TRUTHOUT UPDATE/MARC ASH Returning to "06 cr 128"

[kpete]

Returning to "06 cr 128"

By Marc Ash,

Mon Jun 19th, 2006 at 06:59:47 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation


What will follow will be a rather frank discussion of our reporting of and involvement in the Rove indictment matter. If you like simple answers or quick resolutions, turn back now. This is our report to our readership. Our primary sources for this report are career federal law enforcement and federal government officials speaking on condition of anonymity. This report was developed under the supervision of all of Truthout's senior editors, which should be taken as an indication that we view this matter with the utmost seriousness.

For the record, we did reach Kimberly Nerheim, a spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald, and asked her these questions: Did a grand jury return an indictment of Karl Rove? Did Patrick Fitzgerald send a fax to Robert Luskin similar to that described in recent press reports? Is Patrick Fitzgerald's probe of the Plame matter still ongoing? Her response to each question was identical: "I have no comment."

.......................

On Tuesday, June 13, when the mainstream media broke their stories that Karl Rove had been exonerated, there were frank discussions amongst our senior editors about retracting our stories outright. The problem we wrestled with was what exactly do we retract? Should we say that Rove had not in fact been indicted? Should we say that our sources provided us with false or misleading information? Had Truthout been used? Without a public statement from Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald we felt that it was premature to retract our report.

After spending the past month retracing our steps and confirming facts, we've come full circle. Our sources continue to maintain that a grand jury has in fact returned an indictment. Our sources said that parts of the indictment were read to Karl Rove and his attorney on Friday, May 12, 2006. Last week, we pointed to a sealed federal indictment, case number "06 cr 128," which is still sealed and we are still pointing to it. During lengthy conversations with our sources over the past month, they reiterated that the substance of our report on May 13, 2006, was correct, and immediately following our report, Karl Rove's status in the CIA leak probe changed. In summary, as we press our investigation we find indicators that more of our key facts are correct, not less.

MUCH MORE AT:
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/

[arcos]

1. ...

[grytpype]

161. The latest load of bullshit from Truthout...

All they've done is buy some more time until the "06 cr 128" case is unsealed.

Then they'll come up with another line of bullshit.

[kpete]

2. INTERESTING!

The Rove indictment story is way beyond - in terms of complexity - any other story we have ever covered. In essence, we found out something we were not supposed to find out, and things exploded from there. We were not prepared for the backlash.

[MelissaB]

9. That jumped out at me, too.

The whole thing is interesting...

[DoYouEverWonder]

87. Someone put a big giant clamp on things

and since then no one is making a peep.

If Fitzgerald found out that any of the TO info came from his office, he would probably go ballistic. If the judge found out that anyone from either side was leaking, I am sure the reaction would be similar.

Things are quiet, too quiet.

[pnwmom]

179. Okay, based on the law degree I got watching Boston Legal

my guess is that an indictment was returned, and it's being held over Rove's head like a guillotine.

But if he cooperates fully, and helps Fitzgerald get the bigger criminals, then Fitz will let him pull his head off the chopping block and go his way . . . with nobody being the wiser. (Prosecutors can still drop cases after an indictment is filed, can't they?)

If we ever see him testifying against Cheney, that would be a pretty big clue that something -- like an indictment -- must have prodded him to do it. But we may never know for sure.

[rpannier]

183. Hey...congrats on your degree

I take it you are following in the footsteps of Lionel Huts from the Simpsons, who preps for cases watching Matlock???

Your subject line is hysterical...thanks.

[pnwmom]

263. Lionel is a great friend of mine

thanks for asking!

[leveymg]

202. This is Rather redux.

We know how Rove & Co. operates. If an inconvenient truth threatens to break through the lid on MSM taboo subject matter -- Dubya's former cocaine abuse, Dubya AWOL in the TNG, Karl Rove turned state's evidence on Bush-Cheney -- the approach is always the same: Poison the Well, or Discredit and Destroy the Messenger. One or both of these tactics may have been applied to Jason Leopold and TruthOut to preempt MSM investigation of evidence that Karl Rove was, perhaps, granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for his cooperation with the Fitzgerald Grand Jury.

If the prosecution is, indeed, going after bigger figures in the Plame case and Rove sang to the G.J., it would serve both Karl Rove and Patrick Fitzgerald to obscure that fact.

Poison the Well. This is a favorite tactic that has used effectively for years by BushCo. The basic approach is to leak false documents or information to "poison the well" of evidence with a forgery. This requires that someone be found who can convincingly play the role of an inside source who holds genuine evidence of wrongdoing that is otherwise sealed or unobtainable. This source may or may not know that the document he possesses is a forgery, which is in turn passed on to a reporter or news producer. The document or information and the bearer appears to be genuine and sincere, so the news organization runs with the story, staking its credibility on the line. A third party then demonstrates that document or information is a forgery or is somehow inaccurate. The reporter and news organization's professional reputation are severely undermined. The news organization eventually fires the reporter or producer, and suffers a decline. Even though the truth at the bottom of the well is still quite accurate and available to enterprising reporters, no major news media dare go near it again. Most recently, this phenomenon has spawned the verb to be "Rathered", after copies of Texas National Guard documents from Dubya's service record were shown, convincingly enough, to be recreated instead of original unit records.

Discredit/Destroy the Messenger. BushCo has also been known to discredit and destroy the accuser, with or without the intermediate step of leaked false evidence. This has happened repeatedly to previously obscure journalists who managed through hard work and persistence to piece together evidence of high-level corruption that more cautious, better-known reporters pass over. The story is ruthlessly attacked by well-positioned critics in the industry and academia. Some character flaw or past transgression of the author is unearthed. Cooperating editors are demoted. Publications are hit by advertising boycotts. The investigative journalist's body is later found in a motel room bathroom, dead of apparent self-inflicted wounds. Prime examples are Danny Casolaro's "Octopus" story (BCCI and the "October Surprise"); see, http://archives.cjr.org/year/91/6/octopus.asp ; James Hatfield, author of "Fortunate Son" (Dubya's drug abuse), see, http://www.lovearth.net/fortunateson.htm; and, Gary Webb's "Dark Alliance" series(Iran-Contra and CIA drug dealing) see, http://www.mega.nu/ampp/webb.html .

When the facts eventually come out about the Rove indictment story, I would not be surprised to see that one or the other, or perhaps both, of these tactics have been applied to Leopold and TruthOut, and as a bonus feature, used by Rove and his crew as a way of discrediting progressive news sites in the blogosphere. Something like this is already quite visible.

[flyarm]

273. don't forget Hunter Thompson!!...n/t

[OzarkDem]

248. My perception from the beginning

They basically revealed information that someone wanted put out there. If they hadn't leaked it, everyone would have thought Rove innocent with the announcement that he wasn't going to be indicted.

Someone wanted the public to know that Rove was not being given a free pass.

[babylonsister]

3. Thanks, kpete!

:popcorn: :beer:

[texasleo]

4. ok

[fooj]

5. Sounds plausible to me...

[kpete]

6. HMMMMM

What appears to have happened is that - and this is where Truthout blundered - in our haste to report the indictment we never considered the possibility that Patrick Fitzgerald would not make an announcement. We simply assumed - and we should not have done so - that he would tell the press. He did not. Fitzgerald appears to have used the indictment, and more importantly, the fear that it would go public, to extract information about the Plame outing case from Rove.

[IsIt1984Yet]

7. I read it 3 times and there is NOTHING new.

I guess "more comprehensive" is in the eye of the beholder.

[MelissaB]

12. Well this was new to me, but maybe I missed it before.

Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled.

I haven't seen TO say that.

[IsIt1984Yet]

15. Based on what? What evidence did they have of this "indictment"?

That's all I want to know.

[MelissaB]

16. I don't know.

Sorry! I wish I did.

[IsIt1984Yet]

17. I wish we all did. It just looks silly, IMHO.

:shrug:

[IndianaGreen]

57. The Ouija Board said so!

They asked if Rove was indicted, and Ouija said 'Yes"!

[wordpix2]

69. apparently there was no evidence, just "sources"

Apparently, the sources succeeded in getting TO to go with the indictment story, which brought Rover immediately to the bargaining table. I wonder what evidence he provided against Dickhead?

snip: Our sources continue to maintain that a grand jury has in fact returned an indictment. Our sources said that parts of the indictment were read to Karl Rove and his attorney on Friday, May 12, 2006. Last week, we pointed to a sealed federal indictment, case number "06 cr 128," which is still sealed and we are still pointing to it. During lengthy conversations with our sources over the past month, they reiterated that the substance of our report on May 13, 2006, was correct, and immediately following our report, Karl Rove's status in the CIA leak probe changed.

[DisgustedTX]

8. ROVE COULD BE INDICTED BY 2009!

"Our editors" - bahahahahaha!

Attention whores :rofl:

[IndianaGreen]

50. Or perhaps Rove will be indicted 20 business hours before Second Coming

Truth Out has yet to learn the golden rule:

1. Admit you made a mistake.

2. Determine what went wrong.

3. Fire the culprits.

[Kahuna]

78. Amen!

:hi:

[deaniac21]

193. No. 3 would be tough when they have admitted that the entire

senior editorial staff was closely involved.

[Moloch]

282. Then Truthout should cease operations.

What good is a news organization without credibility?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

159. Is that regular years or business years?

:shrug:

[ClintonTyree]

306. Business years.........

ALWAYS "Business Years" with TruthOut! :eyes:

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Add in rumors of a pretrial Libby pardon

Mix thoroughly. Release the entire mess approx. Nov 8, 2006. Thumb noses at everyone. Give big Texas devil horns to buddies. Attack Iran.

11. I wonder if "presidental power" was invoked on this.

Those loonies in the white house want to be able to anything they please.

[bigtree]

189. I've wondered the same thing. 'National security' and all that . . .

it's their thing

[Marie26]

13. Bullshit!

Complete, total bullshit. I'm tired of them trying to fool people. the "06 cr 128" claim was already thoroughly debunked on DU. It wasn't filed till May 17th, & is most likely related to Time's motion to quash a subpoena in the Libby case. Truthout knows this, but they don't care. They're lying to people. And they don't even care if we know it. Even I never thought they would sink this low.

DU thread on "Sealed v. Sealed" - http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1406622

[stepnw1f]

20. They are Lying? Prove it....

[DancingBear]

27. Prove they aren't n/t

[LittleClarkie]

82. You can't logically prove a negative

The person making the assertion must provide the proof.

[Igel]

128. You can logically prove a negative.

It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, in some cases. In some cases, it's about the only way to go about proving a theorem or a problem.

In most cases involving physical reality, not philosophical or mathematical abstractions, it's hard to prove a negative because it involves possessing complete knowledge, and requiring a person to prove a negative is involved in a fallacy.

The fallacy isn't in logically proving a negative, but in reversing the burden of proof. If something is assumed not to exist in the absence of proof that it does exist, the fallacy is in requiring proof of non-existence--not because it can't be done, but because it subverts the usual obligation to prove one's assertion.

Unless we assume Rove was indicted as a consequence of how the universe is put together, and therefore TO has no burden to prove what they say, the burden of proof is on TO. To accuse TO of lying is overboard; it actually should require that the person prove that TO knowingly is telling something false in order for us to believe it.

I think TO has not met the burden of proof. That's their job. Indictments don't fall from the sky, and we can't just automatically assume that Rove's sprouted on 5/12 as part of the nature of things.

[greyl]

168. In this case, proof that they are telling the truth would suffice.

They would be proving a positive.

[BlooInBloo]

30. They're the ones making claims. The burden is on them.

[Joe Chi Minh]

239. Maybe they're only interested in convincing those who evince a

dispassionate interest in the truth; not headbangers who wish only to heap ill-considered abuse on their investigations.

Many of the latter nut-jobs have tried to pre-empt their own perhaps pending disgrace and humiliation, by assuring DUers how vocally they'll apologise for their stance, if they're proved wrong. What a bizarre notion - that their lame, half-assed harangues, against people whose boots the're not fit to lick, would be the slightest bit interested in their apologies. Losers spend they're lives owing apologies.

[Techno Dog]

333. barf

[Marie26]

36. READ THE THREAD

They are lying to you. I swear, I feel like this is some alternate reality & we're back to 4 weeks ago. "Maybe it's sealed" "sounds plausible", "wait & see", etc. It reminds me a whole lot of Bush voters. Oh sure, they'll get mad at Hurricane Katrina or Harriet Miers, but two weeks later they've reverted back to the same talking points like they've forgotten that ever happened. It's just incredible to me. I'm sorry. We DID prove it - Tom22 & others showed that the "06 cr 128" case WASN'T a Rove indictment, but probably a filing from the Libby case. It was filed May 17th - far after the date the Rove indictment supposedly took place. It has the same number as a Time motion to quash that was filed shortly beforehand. It most likely refers to the evidence from the in-camera hearing on that motion.

If you'll notice something, TO never actually SAID that the "Sealed v. Sealed" filing was the Rove indictment then; they just published the story & allowed readers to draw that conclusion. Likewise, now they're not, actually, SAYING that this case number is the Rove indictment now; they're just "pointing to it". They'll put two unrelated sentences together - "We think Rove was indicted" & "there's a case called 06-CR-128" & let readers conclude that it's the Rove indictment. Ugh, ugh, ugh. But, technically they're not lying - they'll say it's the readers' fault if they draw that conclusion. They are treating their readers w/utter contempt, they are lying to people, they are acting unethically & they don't care. I have to think that TO was involved in something so unethical that they'd rather cling to this obvious falsehood rather than reveal the truth. What are they so afraid of? I'm sort of stunned by the arrogance & cynicism of this newest "update". Truth out? Yeah, right.

[Imajika]

46. Marie26....

...your my hero :)

Even though even without all your research it was painfully obvious the Truthout story was pure garbage from the beginning, you still do a real service for everyone by taking the time to dig into this nonsense and fish out every actual fact you can find (something apparently Truthout willfully avoids doing).

It's clever folks like yourself that make DU such a great place.

Thanks!

[greatauntoftriplets]

48. I second that sentiment...

Marie26 rocks!!

[Cameron27]

58. I third it ....

Marie26 gets the real truth out!!!!

[Jigarotta]

68. fourthed!

truly awesome work, Marie. We are so fortunate to have you here!

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

143. Fifthed, for what it's worth. The quality of your investigation and

fact-finding puts self-claimed "journalists" and "editors" to shame. You also swear much less than some of them.

Thank you for your honest work and please know that at least some of us here value facts above partisanship.

[Catherine Vincent]

150. I would Sixth'ed it but we don't know the all the facts right now.

So I'll go the Truthout way and stand down. ;-)

[Marie26]

63. Aw!

:hug: Thanks so much, you all! I really appreciate the encouraging words. :)

[nannah]

225. how much of your own operating system

are you projecting on to TO?

[IsIt1984Yet]

226. .

:eyes:

[Marie26]

233. Please

:eyes: Do you have any helpful information or criticisms to offer beyond insults?

[nannah]

261. actually i do have some thoughts on this issue

I've been involved in anti war, social justice issues for 40 or so years. One of the hallmarks of the Vietnam War resistance was how it drew together disparate groups to speak in one voice on the war. At rallies in Boston, where I was living at that time, black pathers stood alongside grey panthers who were standing shoulder to shoulder with SDS who were joining hands with the Paulist Fathers.

It is a feature of these times that divisiveness thwarts large coalition building; this is done with intent. Management of the media makes this task easy. However, the online community has been a difficult to manage. Absent the ability to draw us into a manageable unit, the effort is on keeping us fragmented; flaming one another over hot button issues. we all have issues to which we react.

Following YearlyKos, which I did not attend, a piece was written about Trust and the role trust plays in making blogs an accessible vehicle for people to express themselves. As someone who has been reading and occassionally commenting on numerous blogs for the last 5 or so years, I have a sense of this issue of trust among posters and it is one of the reasons I am drawn to the internet for information.

In that time I have followed both TO and Will Pitt. I first began reading Will on DU. I so enjoyed the punchy, tell it like it is style of his writing. I also grew to respect his insight and how he defined problems and solutions. Over the years I could say I grew to "trust" Will's stories and his perceptions. The same is true for TO. I believe they have played a significant role in providing a forum for thoughtful, incisive, broadranging information on the state of our world; in fact doing what their masthead says: putting the truth out.

Since that is the history I have with both Will Pitt and TO, when I weigh that against the track record of the interests on the other side of this story, I find scant reason to doubt TO and much reason to both distrust and recognize the power of those who have been exposed by the Rove story.

Standing by your story has a harsh history in our recent past. As another poster noted: there has been a string of mysterious suicides and discrediting of journalists who spoke truth to this power. I stand with Will and TO and trust their integrity because to do so is consistent with all my knowlege of and experience with them.

[Laurab]

284. Thank you, Nannah

I feel the exact same way as you do, except you worded it much better than I could. I haven't been involved nearly as long as you have, but I share your sentiments.

In particular, your last line: "I stand with Will and TO and trust their integrity because to do so is consistent with all my knowledge of and experience with them."

I couldn't agree more.

[Marie26]

312. OK

That's better. I completely understand if people support TO based on some of the good reporting & forums that they've provided in the past. But IMO, this story, & especially TO's handling of it, has damaged that creditibility somewhat. Trust is important, & it's really the best advantage blogs have over the larger, richer MSM. People feel that they can trust alternative news sources to give them the "real truth," especially in regards to stories that have been suppressed in the MSM. If readers stop trusting an online news source, it can lessen that source's influence & readership. The Rove indictment story has been disproved by the latest Fitz. announcement, yet TO still refuses to admit any errors. In that respect, I believe "standing by" a story, long after the facts show it was incorrect, can hurt the influence & ultimate effectivenesss of TO. It's still not clear to me how much Pitt was actually involved in this story. I'm not personally attacking him, or anyone - just saying the story was wrong. I really respect those journalists who stand up to powerful forces in order to expose wrongdoing. But IMO, this story was less about speaking "truth to power" & more about getting a scoop. A Rove indictment would be reported by the MSM at any rate. But, opinions can differ about TO's motives & intent here. Maybe eventually we'll find out the whole story.

[nannah]

319. thanks for your post marie. here is where I am on the apparent facts of

this situation. it is just not clear to me that the story is false. In the post today by Marc, the affirmation by the sources of the correctness of their information answered one of the questions I had.... what were the sources saying on the face of the apparent dropping of the case. Since I always approached this from the perspective that TO was reporting what they had reason to believe was true, the issue that was most confusing in the aftermath, was what was being said between TO and their sources? It sounds like there is a continuing dialogue between TO and their sources, which speaks to TO's continued trust in their sources.

It also sounds like the details re: time frames on sealed indictments may be less significant than originally believed.

Actually, the one element of this that made me wonder if TO has been deceived in their information was that this is such a classic Rove move to discredit his opponents. However, after all that's happened, if the sources were tainted by Rove, I think TO would have figured that out and wouldn't be continuing to rely on their information.

[IsIt1984Yet]

49. Thanks, Marie26!

[Tin Man]

70. I'll tell you what TO is afraid of...

There's this thing called libel law.

Probably not a bad idea for TO to refuse any admission of malfeasance or wrongdoing, while insisting they were only reporting what their unnamed sources had told them.

[Marie26]

83. That's a good reason

Corallo, Rove's spokesman, apparantly said that Truthout's story "borders on defamation." And Rove would be just the type to press charges. I don't know if he could actually win, but it makes sense that TO might be afraid of that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/21/AR2006052101374_pf.html

[spag68]

100. rove charges

As much as rove would like to press some kind of charges, I don't think that will happen. A lawsuit against to would necessarily bring out some ugly stuff.

[rinsd]

278. Just bringing a lawsuit would be a likely financial burden for TO.

And I think you're right Rove is just the type of cocksucker to abuse the law in that manner.

[coalition_unwilling]

290. Rove is a "public figure" and faces a much higher burden

proving libel or defamation, to wit, that media organ knew it was reporting falsely. TO will have a positive defense if it can show that it reported what its sources told it. And, of course, the truth, i.e., Rove actually getting indicted, is an absolute defense in a libel case :)

[kiahzero]

92. If you knew anything about libel law, you'd know you're wrong.

Please do us all a favor and look up "actual malice." Thanks.

[Maven]

99. Not so fast. Look up defamation per se.

Untrue statements of serious criminal misbehavior that damage someone's professional reputation are defamatory per se in most jurisdictions.

Also, making a false statement with "reckless disregard" is enough to show actual malice under Sullivan.

[kiahzero]

154. And nothing we've seen comes close to "reckless disregard"

Even negligence of the sort being contemplated by the most strident critics of TO here on DU wouldn't rise to that level. It's pretty much impossible to win a libel case as a public figure - the bar is set so high as to eliminate all but the most egregious cases (and even then, not really - I strongly doubt Clinton could have won a libel lawsuit against Falwell et al. for claiming he was a murderer).

[Tin Man]

165. I beg to differ

1) IMO, the actions of TO in reporting the alleged 'Rove Indictment' may very well constitute reckless disregard, especially were it to occur that, at the conclusion of the GJ investigation, Rove is not indicted.

2) It is not "pretty much impossible to win a libel case as a public figure" as you assert. Off the top of my head, I can think of several well publicized examples in which celebrities pursued and won libel cases against tabloid magazines.

[Marie26]

103. "Actual malice"

Publishing a story w/knowledge of its falsity, or reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity. If TO published this knowing it was false, or w/o trying to verify the veracity of the story, it could still be defamation under the actual malice standard. We don't know what TO knew when they published this story, or what efforts they made to ensure the report was true. You're right that it's harder to make a defamation case against a public figure, unless TO was also negligent in allowing a false story to be published. But maybe that's what happened here.

[Tin Man]

112. Oh, I know who's wrong alright... (and it ain't me!)

:hi:

[Blackthorn]

160. Ummmmmm, just a small point...

"We DID prove it - Tom22 & others showed that the "06 cr 128" case WASN'T a Rove indictment, but probably a filing from the Libby case."

I find it incredible for people to claim to know the contents of sealed filings, period. Particulary when the "evidence" is nothing but (well reasonsed) speculation. Going around claiming you've "proven" this is not a Rove indictment is flat out wrong, because you do not know with any certainty the contents of case "06 cr 128". Period. Highlighted by the fact you use the word PROBABLY to describe wha you THINK is in there.

You're probably right, but that doesn't mean you are.

[Marie26]

217. Depends

Yeah, no one can know, for certain, the contents of a sealed case. I don't know what the contents of that case are & haven't claimed to be able to prove what's in that filing. All we can do is use logic & the evidence to try to figure out what it probably is. But, I do believe we can prove that the TO story is incorrect when they claim that this case is a Rove indictment. This is based on TO's own reporting, which can be certainly proved or disproved. They've stated that the GJ indicted Rove & Rove was already presented this returned indictment on May 12th - we know, based on the case filings, that this can't be right. We also know that the case they're "pointing to" as the returned indictment wasn't returned on the day that they say the indictment happened. Case closed, IMO. Based on the numbers of the motions entered in the Libby case, we can say it's most likely related to that case, w/o being able to be certain. But, IMO, we can be certain that TO's reporting is wrong.

What's interesting is that even TO isn't claiming that their sources are telling them that this case is the Rove indictment. Search that update hard - they only say that the sources are telling them Rove was indicted. TO itself is "pointing" to the 06 cr 128 filing, but even they won't say definitively that it's the indictment. Translation - there's no sources at all for this "06 cr 128" stuff, only TO's own attempt to try to create a diversion from the obvious falsity of the story.

I was flatly asked to "prove" that this update is BS. Well, that "06 cr 128" silliness is some proof. But that's not all the proof - there's also the clear errors in the original story, that haven't been corrected (Rove's SS detail, etc.); first claiming it was unsealed & then sealed, then Rove was indicted & now unindicted?, mistakes/changes in the day of indictment, completely misusing legal terminology, "24 business hours", etc. & the small detail of Fitz's announcement that he will not be seeking charges against Rove. Yet TO plows on. There's a whole lot that shows that TO is not being honest w/their readers here & are intentionally trying to mislead people in order to protect themselves. I believe that they know this story is false & are trying to keep the charade going.

[OzarkDem]

254. So you know less than TO knows

You're using logic and conjecture.

[Marie26]

256. That's more than TO can do!

:)

[IsIt1984Yet]

259. That blog entry is still attributed to the Associated Press...

nice... :eyes:

[OzarkDem]

277. Sorry, I'm not buying

[IsIt1984Yet]

285. Super, I wasn't "selling" anything.

:eyes:

[Blackthorn]

317. Shoddy reporting does NOT mean the story is incorrect...

At any rate, I'm 100% sure that there is more to this than any of the players are letting on, and anyone "getting ahead of the cycle" by making firm judgements either way are going to be proven wrong.

That's not to say your reasonsing is incorrect, just that this case is not going to play out by the "rules".

The silence from Fitz is deafening.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

155. She did prove it. Read the link in her post. n/t

[enough already]

299. You shouldn't have to prove they are lying

It should be evident they are telling the truth. And it isn't, not even close.

[Cameron27]

25. Marie

I with that you'd cut and paste the entire debunking of the 06 cr 128 indictment. TO is peddling BS and it's tiresome, and I have the feeling that this is their final word on this entire episode.

[H2O Man]

35. The media hearings

and motions appear to be "mc," not "cr." This would not indicate what the case under seal is, just what it probably is not.

[Marie26]

39. Exactly

In that it probably is not a new Rove indictment & probably is related to the Libby case, instead. H2OMan, in your own post, you stated that Rove was not indicted. Doesn't it disturb you that TO is STILL trying to claim he's under some sort of sealed indictment? They know that this case number claim has only one source, maybe no sources, & they also know about the errors. They also know that TalkLeft also confirmed that it was filed May 17th. Yet they're still trying to fool people into thinking this is that mystical May 12th indictment. This goes beyond simply getting a story wrong - this is deliberate misleading & misrepresentation of the facts. TO should not be trusted if they're comfortable engaging in these kind of practices. I'm thinking TO & Leopold deserve each other.

[H2O Man]

42. That's not what I said.

Nor, of course, did I say the opposite. But for the sake of honest discourse, I would prefer not to have what I said twisted.

[Marie26]

51. So what did you say?

I'm sorry if you believe I was twisting what you said. Do you believe Rove was indicted? Why would people want to protect this organization that's shown such disregard for the truth?

"TO reported Rove had been indicted, and that it was a sealed indictment. However, Karl Rove is not facing indictment at this time. And there is no reason to expect that will change anytime soon, if ever. And there is no question that this is a victory for Rove."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1428872

[H2O Man]

56. Read post #35.

It is an exact quote. It says nothing -- repeat, nothing -- about Rove being indicted or not indicted. It is only about the media motions and hearings. The ones that I am aware of are "mc," not "cr." That has nothing to do with what else the infamous sealed case might be.

[Marie26]

65. But...

I'm sorry, but do you believe that Rove is indicted at this time? In the earlier post, you indicated that Rove was not indicted. If this is the case, do you believe TO is misrepresenting the facts when they state that he is under indictment? Sorry to be annoying - feel free to ignore this post.

[hlthe2b]

H20 Man, I just want say how much I appreciate your

dispassionate and objective approach to this whole issue and the entire Plame investigation. I have no answers. In truth, none of us really does-- in terms of what has gone on the past months in the Grand Jury and with Fitz re: Rove and others. While we can speculate based on the few facts we've been given to nibble on, the total truth remains elusive.

As for TO, well, they would not be the first news organization to come to regret a course of action-- no matter how convinced they were at the time that they were "right." Progressives have a knack for going especially tough on their own. I've certainly made enough mistakes in my life-- despite the best of intentions-- that I tend to lean towards benefit of the doubt...I just hope we learn the truth about all things Plame sooner than later. Finally,I truly do hope that Fitz and his band of prosecutors truly are the honorable, savy, straight arrows that they have been portrayed to be and can remain dedicated to justice, no matter the political fallout.

[motocicleta]

125. I second the opinion of H2O man

and I just want to agree with your point about Fitz. That is the scariest part of this obnoxious "Rove is indicted" episode. For the first time, and not for a solid, logical reason, it has crept into my mind that Fitz could be just another puke plant inserted to make a problem go away. I hope that is just paranoia. The future of our country may seriously turn on that exact point.

[wordpix2]

74. what do "mc" and "cr" stand for?

[Jigarotta]

80. I believe mc is miscellaneous...

cr is criminal and cv is civil.

[ooglymoogly]

260. my dear, your post is booooolcheeeet...

not worth wasting any words on....on second thought i will add a few...you are basing your argument on a probable supposition...you cannot know what is in a sealed v sealed indictment...no matter how probable your argument...as sherlock was made to say "only one thing is certain in a crime, nothing is ever as it seems".

[Marie26]

264. OK then.

Then why waste words responding? :shrug:

[rinsd]

14. From getting a scoop to commiting an unknowing act of liberal heroism?

Basically Ash is saying thanks to their stories and the publicity they generated, Rove weas forced into giving up the goods to Fitzgerald.

Based on Sealed vs Sealed? When the only ones who would come near truthout as a source after the 24 hours nonsense were Duers and Wayne Madsen? That's when Rove gave in?

Color me skeptical at this point.

[jazzjunkysue]

18. The question remains:Will Fitz stop at Cheney, or move on to the Boy king?

This is fun.

They did remove Rove from his official post for serious reasons.

They did remove him from public events.

He has since started to go back on the attack, hours after being 'Cleared, unless other events become apparent..." or whatever Fitz's disclaimer said.

And he's right: No one will see the sealed indictment, and no one saw Fitz's "letter." Makes me wonder if the letter was a verbal promise, only.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

19. Marc Ash Is A Great Writer As Well. This Whole Thing Is Verrry Interesting

I still have no idea what the whole truth of the matter is yet, but I still think something is amiss in this investigation. I have no problem with the logic that the indictment did take place and in under seal, and that Rove is investigating and turned on Dick. In fact, it's one of the only scenarios that makes complete sense of everything that's gone on.

Now sure, the whole story itself could've been bunk from the get go. I still don't know that for certain. But the based on all the facts of the past few years with this case and all the buzz and implication of Rove, it just simply does not make sense that he would go free completely cleared.

It does make sense, however, that he did get indicted but then like the little coward he is turned over whatever he had to in order to weasel his way out.

Who knows. All I know is that this is verrrrrry interesting. I look forward to future updates.

[Marie26]

21. Do you have a

problem with the fact that the case they're "pointing to" as the Rove indictment was actually filed on May 17th? Yet they state Rove was shown the indictment on May 12th? Do you have a problem with being lied to?

[DisgustedTX]

24. That is a ROVIAN supporter of the lie

It only comes out at night under cover of sly falsehood.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. Not Sure Of What You're Sayin There.

Your statement didn't seem to make any sense. Could you elaborate more on it?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

43. Of Course I Do.

I have a problem when anybody lies to me. But I don't consider that to be the case here. Truthout is a great progressive outlet that has served our side justly on many many occasions. If Marc, Will, Jason and the entire T.O. staff are being this upfront and direct and standing behind their reporting I have no reason to call them liars. They are one of our own, and though that isn't enough for a free pass, they have done enough in the past time and time again to earn my trust and respect.

Now that doesn't mean this story is 100% right or that they didn't possibly make errors. I never expected them to be perfect and anyone that does is simply foolish. But that DOES NOT mean they are lying, which is one hell of an accusation and should be reserved for only the strongest of evidence that points towards that. And there simply is far too little evidence to base that harsh and unfair of an accusation on.

So I'm keeping an open mind. I'm not saying the story is 100% correct or to have blind faith. I'm saying there are many interesting aspects of this story, that Truthout is an organization that I respect highly due to their plethora of past good works for the Progessive cause, that it is completely unfair and misguided in my opinion to call them flat out liars, and that in the end there very well could be some truth to their story. I mean seriously, you gonna tell me Rove wouldn't turn like a coward pig after being indicted if he could weasel out of it by doing so? Who knows. It is a complex story and one that I'll be damned if I know the truth of. But no matter what you could try and claim you don't know either. So hold on to your opinion, and I'll keep an open mind that anything could've friggin happened.

[motocicleta]

123. Watch out: having an open mind on this issue will get you flamed

Only psychics and sycophants are welcome to offer their opinion about this whole mess.

Well stated, OMC.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

132. Oh Believe Me, I Know. But Like My Sig Says, I Don't Let Keyboard Bullies

bring me down, for they are weak.

If it's one thing I've got it's a really strong flame-retardant suit.

[Marie26]

318. That's okay.

Sorry if I seemed annoyed; mostly I'm annoyed at TO for this update. It is a strong accusation, but one I feel is the best explanation here. IMO, this story is more than just simple errors, but seems to involve deliberate misrepresentions, as well. But that's just my opinion & I understand why people would want to withold judgment here. Maybe we'll eventually learn what really happened here.

[Nevernose]

71. May12th vs. May17th doesn't mean too much, imo

They could easily have shown Rove an indictment on the 12th and filed it five days later, or the data entry people at the federal courthouse might not have gotten around to entering the information into the computer for five days, also explaining the dating. Perhaps it was a bluff to get Rove to either incriminate himself more or to come clean. There's a lot of very plausible explanations as to why Truthout claimed the 12th vs. the recorded filing on the 17th.

To be fair, I still don't know enough to really take either side in the bigger issue (did Truthout lie, or at least screw up royally?), though I am reading the DU thread you http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1406622">posted above.

[leveymg]

235. Allow for the possibility that the GJ returned the indictment earlier than

it's filing date. My understanding is that a prosecutor can "sit" on an indictment for a period of time before actually filing it with the court.

Anyone want to show us where immediate filing is mandated in the federal rules of criminal procedure? http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule6.htm

[Marie26]

308. Sorry, no

Prosecutors don't "sit on" an indictment after it is returned by the grand jury. The indictment must be announced in open court & signed by the judge. It is then filed immediately by the clerk of courts. Even a sealed indictment is filed, though the defendant isn't named. Motions, orders, anything entered by a judge is filed as soon as it is issued. This is because timing is essential in litigation. Statute of limitations & deadlines start running as soon as a document is filed, barring certain exceptions. Timely filing is especially important for an indictment, because the Fed. "Speedy Trial" statute mandates that a defendant must be tried within 70 days of an indictment.

(2) If the defendant is to be tried upon an indictment, or
information dismissed by a trial court and reinstated following an
appeal, the trial shall commence within seventy days from the date
the action occasioning the trial becomes final.
18 USC 316(d)(2) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts...

If the Def isn't tried during that time, the indictment is dismissed. A speedy trial is a vital constitutional right, w/strict stat. of limitations after indictments are filed. If a Prosecutor decides to "sit on" & postpones filing an indictment for awhile, he is circumventing the statutory deadlines & violating the Def.'s constitutional rights to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. That Prosecutor could be subject to sanctions & reversal on appeal. Fitzgerald has a reputation for up most professionalism, yet he suddenly gets too lazy to timely file the indictment? No. Besides which, the Pros. doesn't decide how to file an indictment; it should be time-stamped by the clerk of courts after the indictment is returned in open court. The filing date is important, & it was not filed on May 12th, as TO claimed.

And that's not even going into the fact that a sealed indictment should've been unsealed the moment it was served on Rove, & should've been titled "US v. sealed", not "Sealed v. Sealed". This doesn't seem to be referring to a sealed indictment, but a sealed hearing or sealed subpoenas. The "sealed v. sealed" case most likely refers to subpoenas & records related to Time's motion to quash in the Libby case. Leopold didn't seem to understand how the legal process works when he wrote this story, & his sources, if any didn't seem to either. Here's the relevant rules of Fed. Crim. Pro.

(6) Sealed Records.

Records, orders, and subpoenas relating to grand-jury proceedings must be kept under seal to the extent and as long as necessary to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of a matter occurring before a grand jury.

- This case number is most likely a sealed subpoena or hearing related to the Libby case.

4) Sealed Indictment.

The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment's existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.

- A Rove indictment, if sealed, should've been unsealed the moment Rove received it. The Speedy Trial law is another reason why indictments must be unsealed as quickly as possible; the prosecutor can't hold a trial until the indictment is unsealed.

(f) Indictment and Return.

A grand jury may indict only if at least 12 jurors concur. The grand jury -- or its foreperson or deputy foreperson -- must return the indictment to a magistrate judge in open court.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/solicit.php?http_referer=/rules/frcrmp/Rule6.html

An indictment doesn't disappear, & AFAIK it can't be "hidden" until the prosecutor decides to someday file it. It's entered in open court, w/the signature of the presiding judge, & filed w/the court records. Sometimes, indictments are sealed, but even those indictments receive a date of filing. Basically, almost any document filed w/the courts receives a time stamp that reflects the date it was received/ruled upon by the judicial system. There's just no way I can see that the court would somehow fail to file this explosive, important indictment when it was returned.
And BTW, when I checked the criminal court docket for May 12th, there was nothing at all to indicate that Rove was indicted on that date - no US v. Rove, no missing sealed cases, nothing.

http://www.uscourts.gov/journalistguide/district_crimin... - Journalist's Guide to the Fed. Ct. System.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts... - Speedy Trial Statute

[leveymg]

330. You couldn't find anything that shows that an indictment must be filed the

same day it's voted by a GJ. Look at the wording of the Speedy Trial Act you cited:

the trial shall commence within seventy days from the date
the action occasioning the trial becomes final.
18 USC 316(d)(2) - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/parts ...

Betya if you look in case law, you'll find the definition of "becomes final" isn't the date of GJ vote, it's the date the prosecutor files the indictment with the Court.

While I could find nothing dispositive on this point through a short Google search, I came across some commentary that seems to indicate that the 70-day Speedy Trial Act guarantee is not binding where there is no prejudice to the defendent, and that the defense may actually agree to a delay. See, http://www.vlex.us/constitution/Constitution-of-the-United-States-Annotated/Sixth-amendment-Rights-of-Accused-in-Criminal-Prosecutions/2100-295796,01.html

Anyway, a five day delay (May 12-17) isn't seventy.

Further, indictments may remain sealed longer than the 70-day period. See, Posted by TalkLeft
May 24, 2006 04:43 PM

Re: DiSalvo, Case is US v. DiSalvo, 34 F.3d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1994) It's a very long opinion, but the sealing stuff starts in headnote 10 (lexis version)

Basically, two were indicted in mob case, one of them, Simone was a lawyer. Both get convicted. The codefendant, DiSalvo appeals and says the indictment was improperly sealed as to him.

The indictment had been sealed not because they were flight risks, but to avoid publicity and because the investigation was ongoing. Simone had been in another trial when the indictment came down and they didn't want to announce it until his trial was over, which was expected to last four months. Simeone was told of the indictment and agreed with the decision to seal it.

I'm not saying this case is similar to Rove's just that if the Government wanted the indictment sealed the court can grant the motion for any number of reasons, including the high media interest in the case and an ongoing investigation. And even though sealed, the government can request an exception to tell the defendant.

[Senator]

22. So ... Koward Karl Kracked like a Kiddie

True to character anyway.

He should be more scared of Dick than Fitz.

Dick don't dance.

--

[Imajika]

23. Oh my...

...how embarassing....

"Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument. From all indications, our reports, first on May 13 that Rove had been indicted, and then on June 12 when we published case number '06 cr 128,' forced Rove and Luskin back to the table with Fitzgerald, not once but twice."

Now Truthout was instrumental in getting Karl Rove to finger Cheney - not once, but twice? Ummm, ya, sure guys. So Truthout not only isn't embarassed by their monumental blunder in hiring a loser like Leopold and reporting an obvious BS story, they almost seem to claim they helped Fitzgerald with cracking Rove. By God, they're hero's I tell ya!

What a complete joke.

This simply has become one of the saddest journalistic meltdowns I've ever witnessed.

[DisgustedTX]

28. The "MAGIC MEN" are desperate and it is showing

:rofl:

[Divernan]

31. A Jon Lovitz moment - We're heros -yeahhh, that's the ticket!

nt

[Tin Man]

38. Jon Lovitz hasn't been seen much lately, maybe he's ghostwriting for TO...

:rofl:

[Catherine Vincent]

26. ...

:-)

[jsamuel]

29. So, they are saying that Rove has been indicted???

[IsIt1984Yet]

33. Cliff's notes® version: Rove was indicted. We're "tools". n/t

[Igel]

133. That is the way of putting that came to mind, yes. n/t

[mike_c]

32. well, that was interesting-- not particularly enlightening...

...but one day Fitzgerald will write his memoirs or someone will write the definitive legal history of this matter and TO will either be revealed as unfairly used or as journalistic chumps. One thing worth adding to the debate-- Marc Ash has little to gain by sticking to his guns on this story, yet he is trying really hard to do just that. I believe that he really believes there is considerable substance to the story-- the only alternative is that TO is utterly making stuff up out of thin air, and at this point, what could they possibly gain by continuing to lie? Either someone is working overtime to destroy someone else's credibility-- and the permutations are pretty convoluted-- or this whole episode is an amazing convergence of fuck-ups-- the sort of haplessness for which prizes ought to be awarded.

[IsIt1984Yet]

34. Colossally sloppy reporting at best. They attributed a blog post to AP

today: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1460770#1460891

[Divernan]

37. Must have been one of their "junior" editors.

Who ARE all these editors Ash refers to? There's "all the senior editors". That implies there are also junior editors. Any of these people have prior editing experience? degrees in journalism?

On edit: Realizing that I have read nothing about Marc Ash's qualifications, I tried googling for his bio.
Came up with a link to
http://faithfulprogressive.blogspot.com
This blog was basically apologizing to its' readers for having passed along the Truthout story claiming Rove had been indicted. In passing, it refers to Ash as a former advertising man and fasion photographer in California. Is there anymore to the guy than that?

"The reports appeared on the liberal Web site Truthout.org, run by Marc Ash, a former advertising man and fashion photographer in California. Jason Leopold, the author of the stories, directed inquiries to Ash, who says that "we stand by the story. We have multiple points of independent confirmation of what we originally reported. Our problem is, the prosecutor's office is under no obligation to go public."

"Leopold acknowledges in a new book, "News Junkie," that he is a past liar, convicted felon and former alcoholic and cocaine addict. An earlier version of the book was canceled by publisher Rowman & Littlefield last year.
posted by Faithful Progressive at 12:55 PM 2 comments

[Tin Man]

44. It's actually a typo

...it's supposed to read Señor editor.

Yet another example of Señor asleep at the wheel again...

[deaniac21]

198. Howie Kurtz says Ash is a former fashion photographer

from California. I think it was his May 22, 2006 column.

[motocicleta]

131. Another excellent post

mike_c explains how bad the situation may be without calling other DUers idiots, and keeps an open mind. Plus, he's funny. Commendable.

[Karmakaze]

40. TruthOut may have just KILLED the Plame Investigation!!!!

Read this carefully:

Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument. From all indications, our reports, first on May 13 that Rove had been indicted, and then on June 12 when we published case number "06 cr 128," forced Rove and Luskin back to the table with Fitzgerald, not once but twice. They apparently sought to avoid public disclosure and were prepared to do what they had to do to avoid it.

So TO are suggesting that they were USED by the Fitzgerald team to put pressure on Rove. Think about that - they are saying that Fitzgerald or someone in the investigation not only leaked information about proceedings before the Grand Jury (illegal) but also leaked information about a sealed indictment (also illegal).

They have also semi-outed their sources. After all, it wouldn't be anyone in the Rove camp that would use them to put pressure on Rove, so it is clear the sources aren't in Rove's camp otherwise TO couldn't seriously claim they were working against Rove. There goes the conspiracy theory that Rove set them up!

In any case, it may or may not be true, but by SAYING it, TO has just put the investigation in serious jeopardy. Now the Bush camp can claim that Fitzgerald is illegally leaking information (to partisan websites no less) in an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Bye bye investigation.

Good one TO! Even if it is true, you may have just fucked it up for everyone!!!

[IsIt1984Yet]

45. Huh.

Interesting.

[Tin Man]

52. Maybe Jason Leopold will be invited to stay in the 'Judy Miller suite'

...at the Alexandria Detention Center. How long will it take to for JL to crack and reveal his sources???

[H2O Man]

53. Tortured logic there. n/t

[Karmakaze]

59. Are you kidding???

Ok lets go thru this nice and slowly.

TO claims they were used to put pressure on Rove: "Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument." Agreed?

People in the Rove camp would not leak information in an attempt to put pressure on Rove. Agreed?

Leaking information about proceedings before the Grand Jury is illegal. Agreed?

Leaking information about SEALED indictments is illegal, Agreed?

If the prosecution is breaking the law in an attempt to put pressure on a witness, that would be illegal. Agreed?

If the Bush camp can claim that Fitzgerald is breaking the law in his investigation, they can justify shutting down the investigation. Agreed?

So where is the tortured logic? Or is it simply that you will give TO a pass, no matter what they do, even if it ruins the the chance for the investigation to succeed?

Also I would just like to remind everyone - You can't blame Rove anymore. It wasnt some scheme to get TO.

[motocicleta]

135. Perhaps there may be others with knowledge of the

proceedings of the grand jury beyond the Rove camp and the prosecution.

[Karmakaze]

158. Someone who was seeking to put pressure on Rove?

Maybe it was, but that does not matter.

Do you think Rove will care? Do you think the corporate media will care? All they have to do is say that the only viable explanation for what TO wrote is that someone in the Fitzgerald camp leaked the info to put pressure on Rove.

People don't seem to be grasping what I am getting at here - Im not saying whether it is true or false, I am saying that it can be used by Bush and Rove to damage Fitzgerald OR the alternative media, regardless of whether it is true or not. That claim is the most stupid thing TO has written on this whole subject.

It seems in an attempt to paint themselves as some kind of heroes, they have actually managed to cast themselves as the villans. Rove couldn't have planned it better himself.

[IndianaGreen]

55. Somebody is eating pot brownies at TO

The more they try to justify the unjustifiable, the more they become like a grocery store tabloid.

[Karmakaze]

61. And now they are...

risking the investigation to save their own hides. Nice one.

Who's side are they on, anyway?

[femrap]

104. At this point, all I want are some of

those pot brownies.

I think rove is giving up cheney, IMHO.

[IndianaGreen]

110. The only one that can flip on Cheney is Libby

and he won't do that because he is an ideologue and because he probably has been promised a pardon by Cheney.

Put Libby in the same cell as Big Bubba Henry, and he just might flip.

[femrap]

113. You don't know that.

Don't tell me that Rove didn't know what was going with the Lies that led to war.

[Old and In the Way]

116. Or, someone on the Fitz team may have set up the whole fiasco.

Would anyone be surprised if someone working in Fitzgerald's team is really carrying water for the administration? Maybe they wanted to compromise the whole investigation and they found a willing, if naive, outlet. If this story goes up in flames, I do hope TO fingers the person. TO may want to start investigating their source's background......

[Karmakaze]

130. Also possible if not probable...

The point is this claim has just upped the ante on this whole story. Until now it was just about accurate reporting. Now it is also about whether or not Fitzgerald or someone in his team broke the law. Rove is probably laughing his ass off right now.

[OzarkDem]

252. Don't think so

That's pretty much of a stretch. Ken Starr leaked information from his investigations of the Clintons like crazy and it never slowed him down.

[Pithy Cherub]

41. It's what isn't being said that is really interesting.

Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is using the full command of his powers to make sure Rove knows that leaks will strictly be Rover's province. Rove knows he's on a very short leash. Fitzgerald is an honest broker who was honor bound to ascertain whether getting more of the truth was worth the sacrifice of whatever Rove told the GJ. There is so much more to this than what any of us can see or know and that is now painfully clear at TO as well. Looking forward to more information!

:popcorn:

[Imajika]

72. Huh?

"Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is using the full command of his powers to make sure Rove knows that leaks will strictly be Rover's province."

What does this mean exactly?

It sounded to me as if Truthout was saying it was Fitz's office that was orchestrating these leaks in an attempt to get Rove to crack. Truthout seems to be saying they were essentially used by the Special Council's office in a careful, deliberate effort to get Rove to squeal on Cheney. So in effect, Truthout has somehow become an unwitting hero in the fight against the evil Bush Administration.

So if you buy this latest blather from Truthout - Leopold isn't a sloppy reporter with a crap track record who's written a completely bogus story, instead he's a HERO!

And some people here continue to believe this? Ugh.

Well, stay tuned, another hilarious installment to come on June 21st.

[Karmakaze]

75. How do you think Bush will respond to such a claim?

It seems to me that TruthOut has put the investigation in grave jeopardy. If the Bush cabal decide to shut down Fitzgerald, they can point at this claim by TO and say they are doing it becuase Fitzgerald has turned it into a partisan witch hunt and is breaking the law to do it.

Good job TO, Rove couldnt have planned it better himself.

[Imajika]

86. Oh I understand your point...

What your saying is interesting and well thought out.

My underlying problem with all of this is, I don't believe there are any real sources to begin with. Oh Leopold maybe has someone feeding his imagination - maybe some intern somewhere in the building Fitzgerald works in, or a DHL delivery guy that drops packages at the office of someone who has a sister at Patton Boggs, or perhaps the Pizza Delivery kid that delivers pies to Fitz's neighbors down the block. I simply do not believe anyone in Fitz's office is leaking anything to the likes of Justin Leopold. I fundamentally don't believe he has real sources in a position to know anything significant and with any degree of accuracy. I think this story is basically a pack of lies piled on lies.

But if what Truthout were saying was actually true, yeah, you might be making some good points. I just don't believe anything about the Leopold story.

[Karmakaze]

94. I agree - the whole lot is bullshit...

But that won't stop the Bush cabal from using this claim to have the whole thing shut down.

If he does use this as an excuse, what are we on the left supposed to say? That TruthOut, the highly respected, highly trusted left leaning news source LIED? Even if we PROVE that, then we have just killed TO and possibly the whole movment to non mainstream media sources. If we fail to prove it, we can't say that Bush would not be within his right to shut down an investigation that has seemingly turned into a partisan witch hunt.

Check and Mate. Either way, we are screwed, and it is TO's fault. Even if this was true they should have just shut their mouths. But if its not true they have done something far worse than simply lying about a story - they may have just destroyed our chances of seeing justice be done.

If I can see this, you can be damned sure Rove can see it.

[femrap]

106. Oh pleeeeez....TO, the cause of

the investigation ending???? Even Joe Wilson is laughing at that one.

[Karmakaze]

109. Well they just claimed Fitzgerald's camp broke the law.

You don't think Rove will use that?

[femrap]

114. Did they say that someone on the staff of the

Special Prosecutor gave them information?

[Karmakaze]

126. The implied it.

They said they were used as an "instrument" to put pressure on Rove to cooperate. Who else but Fitzgerald or his staff would be in a position to do that?

[femrap]

146. You're worse than Jason. nt

[Karmakaze]

157. Oh really?

You don't understand English? It's a pretty straight forward statement. They said they were used as a tool to put pressure on Rove. Who else could they be talking about?

You don't think they meant they were used by the Vatican do you? Maybe it was the Greys from Alpha Centauri?

Or maybe, just maybe, a reasonable person would see that they meant they were used by someone in the investigation. Of course I'm not trying to cover up TO's mistakes regardless of the cost, so maybe I just see things differently.

[femrap]

243. you have no idea of what is going on....NONE.

So take your implications and inferences and go bother someone else. Why don't you save your fingers for more important things....? Better yet...I heard about a tattoo parlor that can remove ribs as well....that would keep you busy.

I don't need to read your crap...ignored. Go play your bully shit somewhere else.

[Name removed]

268. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Recursion]

320. There are plenty of other options

They said they were used as a tool to put pressure on Rove. Who else could they be talking about?

Well, let's grant their claims for the sake of argument; there are several options besides Fitz's team:

A) Somebody in Rove's inner circle who wanted KR to plead because he thought KR would lose a trial
B) Somebody in an anti-Cheney faction of *'s inner circle who wanted KR to plead and cooperate against Cheney
C) A grand juror (hey, it's at least possible)
D) A MSM reporter who wants to be in a position to retroactively scoop once this breaks ("Yeah, I was TO's source...")
E) Wilson

[Karmakaze]

340. Simple answers...

A) Somebody in Rove's inner circle who wanted KR to plead because he thought KR would lose a trial

And in so doing was willing to break the law and risk punishment for both himself and possibly Rove? Unlikely.

B) Somebody in an anti-Cheney faction of *'s inner circle who wanted KR to plead and cooperate against Cheney

And how exactly did they find out? Remember it was a sealed indictment - the only people to know would be Fitzgerald and his team, Rove and his team, and the courts. Any one of those telling an outsider would have broken the law in doing so. Why risk it?

C) A grand juror (hey, it's at least possible)

Once again risking breaking the law so that TO can get a scoop? Not bloody likely. Not to mention that anyone with a brain would realise that if they leaked the indictment that it could very well be thrown out by a judge? Why would you risk that if getting Rove was what motivated you?

D) A MSM reporter who wants to be in a position to retroactively scoop once this breaks ("Yeah, I was TO's source...")

Once again, who told that reporter? It would have to have been someone who broke the law by doing so.

E) Wilson

And again, who told him?

The fact is, you can't say that Rove's team were afraid of publicity and at the same time generated the only publicity about it. Next would be the fact that only very few people would have legally known what was going on and they would have had to break the law to tell anyone.

So it comes down to this - someone broke the law, or it didn't happen, period. TO have sure made it look like someone broke the law, and by claiming to have been "used" as an "instrument" to pressure Rove, then it is only reasonable to assume it was Fitzgerald's camp. If so, It sure makes a good excuse for Bush to shut him down.

[Laurab]

293. It's a bit of a stretch I'd say......

Not the part about Joe Wilson, I'm laughing, too. TO just went from liars to investigation DESTROYERS! :crazy: It is a bit funny.....


I too think he gave Cheney up - it's the only thing that makes sense to me. And if, in fact he did, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

[Karmakaze]

343. I guess critical thinking is a minus when it comes to believing TO.

Maybe if I spell it out nice and slow.

Bush would like to see the Plame Investigation go away (in fact he is already trying to claim it is over)

For Bush to shut it down however, he would need an excuse that people can buy.

If the investigation was leaking in order to pressure a witness, then it would be breaking the law.

Bush could say "The leak investigation has been turned into a farce by people willing to break the law by leaking in order to put pressure on innocent men - thus I am shutting it down."

Now you and I would not buy that, but with the help of the media, I am positive that bush could get away with it.

But keep laughing, becuase I don't think you will be laughing very much if the above comes to pass. If it does, then TO would be solely to blame.

[Imajika]

108. Again, you make good points...

...it's not that I'm disputing your logic, it's just that I kinda think maybe even the Bush Administration couldn't use a story from someone held in such low regard in the jounalistic community as Jason Leopold to torpedo anything Fitz is actually doing.

I mean, this story almost seems to have become something of a running joke on blogs both left, right and center. I don't think most people with any reputation to protect believe Leopold has any actual sources in a position to know squat, so Truthout's latest assertions which effectively announces that their source(s) are somehow connected to Fitz's office probably aren't given much weight by anyone at all. I mean, a very professional special council's office wants to leak information to pressure Rove into signing against Cheney - and they chose Truthout's Jason Leopold as their unwitting hero? I just think it's perhaps so ridiculous that no one connected to the case, either now or in the future, would even entertain the notion.

You make good points though. I'm not trying to argue with your logic.

[Karmakaze]

111. I understand your point...

I just think you are giving the mainstream media too much credit.

Sure, yesterday they would have said TO was full of shit. But today, if it helps Bush, they will say that TO is unimpeachable. Hell they do it for every other bullshit talking point Rove comes up with, so why not this?

And if the media jump on board, how are the average people in the street to know? If they go to TO, they will see them, and all their supporters, making exactly that claim. How could we then turn around and claim otherwise and be believed? "Hey we lied to you then, but we aren't lying to you now!"

No matter what happens, this can't turn out good.

[5X]

93. Yeah, thats it, it is all Fitz's fault. n/t

[DisgustedTX]

54. WE'RE ALL IN!

Too bad for 'leave the'TRUTHOUT - the unsubstantiated bluff will never pan out.

[IndianaGreen]

60. "I have no comment."

This is the most idiotic self-patronizing defense by Truth Out I have ever seen. The "I have no comment" has consistently been the response given by Fitzgerald's office to any reporter asking about the case. Why is TO trying to make it sound like something significant is beyond me!

[IsIt1984Yet]

62. That occured to me as well. No SHIT, they had "no comment"?!?!

[Crabby Appleton]

64. The Special Prosecuter's and his office

has repeatedly stated (and it has been posted on DU at least a few times) that they will have no comment on any person by name except to announce an indictment of that person. "no comment" means nothing.

[Maven]

79. Exactly. See marie's post above.

This is the same strategy that marie identified upthread of putting two ideas together that are unrelated and letting people draw the conclusion you want without actually saying it.

Likewise, look at this:

That leaves the most important question: If our sources maintain that a grand jury has returned an indictment - and we have pointed to a criminal case number that we are told corresponds to it - then how is it possible that Patrick Fitzgerald is reported to have said that 'he does not anticipate seeking charges against Rove at this time?'

Now they're claiming out of the blue that they were "told" that the case number they came up with corresponds to an indictment? By whom? Marc Ash's mommy?

This is more insulting gibberish to save their asses, and now I think the comparison to "Shattered Glass" is really apt.

[IndianaGreen]

91. I saw that film about Stephen Glass's fall from grace

Glass was brilliantly played by Hayden Christensen, Star Wars episodes 2 & 3's Darth Vader. Truth Out needs to do what The New Republic did, and come out clean!

He handed us fiction after fiction, and we printed them all as fact. Just because we found him entertaining.

-- Charles Lane

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass

[Crabby Appleton]

117. we either charge someone or we don't talk about them

MR. FITZGERALD: "All I can say is the same answer I gave before. If you ask me any name, I'm not going to comment on anyone named because we either charge someone or we don't talk about them. And don't read answer in the context of the name you gave me."

Fitz has said many times.

[Snivi Yllom]

149. "I have no comment" (but I wish you idiots would give it a rest)

just imagining what the Fitz rep was thinking.....

[motocicleta]

167. You must have a wonderful imagination.

I imagine that it is one of your strongest points.

[arwalden]

184. All They Have Is A Pair Of Two's...

<< Why is TO trying to make it sound like something significant is beyond me! >>

... and they're betting like they have a full house.

[ClintonTyree]

309. They went "all in" when they reported the story.......

they have to continue the bluff now, you never fold after you go "all in". They have to follow the bluff all the way to the end of the game. TO got their dicks caught in a BIG wringer here. Leopold led them up shit's creek and every TO "senior" editor was paddling right along with him. They've lost any credibility they ever had. Stick a fork in them, TO is done.

[Marie26]

236. As if it proves something

I guess they've got nothing else. Maybe I'll call & ask Fitzgerald's office if he's indicted Paris Hilton. The "no comment" will show it's true!

[Catherine Vincent]

240. Marie, you'll get this answer from Fitz:

"No. You did confuse me."

This was the answer he gave from the last news conference when some idiot reporter asked if Harriet Miers withdrawl (USSC nomination) had anything to do with the timing of Libby's indictment.

[Marie26]

267. Honestly,

I bet it'd be "no comment". They've probably been told to say "no comment" to all the silly questions reporters call them with. The Harriet Miers question during his press conference was totally off the wall & had nothing to do w/his investigation. A Paris Hilton indictment question would be relevant, if a little odd. And really, if she isn't indicted, she should be. Maybe I'll call & check. ;) I'm sure Fitzgerald's office has absolutely nothing better to do.

[salvorhardin]

66. "We're heros! Heros I tell ya!" -- Truthout Executive Director Mark Ash

Magic 8 Ball says... "Reply hazy. Try again."

[democrank]

67. I`m keeping an open mind

on this matter. Perhaps we will learn more as time goes by.

[johnnie]

73. I'm with you on that one

This has become a pissing contest here. It has blown well over the original story and has become a clash of egos.

[robinlynne]

81. I agree. I do not udnerstand the anger at TO going on here.

We will know at soem point. Right now we just don't know.

[wordpix2]

85. me, neither. Freeper trolls around, maybe?

[IsIt1984Yet]

88. Trolls? In this thread? Where?

They're so cute! I have a little Packers one... like this, except the Packers, not the Bears:

[robinlynne]

89. Thanks. You made me laugh. A rarity nowadays.... nt

[Karmakaze]

101. Yeah everyone that wants to see...

the left leaning media be held to the same rules as the mainstream media is a Freeper. Being angry about being lied to, is the act of a Freeper.

Or maybe claiming it is freepers is just a cop out?

[benburch]

118. I'd bet some real money on it. nt

[IsIt1984Yet]

120. When I was a kid, I wanted to collect them ALL.

Like this:


Arrrgh, look, it's a pirate troll!!

[OzarkDem]

280. How's this?

A GOP poster being paid minimum wage to disrupt discussion on DU? School's out, I guess its as good a way to earn money as any.

Wonder why these GOP folks don't just go enlist instead?

[IsIt1984Yet]

287. Are you accusing me or others? Spit it out.

[Kurovski]

353. It occured to me that in thirty years

the Olson twins will look just like those trolls.

[IsIt1984Yet]

137. Hee, here's one on skates! :)

[JuniperLea]

196. Me too... interesting development

I told one of them I work for a PR firm and I know spin when I see it... the next day someone called our office and asked if it was a PR firm... knowing the internet, IP address tracking tricks available to the masses, I could only assume someone tracked me. I got a big laugh out of it when the gal who answered the phone filled me in. We've never, ever had a call with that question before. And what would the point be except that my statement had been linked in other like threads and someone was out to get me. Just funny:)

[IsIt1984Yet]

218. I bet it was one of the astronaut trolls that called your office.

They're feisty. I bet they'd lend you a foil-like hat, too.

[Name removed]

281. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IsIt1984Yet]

286. How much is WHO paying me for WHAT?

[Laurab]

295. I would, too. nt

[Karmakaze]

96. Im angry because TO just handed Bush his excuse to shut it down...

By claiming that Fitzgerald or someone in the investigation used them to put pressure on Rove, TO has handed the Bush cabal the excuse to shut down the investigation on a silver platter.

If Bush uses it, then all we can do is try and prove TO lied - not a very good outcome. Either that or accept that Fitzgerald's investigation broke the law in a seemingly partisan way in order to put pressure on a witness - an even worse outcome.

If you are not angry at TO over this, then you really need to rethink this whole issue.

[Catrina]

163. Where did you get that? I can think of other sources that might have

given them the information ~ you've said several times that TO said 'Fitz or someone in his office' is the source. That is false. I don't see that anywhere in the article.

People are really getting carried away here ~

All I see is that TO is sticking to their story.

As for what Luskin said, you need to read his words (in his official statement) very carefully. He did NOT say there was no indictment, btw. He said the prosecutor doesn't anticipate filing charges. You can have an indictment, and decide not to file charges. Which may be why Luskin used the word 'charges' rather than 'indictment'.

When a person has been a subject of an investigation and is cleared, the GJ or the prosecutor usually says so. Fitzgerald has NOT cleared Rove.

There could be one of two reasons for that.

1) Either Fitz never asked the GJ to indict him in which case Fitzgerald ought to make a public statement so that people don't go on suspecting that Rove was a target. Or ...

2) The GJ did indict Rove but something caused Fitz not to file CHARGES at this time.


The GJ in the Cynthia McKinney case made it plain there was no indictment. In other cases where someone was before the GJ, the same thing happens. But here, there is nothing to say that Rove has been cleared. If I were Rove and had NOT been indicted, I would be DEMANDING that prosecutor let the world know that I was never a target of this investigation.

Why hasn't Rove done that? He's certainly not shy when he wants something!

[Karmakaze]

187. Whjo else would use TO as a tool to put pressure on Rove to cooperate?

The Vatican? Seriously if you refuse to see they they clearly implied that it came from Fitzgeralds office then you can't be helped.

Hell, even TO supporters are saying that!

More importantly, if you actually read my posts, you would see that it does not matter what the truth is, what matters is that Rove can point to that claim and say that TO said that Fitzgerald or someone in his office leaked information for the express purpose of putting pressure on a witness.

That is a MAJOR breach, and is more than enough to have Fitzgerald fired. Remember with the corporate media being the lap dogs they are, only the best possible spin for Bush and Rove will get any air time. Do you think it will be "Maybe it was someone else and TO just worded it badly?" - I don't think so.

This is politics, and in politics the truth often matters far less than the perception, and Rove can control the perception better than anyone right now.

[rpannier]

185. Part of the anger comes from the condescending attitude toward

the skeptics of their original story here at DU.
I read in one post that Pitt questioned the commitment of skeptics and had criticized Skinner.
If these allegations are true...that's part of where it's coming from (IMO).
I think another part of the anger comes from some people who truely believed the story and then it fell through.
I can't identify who comes from which camp.

[Divernan]

201. Pitt's comments were so hostile, insulting & laced w/obscenities

that they were not only deleted by the admins, but when anyone tries to repost them to prove how awful they were, those posts are also deleted. I've read some of his prior explosions, and they paled in comparison.

[Laurab]

296. I think you're mistaken.

I believe he deleted his comments himself, after thinking better of them. However, someone was able to CCP them, and post them on other websites, and on here, over and over. I'm glad I'm not well known, is all I can say because I've deleted posts of my own, and then, they're GONE, as they should be.

I wonder why that is...

[Divernan]

300. In vino veritas - we all learned what he really thought of anyone daring

to criticize or question his judgment

[Laurab]

307. Oh I disagree completely

since, as so many people posted, he'd been out for a few drinks that night. He also is a bit hot-headed sometimes, and he'd probably be the first to admit it.

He's also one of the few people I've EVER seen make apologies, and admit when he was wrong, unlike so many who are so quick to attack and never apologize when they cross that line. And I've seen a LOT of people cross that line, but I guess it's okay when they're bashing him, or whoever else is the bashee of the day. I believe one should be able to delete a post and have it be gone. What was done to him was unfair, and I'm not so sure other people would like it if it were done to them.

There's an old saying "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones", which I think some of the "perfect" people on here should keep in mind.

[ClintonTyree]

315. Why are you apologizing for Pitt's behavior?

"as so many people posted, he'd been out for a few drinks", "He also is a bit hot-headed sometimes, and he'd probably be the first to admit it". Probably? The things Will wrote were extremely hostile not only to ordinary DUers but to the very people who gave Pitt a platform to hone his skills over the years as well: Skinner, Elad and Earl G. Will was always the quasi-celebrity here at DU and had no problem accepting the fawning accolades of it's members but when confronted on a subject of great importance his true feelings along with his fangs were bared for all to see. It wasn't a pretty sight.
"Perfect" people here at DU? I never seen anyone who displays those characteristics here at DU, we're all human but I HAVE seen a once respected member completely disgrace and humiliate himself. How many people do you know at DU that have burned their bridges more thoroughly than Mr. Pitt? Don't make excuses for Pitt, he knew exactly what he was saying.

[Laurab]

323. I think a better question would be "why are you attacking him"?

But, I'll answer anyway. Because he should be allowed to delete a post, just like the rest of us are, that's the main reason. The other reason is that quite a few of the attacks on him were WORSE than what he originally posted (and which he subsequently DELETED on his own). His true feelings? I think not. When I used to drink, what I said and wrote were certainly not my true feelings.

Had it not been for the "anti-Pitt's", that post would not have been seen by more than a couple of people. Burn his bridges? I read his apology, I read that he'd apologized to Skinner, and basically I've seen the worst of many people who don't like him for one reason or another, just enjoying a free-for-all in attacking him, and not one of them has apologized for their over-the-top attacks to my knowledge.

I admire Will Pitt's writing. It's obvious to me he has a big heart, as well as a temper, and apparently, he is held to MUCH higher standards than anyone else here, if, as you say, he has "burned his bridges".

It would appear the anti-Pitt crusade was successful in chasing him away, as the anti LiveoakTx was successful in chasing her away (and those quick Can o Fun videos we used to enjoy), because of a few people's personal feelings about them, or their delight in writing attack posts. I don't know, I can't figure it out. I'm not sure who else has been chased away, but I'm sure some have. I've never seen anything quite so ugly as the attacks on Will Pitt, and they weren't just because of an idiotic post he posted and deleted. I've seen people add 300+ posts to their post count, just attacking him, Jason and Truthout.

I don't know Will personally, but I always looked forward to his posts, and I figured out a long time ago that he was somewhat hot tempered, liked to drink a bit, and the two don't really mix. I've also seen other people post under the same circumstances. Big fucking deal. He DELETED the post. Get over it.

DU is not the same without Will. I miss his thought-provoking, informative posts. I can make excuses for whomever I'd like, thank you, and there's no need to respond as I'm adding another name to my ever-growing brand new ignore list.

[ClintonTyree]

334. Why an I attacking HIM?

Show me where I "attacked" him. I merely stated the facts as they are. There's nothing in my post that can be construed as an attack, well maybe only to the staunchest Pittophile. Now you're ignoring me? :rofl: I can't hear you! I don't like what you're saying so I'm going to ignore you! Grow up! :eyes:

I attacked NO ONE! Will Pitt attacked US! I merely pointed out that Mr. Pitt had no problem when his legions of adoring fans slobbered all over themselves reading his every word, but when faced with adversity he ATTACKED DU's members and it's creators.

Can you say, "enabler"? Because that's what you're doing, enabling Will's troubling behavior. If he has a problem with alcohol then he should seek help but apologizing for his behavior helps neither Will or anyone at DU.

Get a life. Running away from adversity is typical of people with substance abuse problems. You say you, "used to drink" and that what you, "said and wrote were certainly not my true feelings". I beg to differ. I've found that people who drink to excess show their true selves ONLY when they're intoxicated, that they don't have the courage to say those things in a sober state. They're trying to be civil when sober, but when alcohol loosens their inhibitions......look out!

Of course, you're not reading this anyway, I'm on your, "ever growing brand new ignore list". And WHAT does that say about YOU? :eyes: Another "fair weather" DUer that refuses to listen to someone else's opinion if it conflicts with your own. I'm crushed to the quick that you've put me in "ignore". :rofl:

[Jazz2006]

326. I think you're mistaken.

He did self-delete at least one post, that's true (the one slagging Skinner), although it had already been replicated on Kos by the time he did so.

But the mods deleted other abusive posts he wrote and at least one, if not more, entire threads of his on which he continued his verbal abuse of other DUers.

[Karmakaze]

341. Anyone else...

would have been tombstoned on the spot for the Skinner post, let alone all the other posts.

[DemReadingDU]

84. I'm with both of you...

too much speculation, too many theories. Eventually, Fitz will get it sorted out. This investigation has been going on for months, years now. I have patience to wait longer.

[Karmakaze]

102. Maybe not now...

TO just handed Bush his excuse to shut down the investigation.

[IndianaGreen]

95. It's called DENIAL

Fact: Rove was not indicted.

Fact: Jason Leopold's reporting on the "Rove indictment" was dead wrong and way off the mark.

[Igel]

140. I'm keeping an open mind.

I don't understand the anger, but I'm beginning to get into the mockery.

They've gone from claimer insider knowledge of one indictment to having super-duper inside knowledge of the Master Plan; moreover, they were an Instrument of the Divine in furthering the Plan.

I'm just concerned that while I'm keeping my mind open some furry little creature doesn't crawl inside, make a nest, and bear its young, that all.

[sellitman]

232. Democrank ...I agree

Nobody here knows enough to be flaming TO yet.

Besides I will still look at a sites over all track record and TO has been a wonderful source for news online for years.

[Generator]

76. Rove better have flipped or Fitz has flipped

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,640186857,00.html

Legal scholar Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who has closely followed the case, said he was surprised by the move.
"The decision not to indict Rove only reflects the view that Scooter Libby is the designated defendant in this scandal," Turley said.
And Turley, who has represented clients in cases prosecuted by Fitzgerald's office in Chicago, said, "This is not an investigation that seems in character for Fitzgerald."
"His office tends to indict everyone and let God sort them out," Turley said. "And Rove was given so many opportunities to correct his testimony. It seemed like there was a virtual turnstile on the grand jury door. I've never seen Fitzgerald give a witness so much time to work his way out of a criminal charge."

[motocicleta]

138. scary stuff

I hope to somebody's god (I'm an agnostic, I don't really know what I believe in) that Fitz has all the integrity we used to think he had.

[Kahuna]

77. Oh brother..

:boring:

[Clarkie1]

90. Truthout: The National Enquirerer for Political Junkies.

There will always be a loyal few who will believe anything.

[Mojorabbit]

115. I don't believe everything

but my gut tells me there is something going on here underneath the radar. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I cannot believe the viciousness of people here. This will spawn a gazillion posts and important posts, activism posts will drown and never be noticed.

[Igel]

147. It's the same way with football and

mowing the yard.

The spectator sport, for some, is far preferable to sweaty work.

This is a spectator sport.

Go TEAM! Yeah! (uh ... who's playing?)

[motocicleta]

139. All I have to say is: H2O Man isn't rushing to judgment

No way in hell I will, then.

[Riga Marole]

97. Ash is incorrigible ....

I would not put anything past Ash!

[Catrina]

166. Why do you say that? Do you know him personally? Does he have some

kind of record you'd like to share with us? To say 'I would not put anything past someone' usually needs something to back it up. I'll look forward to your reply.

Speaking of libel and/or slander .... :eyes:

[Binka]

182. What Is Going On Here? The Woodwork Is Crawling.....

[Divernan]

192. Searching for ANY background bio on Marc Ash? U know anything?

about him. See my post 37 above. When I googled him for biographical info, all I found were several passing references to him as a California advertising guy/fashion photographer. He's evidently still based in LA. Have you got any info/links re his political history, education, and/or relevant work experience. I don't consider advertising experience (all spin, all the time) to be very reassuring background, and in fact that would explain jumping the gun on a story to get the PR bounce for TO.

[Marie26]

276. Nada

Unless he also moonlights as the wrestler "Mean Marc Ash"? LOL. Too funny. http://www.marcash.com I can't find anything till he appears at TO in 2002 - doesn't seem to have prior journalistic background at other publications.

[Divernan]

302. And if YOU can't find it, I doubt there's anything out there!

Thanks for searching. (I found that "Mean Marc Ash" wrestler too.) Cause you have proved yourself to be one helluva researcher - unlike the "editors" at TO.(The REAL news sources use people called "fact checkers".)

So let's push Wikipedia to research this guy and do a bio on him.

[IndianaGreen]

98. "06 cr 128" is not the numbering convention for federal criminal cases

in the District of Columbia.

Just go to the court's website and see how all the cases, civil and criminal, are numbered:

United States v. I. Lewis Libby
Misc. No. 2006-0123
Memorandum Opinion issued May 26, 2006 by Judge Reggie B. Walton
Order issued May 26, 2006 by Judge Reggie B. Walton



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States v. Lyles
Criminal No. 2003-0544
Order issued May 25, 2006 by Judge John D. Bates

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/district-court-2006.html

On edit:

The court is already passed that number:

1:2006-cr-00127-RWR Judge Roberts
USA vs CURRY

1:2006-cr-00136-HHK Judge Kennedy
USA vs GARCIA

http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/Weekly_Court_Schedule.pdf

[Moochy]

124. Not to quibble

If you were to read that date aloud over the phone,
"1:2006-cr-00127"

You'd elide the dashes, and might even stop saying the "1:20" portion of 1:2006.

Now the last portion, after the cr,you dont say the padded "leading" zeroes.

As one gets used to codes, one's brain tries to express them minimalisticly.
That is, recognizing the important areas where change is likely to happen.

I'd maybe attribute this to sloppy note taking, which gets us back to the original problem with the reportage in the first place. ;-)

[Igel]

151. I'll see your quibble, and raise you an objection.

When I saw the 06-cr-128 or whatevever it was, my first thought was, "Hey, check it out!"

30 seconds later, the magic of Google directed me to the correct site, and it was obvious how the cases had to be correctly listed if you wanted to search for them. The first 5 seconds showed that their case number returned no hits; the next 5 seconds was thinking, Gee--where could I get the information? And the next 20 seconds involved finding the court's website. Nothing dreadfully clever.

Mind you, I'm ABD, but in Slavic linguistics, not Google or anything useful like that, so I claim no special googling abilities. If 30 seconds of work at my decrepit computer allowed me to discover this info, I imagine that 30 seconds of hard labor at the keyboard would have allowed TO to at least once--if only once--refer to the case the way that it would appear in the court's schedule. Perhaps being ABD is necessary for knowing that the quotation marks imply a quote, at least it's likely they imply a quote in this case, but still, somebody there did at least take frosh comp, right? ... And stating the actual file number of the case just once isn't unreasonable a demand?

[Moochy]

156. Quoteable Misquotables

I'm guessing this is the difference between quotes, and air-quotes.

The Blogosphere can't be bothered with so-called reality-based "standards", are you crazy man?
We'll get SCOOPED! Zip! Zoom!! Blogging is done on the Internets man! There's no time for such niceties. :sarcasm:

Nice degree you are working on there by the way. I studied Linguistics in college, and loved it.

[Igel]

174. Yeah, if they'd waited 30 seconds

I'm sure CBS or NBC would have been all over it.

Not.

[Sydnie]

144. Talk Left says that the case did exist as of June 13

"Yes, there has been a sealed case 06cr00128 styled Sealed v. Sealed on the District Court's docket (available through Pacer) since it was filed on May 17. It says "no further information is available" or something like that. It is still sealed, I've checked several times since then. If my handwritten notes are correct, it's the only District Court criminal case filed between May 9 (case 122) and May 18 (case 131) that remains sealed. "

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015081.html

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

148. Yes, filed May 16 or 17, AFTER Leopold's article on May 12.

See the brilliant work of a few DUers in this thread where Leopold's "Sealed vs. Sealed" article was announced: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1406622

[Sydnie]

152. I saw that thread but

I didn't imply that it was a "Rove Case", just added for the poster that I responded to to see that the case did exist.

If you are familiar with Jeralyn at all, you would know that she has said that it is "possible" (not probable) that they showed Rove what was to be but wasn't yet ... a glimpse into the crystal ball of his future so to speak. Jeralyn has also speculated that Fitz could have dismissed it if it did exist to parlay Rove into a credible witness against Libby.

I am not sure exactly what is going on, has gone on, or is about to go on. I am just trying to keep all the ducks in line as the story strolls on.

[Catrina]

169. But the GJ could have handed down the indictment on the 12th, couldn't

they, and it might not have been filed until a few days later?

[theboss]

191. No

Indictments don't sit on someone's desk for five days.

[leveymg]

238. How do you know that? eom

[Catherine Vincent]

241. S/he's the boss.

;-)

[kpete]

105. interesting from TPM

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000941.php

[Divernan]

122. Headline: TO "Trying to Mitigate Hysteria" Over Leopold Stories, Tactics

Definitely very interesting, as "editor Marc Ash" (although TO bills him as Executive Director, which is in no way analagous to being an "editor") insults all the critics of TO and/or anyone calling for TO to admit their error, when Ash says "We are expressly endeavoring to mitigate hysteria." You never expected him to say something like, "We have misled and let down our readers, and are making every effort to assure them that such an eggregious error will not be repeated and we will work hard to earn back their trust." did you? Nah, he's just whining about having to "mitigate hysteria." Here's some paragraphs from the article.

"I spoke with Truthout editor Marc Ash this afternoon. His correspondent Jason Leopold wrote a number of stories involving Karl Rove's legal worries -- that the White House adviser had been indicted, and had informed the president of his pending resignation -- which have become increasingly difficult to reconcile with accounts in mainstream papers that Rove will not be indicted in the Plame affair.

Most recently, Leopold's reporting methods have been called into question by the Washington Post, which yesterday ran a piece questioning whether he had impersonated another journalist while covering Rove's troubles.

"We're suffering from hysteria here," Ash said of the reaction to the mainstream press accounts which appear to contradict Leopold's reporting. "And I don't find that attractive and I don't find it in the best interests of our readers. We are expressly endeavoring to mitigate hysteria," said Ash.

As part of that effort, last Friday Ash posted a statement to Truthout.org. "Obviously there is a major contradiction between our version of the story and what was reported" by other outlets, Ash wrote. Therefore, Truthout is "going to stand down on the Rove matter at this time. We defer instead to the nation's leading publications."

[bigtree]

200. "That story (Jason impersonating Joe Luria) "originated with Mark Corallo"

sources vs. sources

[RB TexLa]

107. Yawn

[Catherine Vincent]

119. Thanks for your input.

[BreakForNews]

121. COINTELPRO - Just another day at the office

(1 Edit for spellfix)

COINTELPRO - Just another day at the office

by Fintan Dunne, BreakForNews.com, 19 June 2006.


I suppose you noted how smoothly the story morphed from being about
Karl Rove, to being about Rove/Leopold, to being about Leopold.

Are you gettng it?

I suppose you might then go on to figure that this has been some
kind of Rovian gambit -designed to confound you. But, to what purpose?

Rove getting off is confounding enough. Why bother?
Maybe to divert you? But from what?

Here's what: 'Plamegate' is a counterintelligence operation.

They promised you Karl Rove's head via Jeff Gannon. It came to nothing.

Kept you buzy though.

Gannon and the Downfall of Rove
http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/04/gannon-and-inevitable-downfall-of-rove.html

They promised you Karl Rove's head via Fitzgerald. Came to nothing.

Kept you buzy though.

So, rather than have you try to figure out where you were 'had', they just
dumped a convenient scapegoat on you a couple of days ahead of the bad news.

Just to keep you buzy some more.

With the hint of a Cheney indictment in the dim future.
Just to keep you buzy some more.

Remember, Pitt was your linkman to Kerry --keeping you sweet during the
'stolen election' thing post-Nov. 2004. It came to nothing.

Just another day at the office.....

Connections:
Judge Reggie Walton <> Sibel Edmonds <> Fitzgerald <> <> Mark Zaid <> Able Danger <>

What follows is my report on this --back on 14th February, 2006



The Rat's Nest of 9/11: Part 2
'Scooter,' Reggie & the Birds of a Feather
URL: http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=454#454

In the CIA Internet Fakes, released 4th August, 2005, we outed
a host of websites willingly gushing out heaps of Intel-designed
9/11 Tabloid Crud. Then, in 9/11 Rats Nest: Part 1 we identified
the people trying so hard to fool you.

Now, let's see how the same crew of CIA Fakes have staged
'PlameGate,' and other pivotal CIA-managed operations.

by Fintan Dunne, BreakForNews.com 14 Feb, 2006

Some of this ground, I have covered before, as you will see if you follow
the key hyperlinks. But developments in the Scooter Libby's 'PlameGate'
case mean that an overview of events is going to be very informative.

It's going to show you how the CIA Fakes are singing dumb on the most
blatant piece of political engineering since... well, since WaterGate!

The CIA Fakes are careful never to clue you in to the really key 'Ops.'
God forbid you should figure out what is really going on. And it doesn't
take the wisdom of Solomon to discern it. As you will see.

Speaking of Solomon, and as a good starting point, consider this article
from Norman Solomon on the usually, rather unsurprising AlterNet.

Can you read between these lines? This is about as close as anyone
besides yours truly has come to outing Judith Miller as a CIA agent.

Here's goes Norman Solomon, sailing as close to the wind as the
mainstream allows, in this commentary on PlameGate:

Quote:
Judith Miller, the Fourth Estate and the Warfare State
By Norman Solomon, AlterNet. October 17, 2005.

During the propaganda buildup for the invasion of Iraq, Judith Miller and the New York Times served as a key asset of the warfare state.

Judith Miller is a reporter for the New York Times. After the invasion, on assignment to cover a U.S. military unit as it searches for WMDs in Iraq, she's given "clearance" by the Pentagon "to see secret information" -- which she "was not permitted to discuss" with Times editors.

"There's nothing wrong with this picture if Judith Miller is an intelligence operative for the U.S. government. But if she's supposed to be a journalist, this is a preposterous situation..."
http://alternet.org/columnists/story/26947/

Well! If that isn't dropping a big hint that Miller is one of the legion of CIA
hacks spattered across mainstream and alternative media, then Solomon
must be just exercising his writing talent to uselessly pad out sentences.

I've been saying since early Fall 2005, that the Plame affair is a contrived
scandal. Just as 'MonicaGate'' was. Just as WaterGate was.

All these are CIA/Establishment constructions to keep the masses amused
and befuddled, while arranging political earthquakes which signal planned
shifts in the landscape of the monotonous, two-in-one-party US political
monopoly. And the more it changes, the more it stays the same.

And if even Solomon can point to the tip of that iceberg, then surely that
begs the question of why we are so vocal about the rest of the iceberg --
while the CIA Fakes are buzy singing dumb.

Because this is much bigger than just Judith Miller. (Who only did jail time
because that was necessary to give legs to the PlameGate scandal. All part
of the carefull coreography of this well-managed "scandal.")


SEE NO EVIL

First they promised the Democratic heartland the head of George Bush.
It never happened. Kerry's deep roots in the D.C. establishment saw to that.

Then it was Karl Rove's head which was dangled as bait to keep the left
clinging to the delusion of real politics. But GannonGate never paid off.

Now it is Dick Cheney's head which is the latest lure. That prospect has
always been the subtext of the PlameGate issue. It won't happen.

But that must never be even hinted at by the left's disinformation crew.
To illustrate, here's some calculated spinning by Justin Raimondo, who
clearly buys all this BS - or appears to anyway:

Quote:
"Before Fitzgerald is done, we'll see the warlords of Washington hauled before a court of the people. We'll hear the whole sordid story of how a band of exiles, at least two foreign intelligence agencies, and a cabal of neoconservatives inside the Pentagon and the vice president's office bamboozled Congress and the American people into going to war."
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7681

Note the persistent "Blame it on the Neocons" angle. They "bamboozled
Congress," you see. Their tail wagged the world superpower dog.

( According to this prefabricated "fall-guys" routine, the invasion of Iraq and
the preceeding mass-murder on the 9/11, were NOT the bright idea of the
Washington Establishment and their G8 henchmen. They are peace-loving
diplomats who were simply fooled by the nasty neocons. ROTFLMAO! )

The latest Plamegate developments are being hyped by the left media, as
if the heads of both Libby and of Cheney are already on the block -
awaiting the coup-de-grace.

Forget it. Try this level-headed assesment from one mainstream reporter
who can see exactly why Libby is going to walk -despite the hype:

Quote:
Cheney 'Authorized' Libby to Leak Classified Information

By Murray Waas, National Journal, Thursday, Feb. 9, 2006
© National Journal Group Inc.

...The new information indicates that Libby is likely to pursue a defense during his trial that he was broadly "authorized" by Cheney and other "superiors" to defend the Bush administration in making the case to go to war. Libby does not, however, appear to be claiming that he was acting specifically on Cheney's behalf in disclosing information about Plame to the press.

Libby's legal strategy in asserting that Cheney and other Bush administration officials authorized activities related to the underlying allegations of criminal conduct leveled against him, without approving of or encouraging him to engage in the specific misconduct, is reminiscent of the defense strategy used by Oliver North, who was a National Security Council official in the Reagan administration.....

If Libby's defense adopts strategies used by North, it might be in part because the strategies largely worked for North and in part because Libby's defense team has quietly retained John D. Cline, who was a defense attorney for North....

Among his detractors, Cline is what is known as a "graymail" specialist-an attorney who, critics say, purposely makes onerous demands on the federal government to disclose classified information in the course of defending his clients, in an effort to force the government to dismiss the charges....

In the Libby case, Cline has frustrated prosecutors by demanding, as part of pretrial discovery, more than 10 months of the President's Daily Brief, or PDBs, the president's morning intelligence briefing....

In the North case, the Iran-Contra independent counsel, Lawrence Walsh, was forced to dismiss many of the central charges against North, ..... because intelligence agencies and the Reagan administration refused to declassify documents necessary for a trial on those charges.

"It was a backdoor way of shutting us down," said one former Iran-Contra prosecutor.... "It was a cover-up by means of an administrative action, and it was an effective cover-up at that."

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm

Quote:
Stop Press: Libby Lawyer Launches "Greymail" Bid
Fri, Feb. 17, 2006 ...In arguments filed late Thursday, Fitzgerald said Libby's lawyers were trying to derail the perjury and obstruction case by pressing for nearly a year's worth of presidential daily briefs... Fitzgerald accused Libby of attempting to commit "greymail,"... On Friday, Libby attorney John Cline denied that the defense was trying to derail the case. "We are working lawfully and properly ... to obtain documents essential to Mr. Libby's defense," he said.
http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=490&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

So there you have it. Would the Bush Administration sink the Libby case
by refusing to declassify? In an instant.

Especially if they knew the judge in the case would play ball and dismiss.

And would he? Don't make me laugh more. It hurts too much.

He is sitting on the case, by arrangement, precisely so that he
can dismiss using the ol' tried and trusted 'North Gambit.'

Because that's always been the gameplan. The Libby case is a fake.
Note that Judge Reggie Walton is presiding over the Libby case.

And so, ponder the implications of this:


Walton was appointed to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia by
President Reagan from 1981 to 1989. And by President George
H. W. Bush from 1991 to 2001.

He was nominated as a United States District Judge for the District of
Columbia on October 29, 2001, by President George W. Bush Link

Grab a load of that, and get your bets down with the bookies.

And it gets worse. Far worse.


GOODNIGHT JON BOY

Reggie Walton is the judge who handled the Stephen Hatfill anthrax case.
In March, 2004, Walton granted the FBI's request to postpone Hatfill's
defamation suit, claiming that the investigation was in a sensitive phase.
Which is a bit of a sick joke, as the FBI's investigation has always
been in a "sensitive" phase. Just like all other government Ops.

And it was Walton who upheld the government's right to state secrets in
the Sibel Edmonds case! Another contrived 'scandal' which went nowhere.

Does this guy turn up in all the right places, or what? When the Establishment
run these kind of Ops, they need a judge who is a safe pair of hands.
Or to put it another way: they need a judge who is in on it.

But, now you are in on it too.

But this is not just about Walton. Not by a long shot. He's just one player.

Already, there is enough here that, even in their own terms, the CIA Fakes
should be sounding alarm bells about Walton's presence in the Libby
case --rather than blindly cheerleading the chances of Cheney's and
Libby's downfall.

The reason they are not being up front, is that you are suppposed to be
sucked into yet another fruitless substitute for effective political opposition
to the Washington elite and their international corporate buddies.

And the Fakes' job is to make sure you are.

But they are not the only ones on the job. And there are other jobs too.
Nobody is drawing out the barely hidden links. But we are.


RAT'S NEST 2

Here are the links nobody wants to highlight, because they give the game(s) away.

Patrick Fitzgerald, who is prosecuting Libby, handled the 1993 World Trade
Center bombing prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman. Another, shall
we say, "sensitive" case.

And if you accept our proposition that the Neocons are programmed fall guys,
then you might deem it significant that it is Fitzgerald who spearheaded
the downfall of Lord Conrad Black from his chairmanship of the
Neocon-ridden Hollinger Group - of which Richard Perle is a director.

Like Walton, Fitzgerald pops up in all the right places.

But, again this is not just about those two political hacks. Let's plow on.

Representing Sibel Edmonds in that "State Secrets" gag order case
presided over by Walton was long-time, legal hack for disgrunled CIA
officers -Mark Zaid. If you are on the outs with the Agency, then Zaid is
your man.

On the other hand, if you are pretending to be on the outs with the CIA,
Mark is definitely your man.

In the case of such tried-and-trusted ploys for establishing some flimsy
street cred as an "opponent" of the CIA, the last thing you, or the agency
need is a lawyer who might take the whole thing too seriously and actually
expose things the Agency might not want you to think you had "found out"
anyway (-as part of the deception).

Much better to have a pet lawyer, who can huff and puff with the best of them
but blow nobody's house down in the process. And what better cover to
use to pose as a whistleblower than to be conveniently silenced by the
government -with the help of a CIA lawyer and a Bush judge.

Sibel would love to spill the beans on Mohammed Atta. Really, she would!
But unfortunately she can't. Go figure.

Here's Zaid, commenting on the gag order Walton imposed on Edmonds:

Quote:
FBI Whistleblower Edmonds Files New Lawsuit - March 17, 2005
"The FBI has done nothing but cover up its own incompetence and wrongdoing throughout its efforts to unconscionably
and unlawfully silence Ms. Edmonds through excessive secrecy," said Mark S. Zaid.
http://www.antiwar.com/edmonds/?articleid=5233

Zaid is getting good at those kind of comments. He gets practice, you see.

Because the exact same MO applies in another high-profile case he is handling.

Here's Zaid again:

Quote:
National Security Watch: Disquieted whistle-blowers
By Kevin Whitelaw 10/11/05

One of the biggest names of the conference never even uttered a word. Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer is the military intelligence operative who recently went public with a controversial claim that a year before September 11, his top-secret task force "Able Danger" was able to identify the man who later turned out to be the lead hijacker as being connected to al Qaeda.

"Tony is not allowed to talk," Zaid said. "He is effectively gagged from talking. He is gagged from talking to Congress."
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051011/11natsec.htm

Like Sibel, Tony Schaffer would love to spill the beans on Mohammed Atta.
Really, he would! But unfortunately he can't. Go figure.

How many more want to tell us all about Atta, but are gagged?

And will Mark Zaid represent then all? Maybe his yellow pages
advertizing should read "Atta Gag Orders a Speciaity."

Maybe that should read "Atta Gag Orders an Assignment."


...AND IF IT QUACKS LIKE A DUCK....

Let's step back and take another look at the way a far too cosy crew keep
popping up in these related issues.

1993 WTC Bombing
Partick Fitzgerald prosecuting Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman.

Neocon Black
Partick Fitzgerald prosecuting Conrad Black.

Neocon Libby
Partick Fitzgerald prosecuting 'Scooter' Libby.
Reggie Walton as presiding judge.

9/11 Anthrax
Reggie Walton as Hatfill case presiding judge.

9/11 Mohammed Atta / FBI
Mark Zaid representing Sibel Edmonds.
Reggie Walton as presiding judge.

9/11 Mohammed Atta / Pentagon
Mark Zaid representing Tony Shaffer.

Now, let me put it to you that all these are either sensitive cases the
government wants handled the right way, or intelligence operations the
Agency wants handled the right way -or the intersection of the two.

Let me put it to you that the people involved in the intelligence operations
are run/employed by the CIA. A cozy crew, who can run a tight ship.

Let me put it to you that if PlameGate is a contrived scandal, then Valerie
Plame is not the only CIA agent involved. Outsiders do NOT get to play a
part in such high-level Ops. Who knows what a real journalist might do.
Or a real prosecutor or judge, for that matter. PlameGate is stacked with
players who each know exactly what to do, and when.

Let me put it to you that top-quality agents with good street/media cred
don't grow on trees. And so, for key moves you reuse the same personnel
and simply rely on the Fake alternative media to fail to draw attention to
the fact the same players keep coming up.

Like birds of a feather, they stick together.

Finally, let me put it to you that the failure of any other reporter to detail
these links to you is clear confirmation of our warning in August of last year
that the CIA are deeply entrenched in the alternative and 'conspiracy' media,
and they effectively run the 9/11 movement.

Enough already. I have laid the facts out clearly.
Take a leaf out of Reggie Walton's book...

Now, you be the Judge.

Original Article:
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=454#454

See Also:
CIA Internet Fakes
http://www.breakfornews.com/TheCIAInternetFakes.htm
9/11 Rats Nest: Part 1
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26

References & Reading
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-2775
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/02/weldon.supboena/
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/27181.htm
http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/26/ldt.01.html
http://tinyurl.com/lrarc
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/171kvqlt.asp?pg=1
http://www.nswbc.org/members_bios.htm
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=2641_0_1_0_C
http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=175
http://breakfornews.com/my/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=203
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051011/11natsec.htm
http://alternet.org/columnists/story/26947/
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=7681
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0209nj1.htm
http://tinyurl.com/oskoy

[IsIt1984Yet]

127. .

HOLY SHIT, COULD YOU MAKE THE FONT BIGGER OR BOLDER OR MORE OBNOXIOUS!?!?

[Divernan]

129. Your post is a visual nightmare & you should know better

You've been a member of DU long enough to know that the oversized type face and bold colors are not appropriate here - not to mention the unholy length of your post. DU does not subscribe to the philosophy that whomever "shouts" (oversize type) the loudest or uses the boldest colors wins any prize. What a terrible mess this website would be if everyone started using colors and oversized type in their posts. Regular size, in black and white, please! If you want to write a book off topic, do it on your own blog. Please edit or delete this post.

[Divernan]

145. Thanks for editing the appearance.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

164. What does buzy mean?

Are you misspelling busy, or you intentionally saying that everyone is buzzing about with this? The word confused and put me off, so I didn't bother with the other forty five minutes of reading. Maybe you can give us a synopsis?

[BreakForNews]

171. The Fruitless Buzz

I'm saying everyone is buzzing around in circles.
'Cos PlameGate is a counterintelligence op.

If you want the non-soundbyte version, you may have to read the post.
It's hard to summarize the most convoluted story of the year in a few paras.

But maybe they're counting on that.

[tinfoilinfor2005]

197. Ok, I read the post in full.

Enlightening and frightening. But if all the seemingly good guys are on the same side as the bad guys, and all the journalistic truth chasers have either died or lost interest, and evil has reached such a level of sophistication that it can't be eradicated, then what are we banging our heads against the wall for? Might as well fold the tents and go home.

[BreakForNews]

237. One Reason

Well, it can be disheartening, I agree. But.....

80% of our problem is that we are being deluged with information warfare
of which 'Plamegate' is a classic example. Once we stop falling for these
ploys and can easily recognize their M.O. --we can actually get somewhere.

And do useful stuff.

Evil contains it's own downfall.
We just need to shine some light on the lies. : )

[Carni]

265. No disrespect but bushit's numbers are still in the low 30's

Was Cheney shooting a guy in the face also a diversion?

I don't see Rove and bushit and company being smart enough to mastermind and keep track of all that you are suggesting...it isn't that Rove is brilliant, it's that the American public is damned stupid.

IMO if it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck...it is entirely possible that it's just a duck.

[OzarkDem]

337. Thanks, this sums it up

I'm surprised some DU'ers have failed to see the pattern.

[WillyT]

134. Hey kpete... Pathetically Humorous, That...

those here, who've been railing against the MSM since * was selected for office, because of their lack of investigation, of courage, of paying any fucking attention at all, are gonna unleash all their pent-up frustrations and venom on, ***gasp***, a funky, unreliable Internet site (pausing for the obvious irony here...), that doesn't follow the norms of "LEGITIMATE JOURNALISM" !?!?!

Have some of you guys been living under a goddamned rock for the last 5 or 6 years???

Kpete... when I finally have the honor ta meet ya... I'm buying!!! :beer::beer::beer:

We may need it Dear Pete, cause some of our friends here are gonna still be wrestling in the mud and straw over this when the 110th Congress gets seated. And personally, I won't have too much trouble blaming them if the 110th is majority Republican. Seems this is all they have time for in their "efforts".

:shrug:

[kpete]

141. WillyT

bottoms up...

but NO Repub Majority, NO WAY!

This stuff IS entertaining...

But you are right, the vote, the machines, getting the assholes out...

- those are the REAL issues!

[Karmakaze]

162. Yeah why should we live up to our own prinicples!

Screw it - they (the mainstream media) arent allowed to lie to us without copping it, but our media, well thats fine then! As long as they are on our side they can lie to us all they want!

Of course, isn't that pretty much what the freepers believe when it comes to Fox News?

[WillyT]

325. Sorry... But You Have No Profile...

And I don't respond to those living a lie.

At least... I don't much...

:evilgrin:

C'mon out of the closet, you might just find friends here.

:shrug:

[Karmakaze]

342. You know what?

I think YOU are the one living a lie. I say everything in your "profile" is complete bullshit, much like your posts.

So WillyT see if you can figger this one out: GFY.

[Joe Chi Minh]

244. Ironical alright.

[high density]

136. Ah yes it is so complex

Reality: Rove not indicted.

"Truth"out: Rove indicted.

Very confusing. Perhaps "Truth"out needs a fucking ego check.

[Snivi Yllom]

142. Truthout the window = gluttons for punishment

thankyou sir may I have another

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

153. Well, thank goodness we waited for this

"more comprehensive accounting of this matter" (Mark Ash's words on June 14). I feel so much more enlightened than before.

:sarcasm:

more: nope.
comprehensive: hardly.
accounting: not even close.

[symbolman]

170. I think the important thing to remember here is that

Will Pitt has forgiven some of us, and you know who you are, and not others, and you probably don't know who you are, and that he's been here a long time, like some of us others, and that he's sort of apologised for those of us who are fuckwits, and you know who you are, and if you don't then he knows who you are, or someone he knows, They know who you are..

and that's good enough for me...

Except from what I'm seeing these guys are sweating their asses off digging the biggest hole I've seen in a long time, and at first there were many waiting around the top of the hole wondering if they'd actually dig something up.. then we wondered if maybe they were going to Bury Leopold and get a little cheer and a helping hand out of the hole, maybe with us smoothing the hole over and planting a little tree we could all have a beer under and laugh about..

But now the hole is so deep that a lot of people really can't SEE DOWN THERE much more, there's a lot of shouting going on, from in the hole and around the edges, that there IS SOMETHING in that hole.. but the hole is really too deep now to jump into even if you wanted to help, and it looks like more and more people are walking away from the hole thinking they'd rather tackle a Mountain, maybe roll some big boulders down on the really bad guys out there instead..

Usually customary to stop digging.. we're gonna run out of rope here soon and may not be able to pull anyone out, and Leopold, well, we can throw some carrier pidgons down there, with some strips of paper and a one inch pencil.. he can sharpen the pencil on his razer sharp reporter's INTUITION..

C'mon guys.. we're even way past the Decoder Ring stage.. it's just bullshit, and the hole you've dug is now apparently part of the sewer system, and you may never get that smell out.

Please cut the shit, PLEASE stop with the bullshit, PLEASE.. I hate to see all you've done going to waste..

To be honest I really do think that when Leopold says "Oh great, NOW the story is all about ME AGAIN.." that it's his true self talking.. he REALLY DOES want the attention, any attention... reminds me of kids getting hit by their drunken dads, and thinking that any attention is better than none..

PLEASE STOP IT.. Think of what an AMAZING and Historical APOLOGY you could make at this point? Internet history...

[DaveT]

172. Wow! I came late to this party, but

I have to say that this is the silliest thing I have run across in a long, long time.

Am I the only person who thinks that TruthOut's main mistake was in trying to scoop a grand jury indictment? Whether well motivated to find and publish the truth, or, ill-motivated and pursuing some lurid manipulative agenda -- at the end of the day, who cares who is the "first" to reveal that a subject is indicted?

I remember seeing the "debate" here on DU in the days after TO's scoop. I thought it was weird at the time: the anger, the energy, and most amazingly, the work that went into disputing a question of objective fact that would be resolved in time. I posted on a small board a description of this flamefest, comparing it to an argument over which horse would win the Preakness, and then getting mad about it.

Other than serving the interests of gamblers who might have a beer or a grand riding on whether Karl Rove ever has to eat his dinner off a metal tray, I can't think of any legitimate reason to anticipate the indictment before it becomes public.

I also think it is a chump's game to follow any criminal investigation and prosecution for the partisan political benefit it might provide. In the first place, until the trial takes place in open court, very legitimate secrecy plays a huge role in every aspect of a criminal proceeding. Whatever comes leaking out of a case will always be at the very best incomplete and invariably tainted by shyster bullshit. In the second place, if our political position depends upon a criminal trial going our way -- we deserve to lose.

Democracy is in real danger for a host of reasons early in the 21st Century, but it is pretty much a dead letter if the ideal of "blind justice" becomes an open joke. As a progressive and a liberal, I don't take any joy in seeing people go to jail, and I believe deeply that the Constitutional limitations on criminal prosecution are our last line of defense against tyranny. The test of belief in this principle is whether I want to see it work FOR an evil man like Karl Rove. As such, I am more than a little embarrassed by all the cutesy pining for a Merry Fitzmas here on DU.

And it goes from disquieting to laughable when the lust for news about an indictment billows up into this weird argument about Truth Out's absurd attempt to get ahead of the story by a few hours -- which now promise to be either a matter of months or never, depending on which bold prediction about "the truth" comes true.

The degree of contempt shown on this thread for the alleged mendacity by TO does not pass my smell test. It is premised upon a notion that there is far more at stake in TO's reputation than any reasonable assessment should allow. Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about Mr. Ash -- but even if it turns out that he and his raggedy ass "staff" are bald faced liars, I still have far more contempt for the New York Times and Judy Miller and the rest of the corporate whores in the MSM who have told lies that have had real consequences.

There were over 150 posts on this thread when I started typing this entry. It really makes me scratch my chin. Does anyone else share my perspective that the "scoop" was silly to begin with -- whether it were true or false?

[Old and In the Way]

175. Well said.

This whole Plame thing seems to be grand political theater. At the end of the day, what'll come of it? Libby will get pardoned, the MSM won't care, and then what? It really has functioned as a grand distraction.

[bud E. holly]

206. Thank-you, your post belongs on the front page

This is the first post on this whole topic I felt compelled to respond to. Reading some of the other responses to your post makes me wonder if responders even read it, or merely used it as a jumping off point to continue the "debate". The Plame Case is serious & important to all Americans and not just to the fortunes of this or that political party. It is paramount that justice be served in this case, whatever that may be. To paraphrase you - "the weird argument over a silly scoop on an indictment in this case" is just that. A huge amount of energy expended disputing a question of objective fact that will be resolved by the passage of time anyway. I too, am scratching my chin.

*on edit - I guess some of these other posts were not direct replies to yours; they do appear to respond to your statements in some fashion or other.

[Joe Chi Minh]

249. Careful. Lucidity is not appreciated here.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

250. It (scoop) WAS silly, because reporting something like this is not the

same as uncovering information through investigation that would otherwise never come to light, for instance the various revelations about "dirty tricks" campaign usage of federal assets by Nixon during Watergate, etc. Or getting a hold of and publishing the Pentagon papers. Or Abu Ghraib photos.

If Rove was indicted, that information would inevitably come to widespread knowledge, unless you believe, as the TO narrative would seem to have you do, that they have influenced events in some important way.

"Scoopage" would simply be a matter of who gets the feather in their cap for reporting it 6 hours earlier or whatever.

[Laurab]

297. I agree with this much:

"The degree of contempt shown on this thread for the alleged mendacity by TO does not pass my smell test. It is premised upon a notion that there is far more at stake in TO's reputation than any reasonable assessment should allow."

On this thread, and many others, for that matter. Over the past month or so, in following the threads, I've noticed it was kind of organized, too. Several people have built up their posts counts by hundreds, just in these threads alone. Attacking the message, and the messengers. The purpose eludes me, but I can't think of any good one.

It doesn't pass my smell test, either, but it's interesting in a "I can't figure out what the hell this is about" way.

[joeunderdog]

351. Best. TO. Post. Eeeeeever. nt

[yodermon]

173. I

am
waiting
for
Fitzgerald.

[radfringe]

176. a few thoughts

apologies up front if I seem to be rambling...

Fitzgerald plays things close to the vest. In a high profile case, such as this, he doesn't want to disclose anything that would hurt it.

Luskin announces that Rove is off the hook, but there's nothing from Fitzgerald's office in the way of a public statement to confirm it. Why?

:tinfoilhat: Rove may be off the hook for a couple of charges, but not all of them? Is Fitzgerald leaving the door open for the probability that Rove is more involved than previously thought?

remember this is about LEAKING a CIA agents identity - not trying to nail a GOPer for lying/obstruction

Why use Truthout to apply "pressure"? At first glance you could make the argument that Truthout is NOT a main stream media outlet - in other words TO alone wouldn't be able to apply tht much pressure beyond the blogosphere unless the story is picked up by MSM. Was Fitzgerald hoping MSM would pick it up - if so then why wasn't confirmation of an impending indictment confirmed by Fitzgerald's office?

Perhaps the blogosphere is capable of applying more pressure than we know and this little "tidbit" was just a taste of what may come? Would that be enough pressure on Rove to cooperate?

We've been focused on seeing Rove to the frog march - but the case is more than just Rove. That Rove had a hand in leaking Plame's name is a given. But he is just the hired-hit man - Rove did not order the leak.

:tinfoilhat: This went higher than Rove. From evidence presented with Libby - we know there is something on Cheney's desk. I'm betting it's more than just notes scribbled on a newspaper article.

One scenario: What would the bushies gain from outing Plame?

- We had just invaded Iraq. bush*'s numbers were high. and at least publically - the bushies were touting this as a cakewalk. Quick regime change - in and out within a couple of months.

Until Plame's name was leaked - the majority of Americans didn't even know who Joseph Wilson was, and I doubt the majority hadn't even read the article.
Remember - at this point in time - the polls showed high approval for invading Iraq.

The bushies could have just sat back, ignore Wilson's article and wait for the cakewalk to end. But they didn't - why?

I think it is more than just an act of punishment against Wilson for pointing out that bush lied. It was sending a message to the CIA to shut up -- were there more agents/contacts out there grumbling in the background and posed a threat of going public with more damaging information? If so - then outing Plame would send them a message to sit down and shut up.

just my 2-cents - I think the bushies expected Wilson to also sit down and shut, that his reputation would have been tainted and this would end all conflicting opinions.

When Wilson didn't sit down/shut up - things got out of hand and are now slowly unraveling.

[Tin Man]

181. You ask why is there soooo much controversy here regarding the JL story?

You wrote:
"The degree of contempt shown on this thread for the alleged mendacity by TO does not pass my smell test. It is premised upon a notion that there is far more at stake in TO's reputation than any reasonable assessment should allow."

You're right. And the unspoken reason for the JL/TO controversy is touched upon by BlueStateGuy in post #177 below, titled: TruthOut has gone moonbat. IMO, that's the impetus of the controversy here at DU - the battle raging on DU isn't so much about the details of the story per se, as it is about the tenets of the combattants themselves: it's the 'tinfoilers' vs. the 'reality-based' crowd, in a metaphorical battle for control of DU itself.

And that's why there's so much heated rhetoric regarding the JL/TO controversy: it's a battle, but it's not really about the details of the story - it goes much deeper.

[Divernan]

190. Or perhaps the egomaniacal, glory-seeking "journalist" vs. reality-based

readers. I think of "tin-foilers" as sincere paranoids. I can respect most tin-foilers even if I don't agree with them. Sometimes paranoia is a reasonable reaction and a necessary protection response. Tin-foilery is only a secondary aspect of the mindset at TO.

This crew of drive-by, self-proclaimed "reporters/editors" at TO are primarily motivated by pursuit of their personal fame (we're the best if we break a story first) and fortune (buy my old book, buy my new book) then doing the hard work of tracking down, exposing & explicating facts. This is supposed to be their full time occupation. Yet, the posters here on DU have demonstrated greater capacity to track down court documents, and in relatively short time. TO could get by with their bloviating if they limited themselves to opinion pieces and/or editorials, or to passing along articles and reports from credible reporters. Some excuse TO by saying, hey, it's just a blog - why all the fuss about ethical standards of journalism? To me, and to many, including the political candidates I've been volunteering for, the blogs ARE the new news sources. Increasing numbers of people - and particularly politically active people rely more on the internet and blogs for news - particularly political news - then they do print or broadcast media.

[salvorhardin]

195. That argument puzzles me

Not yours, but the argument of the TO apologetics.

"It's just a blog"

Well, I would argue that TO themselves make pretenses to making the leap from blog to news source, but that's beside the point. So what if it was just a blog? How does that change anything? Do we find lies and bullshit to be any less offensive if they comes from a blogger than if the same behavior was exhibited by a NY Times journalist?

[DaveT]

262. In a word, yes.

If a guy who hasn't bathed in week is standing on a street corner yelling about how the Book of Revelations clearly identifies Regis Philbin as the anti-Christ and insists that we all join him in a rush on the set of "Regis and Kathie Lee," I am not going to spend a lot of time and effort proving that Kathie Lee Gifford left the show years ago.

At the other end of the communications significance spectrum, if all the TV Networks, the NYTimes, the WaPost, Time, Newsweek, USNews, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal conspire together to jam the collective catastrophe of George Walker Bush down the throat fo the American body politic, I regard that as something worthy of my attention and effort.

I'll concede that Ash falls between those extremes.

If the Main Stream Media rates 1000 on this scale, and the street crazy is a 1 -- I put Ash and his website at about a 66.

How about you?

[salvorhardin]

303. I'm sorry, I'm feeling a little stupid today

I don't see how your post relates to my post. What I meant was that a lie is a lie and should be considered offensive no matter who tells it. If my small, hometown newspaper tells a lie about a local school board member then that should be condemned as loudly as when the NY Times tells a lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That my small, hometown newspaper has a circulation of 500 and the NY Times has a circulation of a few million does not make the lie of my small, hometown newspaper any less egregious than the lie of the NY Times.

Similarly, if I tell a lie on my site (about 1,200 visitors a day) and Markos tells a lie on Daily Kos (not sure of his stats but they beat mine by an order of at least two magnitudes) does that make my lie any less of a lie than Markos'?

That's why I don't get the apologetics' argument that "it's just a blog". Maybe so. But that doesn't change the facts of their behavior. And you know, I expect even better behavior from my friends than I do from complete strangers. I'm funny that way. I like to know I can trust my friends. And after this past month I don't think I can trust Truthout anymore.

Or to put it another way...

Lying can never save us from another lie -- Vaclav Havel

[DaveT]

311. Assuming for the moment that Ash is lying,

which I don't think this thread necessarily proves beyond argument, my point was that it is not worth the calories being expended here to prove that an irrelevant and hapless lie has been told. What I was trying to get at with my analogy was that the street crazy was "lying" about both the Bible and Philbin -- but, since I don't care about whether Philbin is the anti-christ, I don't want to go to the trouble of refuting him.

OK, so Truth Out claiming that Rove "was" indicted is a pretty hot and sore subject -- far more salient than the identity of the anti-christ.

But, as I suggest on another parallel post, it is much more damning from my point of view to say it was a ridiculous story in the first place.


There are plenty of "lies" that have a far more profound effect on our lives than anything Truth Out could ever hope to utter in a 1000 internet lifetimes.


My premise is that indignation and investigative energy are finite resouces. And I do not understand why the desire to drum Ash out of the Corps of the "Respectable" deserves all the heat of this thread.

[salvorhardin]

313. In other words

standards and ethics are fine, except when they apply to our side. Got ya.

[DaveT]

322. Not hardly.

Standards and ethics are for everybody.

The consequences of unethical actions do not all resolve to a single level. Bush lying about a war is a more serious ethical transgression than some chucklehead "lying" about whether an indictment will issue. Bush's lies have life and death consequences; Ash's alleged "lies" have the consequence of getting a certain segment of the internet universe lathered up beyond all common sense or logical explanation.

You're cute little reduction about "our side vs. their side" does not do your screen nick justice. Salvor Hardin once said, "Never your let your morals prevent you from doing what is right."

Once again, the "lie" at issue comes from a source that I did not take too seriously to begin with. Why are you so hot to condemn it?

I reject out of hand the silly idea that all lies are equally wrong.

[Divernan]

305. To the extent that people have stopped reading the MSM, and

rely on blogs/internet, the TO website ranks higher for those readers than the MSM. Certainly, TO's rush to publish and their outrage at being doubted here on DU indicates that THEY take themselves extremely seriously and would rate themselves very high on your scale and expect others to fall in line with their self-evaluation.

With a nod to Marshall MaCluan (spelling?), it's the medium, not the message that is significant here. Because whether or not Rove was being indicted, all the print, broadcast and blog media woud have covered the story. The issue is when and how they would have covered it.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/article_mediumisthemessage.htm

Marshall McLuhanwas concerned with the observation that we tend to focus on the obvious. In doing so, we largely miss the structural changes in our affairs that are introduced subtly, or over long periods of time. Whenever we create a new innovation - be it an invention or a new idea - many of its properties are fairly obvious to us. We generally know what it will nominally do, or at least what it is intended to do, and WHAT IT MIGHT REPLACE (emphasis added).
We often know what its advantages and disadvantages might be. But it is also often the case that, after a long period of time and experience with the new innovation, we look backward and realize that there were some effects of which we were entirely unaware at the outset. We sometimes call these effects "unintended consequences," although "unanticipated consequences" might be a more accurate description.
(End of quote)
I posit that blogs ARE replacing MSM, especially among the politically active, and I choose to therefore hold them to high standards.

And to the extent TO is claiming they were manipulated and used; it just goes to show how dangerous incompetent people like the TO staff are. Because by claiming they were used, they have admitted that they were incapable of handling a major news story, and claiming/admitting that their incompetent reporting affected the eventual outcome of the story. We don't need them screwing up and
/or negatively impacting other major
news stories - and since they are incapable of admitting a mistake, I don't expect them to learn anything from this whole fiasco.

[DaveT]

310. A reasonable argument, but

I do not agree with it.

By coincidence, I am a devotee of McLuhan as well.

I don't mind anybody holding a blog to a higher standard than what you expect out of the MSM. That does not explain to me the high degree of energy being spent on this trivial question about what I contend is a ridiculous "scoop."

I certainly don't think that McLuhan would have regarded a hissy fit over the text of single message on a single internet platform as anything but a triviality. Whoever gets to call him as a witness like Woody Allen did in Annie Hall, however, still has to explain the value of this particular conversation.

"Proving" that TO is lying or certifiably insane rather than just gullible or even prescient will not establish the credibility of blogs in general. And if the notion is that we are creating a culture of "self criticism" to work toward a credible alternative to the MSN, I remain highly skeptical about THIS application of the theory.

After all, it is much easier and -- in my view, far more damning -- to dismiss Truth Out for its idiotic ambition to publish a scoop on a fact that would/will reveal itself in time.

[DaveT]

251. Thank you. I'm more of a lurker than a poster here

but I am an old veteran of lefty politics.

Control of DU? It reminds me of the old joke about university faculty politics -- the fighting is so viscious because the stakes are so low.


I hope that everybody who is not pursuing a micro-sectarian agenda can recognize that both emotional energy and actual work are going into this "debate" -- work that might be more wisely deployed against the Bush Administration than at each other.

This is not a plea to the combattants of this debate who do not seem likely to be diverted from their goal of control of the board. You saw a lot of this mentality at work in the film, Reds -- and I have talked with college friends when I was in law school in the 1970s who had recounted some wild and wooly tales of war for control of campus Young Replublican chapters.


This is a plea to the thousands of lurkers like myself to realize that the left has always had to contend with agent provocatuers and moonbats. At least in cyberspace we can scroll down to the next topic . . . .

[bluestateguy]

177. Truthout has gone moonbat

Much like all of the quacks back in the 90's that would not let go of tall tales that the Clintons ordered Vince Foster killed, or that Bill Clinton fathered an illegitimate black son, or Ron Brown was "disposed of" or nuclear secrets were sold to the Chinese for campaign cash, and on and on. Where did those so called "journalists" end up? On the fringes, at places like Newsmax or WorldNetDaily, at best. Just like the people at Truthout they too claimed to be meticulous reporters who dotted every "i" and crossed every "t", but they just became increasingly delusional and unable, or unwilling, to separate the facts from what they wanted the facts to be. Now Truthout has crossed into that territory themselves. This whole episode teaches us that we have our unreliable nutcase news sources on the Left too; we have crank websites and people who are so blinded by ideology that the search for truth just gets lost in it all.

[pnwmom]

178. Thanks for the post, kpete.

[Time for change]

180. Very very interesting

This story alone will make a great book when it's over.

Whatever is going on here, I hope we can unravel this before too long. And I appreciate Truthout keeping on top of this story, which still seems to have the potential to topple the most evil administration in the history of our country.

[rich4468]

186. I think many of you are jumping the gun here...

And it's the same line of argument that Bushite Conservatives take in attacking the left with cries of tin foil hats and all that...

First off, you all are assuming that everyone involved is being upfront... making this assumption is dangerous and that should be obvious given this administration's track record of lying at every turn about pretty much everything.

I find Marc Ash's explanations to be perfectly reasonable and I for one am willing to stand by and wait for the cookie to crumble a little further to see what exactly is inside.

Yes, they perhaps reported the indictment story too early, and I feel he addressed this.

For one I think it's impressive that the stories that are appearring on a liberal blog are forcing the hands of the principals in this game of cat and mouse that is going on w/ Fitzgerald and the Bush Administration and I think it would be prudent for us to give Truthout the benefit of the doubt and allow that perhaps this whole thing is MUCH more complex that any of us could possibly comprehend.

So, that said, kudos to Marc Ash and I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with next... I suggest you all do the same and quit jumping to conclusions... the possibility that Rove is still involved given his 5 visits and Fitzgerald's silence makes MUCH more sense than Luskin's confusing banter regarding his client. Take anything that guy says with a grain of salt... I mean, let's be honest here, he's a liberal who is defending one of the most despised men in this administration (next to Bush & Cheney obviously)... I don't trust a word he says... neither should you.

[PATRICK]

199. I would like to contribute

to this distraction to point out that making coverage of the story the story is removing the focus from where it should be. CBS news committed ritual suicide when its peers gleefully did this to them. TO is made of sterner stuff and I hope there is no equivalent to the media sharks frenzy feeding.

The trademarks we have seen before: the bush people HAVE committed a crime. Getting at the facts through their spin machine is extremely frustrating. Attacking the messenger and to add insult to convenience, make the messenger THE story.

And I don't think Rove is reticent about personally savaging TO so as not to give it more importance than he would like to acknowledge publicly. The reticence seems to be one grateful- again- to have a humiliating reference to himself turn into a weird currency of political capital, and very wary because he is under grave scrutiny and has done criminal acts. He gives the one the sense of a perp who has temporarily escaped onrushing justice and is free at least for now to sweatily thumb a jeer at his tormentors, a spiteful scowl, because all in all (not to over compliment TO) there is better, freer more thoughtful, and yes, even more professional investigative journalism there than at any of the cowed shibboleths of the corporate media.

So maybe the somewhat careful and shortened wurlitzzer attacks on the internet detectives/journalists come from unvoiced reasons of fear and respect. In any event, it is worse than a profound waste of time for TO readers to trespass the bounds of justifiable questions and criticisms to help Rove pull off another monstrous distraction and punish those who dare try to do what none of us can. Nor should we discourage other Leopolds or Palasts by becoming Rove's legion. The over reaction itself seems to stem from expectation that some champion will do the whole job and bring down Bush for the peanut gallery. That is not how it has worked out nor is likely to work out and expecting that will only end up by some small accountability, some temporary retreat down a dark alley that will seal our failure to keep after the real goal- ending all corruption and crime to preserve our democracy- and get at the whole truth.

[Joe Chi Minh]

255. Wow! More good sense in an ocean of vapid and self-important

blether.

[hudunit]

328. Welcome to DU

That post sounds awfully glowing of TO for a new poster... Hmm...

<< the stories that are appearring on a liberal blog are forcing the hands of the principals in this game of cat and mouse that is going on w/ Fitzgerald and the Bush Administration >>

In TO's wildest dreams perhaps.

<< the possibility that Rove is still involved given his 5 visits and Fitzgerald's silence makes MUCH more sense than Luskin's confusing banter regarding his client >>

Perhaps Rove visited 5 times as new information became available, new questions had to be asked? Nothing special about the multiple visits.

And what makes you think Fitz's silence is anything NEW? Or has any meaning whatsoever? I can ask Fitz "did the mob kill JFK" and he'll say "no comment".

Damn that silence has to mean SOMETHING!!!!

[Name removed]

331. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

332. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theboss]

188. Does anyone at TO actually know an attorney?

Or maybe a paralegal?

Because a basic understanding of how the process works would help them.

Their scenario keeps becoming more and more implausible.

If Rove is indicted, he is indicted. Fitzgerald cannot un-indict him, which seems to be what they are trying to push now. It's ludicrous.

And the sycophantic readers at that site are buying it.

[Sydnie]

194. You really should pop over to Talk Left and read ALL of her

postings about this case. She disagrees with you that an indictment could not be retracted. Here's just one example of what Jeralyn has said about this:

"If the sealed indictment in case 128 was of Rove, a motion to dismiss it and court order dismissing it could also be sealed."

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015121.html#comment-229287

She mentions that a deal could have been made for dismissal. She IS a crimminal defense attorney. I think she would know better than we do what is possible and what is not, don't you?

edited to add this link to ALL of her Plame case postings: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/cat_valerie_plame_leak.html

[ShaneGR]

203. Ya, that's the funny part, they seem to have no understanding

Of the legal process I mean. You can't indict someone, seal it, and then retract it without public disclosure. It just doesn't work that way. It has become obvious to me that they've become so wrapped up in wanting to believe their own "story" that they'll do anything, to continue their embaressing charade.

[Karmakaze]

269. The sycophantic readers at THIS site are buying it too.

And they will keep on buying it, no matter what proof comes out.

[BurtWorm]

204. Marc Ash just did a gigantic service to his own ass with that report.

As someone who has been skeptical of the story from the start, I have to say, this report sounds plausible to me. Maybe I will owe TO an apology after all.

[jsamuel]

205. thanks BurtWorm, we just will have to see

it actually does sound plausible for the first time to me... The only reason that I doubted them was because someone told me that Luskin can't be lying because he would be disbarred, but if Fitz told him to do it, then I guess that throws that out the window.

[dogday]

207. The Attorneys for David Westerfield lied so badly in

a court of law that it made me sick.. David Westerfield killed that little girl and left her body in the desert.. His Attorneys knew this from the beginning, yet knowingly lied in court by trying to attack the parents of the child for their lifestyle....

Westerfield was willing to give up the location of her body to get death penalty taken off the table... We find this out after the trial.....

Now tell me Attorneys can't lie to protect their clients....

[jsamuel]

208. they were talking about material facts

like "The procecutor told me this."
or "The sky is blue."

not "My client didn't do it."

[dogday]

209. They knew he did it, yet they accused the parents

of their lifestyle for the death of their daughter.. They dragged the parent's reputation through the mud, trying to insinuate the parent's lifestyle was responsible for her death....


On edit:

It is one thing to do that if they did not know he was guilty, but they knew, they tried to make the deal when he was arrested... That is so low....

[theboss]

210. So guilty people don't deserve a defense?

That strikes me as a little dangerous.

The concept of burden of proof exists for a reason.

[dogday]

211. Sure they do, that's the thing

Lawyers lie and stretch the truth to defend their clients.. I was responding to the post that lawyers do not lie... You just added to the argument.. Thanks

[theboss]

213. Lawyers don't lie about correspondance

And they won't lie about material facts - at least smart ones don't.

A lawyer is not going to call a gun a canary. They may say ignore the gun and look at the canary over here in my right hand.

Don't confuse misdirection with lying.

[dogday]

214. It is not truthful, however you want to say it

and what those Lawyers did to the grieving parents was freaking wrong in my book...

Westerfield's lawyers knew he was guilty, there was no misdirection, they targeted the parents lifestyle as the reason their daughter was killed, and they knew the whole time it was untrue....

[liberalhistorian]

316. Yes, and I suppose prosecutors never, ever

lie, never suspect innocence but go ahead full-blast with prosecution anyway, withhold evidence that they know could show innocence, allow men they know are innocent to go to the electric chair because they don't want their mistake known (Jessie Tafaro in Florida died for the sake of a prosecutor's ego), never mislead the press, and always, always are on the side of the angels. Yeah, right.


I'm a paralegal and believe me, you don't wanna know what REALLY goes on in our so-called "justice" system, especially regarding those whom people automatically assume are always right and always holy, like prosecutors. Prosecutors are just as capable of misconduct, misdirection, and misleading and malfeasance as defense attorneys. :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[dogday]

338. They do too... That is the point Lawyers lie!!!!!!

[Joe Chi Minh]

258. They amount to the same in essence - bad faith. dishonesty.

Indeed, misdirection is absolutely tantamount to dishonesty. Mendacity by other means.

[Marie26]

223. Then Fitz could be disbarred

The rules on prosecutors are even stricter than defense attorneys. Prosecutors are public servants & supposed to act in the public interest. You'd have to believe that Fitzgerald collaborated w/the defense attorneys to cover up his own indictment. Fitzgerald, famous for his leak-free GJ, decided to leak to TO, & then lie about the indictment in his letter to the defense att.? No way. If an indictment happened, the GJ knows, & the judge knows as well. If Fitz was doing something this shady, the judge would impose sanctions on him. It just doesn't make any sense. What makes sense is that it happened just as they say - Fitz decided not to indict Rove & notified Rove's attorney of that decision. That's all.

[BurtWorm]

234. I don't believe only Fitzgerald could have leaked or approved the leak

to TO. It's very possible that TO's source is someone close to someone close to the investigation, and that someone close to the investigation doesn't even have to be Fitzgerald. Furthermore, the information may be an approximation--even a very faulty approximation--of what actually happened. But it might get at something real that happened that was a turning point of some kind--some kind of legal jeopardy, even, that Rove was put in to ramp up the pressure on him.

In other words, it's dangerous to take an all or nothing position on this: "Either Rove/Luskin is right or Leopold/Ash is right." The truth is probably much more complex than any media could handle.

[Karmakaze]

270. Someone close to someone close???

Thatb still means that someone who was legally required NOT to tell anyone outside the investigation MUST have told someone outside the investigation. Don't you get that? The only people who should know anything about it are legally required to say nothing about it to anyone! Not even their wives or friends, no one.

So if the leak originated with the investigation someone there had to have broken the law. It is that simple.

[BurtWorm]

272. Is it impossible that someone in the investigation broke the law?

No. Is it unlikely? I don't think there's any way to speculate about that.

[Karmakaze]

274. Thing is, that is what TO is suggesting.

I do not think it is true, but even if it is, TO should never have said so!!! Seriously in that one line they semi-outed their source (assuming such a source exists).

When you say "Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument", you are clearly suggesting you became an instrument of the investigation. Which implies that it is someone in the investigation that originally leaked the info.

Its either that, or someone who had no idea of what the investigation was doing somehow "used" them as an "instrument" without actually knowing in what way. That just does not make sense. Of course very little TO has said about this story has made sense so why would they start now?

The point is, it doesnt matter whether it is true or not, that is the spin that Rove will put on it, and TO's only defence will be to claim to have mistated. If they do, they confirm that their reporting is unreliable. If they don't and stick to their guns they make the investigation look guilty and that puts pressure on Fitzgerald.

It's a win-win for Rove.

[BurtWorm]

279. You make some good points.

It is disturbing to read that Ash thinks TO was "used" and became an "instrument."

But it's not clear from that statement that it was "the investigation" that was doing the using. I'm wondering if the source was someone outside the investigation with a source inside the investigation who may or may not have known the outsider was talking to TO (although, if there is an inside source, they probably know by now).

[Karmakaze]

339. You still miss the point - there still HAS to be an inside source...

and that inside source would have broken the law by talking to ANYONE. The law isn't that you can't tell the media, the law is you can't tell anyone who is not authorised to know, and only people involved are authorised to know.

So if TO got it from the hairdresser of an investigator in Fitzgerald's office, then that investigator broke the law by telling the hairdresser. Do you see what I'm, saying?

There are only three groups that could have known that Rove was indicted (assuming it is true) 1) Fitzgerald and his team. 2) Rove and his team, and 3) The people of the court involved in the case - for example the clerk or judge.

Rove and his team wouldn't be using TO to get Rove, so that is one out. That leaves Fitzgerald and the Court itself. If either group leaked the info, then the investigation would be in serious jeopardy. Thats why I am saying that this statement is a huge mistake for TO.

They had to have gotten their info from one of those 3 groups (directly or indirectly) and by saying they were "used <as> an instrument" they have pretty much ruled out Rove and dropped the other two in it. If they try and backtrack now, they would have to say for example the info came from Rove's team, and thus they were unlikely to have been used as an instrument to get him, which makes that claim a lie. If they do NOT say that, then the only other choices are REALLY bad news for anyone who wants to see this investigation succeed.

[BurtWorm]

345. I see what you're saying, but it's not impossible or improbable

that someone inside the investigation talked to someone outside of it, is it? We're talking about human beings here, aren't we?

Is it impossible, for instance, that someone close to the Rove team talked to someone outside who then talked to Leopold?

[Karmakaze]

350. I never said it was! I said it was a silly mistake for TO to SAY IT...

I don't believe it but if their source was someone in the investigation (either directly or indirectly) then they should have just kept that to themselves! Either that or NAME THEM so they can be seperated from the rest of the investigation as damage control.

[jsamuel]

289. wha? that isn't what I am saying at all...

wow

I am saying that Fitz told Luskin to say that Rove was off the hook so that everyone would think so. That way the WH doesn't know he was indicted and is now working against the WH. Fitz did that as a direct result of the TO report. He had to silence the report to keep his investigation going. Fitz would not be disbarred. Which is a really short way of saying it. Look at my other posts in this thread.

[Marie26]

314. Yeah

Fitz could face sanctions from both the court & the bar for something like that. Prosecutors are considered to be public servants & there's a lot of rules requiring them to act ethically. Defense lawyers have to act in their clients best interest, but for prosecutors we, the public, are their clients. Fitz sent Luskin a letter announcing that he "did not anticipate seeking charges" against Rove. TO asks us to believe that he had, in fact, indicted Rove at that time, but is basically colluding w/the defendant to mislead the public & the White House as some sort of power play. :eyes: So, he's basically lying & covering up his own indictment. But both the judge & the GJ know about this indictment. If the judge knows that Fitz is deliberately lying about the legal proceeding, he could sanction Fitz for anything from misconduct to obstruction of justice. If the bar finds out he's misrepresenting the legal status of the prosecution, he could face sanctions from the bar association. How is he going to sucessfully try Rove after first hiding the indictment, then telling the world Rove wouldn't be indicted? It's just silly. To defend TO, people have to create this Machiavellian picture of a sneaky, underhanded, media-leaking Fitzgerald that goes against everything we know about the guy. US Attorneys aren't supposed to use the media that way; in fact, they're not supposed to comment to the media at all about a case at all except when necessary. That's why TO's whole contention that they were somehow "used" by the US Att. to influence the case is sort of unbelievable. If Fitz notified Luskin that Rove won't be indicted, he most likely just meant that Rove won't be indicted.

US Attorney Manual Guidelines on media relations - http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title1/7mdoj.htm

[jsamuel]

327. no no no no no

you don't understand what I am saying

"is basically colluding w/the defendant to mislead the public & the White House as some sort of power play"

no no no no no no no

[theboss]

212. His ass must be relieved after he pulled this story from it

The pressure down there must have been remarkable.

Let's break this down, shall we. According to TO:
1. Rove was indicted on the 12th and was told that he was indicted.
2. Depsite the fact that Rove knew he was indicted, the indictment was sealed (which makes no sense but let's keep going).
3. Despite the fact that Rove knew he was indicted, he continued to work for the White House.
4. The sealed indictment was filed 5 days later, for reasons unclear to anyone.
5. Truthout is the only news organization in the world that knew this.
6. Truthout successfuly identified the document containing the sealed indictment.
7. This disclosure scared Karl Rove so much that he immediately went to Fitzgerald and rolled over on Dick Cheney.
8. Despite the fact that Karl Rove has rolled over on Dick Cheney, he continues to work for the White House.
9. As a result of the remarkable disclosures made my Karl Rove, Fitzgerald issued a motion to dismiss the indictment on the very next bloody day.
10. The judge not only accepted this dismissal, but sealed the dismissal as well. Maybe this is possible, but I have never heard of such a situation and would appreciate either a prosecutor or defense attorney explaining how this could occur. An indictment and dismissal taking place in private would seem to undercut, well, pretty much the entire Constitution.
11. Fitzgerald then wrote a letter to Luskin, stating that Rove will not be indicted, presumably to set a trap for Cheney.
12. Despite this, Karl Rove continues to work for the White House.

Well, I'm on board.

[greatauntoftriplets]

215. Brilliant summary.....

:rofl:

[KittyWampus]

291. really, it isn't. Many DU'ers insist on interjecting their own spin

and suppositions and labeling it as fact and/or pertinent information.

Most of what that post isn't a summation of fact but an attempt to paint a portrait USING SOME FACTS & POSSIBLITIES while inventing and excluding others.

Who the heck ever said anything about 'dismissal', for instance?

[greatauntoftriplets]

294. What are most of the other posts on this thread doing....

but attempting "to paint a portrait USING SOME FACTS & POSSIBILITIES" while inventing and excluding others?

:shrug:

The idea of Rove turning evidence against Cheney is ridiculous. And he sure as shit wouldn't still be working at the White House if he had.

[rinsd]

220. This is insanity

Its gone from getting a scoop to being instrumental in taking down Karl Rove.

The mind boggles.

[jsamuel]

221. no, I don't think you have it

I think you are saying something quite different than what is in the article.

[theboss]

227. Then what am I missing?

Where is my explanation faulty?

[jsamuel]

242. This is what I think they are saying

1. Rove was indicted on the 12th and was told that he was indicted.
2. Despite the fact that Rove knew he was indicted, the indictment was sealed (which could make perfect sense if he was to be used to testify against the WH).
3. Despite the fact that Rove knew he was indicted, he continued to work for the White House (which could make perfect sense if he was to be used to testify against the WH).
4. The sealed indictment was filed 5 days later, for reasons unclear to anyone.
5. Truthout is the only news organization in the world that knew this.
6. Truthout successfully identified the document containing the sealed indictment.
7. This disclosure scared Karl Rove so much that he immediately went to Fitzgerald and rolled over on Dick Cheney.
8. Despite the fact that Karl Rove has rolled over on Dick Cheney, he continues to work for the White House (which could make perfect sense if he was to be used to testify against the WH - which is why the indictment had to be kept sealed in 2 and 3 - which is why Luskin could have gotten permission from Fitz to say Rove was off the hook).
9. As a result of the remarkable disclosures made my Karl Rove, Fitzgerald issued a motion to dismiss the indictment on the very next bloody day. (Haven't seen this anywhere? Where did you see that they said Fitz issued a motion to dismiss? - Anyway, if Rove agreed to do #8, then that would make sense if that was part of the agreement)
10. The judge not only accepted this dismissal, but sealed the dismissal as well. Maybe this is possible, but I have never heard of such a situation and would appreciate either a prosecutor or defense attorney explaining how this could occur. An indictment and dismissal taking place in private would seem to undercut, well, pretty much the entire Constitution. (Again, this would make sense if #8 was done. The indictment needs to stay hidden from the WH.)
11. Fitzgerald then wrote a letter to Luskin, stating that Rove will not be indicted, presumably to set a trap for Cheney. (Not to set a trap for cheney, but to put to rest as Luskin says the "internet speculation", which is obviously pointing TO. Which would be needed to keep the WH from figuring out that Rove is cooperating.)
12. Despite this, Karl Rove continues to work for the White House. (Yep, because they would think he is off the hook because of #8 and #11)

[IsIt1984Yet]

246. Here's one BIG question I have from above. Where in the world did

you see anything indicating "7. Truthout successfuly identified the document containing the sealed indictment."

Everything I've read leads me to believe that the whole story was based on the word of "sources". There hasn't been any indication that they verified any evidence of any kind. Please, if I am wrong, show me where they claimed to have verified evidence. I'd love to see that.

[jsamuel]

253. The thing I remember is that they said they saw the document with the

date stamped on it.

[IsIt1984Yet]

257. No, I think they said that when WE see the indictment, it will be dated

May 12. And, I think that was Will who stated that in a post here, not anything posted on TO.

Again, if I am wrong (and I really kinda WISH they'd seen an indictment)... please show me where they said that.

[jsamuel]

283. wanted to add, he may have just roled on Libby, not Cheney

Fitz may think that Cheney did it. The best way to get to Cheney is through Libby, not Rove. Rove, however, can help him get to Libby.

[Snivi Yllom]

292. If you set odds to each point and made a parlay bet

the odds would be astronomical.

[Marie26]

224. Exactly!

Each step of the story just gets worse & worse.

[BurtWorm]

228. I wouldn't say I'm on board. I'd say I'm less off board than I was.

I'm entertaining the idea that someone close to the investigation--or close to someone close to it--actually was a source. It doesn't seem as outrageously off the wall that TO would be taken in by whatever they were told. It's possible that there was some highly complex dealing going on between Fitzgerald and Luskin around the dates in question toward shaking loose information about the launch of plot to out Plame. It's possible it was so complex that someone close to (or close to someone close to) the investigation got the mechanics wrong but the gist right.

This isn't to say that any of it is right, just that it's becoming more possible for me to believe that Ash isn't just blowing smoke and exhibiting purely religious belief in vapor, but is actually trying to make sense of real events that would have led any reasonable person to act as Ash did. At least he's not uttering cryptic comments about Luskin's cards. He's putting more of his own on the table.

[theboss]

229. True...except they are standing by the indictment story

That's where they cannot win. If they would say, we mischaracterized the discussions between Fitzgerald and Luskin as an indictment when it was actually "something else," they could maybe pull a rabbit out of the hat if - down the road - Rove testifies truthfully at Scooter's hearing.

But to keep insisting that an indictment (which would be historical, I may add) exists is the insulting part.

[Jazz2006]

230. "It is insane and nonsensical..."

Rove attorney Robert Luskin sent this denial of Truthout's report to Ms. Merritt at TalkLeft:

"It is insane and nonsensical, equal parts bizarre innuendo and alleged facts that do not square with reality or the American legal system. Truthout's stubborn nuttiness to the contrary, some times things are simply as they appear: Mr. Fitzgerald completed his investigation, reviewed the evidence, and concluded that it simply does not support a charge. There never was -- not for a second -- any secret meetings at my office, plea negotiations, secret sealed (or not so sealed, as the case may be) indictments, or last minute concessions."

[BurtWorm]

231. That's what I'm guessing may come out when the whole story gets told.

I'm thinking the TO story may have coincided with a big bang event hermetically sealed inside the investigation, the evidence of which was interpreted as an indictment by someone close-ish to the investigation (but not close enough to know with utter certainty what it was), who then became a source to Jason Leopold. Before I read this, I was thinking Leopold went temporarily insane and wrote pure garbage that Ash bought and has been too embarrassed to give up believing in. Now I'm thinking there was something big that happened that may have been misinterpreted, that maybe Ash is right that the TO story set something in motion. (It may actually even turn out to be that TO's story resulted in Rove actually slipping his neck out of the noose.)

[Karmakaze]

271. Dont forget...

that TO says they learned all this from someone in the investigation and that they were used as a tool to pressure Rove, which of course would put the entire investigation in jeopardy.

[oshkosk]

216. CITIZENSPOOK : Presnit Says Fitz Investigation Has Ended

Citizenspook cites MissWaverly, a DU poster, and brings the blogs to task for not discussing Bush's announcement on Air Force One that says the Fitzgerald investigation has ended.

He's also got this on a Libby pardon

BUSH COMMENTS DONT BODE WELL FOR LIBBY PARDON

President Bush said on Air Force One, June 13, 2006:

"It's a chapter that has ended. Fitzgerald is a very thorough person. I think he's conducted his investigation in a dignified way. And he's ended his investigation."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/washington/13cnd-leak.html

See yesterday's report for a detailed examination of Bush's strange and vastly under-reported comments which unequivocally state that Fitzgerald has ended his investigation. These comments have been largely ignored by the blogs.

The trial balloon being floated out regarding a Libby pardon due to the so called "criminalization" of politics is dubious and Libby should take heed now and consider turning State's evidence.

Think about this: If the President himself has just gone on the record to say that Fitz has conducted a dignified, thorough investigation, how can he justify a pardon from such an ethical investigation by a US Attorney actually appointed by Bush?

[dogday]

219. Has Fitz made a public statement?

I missed that...

[Catherine Vincent]

222. Word!

Waiting to hear from the Fitz.

[JuniperLea]

245. Yep, waiting...

All the assumptions are getting ridiculous... only Fitz can sort it all out. And I expect it will be, as with all his other dealings, in his own good time.

[dogday]

301. In the meantime read this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1469616&mesg_id=1469616

[hudunit]

329. any more ridiculous than...

- 24 "business hours"
- Rove's secret service detail
- 15 hours lock down
- May 12, no May 10, no week of May 10, yes, May 17
- multiple sources, 3 sources, one source, I'll out my source, no I won't

Does a blind man need to step in horse dodo to "speculate" that a horse just dumped in front of him? Or can he tell by the smell?

Smells like...................

[JuniperLea]

335. You don't know shit

And neither does anyone else.

To stick to the same old lame points that very well could have changed under unknown circumstances smells like...

[Blackhatjack]

247. To Be Valid, Indictments Must be SIGNED by a Judge....

....to establish that it is in proper form, was returned in a procedurally correct manner, and that the body returning the indictment meets constitutional and legal standards.

Any document or writing can be "sealed" by a judge for a proper purpose, at any stage of a prosecution. An indictment returned by the grand jury which has yet to be signed by a judge may substantively be accurate, but procedurally incomplete.

Not saying that is what happened here, or taking sides --just providing information.

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

266. "Still pointing to this sealed indictment. Or maybe that one over there."

[Cocoa]

275. they're stringing us along

they should quit.

Their story didn't say a word about the indictment being sealed.

In fact, it said an announcement was coming.

Please stop!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

288. "We're still POINTING to.." "What we know and what we BELIEVE.."

This is really pretty sad... to say things like this instead of :"This document contains the indictment, or the rescinding of the indictment" or whatever, they say we are "pointing to" this case...

We could say we are "pointing to" a sealed envelope on Bush's desk, that we have no access to, and suggest that it contains the seamy details of his affair with Condi. Not proveable, but you can't prove me wrong either!

If they don't have facts that are DEMONSTRABLE, they were better off saying nothing at all instead of "pointing to" things and talking about what they "believe".

It really seems they were better off staying with the Op-Ed end of things and staying away from "investigative journalism" until a more credible job can be done.

[enough already]

298. I've been very supportive of Truthout/Leopold/Will Pitt until now, but...

But frankly, this smells like a mountain of steaming horseshit. I'm tired of having my emotions toyed with. I'm done with truthout.

[DisgustedTX]

321. It is a MINISCULE mountain of steaming poop

Lest we give credence to a non-entity.

[liberalhistorian]

304. Blah Blah Blah Blah "We're full of shit", blah blah

blah blah "we refuse to admit when we're wrong", blah blah blah blah "we don't know what the fuck we're talking about, but trust us anyway", blah blah blah blah blah blah BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!!!!!!!
:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[LeftHander]

348. blah blah blah what you said blah blah...nt

[SeloverB]

324. Not so sure it's over

We can all only speculate, but I've found some support to the
idea that Truthout may be more right than wrong. Check out: 

http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2006/06/randall-samborn-indicates-fitzgeralds.html

Take some time and dig into this website, there may yet be
hope. There is a longshot possibility Cheny may be in
Fitzgeralds sights! 

I remember when Nixon resigned. First Agnew was replaced as
vice president by the consensus choice of Gerald Ford. Nixon
then resigned, and Ford became president. Deja vu all over
again???

[meisje]

336. The TRUTH Has Left The Building!!

[oshkosk]

344. CITIZENSPOOK SLAP DOWN OF FIREDOGLAKE ON SAMBORN COMMENTS

Taken from http://citizenspook.blogspot.com

PART TWO: FIREDOGLAKE IS ACTIVELY MISLEADING READERS REGARDING SAMBORN AND BUSH COMMENTS CONCERNING THE STATUS OF THE FITZGERALD INVESTIGATION...

Yesterday, Christy Harden Smith responded to a comment by one of her readers familiar with this blog as follows;

"You don’t talk about proceedings while they are ongoing before the grand jury. In the presser after the Libby indictment, the new G/J had not yet been sworn in and informed about the investigation. They have now, and we just have to sit back and let the process take its normal course. There will be no comment from Fitz, I would bet, unless and until there are more proceedings or he folds up shop. Not while the grand jury proceeds with an investigation anyway. "


This comment contains two misleading statements:

1: A direct false assertion that no new grand jury had been impaneled.

2. A blatant false implication based on the false assertion: since no new grand jury had been impaneled Samborn and Fitzgerald had a small window of opportunity to legally comment that the investigation would continue and that once a new grand jury had been impaneled they would not be able to say "the investigation will continue".

Both the assertion and the implication are patently false.

The false assertion is that the new grand jury had not been sworn in. FDL knows that's a false assertion because FDL reported back on October 29, 2005 -- in response to a New York Times article -- that the new Grand Jury had already been impaneled. Here's what Jane Hamsher wrote:


Hamsher: Looks like everyone's struggling to keep up with Patrick Fitzgerald. NYT:


With the term of his grand jury at an end, Mr. Fitzgerald said he could present any new evidence to an already impaneled grand jury if needed.

Hamsher: Already impaneled? That's new.

[gkhouston]

349. I'm not seeing a shocking revelation here.

The second grand jury is a regular grand jury -- it hears a number of cases and was not sworn in for Fitzgerald's exclusive use. As long as he hadn't presented evidence to the second jury yet, whether or not they'd actually been impaneled doesn't seem like a big deal. Since Christy used to be a federal prosecutor she likely knows what she's talking about here.

btw, welcome to DU. :hi:

[Karmakaze]

352. Jesus what a load of crap...

This guy is so determined that he is trying to spin quotes to mean something they clearly don't.

For example:

The false assertion is that the new grand jury had not been sworn in. FDL knows that's a false assertion because FDL reported back on October 29, 2005 -- in response to a New York Times article -- that the new Grand Jury had already been impaneled.

Then goes off on a long quote that DOESN'T say what he is trying to say it says. The quote in simple languages says that there are always grand juries available and Fitzgerald said if he needed to he could use one of those. CitizenSpook however is trying to say that that means a NEW GJ had been impanneled. Well no. In fact CitizenSpook actually quotes Fitzgerald making that clear:

"FITZGERALD: No. I think what I said is we could use any other grand jury or avail of another grand jury. We couldn't use the grand jurors whose term has expired today any further."

LOL - CitizenSpook proved himself wrong.

Next, after stating in Part 1 that Fitzgerald had only ever deviated from no comment once before - when the original Grand Jury's term expired - he says this:

And to those that would argue that the Libby press conference was the only time Samborn and Fitzgerald deviated from their pat "no comment", I would draw your attention to Fitzgerald's public affadvait filed with the court on November 18, 2005. On page 2, Fitzgerald states:

Wait - "No comment" is what you say to reporters. Does CitizenSpook expect Fitzgerald to file "no comment" in court? To say "no comment" to the Judge? How STUPID. In fact this just proves the point. Of course he can tell the JUDGE about the investigation, but he was still saying "No comment" to the reporters.

This just shows that it is not a case of whether the information gets out or even what kind of information gets out, but that the Prosecutor does not comment on active investigations PERIOD, even if the information is public knowledge.

In other words ALL of that article is based on a false premise - that no comment from Fitzgerald means the investigation is over. The fact is no comment is the SOP, and anything ELSE would have signalled that the investigation was over - unless the Grand Jury's term was coming to an end.

[LeftHander]

346. Lie about WMDs far bigger than lying about an indictment

Any lawyer for Rove is going to lie to the public.

There is no penalty for lying to reporters or to the public. As we have seen this time and time again with Bush and Cheney.



A sealed indictment does not "exist". As long as Rove cooperated the indictment stays sealed and thus it does not really exist.

We WON'T KNOW ANYTHING FOR CERTAIN until Fitzgerald tells us himself.

[kma3346]

347. That's for damn sure!

Something stinks to high heaven and I hope that someday we finally learn the truth about how Truthout was "rathered." And, yes, it's true... there is no way to know for sure, but my gut tells me that there is FAR more to this story than we know.

:mad: