OFFICIAL TRUTHOUT/LEOPOLD/ROVE THREAD #16

[The empressof all]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1237105

From Skinner:

We are instructing the moderators to lock all threads about Jason Leopold and his Rove indictment story. If you wish to continue discussing this issue, you may do so here.

When this thread reaches approximately 100 replies, the moderators will lock it and open a new one.

Thank you for your understanding.

Skinner
DU Admin

[WiseButAngrySara]

1. And counting....

[dubyaD40web]

2. Fitz!

[WiseButAngrySara]

3. Where's FITZ, Leopold, Pitt? ....n/t

[novalib]

4. Isn't This XVI??

I thought we were using Roman Numerals??!!

[MercutioATC]

5. This is the thread that never ends...

...yes it goes on and on, my friends...

:eyes:

[JuniperLea]

7. some people started posting it not knowing what it was

[Marie26]

16. and they'll continue posting it forever just because.

[MercutioATC]

The complete original lyrics are here:

http://www.zutroy.com/stuff/neverend/

[Vincardog]

6. 24 business hours is up. Where are the indictments? Or where is the source

[WiseButAngrySara]

8. No one has commmented on the fact that T.O. is no longer

listed on Google news....

[Cameron27]

15. it was commented on

a few threads back...I don't have the link

[WiseButAngrySara]

22. The original thread was #12 post 23 by symbolman, but it didn't

generate much discussion at all. I wondered if it had been buried in the thread!

[Catherine Vincent]

25. I don't think anyone cares.

[WiseButAngrySara]

34. Are you being facetious? They should care if they care about

Pitt and T.O.. I don't care much for Leopold, given his history and all, but Rove might have used him precisely because of his history. Wasn't Hatfield the name of the B* biographer who met with Rove, and later committed suicide? I'll have to google it.

[BurtWorm]

135. Yes. He wrote Fortunate Son.

A very interesting book, especially the Soft Skull Press editions.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

17. Yeah, they have

There was quite a comprehensive post earlier - who knows where? - in which the poster showed that truthout.org was no longer listed at google news, and even said to check out "site:buzzflash.com" and then see what happens when you try "site:truthout.org."

It would seem the truth has caught up with truthout. Who knows how many people got called names elsewhere and got fed up with it?

[Cameron27]

god these threads are driving me nuts

I thanked you on the last one about the libby thing, then couldn't post it. I'm too old for this damn pace

[OldLeftieLawyer]

33. We decided you're not

So sit down and shut up, and here, wrap this afghan around your legs. You know how cranky you get when you're not sweating.

heh heh heh

You're very welcome, and thank you.

[Cameron27]

44. I long for an old afghan.......I moved from CT to AZ

and I'm evaporating out here

And your welcome...count on you for lawyerly things lol

[Cameron27]

49. and you've been talking to my son ???

I am not cranky (all the time)

Gonna smack that child's big mouth

[OldLeftieLawyer]

53. Shhhhhh

Ice cream later.

But, now?

A NAP!!!!

How could you leave CT?

[WiseButAngrySara]

29. Yes. This was the post by symbolman in thread #12. This is a

big deal, no? Doesn't this make the entire debacle look more like a potential Rovian trick to make T.O. and progressive blog/news sites appear less credible?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

40. Seriously?

You're joking, aren't you? That's a straight question, by the way.

No, I'd say Jason Leopold has done a fine, one-man job of making himself even less credible - if that were possible - and, because of his blind support and wildass attacks on people who questioned the story, Pitt rendered himself irrelevant.

No one else to blame except those two players. That's about it.

Time for taking responsibility for what they did. The mature thing to do.

[WiseButAngrySara]

48. Damn. I was hoping for some last glimmer of hope, but I've

read many, if not most of your comments, and I must say, you've been brutally honest! You're probably correct.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

51. We have to be honest with ourselves

If we can't tell each other our truths, what good are we?

And that's when Republicans swoop in and tear us apart.

It's OK. We'll take back our country. We will.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

91. Hello! I never replied about something you asked me the other day, and I

lost track of the threads.

You asked what BFEE stood for.

Bush Family Evil Empire

Have a fantastic weekend!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

99. THANK YOU

I forgot about that.

Makes sense. Thanks again.

Have a wonderful weekend, too. . . . . ..

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

107. My pleasure and

thank you! :)

[stop the bleeding]

9. We are owed at least an explanation, if not a retraction has not been

issued.

We are coming up on 5pm EST and TO is gonna be buried by this if they don't do something.

[stepnw1f]

10. I'll Help You Eat That Crow

if it turns we are wrong. ;-)

[dubyaD40web]

11. True.

[WiseButAngrySara]

14. See post #8...That's an indication that T.O. is already in

trouble over this, and to me makes it smell more like a 'dirty trick' ala KKKRove. Isn't that a big deal to have Google managers remove your org from Google news?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

24. Not if it's warranted

If you start ascribing everything that happens to Rove or his evil minions, I'd say the White House has won again.

My best guess is that google wisely disassociated itself from a nutcase site, which is what this Leopold thing made truthout become. I can't believe that any close and supportive association with someone like Jason Leopold would do anything but besmirch even the best reputation. I sure as hell would never hire anyone with Leopold's background.

Would you?

Google did the prudent thing, I suspect.

[MADem]

52. Not as a journalist, anyway--a dishwasher, maybe, or a construction

worker, if he had talent in that area...but nowhere near a keyboard.

[WiseButAngrySara]

66. No, I wouldn't hire him. He must be a pretty good con man to be

able to keep pulling the respective woolies (maybe afghans? LOL) over the eyes of those whom would seem not to be that susceptible to B.S. At any rate, he sounds mentally unbalanced and somewhat psychopathic! Who else would intentionally lie like that? Deception must turn him on; too bad he chose TruthOut as a vehicle for his deceit.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

73. And too bad

Pitt chose to back him in such a vituperative and meanspirited way here at DU. Maybe other places, too. It's one thing to back up your writers, in the real world, where such actions have consequences. But here, in the ether, there are other responsibilites, since the professional ones are obviously non-existent, and to challenge people who question a story's veracity, call them names, and then run away, well, that's disturbed behavior that suggests someone's lost something serious.

My best clinician's guess is that Leopold's a compulsive liar. His work history certainly suggests a myriad of pathologies at play in there.

You said "afghan."

heh heh heh

[MADem]

47. TO isn't a one-man show, though, or is it???

As I said in previous threads, SALON recovered. They admitted their screw up, and went on.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

75. I have felt along those lines almost from the beginning Sara.

The more Will and Leopold acted with bravado, the more I felt Rove's filthy handprints on this. I think it was on the second day that I called a good friend of mine, a fellow DUer and we discussed this. I wanted to mention it so many times on threads, would start typing and kept deleting. I do not like being attacked and having to be on the defensive. Some of the attacks were positively foul.

And Sara! :hi:

[Sammy Pepys]

18. Agreed. n/t

....

[Seabiscuit]

23. We'll have to wait for a retraction...

Leopold's and Pitt's heads are too busy burrowing themselves into the sand. And "explanation" or "apology"? Fuggheddiboutit.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

27. You think there were "sources,"

or were there just flaming monkeys flying out of Leopold's head as he wrote?

[Seabiscuit]

98. Flaming monkeys flying out of his *, not his head...

:)

[HereSince1628]

110. but, Pitt said Truthout checked the sources.

And he and Marc Ash wrote that several times. This ain't just a problem with Leopold; its a problem with their editorial practices/rigor/standards and I've posted and Google News seems to agree.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

120. Checking sources

I have to wonder. That would involve real legwork - going out and triangulating each individual source, each individual allegation made.

I have no information that Leopold - whose job it was to do that work with sources - did any of it. It's too professional, and he's hardly professional.

[HereSince1628]

132. Actually, when a story sticks the institution's neck out it's the editors

job too.

My own guess is the Truthout folks asked Leopold if he was sure and didn't get seriously much beyond his affirmation.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

148. Then they're all culpable

and they all should apologize and retract and - just my opinion - disappear forever.

Tell you the truth, it's hard for me to conceive of truthout as an "institution." More like a personal diary, actually, so that line is blurry for me, but, hey, it was everybody's story, wasn't it? So, you're right.

[HereSince1628]

Yep, and that's gonna have consequences for T.O.

999 "atta-boys!" get wiped clean with just one "aw-shit."

[theboss]

31. Seriously, where is Will?

Has he posted anything on DU this week?

[stop the bleeding]

39. not since Wednesday as far as I know

and no updates at TO as far as I know - this is really strange

[Seabiscuit]

111. He only starts threads. He never posts in others' threads, and would

never suffer the indignity of posting in one of the 16 threads to date that Skinner created to co-opt him.

Meaning we'll never hear from Pitt again about the Leopold story. If we ever do hear from him at all, it will be from a new thread Pitt starts about something else entirely (and he will - 5 reliable sources inside the White House and 2 reliable sources inside the RNC say he's currently suffering from withdrawal and desperately needs a DU groupie stroke fix), and when everyone piles on demanding an apology/explanation/retraction re the Leopold story, Skinner will step in, lock the thread, and advise people to only post such stuff in DU's new Leopold threads.

All of which may be a good thing when all is said and done. :)

[theboss]

125. Not to open an old wound...

But has he ever gotten the revenge on Andy's tormentors that he righteously claimed was his and his alone to take?

[benburch]

56. I'm fairly sure TO don't believe they have anything to retract.

I think they still believe it.

And imagine the reaction NOW if they are proven right?

[stop the bleeding]

67. I know - then at least an update at 4 or 5pm on Friday is the least

anyone could do, I always call people to let them know I am gonna be late even if they already know I am on the way, this silence is unbelievable

[benburch]

71. I hope they are working on something like that.

I just emailed them and asked them to release a statement.

[BurtWorm]

145. Some of us tried to warn you all.

I honestly hate to see people being let down. WAY down.

Remember, it's not Fitzgerald who did that. We still don't know what he has in mind for Rove.

[Snivi Yllom]

12. We still have 10 minutes to enjoy a premature eFitzalation

YES YES YES YEEEEEHAAAAAAAA!

[madinmaryland]

13. WTF is going on? These threads seem to be self perpetuating..

:wtf:

[theboss]

21. I've become quite comfortable in them

What can I say? I enjoy car crashes.

[eleny]

26. Welcome to The Neo-Lounge

[madinmaryland]

30. It sure does seem like the lounge!

:shrug:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

28. Beating working, eh?

And who doesn't love a nice, slow drive-by?

Besides, what if someone shows up to explain and apologize?

[Catherine Vincent]

19. ~j~

FITZ!!

[catnhatnh]

20. Yep.....

I still support Will,Jason and TO.....

[Chomp]

32. Any source outing = disaster...n/t

[MrSlayer]

35. Rats!

[demobabe]

36. BREAKING: JASON LEOPOLD INDICTED

...for Obstruction of Journalism!

:P

Sorry... I just had to make a bad joke.

Someone had to get indicted today...

[Stevendsmith]

50. LOL!!!! (n/t)

[stop the bleeding]

he's gonna be if he doesn't reveal his source as promised n/t

[Lerkfish]

37. response to old leftylawyer.

the last thread was locked before I could reply. I had posted this:

I have been appalled at the glee with which people rooted for

non-indictment of Rove.
I dont' quite get that.

I found that more disturbing than anything else.

I'm not talking about skepticism, I've been skeptical throughout.
I'm talking about swiftboating truthout.

I've responded in these threads to that point only.

My own opinion was "wait and see" the whites of the eyes of the indictment, but I felt no need to trash Leopold.

My estimation of certain other DUers during this has certainly been amended.

and old leftie lawyer had posted this:

It had everything wrong, and lots of people with legal expertise tried to point that out to those who refused to believe the reality, but chose to believe the fiction.

Now you think people who didn't agree with your point of view were "root(ing) for the non-indictment of Rove," which is the first I've heard of anything like that. You've possibly confused a caveat warning that it was possible that Rove would not be indicted as some sort of cheerleading effort. If so, you owe those people an apology for your poor understanding of the English language. Clarification is hardly the same as endorsing.

No one "swiftboated" truthout. Swiftboating is based on lies. What happened at truthout was done by truthout, no one else. To call someone on something that's patently not true is not good behavior? If you do, you're accused of "swiftboating"?

You and Richard Mellon Scaife, my friend, share far more of the same thinking patterns than I bet you'd care to admit. Intolerance of the opinions of others is a hallmark, and there you are.

Wait and see for what? This is a week later. There is no indictment.

What will you wait for, and while you wait, will you continue to defame and insult with false charges those who saw the story differently than you did from the start?

I never had any opinion of you, so your comment about estimation simply tells me something about you that I'd really rather not know, but Richard Mellon Scaife would be nodding his head at you, with pride, right about now.

Free speech is still alive at DU, and that's a grand, grand thing.

its interesting that I'm speaking out against people trashing other DUers, and this is the response.

I'll try to address various parts of it.

for one thing, saying my thinking matches Richard Mellon Scaife is interesting. Are you an expert on how I think?
I think NOT.

For one thing, leftielawyer has apparently made an incorrect assumption: that I am a leopold cheerleader. I am not.
I stated my opinion previously that I did not know if Leopold and truthout were correct. In fact, I gave a detailed analysis of all the possible outcomes, if they were right and if they were not. My comments have been about the fight over whether they were right or not -- I've not personally fallen behind either possibility at any point.

My reference to swiftboating was to certain individuals who were attacking leopold's character as a way to denounce his story. I felt that was irrelevant, and appeared to be hoping for him to be wrong more than concern over the indictment.
I still stand behind that as my view of what was happening.

I have been speaking out AGAINST the defaming, fwiw.

at any rate, since I could not respond to the locked thread, i attempted to find other means, I've come upon this one as perhaps the fairest way to respond.

thanks.

[Catherine Vincent]

64. That was a dead-on post in the other thread.

Apparently some here believe a lot of us are Leopold cheerleaders. I don't know where that came from.

[theboss]

70. Leopold's character is totally relevant

A journalist's reputation is all they have. Leopold has been caught plagiarizing, lying, and being his own source for a story on multiple occasions. He has been abandoned by the LA Times, Salon, Dow Jones, and his own publisher.

He nearly burned Salon to the ground when he left.

He is an admitted drug abuser and felon.

So...is it really that crazy that someone like him would make up a bullshit story? No.

What is amazing is that Truthout would fall for such a story from a known offender.

[MADem]

81. If they survive this, and they can, with a hearty mea culpa and

a full "coming clean" about how the story got on their site, they'll need to carefully check the bona fides of the people who do their reporting in future. In fact, the vetting of the author (or lack thereof) that they did prior to taking him onboard should be a part of their explanation, I think.

[Lerkfish]

101. that's a reasonable suggestion.

I still am not convinced, however, that leopold was intentionally or incompetently incorrect.

what I posted a while back is that (one of the many possibilities) is that Leopold was mislead by a source, or the source was mislead, or both were correct and the process itself was delayed (as happens often with legal matters)

Its obviously also possible that Leopold was intentionally misleading or incompetent.

the problem is, I don't have enough information at this point to come down either way.

[Snivi Yllom]

106. excellent advice

Everything you said is true. And there is hope for them.

[Lerkfish]

115. but how can you know its true?

on what do you base that determination?
I disagree because there is not enough information yet to determine.

It certainly could be true that leopold was intentionally wrong or incompetent.
But, from the little we know, he could also have been intentionally mislead or fed misinformation.That has happened to even seasonsed journalists.
Or, its also possible that the timetable was changed due to new developments.

I'm saying its impossible to know at this point, which of those possibilities is the truth. Until then, I prefer to note all the possibilities and say I cannot know yet.

[theboss]

122. If he was mislead, it is still his fault

He is a reporter. People lie to him daily. If he is stupid enough to fall for it, he should not be in the business.

And there is no way his original article was correct. Simply no way.

[Lerkfish]

128. So...reporters carry truth serum with them on interviews?

didn't know that.

its also possible the source was not lying, but has been deliberately mislead by someone else. Therefore, the "reporter truth serum" would detect only honesty from the source as to what they believed was true.

There IS a way the original article could have been true: The timetable could have changed AFTER the source provided information.

[theboss]

134. So, he relied on one source?

You are going to say that a sitting advisor to the President had been indicted on the word of one source?

One freaking source?

And don't tell me that it is several sources who were all poisoned by the same plot. The question, "Who did you hear this from?" should be asked to all of them, particularly if they are passing it along second-hand.

If fact, these are the scenarios.

Leopold took on Karl Rove based on one source.
Or he took on Karl Rove based on the world of several second-hand sources.

A gossip columnist has higher standards.

[Lerkfish]

143. I personally have no idea how many sources.

so therefore I cannot tell you it was several sources, or one.

remember, I'm saying I do NOT have enough information.

you, however, appear to have enough information to draw a conclusion.

that's ok. conclude away.

[MADem]

161. I think he said he had FIVE

And a baker's dozen sets of eyes supposedly went over the article with a fine toothed comb.

Five sources, all with bad info? Something smells fishy.

[Snivi Yllom]

140. TO and WP continues to insist as late as Wednesday nothing changed

Other than the 24 Fitzmas hours thing.

Sources lie all of the time. Look at the garbage the CIA/WH relied on and used to go to Iraq.

A good reporter knows to thoroughly vet his/her sources and confirm multiple sources before running a story. That process is your "truth serum".

[Lerkfish]

149. that process is not foolproof, however.

even vetted sources can still convincly lie.
Remember how long we were told Saddam was connected to 9/11? how many high level credible sources provided that info?

[Snivi Yllom]

163. of course it happens

and the reporter pays a price, as does the news organization

Dan Rather/CBS
Jayson Blair/ NY Times

[Snivi Yllom]

131. that's not the point. What we are asking for is transparency

Sources, how the story evolved, who were the players, what was the confirmation that led them to run and stick with the story.

I think it's very obvious Rove was indeed not indicted on May 12. Could he still be indicted? Absolutely.

[BurtWorm]

170. I wouldn't mind if this slowed down the rate of their spamming.

I was going to be delicate and use the word "e-mailing," but why not just say it? They've been flooding my e-mail box for several years now with e-mails I never read and never asked to have in my e-mail box.

[Lerkfish]

87. I meant it was irrelevent as to whether the indictment would happen or not

Leopold could be a bald faced liar and the indictment still occur regardless.

That's what I mean by irrelevent.

[theboss]

119. It's all about verb tense

I think Rove is going to be indicted at some point in the next month. I honestly do.

He was not indicted on May 12th....which is what Leopold and Will have hung their reputations on.

If Rove is indicted on June 1st, Leopold and Will are still full of shit. And TruthOut is full of shit.

[Lerkfish]

123. I see more possibilities than that.

I see that its possible they were absolutely correct, and the timetable changed.
I see that its possible they were intentionally mislead by a source
I see that its possible the source was intentionally mislead by someone else.

and, I see its possible that they were full of shit all along.

I don't have enough information yet to determine which of those possibilities is correct. And, unless you know something I don't, I would suggest neither do you.

[theboss]

127. How could the time-table change?

A May 12th indictment does not magically morph into a May 19th indictment.

An indictment is a piece of paper. It exists.

It does not change.

[Lerkfish]

133. Have you been to many trials?

I have been to a few. Things happen that delay proceedings or motions.
Remember, all that we know is that the indictment has not been made public, if it exists.

I'm just saying many are anxious to string up people for being either wrong or misled. but there isn't enough information to determine that yet.

[theboss]

146. I am an attorney

This is not a trial date. This not something that can change.

It is an indictment. It either is or it is not.

And for the record, no one at truthout has ever said that it is sealed.

[Lerkfish]

152. thank you, then.

for your expert input.

I have witnessed many trials, but I am not a lawyer.

[Jazz2006]

136. theboss - Not only that, but truthout also specified that Rove was...

...SERVED with the indictment on May 12.

In the real world, that means you get arrested, not left to carry on working at the White House for another week or month or year.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

150. Bingo

These pesky details.

They have a way of outing the truth that so many would rather not notice.

There is no indictment. On that, I think we must all agree.

[Jazz2006]

154. Yes, it's always the details.

There is no indictment.

Agreed.

[Moloch]

164. agreed.

<< What is amazing is that Truthout would fall for such a story from a known offender. >>

I think Pitt could save face now by admitting that he was hornswaggled. He obviously has a big following, I'm sure they will forgive him for getting their hopes up like this.

[MADem]

72. I have to say that I saw a lot of cheerleaders trashing people for asking

questions, questions that were asked in a polite and reasoned fashion. The theme was "You MUST believe, and if you ask questions, that means you DON'T want Rove indicted; ergo, you are one of the BushCo evil minions." It was some curious logic, to put it politely.

I have to say, from my cursory and admittedly incomplete reading of many of the threads on this subject, that most of the flak was coming from those who were angry at people for requesting clarifications, about the 24 business hour phrase, and other aspects of the story. It caused me to look into the background of the author of the piece, and I found that troubling, too.

[Lerkfish]

94. Well, then, that was ALSO wrong, IMHO.

My point was only that I saw no reason for all the anger over something that was happening or not happening behind closed doors.

[Laurab]

89. Thank you for that post

it is indeed glee, it's like nothing I've ever seen before, and I just plain don't get it. It's also mean-spirited, and a lot of other things which I probably can't say on this board.

I have noticed that a LOT of people have a LOT of time on their hands, and apparently they feel trashing Truthout and other DU'ers is the way to use it. I spoke out a lot against the defaming, but I gave up a while back. They're just having way too much fun...somehow these threads keep making it to the greatest page, too. Their glee is quite apparent, the reason for it is not.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

108. Glee?

In the midst of people - good people with whom we share political and social beliefs - who have had their trust and hope betrayed by a couple of men who lied to them, called them names when doubt about the story was expressed, and then ran away and hid when their specious "deadline" failed to materialize and the story was absolutely proven to be false, who is expressing glee?

This is nothing but sad, as I see it, and I've taken plenty of hits for expressing my opinions that it was all bogus from the start. That was obvious to me, so I take no pleasure in having been right, since I was sure of it from the beginning.

It's the people who trusted, who believed, who put their faith in Leopold and Pitt who have been hurt by this, and that is no occasion for glee - that is cause for lament, and a vow never to be fooled again.

Shattered trust is nothing to celebrate. Ever.

[RandomKoolzip]

38. Exactly a week, and still no indictment.

Can we officially call "bullshit" on this story yet?

Quetzocoatl ("Fitzocoatl?") never reappeared, Godot never showed up, and this whole thing is a total fucking embarrassment. Piltdown Man didn't have this many people fooled (Should we start calling him "Pittdown Man?")

[gasperc]

42. somebody got fucked, Olberman didn't take the bait

Ed Shultz had Jason on his show. I believe him

[OldLeftieLawyer]

43. You called it

It's five o'clock.

The party's over.

Bullshit all the way.

What time do the angry villagers show up with their blazing torches? I don't have a thing to wear .................

[RandomKoolzip]

55. All *I* want is for Leopold to come forth, apologize for duping

everyone (or for being duped and not being smart enough to recognize it), then reveal his sources. Then we can all decide whether it was worth going to the mat for.

[benburch]

58. If he did dupe anybody.

Which we still don't know.

[Marie26]

62. How can we not know that? nt

[benburch]

69. If in fact Rove got indicted, but some event (like plea deals) has delayed

the announcement of it, then there was no duping involved.

And eventually we WILL know one way or the other.

[Maddy McCall]

80. If Rove was not indicted on May 12, nothing will save Leopold's story.

And it's becoming all the more evident that Rove was not indicted on May 12.

Leopold jumped the gun and shot himself in the ass.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

83. WHAT ABOUT THE CONDO IN ASPEN?

I'm waiting .............

[Maddy McCall]

88. Pack the Hummer. We'll stop by the liquor store on the way out.

:D

[benburch]

90. We don't know that.

All we know is that we don't know, unless you have some truthiness on this matter?

[Marie26]

97. We know the story was false.

As written. The story was that Rove was indicted on Friday, and that was later changed to say that Fitz would give Rove "24 business hours" before announcing the indictment. It's 168 hours later, and there's no indictment. There was never any indictment. Not to mention the other patently false "details" Leopold later added in (about Rove's non-existent Secret Service detail, etc.)

And we know that many people were fooled into believing that Rove was indicted, & held out hope against hope & were disappointed. So yes, people were duped by Leopold & Truthout. And we know that now, no matter what might eventually happen in the future. Truthout should've retracted the story immediately, & Leopold should've apologized this week instead of creating new weasel words about "24 business hours," etc. It's bad enough that they ran a false story, but it's even worse that they first stood by it, then disappered w/o ever explaining to their readers what happened. That story's STILL listed on Truthout's front page w/o any changes. They've handled this badly.

[benburch]

112. We know the story was *wrong* as written.

Which is not the same thing at all as *false*.

When you report a story, you report the facts and future plans as they get told to you.

Reality has this nasty habit of not respecting future plans.

Patience. We will know all there is to know in time.

[Marie26]

124. What is the difference?

How many hairs are you splitting? The story was wrong & false as written, whether it was reported in good faith or not. We don't know if Leopold himself was duped, or if he made this up (I suspect the latter.) But we certainly know the story wasn't true. Therefore, it should have been retracted because it is misleading & misinformative to people who read the site.

[benburch]

130. False implied intent. Wrong only implies incorrect.

And as I say, reportage of a future timeline is always speculation even if well sourced. There only needs to be one thing true in the whole story for vindication of this matter; That Rove was indicted for *anything* last Frida.

We still do not know if that happened or not.

Until we do (and we will eventually know) we cannot know if this was a great scoop or a false lead reported as a great scoop.

[Marie26]

139. "False - not in accordance with the fact or reality or actuality."

I googled it & everything.

[benburch]

142. Words have implications beyond their meanings. nt

[theboss]

141. The story was about the past

The story was about the events of May 12th. The day Karl Rove was not indicted.

The past does not change.

The events that he reported on May 13th about May 12th are patently wrong.

No future events can change an indictment. It is a legal document.

[benburch]

144. Right, and we do not know if an indictment issued from the GJ.

Until we do, it is improper to blame anybody.

[theboss]

151. We can assume it has not been

By the fact that there is no record of it.
By the fact that Karl Rove is still working for the White House.

[benburch]

157. Assumptions.

Everybody has one.

[theboss]

162. Facts

Fact: There is no physical evidence on an indictment. You can go the Federal Courthouse and look for it but it is not on file.

Fact: Karl Rove is still in the employ of George W. Bush, President of the United States.

Fact: Once a government official is indicted, he/she resigns resigns.

If I cannot draw a conclusion from these facts, then logic does not exist.

And if logic does not exist, the entire basis for 2500 years of Western Civilzation falls apart.

Are you willing to go that far to defend this story?

[benburch]

166. I do not believe it is mandatory for anybody to resign if indicted.

Is there a statute I am unaware of?

Clearly this administration is corrupt enough not to care.

I'm not defending the story, BTW, I am trying to get people to stop assuming things that are not in evidence.

[theboss]

167. He would lose his security clearance

Which is enough to force him to do so.

[benburch]

171. Bush has the final word on Security Clearances, though.

If I understand the way this works.

"Unitary Executive" means a lot of power has been grabbed.

[RandomKoolzip]

65. Oh, come off it.

Graffiti I once saw on a bathroom wall in Nashville, TN:

"Guys-

Be right back. Wait here.

-Godot"

[benburch]

74. Can you prove your case then?

I can't.

All I can say is that only time will tell.

[RandomKoolzip]

85. Sure!

Leopold said Rove was indicted last friday.

It's now a week later, and Rove is not only free, but there's no evidence he's been indicted.

And those peddling this story have had to traffic in chronological minutiae (24 Hours = Three Days) and semantic games in order to keep their integrity afloat. THAT'S pathetic.

Anyone with any integrity left in the same situation would say he's sorry and try to make amends. I don't see that happening.

Maybe Rove will be indicted, maybe not. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that we got played like chumps; that much shouldn't even be up for debate.

[benburch]

92. That is inferrence not proof.

Try again.

[RandomKoolzip]

113. So you have proof Rove was indicted?

I'd love to hear it.

Okay, I'll try again: Rove hasn't been indicted.

[benburch]

117. We have no proof either way.

Your statement does not constitute proof.

[RandomKoolzip]

126. Would a Google news item saying "Rove has not been indicted"

constitute proof? I guess I'm having a hard time grasping your definition of "proof." Seems to me the fact that neither Fitzgerald nor any major news service has announced Rove's indictment is "proof" enough for me that Rove hasn't been indicted.

So we have truthout and Leopold (and their anonymous sources) versus the rest of the world....hmmm. Yup, I'm gonna hafta side with the rest of the world on this one.

[benburch]

137. Offical word from an official source in the special prosecutors office...

...is the only proof worth having unless Rove were to cop to it himself.

[Marie26]

147. But you'll never get that

if an indictment never happened. Is Fitz going to hold a press conference to announce nothing happened? No, no indictment means no official word from the special pros. office. So, can you still continue to claim, indefinitely, that Rove has actually been indicted & they're keeping it quiet?

[benburch]

156. But you will get that.

When the GJ is dismissed, there will either be an indictment or there will not be.

Alternatively, at a later date when an indictment DOES issue we will know that there was no earlier indictment.

[Marie26]

165. The grand jury isn't dismissed for months!

They have an 18-month term - will we be kept hanging in suspense until the grand jury's term expires?

[benburch]

169. Potentially.

But I doubt it.

[theboss]

158. By that theory, I could be under indictment

There has never been a press conference exonerating me from suspicion.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

95. Correction

SOME people got played like chumps, and that's a real heartache, because it's no fun watching people have their trust betrayed and their hopes crushed by people without ethics or consciences.

Some of us weren't fooled for a minute, and when we said so, we were demonized by a number of believers.

That's the DU tragedy, not that trick that Leopold and Pitt tried to pull.

Just my opinion.

[MADem]

96. Well, there's that pesky 24 business hours thing

And I haven't seen a single photo of Rove with a cardbox box of desktop gee gaws, leaving the White House, with a pink slip peeking out of his lapel pocket...

[Snivi Yllom]

102. Fitzmas hours

lets work on the terminology

[benburch]

105. Like I say, there may have been negotiations.

We simply don't know.

But I do know we will know eventually.

[MADem]

155. Well, he changed the words, and didn't fess up until called on it

The copy was edited from 24 hours to 24 BUSINESS hours. That ain't confidence-inspiring. And unless those are Italian business hours in August, the time is UP.

[Snivi Yllom]

45. "Shenanigans" Formally Declared Upon Truthout.Org

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/19/15264/3947

[theboss]

46. That is hysterical

Kos has some funny stuff on this.

[Snivi Yllom]

54. now this is funny:"BREAKING!Jason Leopold Swallowed by Alligator! UPDATED"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/19/14815/8248

[OldLeftieLawyer]

60. Good on them

Well done, deserved, nicely laid out, and far more gentle than Pitt or Leopold deserved, in my humble opinion.

Good on them.

Thanks for the link.

[WiseButAngrySara]

100. Link above...

"Shenanigans" Formally Declared Upon Truthout.Org
by twalling
Fri May 19, 2006 at 12:26:04 PM PDT
Get out your brooms, because I am issuing a Formal Declaration of "Shenanigans" on truthout.org, Jason Leopold, William Rivers Pitt, and Marc Ash. Truthout, I'm sure most know, is the organization which last Saturday put out a story claiming that Karl Rove was indicted one week ago, after a secret 15-hour meeting in which Rove was told he had 24 hours to get his affairs in order.

twalling's diary :: ::
From the May 13 article:


During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

Shenanigans are formerly declared upon "journalist" Jason Leopold for not only penning this fictitious article, but for saying that criticsism of his article (and the "facts" contained within it not coming true) in the blogosphere was fueled by hatred, while at the same time admitting he "looked wrong."

Upon William Rivers Pitt, a Formal Declaration of "Shenanigans" for not only not retracting this story after it was obvious after 24 hours it wasn't true, but for coming out with the ludicrous revisionist version of Leopold's tale, saying he meant 24 "business" hours instead of 24 "normal" hours. This irresponsible bit of languaging caused more than one ridiculous round of discussion in the DailyKos comment area about what, exactly, a "business hour" was, and how one went about measuring 24 of them. I issue a further Formal Declaration of Shenanigans upon Pitt for calling members of the Democratic Underground discussion boards "cretins" for daring to question truthout's credibility, when it was truthout that posted a false story as "truth," not the Democratic Underground discussion boards.

Upon Marc Ash, also of truthout.org, also a Formal Declaration of "Shenanigans." For when even 24 hours had passed, even 24 business hours, by any measure--railed against anybody who dared question "truth"out's integrity:


For the past few days, we have endured non-stop attacks on our credibility, and we have fought hard to defend our reputation. In addition, we have worked around the clock to provide additional information to our readership. People want to know more about this, and our job is to keep them informed. We take that responsibility seriously.

Marc made a further Ash of himself by further retracting the "24 hour thing":



THE 24 HOUR THING

We reported that Patrick Fitzgerald had, "instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order...." That does not mean that at the end of that 24-hour period, Fitzgerald is obliged to hold a press conference and make an announcement. It just means that he has given Rove a 24-hour formal notification. Fitzgerald is not obliged to make an announcement at any point; he does so at his own discretion, and not if it compromises his case. So we're all stuck waiting here. Grab some coffee.

[Jazz2006]

129. This one is also kind of funny:

"Jason Leopold's source revealed!"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/16/225855/202

[Snivi Yllom]

41. And the end of Fitzness hours is upon us for the week

To Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald:

Enjoy your weekend.

[theboss]

57. Ftizmas was so much better when I was a kid

And what is with the way young woman dress these days?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

61. Start

Go ahead.

Start.

[theboss]

78. People have forgotten the true meaning of Fitzmas

When I was a kid, we used to sit around the tree and tell stories of Karl Rove's indictment.

Now it's all about getting the first scoop.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

82. :::: groan :::::::

I was axing for that, I guess.

My own damn fault.

[AlCzervik]

59. my ham sandwich was indicted yet Rove walks free.

now what the hell am i going to eat for lunch?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

63. That wasn't a ham sandwich;

that was Karl Rove.

Silly.

[AlCzervik]

68. i bet he was delicious even though he's a swine.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

77. Well .........

[riona]

76. From Capitol Hill Blue's Blog

"Even the die-hards on the liberal sites, blogs and discussion boards are starting to sound nervous. On Democratic Underground, where anything published by Truthout is treated as gospel, an increasing number of clockers and watchers now say today is the drop-dead date for an indictment and, if one doesn't come down, they want answers from Leopold and the web site that published his story.

Writes a poster on DU:

I'll never read Truthout again. That site has let us down and this Leopold character is fool.

If he had any integrity he would accept responsibility for his screwups and not try to make up conspiracy theories blaming other people for his failure. That goes for us all."

[DoYouEverWonder]

84. Karl Rove is smiling

He barely has to lift a finger to divide DEMS and have them eating their own.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

86. Lord, that's so bad, because

Capitol Blue is one crap site.

Can't get much lower than it.

[Karmakaze]

153. And this is what TO was being warned of...

Symbolman said it best on his thread where offered Pitt a 1000 dollar bet.

The issue is not whether Rove was indicted or not, but whether the alternative media is willing to hold itself to the same standards it wants to hold the mainstream media to. It appears Truthout isn't, and that is a far bigger blow than anything Rove could have done.

[Cooley Hurd]

93. CHB - another unimpeachable source...

:eyes:

[DisgustedTX]

79. Looks like KOS is getting the TRUTHOUT!

:)

[Mojorabbit]

103. I am so bummed

I don't care about whether truthout got it right or not but I was so hoping for an indictment today.
Sigh

[AlCzervik]

104. don't be---thread 17 starting soon!

[Snivi Yllom]

118. bring on 17

[AlCzervik]

121. Love that movie!!! Witty, snappy dialog, excellent cast!

:toast:

[RadiDem]

109. Damn! After 5PM in DC - there's a lump of coal in my Fitzmas stocking

What a shitty Fitzmas

[OldLeftieLawyer]

114. Squeeze it really hard,

and you'll have a diamond.

Have a fine weekend, and don't let the idea of an indictment bother you for a moment. It might never happen.

So, we'll take back America, in spite of them.

Go have fun.

[HereSince1628]

116. Well, it seems the story Fitzzled.

Is that about the 10,000 time that's been said?

[Catherine Vincent]

138. Bush sucks!

[Flubadubya]

159. Hah! Beau Duke eat your heart out...

What, the door doesn't open? :rofl:

[Moloch]

160. Damn! Already at thread 16.....

I missed 11-15.

[Jazz2006]

168. Here's a list of links to #s 1-14, damkira

:hi:

[Moderator]

172. locking.....

Please continue here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1238704