OFFICIAL TRUTHOUT/LEOPOLD/ROVE INDICTMENT THREAD 2

[The empressof all]

Please continue discussion from thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1224473&mesg_id=1224473

[Spazito]

1. Thanks Skinner and mods for having ONE thread at a time

for posting on this issue. It is much appreciated.

[Taxloss]

2. OK stopthebleeding, care to resume?

Your serve, I believe.

[stop the bleeding]

8. here I am.

really freaking sad that so-called "truthseekers" are still defending this fat slice of baloney

we shall see, as the original post says.

Unless you have more to offer than this, then we will have to agree to disagree.

Thanks for playing

Peace!

[Taxloss]

51. We shall indeed see.

Peace to you as well; this is a heated issue, but I don't consider it personal.

[stop the bleeding]

63. likewise

:toast:

[Jigarotta]

34. I have a question.

iirc, Rawstory also reported the Rove Target Letter when TO did...
but they pulled it and TO stuck with the story.

is that correct, and has there been any explanation about this from RW?

I certainly don't want to add more confuseration to this topic, but am curious what happened during the early hours of this 'breaking' story.

[Taxloss]

49. Good question.

I am also curious about the early hours of this story.

If we are to believe Leopold's account, then there was a 15-hour meeting on Friday. Let's say it started at 8AM - it would end at 11PM. During that time the meeting is "locked down" - nothing gets in or out.

Then, I daresay people call people to tell them what has transpired, tell wives they're coming home, head to their cars. Leopold said that he was talking to people with intimate knowledge of the meeting on Friday and on Saturday morning.

Question.

Who made the first call? Did JL strike lucky, or was he tipped off? Why did he start calling people? How did he have time to gather all the confirmations he claims? What time were these calls made?

Eithr there was no 15-hour meeting or Leopold didn't speak to who he clamed to have spoken to. Either way, he was lying.

[wakeme2008]

3. LOL taking bet it will be up to

thread 5 by end of day :rofl:

[arwalden]

4. How Does An Indicted Man Keep His Security Clearance?

?? :shrug:

[Freddie Stubbs]

5. Do we know that he still has his security clearence?

Do we know that he has been indicted?

[arwalden]

15. Many Argue That He Has Already Been Indicted...

... and if that's true, then it follows that he would also lose his security clearance.

If indicted men lose their security clearance, then how does he function in his WH role? Is he just being logged in as a "visitor" and being personally escorted throughout the WH?

I don't know the answer to those questions, but there's some INCONSISTENCY between what folks are claiming has already happened and the activities (or lack of) that are going on (or not) in the wake of the alleged indictment.

[Shakespeare]

58. He's been removed from his policy role which would've required clearance.

And it was speculated weeks ago when they made the change that Rove may have lost his security clearance. One doesn't require a high-level clearance just to work in the west wing; it's job-specific.

I have no idea if Leopold's story is going to pan out, but I do think it deserves more time. The 24 hours thing was in reference to Fitz v. Rove, and not the public announcement. While I understand the doubts and questions (and have more than a few of my own), I do think some of the trashing of Leopold is a tad premature.

[arwalden]

87. Yes, Such A Thing Would Have Required TOP SECRET Clearance... BUT...

... do you think that he can function in other WH duties with NO clearance at all? My mother was "just a secretary" when she worked in Clinton's White House and she needed a 'secret' (or confidential) security clearance. If Rove loses his clearance, then how does he function at all? It makes no sense... obviously I'm missing something.

[Shakespeare]

101. As I've said in another thread (somewhere a few days ago...

....among the gazillion that have been posted in GD)....I suspect that Leopold may be off on one key thing; I think it's possible that whatever was in the sealed envelope that Fitz allegedly handed over to Rove wasn't an indictment, but the much-talked-about target letter. That, to me, makes far more sense, and would still comport with the overall timeframe that Leopold has put together.

I don't think Leopold's story will turn out to be 100% accurate, but I also doubt it's complete fiction.

As far as the security clearance, I'm guessing Rove could hang on to a low-level clearance until an indictment is formally handed up. I believe it was Josh Marshall who speculated a few weeks ago that Rove might've lost his high-level clearance already, btw.

[GOTV]

6. Would we know if he lost his security clearance?

[arwalden]

7. He Wouldn't Be Able To Do His Job In The WH Without One...

... would he? How could he function without a security clearance?

[stepnw1f]

9. This is the Bush Administration

do you seriously believe they follow rules or laws?

[GOTV]

10. Do we know he's still doing the parts of his job that required...

... security clearance?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

11. Alan, old friend:

Do you think that such technicalities and niceties and adhearance to form really concerns these sociopaths?

[arwalden]

22. I Think It Would Require A Great Deal Of Competence...

... to keep such a thing secret. It would require the cooperation and silence of far too many people (who are not part of the administration) in order to keep up the appearance of a functioning Rove (if he had lost his security clearance).

To answer your question: No... I don't think that these things are a concern to them. But the likelihood that they could successfully pull-off such a stunt is exceedingly small.

[Snivi Yllom]

24. for reference

Libby resigned the same day he was indicted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1225093&mesg_id=1225273

[arwalden]

29. Wha-wha-WHAAAT?? He did?

Does that mean that the claims being made in the following URL are incorrect?? Wow.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1224473&mesg_id=1224749

Media_Lies_Daily (1000+ posts) Thu May-18-06 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. Did you follow the process for Libby? The public announcement was....
...made a week AFTER the date of his indictment. Libby continued to work during that week.

[Snivi Yllom]

20. simple, he has not yet been indicted

If he was indicted, he would have resigned

[smartvoter]

26. The same way:

> Gannon got his clearance.
> The WH tapped overseas calls without warrants.
> The NSA captured the country's phone records.
> You get the drift...


I have no position on this thing. He's either indicted or he's not and I think all this arguing is silly. We'll know soon enough.

However, I think it's obvious that rules and regs mean nothing to these people, and assuming he would have to have resigned already because of security requires you to overlook an extreme pattern of lawlessness. These guys do whatever they want.

[pnwmom]

40. Why would he need clearance? All Bush would have to do is

decree that anything Rove looks at is automatically declassified. Until it's reclassified.

LOL

[arwalden]

53. But...

...in order for information to be declassified or downgraded, one must follow the rules for declassification and once it's declassified, it must be properly registered with the Federal Register in accordance with the established rules.

These rules are outlined in Executive Order 12958, signed by Bill Clinton in 1995 and then amended and re-endorsed by Our Great Leader himself in 2003. The procedures remain the SAME.

[Coexist]

44. Your question made me wonder about security clearance

I found this - regarding the leak, not the indictment - but it appears, he shouldn't have it now, anyway.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9899512/site/newsweek/

Having his security clearance yanked would not require Rove to resign as deputy chief of staff to President Bush. But it would prevent him from taking part in policymaking that relates to national-security issues, which would mean a much-reduced role in the Bush White House.

John Dean Responds:
I just read the piece on the removal of Rove's classification authority. A couple of points. First, Clinton's 12598 was superceded on March 23, 2003, by Bush's E.O. 13292. Section 5.7 is now 5.5. But more importantly "classification authority" is a defined term both orders.

In Clinton's order (and Bush's is virtually the same): "'Original classification authority' means an individual authorized in writing, either by the President, or by agency heads or other officials designated by the President, to classify information in the first instance."

Removal of access to classified information has no "at medium" requirement, rather it is discretionary: "Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation."

In short, it is anything but clear that Rove will have his security clearance taken away—although he should.

John Dean
Former White House counsel

This is from two days ago, but asking the same question.

[Coexist]

79. I'm tired of looking, here is all I could find:

http://www.dss.mil/aboutdss/faq.htm#inveli

QUESTION: When a cleared individual is accused of having committed a felony, does this trigger a review of the person’s security clearance?

ANSWER: There is a continuing evaluation requirement for all personnel holding security clearances. DoD regulations require the military services and DoD agencies to establish security programs so that supervisory personnel know their responsibilities in matters pertaining to the cleared individuals under their supervision. Such programs provide practical guidance as to indicators that may signal matters of possible concern which would call into question whether it is in the best interests of the country for an individual to continue to hold a security clearance. Each service and agency provides supervisors with specific instructions regarding reporting procedures (for adverse information). Facility Security Officers (FSOs) are also obligated under the NISPOM to report adverse information on cleared employees. If considered necessary, on review of the reported information, the appropriate authority can request an investigation to determine whether that individual’s clearance should be removed. In cases of grave concern, a clearance can even be suspended pending the results of the investigation.

Whether a specific incident would be reported promptly to clearance adjudicative personnel, and whether it would then result in an investigation, and possibly a clearance revocation, would depend on a number of factors. These would include: who is aware of the incident, the seriousness of the incident, whether previous incidents were a matter of concern in the past, and whether the incident relates to areas considered to be of concern for persons holding a security clearance. Incidents that are not immediately investigated may also be noted and explored later when that individual undergoes a routinely scheduled Periodic Reinvestigation. Information relating to the following issues may be considered significant in relation to holding a clearance:

a) Allegiance to the U.S.
b) Foreign Influence

c) Foreign preference

d) Sexual Behavior

e) Personal Conduct

f) Financial Considerations

g) Alcohol Consumption

h) Drug Involvement

I) Emotional, Mental and Personality Disorders

j) Criminal Conduct

k) Security Violations

l) Outside Activities

m) Misuse of Information Technology Systems

[yodermon]

12. I will keep hammering the Larry Johnson/Joseph Wilson

angle, because they HAVE confirmed it.

Here, from talkleft:

One last note on former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson's comment on Democratic Underground that Joseph Wilson received the same information as Jason: Some have questioned whether Larry really wrote the comment, or whether it was an imposter. I e-mailed Larry, and he responded, indeed it was him. He added,

Joe heard the same things but not from Jason. If these multiple sources are lying then I certainly hope Jason outs their a*s.

Here is a DU link where Larry Johnson swears to his truthful identity:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1183853&mesg_id=1187186

The Real Larry Johnson

I, Larry Johnson, owner of NoQuarter.typepad.com, do solemnly swear that I am the one who posted the piece re Jason Leopold. Check it out on my blog. I spoke with Joe yesterday. We're all hopeful that the sources who spoke to Jason and Joe separately aren't doing drugs of some sort.
LJ

In fairness, we have not heard any public statements BY Joe Wilson in which he confirms this. We have only Larry's word. And we all know what a big fucking liar Larry Johnson is.

[sheelz]

21. Then why aren't they and all the other blogs

celebrating? Could they just be repeating rumors? Did they see the actual indictments?

[yodermon]

33. Well,

technically yes, they could have been punk'd. All of 'em. Jason, Will, Joe Wilson, and Larry Johnson all could have been punk'd by a massive Rovian conspiracy to cause multiple independent sources to align their false stories in a disinfo campaign to tar the lefty media. It is definitely a Rovian tactic; he did just this thing to author JH Hatfield (who later killed himself).

It just seems to me that Johnson & Wilson are nobody's fools, and it would be really really hard to punk thsese guys.

Plus, if they were out "celebrating" on blogs, then they would, by definition, be engaged in this current ongoing mudfight. They are laying low bcz they know they'll be confirmed, so why get all dirty. Will Pitt could take some advice from them in this regard, IMO.

[sheelz]

43. Leopold claimed on Ed Schultz

that the MSM needed one more source. If you believe this is more than just rumor, why don't you put together a huge campaign and flood the MSM with these two additional sources, namely Joe Wilson and Larry Johnson.

[acmavm]

13. Good grief, this is getting way out of control. If it was a mistake,

it was a mistake. If the good news has been delayed for some reason, it's been delayed for some reason. Mr. Leopold needs to check with his sources. If they still verify, than we wait. If they hedge, hem, and haw or change the story completely than he was given bad information or he was set up (which I wouldn't disbelieve for a minute). And he should just tell us that.

I just can't believe all the time people are spending on this. And the nastiness. People telling those that believe in the indictment story that they 'make all DUers look bad'. Why? My ideas are my ideas. Period. Not yours, mine. And I'm the only one responsible for them. Same goes for anyone here that thinks there's truth in the indictment story. Why should certain people (and so many of them are the same ones that speak down to anyone that says something they don't approve of or agree with) act like such pompous asses to their fellow DUer? That makes DU look worse than people believing in a story about KKKarl being indicted.

If you don't believe the story and you're proven right, well good for you. But until we know for sure, petty attitudes and name calling are what's making us look bad.

[Catherine Vincent]

89. Very good post!

"Why should certain people act like such pompous asses to their fellow DUer?"

Because it's not an act. They are POMPOUS ASSES.

[Catherine Vincent]

14. To the poster that had his thread locked talking about Fitz's website...

I clicked his website and the colors look the same to me. I visit that site several times a day. I really believe we would hear from the major networks first before it is updated on his website. And while I'm on the topic, even if Rove et al are indicted, Fitz may not even have a news conference. We should all keep that in mind.

[deaniac21]

16. Arwalden and taxloss......

Were you guys ever writers for Jerry Seinfeld? You are killing me....:rofl:

:popcorn:

[arwalden]

23. Uh... Thank You?

:shrug: :hi:

[Taxloss]

I love Seinfeld.

So I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.

:hi:

[bryant69]

17. What do we owe each other as members of this community?

I wonder if this is not one of the core issues in this debate. William Pitt is a long running well respected member of this community - while I don't always agree with him, he strikes me as a smart well-meaning person. I can't speak for Leopold (who, in the short time I've known him, has impressed me in quite the opposite direction). Will Pitt stands behind this story. Isn't it a bit of a betrayal to say, "Nope, you're wrong."

Does that account for some of the fire attached to this story?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Goblinmonger]

45. Betrayal?

Holy shit. All we are saying is that the story was wrong and the "24 BUSINESS hours" thing is a bullshit excuse. That somehow translates into eating our own? People need to relax. If this were any other MSM source making statements like this that have turned out to be false, would we be cutting them slack? Doubt it.

[arwalden]

62. I Think That Was A Poor Choice Of Words Also...

I'm not at all certain how such a thing could be considered to be a "betrayal".

Maybe that poster was thinking of "ungrateful"---as if we owe them something---the benefit-of-the-doubt perhaps? :shrug: I don't know... it's just a guess.

[Goblinmonger]

69. I guess we are Judas?

And I was the one accused of hyperbole on another thread. Go figure.

[bryant69]

75. No I meant betrayel

I admit it's a harsh word - but the way some people are reacting to questions about the accuracy of Leopold's story I think it fits.

[arwalden]

80. That Makes No Sense. HOW Is It Betrayal?

What do you think "betrayal" means? What has been betrayed?

[bryant69]

85. I don't feel it myself so It's hard for me to answer that

But look at the anger questiniong Leopold's story has engendered, and tell me if it doesn't seem like those who are angry feel like they have been betrayed.

As for what is betrayed - hard to say. I think it is because we are all supposed to be on the same page and watch out for one another.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[arwalden]

105. Well, What You Said Was...

... here's what you said:

<< Isn't it a bit of a betrayal to say, "Nope, you're wrong." >>

That comes across to me as though that you yourself is making the argument that it IS a betrayal to say those words. It certainly sounded like your own personal opinion to me.

But when questioned as to whether this is what you really meant, or if you used the right word (betrayal) and if you might have meant something else, you respond with:

<< I don't feel it myself so It's hard for me to answer that But look at the anger questioning Leopold's story has engendered, and tell me if it doesn't seem like those who are angry feel like they have been betrayed.>>

So what you INTENDED to suggest was that the TO/Leo/Pitt *supporters* feel betrayed, and that the *supporters* feel that Leo/Pitt are being betrayed?

If I understand you correctly, (even though it sounded like your own beliefs) you were just postulating what the rationale might be for THEIR overwrought behavior. -- Okay. Thanks for the clarification... I can't argue with that.

It's an interesting question though... WHY would they feel such a thing? And HOW could someone questioning their heroes actually be considered to be a betrayal?

[patcox2]

96. Okay, we will deny reality out of loyalty to Pitt.

Where do I get the koolaid that lets me do that?

The thing is, I am a democrat who is interested in politics. The essence of politics is creating common ground that a majority supports. It consists of building coalitions and compromising.

Pitt is a melodramatic crusader, he reminds me of Don Quixote. His style of rhetoric is not good politics and will never help the democrats, other than as a form of rabble rousing that excites and inspires one small minority of democrats.

The idea that anyone owes him anything is ludicrous.

[BurtWorm]

91. A) Very few are saying flat out they're wrong

Most of us skeptics, as far as I can tell, are saying where's the beef? We're asking questions (and not getting them answered).

B) Are we obliged to believe everything certain people say?

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

18. Excellent place to post for my journal. Thanks, Skinner.

I e-mailed the link to the first OP by Will Pitt to friends and family.

In the e-mail, I cautioned that time will tell and just keep this in mind when the indictment is announced.

I don't believe one word coming from Rove, the WH, Rove's lawyer or spokesperson.

This group has a proven track record of lying again and again and again.

I look at Truthout as the brash upstart in the journalism biz. They are pushing the envelope and putting it all on the line to have the scoop on the story.

Also, of note is the MSNBC mention, earlier this week of the story. The story was referenced in a matter of fact manner, without the usual "conspiracy theory" undertones seen in the general MSM treatment of the blogosphere.

BTW, I believe that the WH was counting on the usual MSM compliance in not reporting on this until an announcement is made. I believe Truthout's story is bit of a wrench in the works to that plan.

Of course, they have enough hubris to not really care, that much. But, I'm sure they would have preferred there weren't any intrepid reporter types out there ready to move on the information.

One more vitally important point: It is possible to support Truthout and be willing to admit to being wrong if the outcome is different that one expects.

Rock on Jason and Will!

MKJ

[Snivi Yllom]

19. Clarification for all: Libby resigned the day he was indicted, no later

Libby resigned Friday, October 28, 2005. The indictment was dated October 28, 2005.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/leak.probe/

Libby resigned Friday after a federal grand jury indicted him on five charges related to the leak probe: one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements.

PDF of Libby's indictment here
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1028051plame1.html

[arwalden]

27. Not According To THIS DUer...

In another thread (today's #1 thread) another DUer argues the following:

=========================================================================
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1224473&mesg_id=1224749

Media_Lies_Daily (1000+ posts) Thu May-18-06 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #64
66. Did you follow the process for Libby? The public announcement was....
...made a week AFTER the date of his indictment. Libby continued to work during that week.

=========================================================================

... but frankly, I think your evidence is much more convincing.

[Snivi Yllom]

32. you mean the 1st page of the Libby indcitment that says "October 28"

[sheelz]

37. Careful...

You'll be called:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1221712#1221712

edit to add:

Media_Lies_Daily
I don't know, but they seem to be multiplying like....

...cockroaches, and harder to tombstone.

[Kagemusha]

42. About that... since this is one nice big thread and all...

I like Will as a person, and I'm worried he'll end up on his feet when the music stops here, but look. The guy's a grown man. If he wants to put his neck on the line for Leopold, that's his business, and no one should go mourning for him. I hope he's right to do so. I really do. But right or wrong, it's his choice, and no one should deign to make it for him.

[sheelz]

57. I updated my post...

the link didn't go where I wanted it to. :argh:

[Kagemusha]

25. Self-deleted

Saw something that might've explained a few things and then found out the source shouldn't be considered reliable. (I'll be nice and not say "either". I don't know.)

Time'll tell on Leopold.

[BeatleBoot]

28. Self Delete

[Snivi Yllom]

30. Madsen is full of shit. Libby was indicted October 28. Not the 21st

The indictment is dated October 28. Period

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1028051plame1.html

[johnnie]

39. Where does he say he was indicted on the 21st?

:shrug:

[Snivi Yllom]

54. here

"In the Scooter Libby case last October, after the Grand Jury decided to indict Libby on Friday, October 21 and the Attorney General personally heard the decision the same day at a meeting with the jury, the actual indictment was issued the following Friday, October 28."




Scooter Libby was not indicted until the indictement was issued on October 28. Libby resigned the same day of the indictment, October 28.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/leak.probe /

Libby resigned Friday after a federal grand jury indicted him on five charges related to the leak probe: one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements.

Will Pitt and Jason Leopold have insisted the indictment was issued Friday and in fact dated May 12, 2005.

[johnnie]

56. "decided to indict Libby on Friday, October 21 "

Decided to indict is different than indicting.

[Snivi Yllom]

77. I don't know what decided to indict means, indictment for Libby was 10/28

not 10/21

[hang a left]

41. Not to argue here but....

This just shows the filing date. The GJ could have returned the true bill any time before that.

[Snivi Yllom]

46. wrong, he's not indicted until its filed

the filing date is the indictment date

[hang a left]

74. That does not mean that a vote wasn't taken

If you remember the GJ and Fitz marched down the hall to the Judge's courtroom and filed the indictment amidst all the hoopla on that Thursday in October of last year.

Also delivered was some type of sealed package that no one to this day has been able to identify or explain.

Wouldn't a prosecutor use a vote for indictment as a bargaining tool before filing??

Just asking...

[Snivi Yllom]

102. why bother keep an indictment secret

if you are going to use it for bargaining. If he has the indictment, why bother bargaining?

"Plea to this, and then the plea will be on the record anyway, and you still are guilty, and still have to resign."

vs.

Indictment issued. Plea or we go to trial.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[johnnie]

50. Thanks

I posted my question then the other post was gone. That's what I thought I read aslo.

[Jigarotta]

60. wait, wait. Will said the date of the indictment is May 12.

so the GJ 'decided' to indict a week earlier.
now what date is Will referring to, the stamped one or the one at the top?


??
jeebers this is giving me a most pleasant Columbo headache. ;)

[johnnie]

67. I think you are confusing the two

Some are talking about Rove and some about Libby.

[Jigarotta]

78. yes, I understand that.

I am supposing the process would be similar.

and am supposing that Will's May 12, is the stamped/filed date if TO says Rove Has Been Indicted.

sorry to be so thick, but am genuinely trying to understand some of this.

[johnnie]

82. Oh, it's cool

I was trying to understand some of it too, but I am getting a headache...seriously. I guess this topic will have to be on hold for a while until something of substance really happens. All it has been is hundreds of threads of the same two points. "Yes he did" and "No he didn't"..lol

[Snivi Yllom]

72. there will be one date on the indictment, only one

WilliamPitt (1000+ posts) Wed May-17-06 04:02 PM
Original message
When the documents come out
they will have dates on the top.

Those dates will be Friday May 12, 2006.

Just as we said.

[Jigarotta]

92. haha! sorry!

I just realized what the top date is. I feel so foolish ...

but liberated in a wierd kind of way.

I apologise for being silly.
see, ain't so hard.

[Quixote1818]

61. I believe the Declaration of Independence had a similar story

It was dated July 4th but wasn't actually signed until August. Some though say that Independence day should be July 2nd.

http://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2005/nr05-83.html

Independence Day Should Have Been July 2 –July 2, 1776 is the day that the Continental Congress actually voted for independence. John Adams, in his writings, even noted that July 2 would be remembered in the annals of American history and would be marked with fireworks and celebrations. The written Declaration of Independence was dated July 4 but wasn't actually signed until August 2. Fifty-six delegates eventually signed the document, although all were not present on that day in August.

[Kagemusha]

31. I just deleted my post on this matter...

and that's because it looks like Madsen doesn't exactly have a spotless rep either. :( ugh.

Anyway, just warning. Fact is, even with legit reporting... ....even with what Madsen reports, he's basically saying Leopold got played. Details of his story, specific stuff like 15 hours at Patton-Boggs and 24 hour notices, were Rove creations to put up a smokescreen. Hence, Leopold got played. And you know what, that's entirely possible. Leopold bit at the specificity of the story and the multiple sources. That bone might have been too good to be true.

Problem is, I can't just trust Madsen either. So time will tell. Again.

[yodermon]

35. what a labyrinthine mess

:popcorn:

[Jigarotta]

38. sheeesh, how can Madsen be so off on this...

I'M DISSAPOINTED! at all the shoddyness!

fox mulder had it right, trust no one.

[yodermon]

48. see my post #47, n/t

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

52. That train is never late, here is Jigarotta right on time. n/t

I always look forward to reading your insightful, articulate and penetrating posts, as you plumb the depths in search of the truth. :) MKJ

[Quixote1818]

55. Only on DU does Madsen have a mixed reputation

Daily KOS and a number of other blogs think he is reputable and post his stuff from time to time. I once did a search to find out why so many here on DU don't trust him and couldn't find anyone who questioned his reputation and quite a few people who praised him. I am not sure why a number of DUers don't like him.

[grytpype]

66. Nope.

There is a diary raging on this right now, and Madsen is not looking too good.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/18/102829/607

Wayne Madsen is a fabulist like Steven Glass.

Note that his article contradicts Leopold, who said Rove was indicted LAST FRIDAY.

If Rove is actually indicted on Friday, that means Madsen guessed right and Leopold guessed wrong.

My comments at the diary:

----

I am not going to believe a goddamned thing until I see Fitzgerald at a podium.

Not one goddamn thing.

The alt-media has consistently oversold this whole story.

(this comment has 60+ recommends)

----

Madsen says the AG personally went to the courthouse to be notified personally by the GJ they are going to indict Rove.

Rubbish. Total 100% bullshit, fabricated by someone who has no idea whatsoever how criminal procedure works.

---

And it's not just the MSM that is "burying" this "scoop."

It's Raw Story. Murray Waas. Firedoglake. They won't touch this with a ten foot cattle prod.

Too bad for Will Pitt, he stepped on his johnson with this one.

[Vinnie From Indy]

68. Isn't he the guy that insisted that guys in dark SUVs

whacked his dog?

[dweller]

73. no, that was Clint __?___ ... n/t

last name escapes me.

dp

[meganmonkey]

71. I think it's partly because

he doesn't like DU. People around here get sensitive about that sometimes. If you look at his links on his webpage, DU isn't on it. It used to be.

:)

[hang a left]

84. I think he removed the DU link because of the treatment he gets

round here.

I have found some of his stuff to be right on and some off. I think he is a little paranoid. Not more paranoid than I however. That would be quite something.

[meganmonkey]

98. Just because you're paranoid

doesn't meant they're not out to get you :hide:

Yep. If I were him I probably would have taken DU off my list too. He's got some other great sites listed there though.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

36. deleted snarkiness nt

[BlooInBloo]

59. 'morning all! Has truthout been 100% vindicated yet?

[arwalden]

64. Ha! Ya Big Screwball!! Funny!

[patcox2]

81. No, but we're standing with him with every fiber of our beings!

Point of fact, it turns out they were "leap business hours," which only happen on business days that fall on February 29th.

[BlooInBloo]

86. THAT'S how they get more time!

Genius!

[Maddy McCall]

88. I thought that they were "full moon business hours"

The time only ticks when a full moon is in the sky. :shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

93. Ooooh - that's a good one too! :)

[quinnox]

65. It's Thursday and still no indictment

If it doesn't occur by Friday evening then it will be clear, Leopold either was mistaken, was duped, or made the whole thing up.

[Goblinmonger]

70. Why does he get until Friday?

How is he twisting "24 business hours" now?

[BlooInBloo]

76. I wouldn't get exercised about that question....

... because come Friday, they'll come up with a reason to withhold judgement until Monday...

Rinse, repeat.

[patcox2]

100. Ahh, but you forget about the possibility of a "secret indictment!"

We may never know, you see, because the special prosecutor may be lying about not indicting him and may have secretly indicted him. There may be a secret trial and he may serve secret jail time. Can't you see its all a huge conspiracy? Will Pitt cannot be wrong, so occams razor says that the "secret indictment" theory is the only possible explanation; the alternative is simply unthinkable.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

83. Y'all need to calm down and face reality

There is no indictment.

No one knows anything.

Fitzgerald's office doesn't leak.

The Leopold article was fiction.

There is no indictment.

There may never be an indictment of Karl Rove.

Carry on, but try to stay within the boundaries of reality. The colors are prettier here.

[arwalden]

90. So... In Other Words... What You're Saying Is...

There is no indictment?

:thumbsup: :patriot:

Whew! I'm glad SOMEONE can make sense of all this!!

[Taxloss]

95. Hang on a second, you're saying that there's no indictment?

But ... but ... but ... business hours! Sealed! Plea bargain!

:rofl:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

99. Of course there's an indictment

Patrick Fitzgerald just has this odd habit of enjoying walking around for a week with an indictment tucked inside the waistband of his boxers.

You didn't know that?

Sheeeeesh.

[Taxloss]

104. I personally suspect that he hasn't been able to find his way

out of the "locked down" floor of Patton Boggs yet.

But your theory makes sense, because Pat likes his indictments served warm.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

107. I got his lockdown swinging

right here.

Oh, wait.

I can't tell you about that for another 24 dog years.

Forget I said anything.

[canichelouis]

94. I agree 110% that "No one knows anything"

Now, as to "the colors are prettier" in our present state of 'reality'......

That's a different issue all together.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

97. Good point,

since I haven't seen the colors in that other place, where delusion reigns. I've just heard stories from my clients who have permanent addresses there.

They're drab and depressing and not at all clear. Sort of not really colors, but more like old and tattered dropcloths. Attempts at color. And, the people occupying that zone don't seem at all happy. Anxiety is no substitute for happiness.

Reality. The ultimate high.

Or was that the really good acid in 1968?

[Catherine Vincent]

106. "There may never be an indictment of Karl Rove."

Keeping hope alive?

[kpete]

103. 5

[Taxloss]

108. 5?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

109. Shhhhhhhhh

That's "dog" for 24.

Be still.

[pinto]

110. Thread 3 is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1226036