLawyer right? Are the processes described by Leopold NOT the processes actually used? If so, then you can see why she would call it conning. If it is possible for anyone to know that the processes described are bogus, then the author chould have known that. If they did and reported anyway, then that IS a con.
I dunno either way, but so far Leopold's story seems more and more unlikely to be true. If it isn't I dunno whether to say he intentionally lied or was just a fool who thought he had his big break and didnt check the story thoroughly enough. I don't believe Will Pitt lied though. I think he is trusting Leopold and sticking up for him, and that he may be about to get burned more than anyone.
Even IF that's so, there's STILL more than one side to the story. There may be facts which cannot be disputed but there's still PEOPLE involved, and people get fooled, they misunderstand, they lie etc, and we have NO CLUE what is going on really. In OLL's words, we know nothing. OLL certainly talks as if she knows a whole lot more than nothing. Either we know nothing, and that includes her, or she should enlighten us, which she doesn't. If she has done so in other posts, she should refer people to those posts, but so far, all I've seen is a whole lot of vitriol, derision and ad hominem's doled out obsessively and aimed at people who at worst are misinformed and most certainly NOT enemies or worthy of such scorn.
On another note, you can hardly compare legal proceeding to something scientific like evolution. There's LOT's of ways legal proceedings wrangled, finagled etc. Not so w/ scientific method and scientific evidence. The legal system is WAAAY more open to subjective interpretation and manipulation, especially when your dealing w/ people who have lot's of money, power and care not a whit for the law.
I think feelings have been hurt all round on this one, and thus some of the vitriol is a lot like siblings bickering. They really know how to hurt the other side, because they know all the right buttons to push, and getting in the digs has become more important that the original argument.
Neither side is innocent of this, and the biggest problem is there is no timetable for when it will be over. If there was a set date when we would know one way or the other it would probably not be as contentious.
105. Hey beet, let me try and clear up the "no one knows anything" part
If you've read OLL enough you'll see that that phrase means that Fitz runs an extremely tight ship, and that no one can leak, because no one knows anything.
That is what the expression means - it is by no means a shot at anyone here, but rather the firmly held belief that there is one person and one person only who knows what is happening, and he lives in Chicago.
That is truly all it means. Hope that helps.
I'll leave it to her to chastise me if I am incorrect. :)
However, OLL certainly speaks as if she thinks she knows a whole lot more than nothing. And she merely insults rather than elucidates. If she's done otherwise, I certainly haven't seen it.
And while Fitz runs a tight ship, I suspect there ARE other people who still know certain things, maybe not the whole picture, but there's always ways to gather clues.
I don't claim to know much about what's going on. The point is, no one here really does either, but that doesn't mean they deserve scorn and derision because they may be misinformed or possibly holding out false hope.
In a previous post you commented about how everyone should focus efforts on the war, Halliburton and several other of BushCos creations...
I think the reason why Rove is such a hot target is because he has directly influenced this Administration and helped facilitate turning the GOP into a NeoCon stooge.
It probably could be stated that had it not been for Karl Rove. There would be no GW Bush as President.
So when it becomes clear that Karl Rove's head is possibly on the chopping block it could mean that many many other things will fall into the gallows as well.
Can you or I stop the war? Can you or I stop Halliburton and Cheney from sucking off the nation?
But we see one person who is symbol of what is left in America. A symbol of what hasn't been destroyed by Bush and Rove. A symbol of honor and integrity and it is embodied by Patrick Fitzgerald. A man doing his job. With nothing but truth for tools.
Rove's reach is long and sticky. I am sure he is pulling in all markers right now as he is backed into a corner. If a honoreable law man like Patrick Fitzgerald cannot put this man out of the business for lying. Then we all will lose.
Leopold reported what he felt he had to. I believe Rove has been indicted but America is still unaware of the stranglehold the Rove personally has on the media. The scope of which is clearly evident to me...based on a series of connected "dots" spread across a wide area. Call it "chicken bones" if you want. But people do think differently than you do. And we are no less wrong for making projections and conclusion based on action and motives that other are making in this extremely complicated affair.
Your argumentative style suits you well in the courtroom I am sure as it does here on DU's impersonal, anonymous stage. But right now it simply muddies the water and only raises doubt and divides this community.
So here we are now...waiting for the shoe to drop. Or to not drop...beating each other with the first shoe.
So feel free to take your "just the facts" and "credibility attack" courtroom tactics down the hall. Frankly most people here are NOT professional argumentarians such as yourself but people just trying to get a handle on the truth in an time when the only truth we have is a constant barrage of spin coming from paid television pundits on the White House payroll.
I have read most of your post and come to the conlusion that you add very little FACT to your arguments and seem to be taunting more than contributing. From reading your numerous posts I have come to understand you.
I am sure that you care not how I feel because that is not your purpose, is it?
Where does your truth end and someone else's truth begin, based on your comments, never it seems.
We can now report, however, that we have additional, independent sources that refute those denials by Corallo and Luskin. While we had only our own sources to work with in the beginning, additional sources have now come forward and offered corroboration to us.
We have been contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media - network level organizations - who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support. When we asked why they were not going public with this information, in each case they expressed frustration with superiors who would not allow it.
There were a lot of talkers, and they confirmed our accounts. We do have more information, but want additional confirmation before going public with it.
** The Bush administration years=down the looking glass, Kafka squared. OH WELL hope is eternal...FOOLS we are FOOLS I tell you.
They would have been much better off sticking to one simple statement after Leopolds article: "We stand by our story, and are waiting to see what develops."
All this continuing to add new sources or new wording is only adding to the fire, and may if for some reason the article does turn out to be untrue be devestating for their credibility. It is one thing to be wrong, it is another thing to insist over and over again that not only are they not wrong, but all these other people support them, but we can't know who they are.
If the story is right, all this other stuff would have added nothing to the original story. If they are wrong, they will look far more stupid, and maybe even look like they were being intentionally deceptive.
89. OK. I'll try again. Please stop attacking him. What if he's right?
Won't some of us feel really stupid for slamming him? He'll be all sanctimonious and we'll have to bow down to him and it will be embarrassing. Sure, others have said what he said, many here have said it. But, he is claiming to have inside sources to this information and I ask?beg?! Shouldn't we just be waiting to see if a big storm comes and that will be our proof? what if he is right? Please stop attacking Pat Robertson.
You have to be kidding. What relevance is there for anything but to wait and see? I mean Leopold isn't going to be impeached and change the course of American history. Whatever happens to Rove is at the mercy of the process and the mainstreamers who control the public pronouncements have nearly won the game of midwifing the news.
In fact, the only assistance I see here given to this issue is to help said MSM retain their talking points and their position as the prime arbiter of facts and news. But what news is there now about the news, old or new, hidden or breaking?
This is showing that the internet amateurs are having an identity crisis again. We ARE, smaller, less sourced, less "professional"- which has some big pluses at this strange point in time. Bouncing off the mainstream news presentation IS the main preoccupation of internet investigators and critics. Defensive sense of inferiority flapping wildly against an equally defensive sense of superiority(by default of most corporate paid professionals) could stand a little realistic patience here. Nothing is going to happen that fretting will make happen or make happen faster. Are we up to our encampment in the great void of genuine news and truthtelling in America? We can never fill it and tragedy of the void itself is more important than the default heroism of we free few.
In a healthy MSM the blogger role will be reduced to checking and balancing and preserving truth lost on the fringe. Today what should be kept in mind are the egos inflating into the vacuum and the need to change the forces that created this oppotunity- the desertion from the job of the general US media.
I share the opinion of some that the story appears solid and reasonable- even if it eventually proves to be blatantly false or mistaken in important details. What else can you do? Points taken by skeptics and the those for whom the second Coming did not happen on Monday causes justifiable disappointment have all been pretty well exhausted.
I put "KICKED AND RECOMMENDED!" in every thread about rove and this supposed indictment or leopold or commenting on the divisions caused by the same. It was performance art, but nobody got it, and in fact, all those threads got on the greatest page. Even the thread that asked, "if it happens today, will you apologize?" got onto the greatest page where it stays for two days.....one day past the point the question became moot.
At least, most of us anyway. It seems some want Will and Jason to be wrong. Others seem to think they know Will and Jason are wrong, and those people just might be right. But I am shocked to see the number of people who openly hope Rove is not indicted just so they can tell Will and Jason "I told you so."
A Rove indictment at this point will not prove Leopold and Will Pitt correct unless that indictment is shown to have been returned on Friday May 12 or before. One need not hope for NO indictment to be able to say "I told you so," in other words. ;-)
But I'm a special case. I hope for no indictment because I have an online bet at stake. My signature line will be marred for three whole months should an indictment happen, and I don't want that. :evilgrin:
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.