OFFICIAL TRUTHOUT/LEOPOLD/ROVE INDICTMENT THREAD 5

[pinto]

Thread 4 is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1226805&mesg_id=1226805

[mdmc]

1. anything new?

peace and low stress all!

[stop the bleeding]

2. LOL - Ruh Roh Raggy

I feel like we have been here before,

up to thread 5 already let the games continue

wooopeeeee!!!!

[BurtWorm]

3. Can we make this the peace offering thread?

I offer peace. (I'm sick of the subject.)

[stop the bleeding]

4. agreed n/t

[benburch]

5. Ditto. nt

[Cooley Hurd]

10. Agreed & I'd like to see posts made by TO/Leopold supporters...

...left the fuck alone by the anti-Pitt/anti-Leopold tag teamers (and we know who they are).

Peace. :)

Edited to add I'd also like to see the same "tag-teamers" leave the "Peace" posts alone (see post #11 below)...:grr:

[DancingBear]

24. Perhaps if you referred to those folks in different terms it may help

Calling them/us "anti-Pitt/anti-Leopold" doesn't help too much.

Unless you'd like to be called "sycophants."

Speaking for myself, I just believe that a demonstrably false story should be treated as such. Honestly, I really don't like to be viewed as some kind of right-wing mouth breather because I find serious faults in a story. Lots of us do, and to us whether or not Rove ever gets indited isn't the point - it's the fact that we were told things were fait accompli, and it's now clear that they were not.

Let the folks discuss it. It'll soon blow over - like most things here - and we'll re-unite again for the common Democratic good soon enough.

Agree?

Peace right back at cha. :)

[Cooley Hurd]

29. I certainly have no quarrel with those who question the veracity of...

...the story itself. But many (not including you, of course) seem to be attempting to disprove the Leopold story by assassinating the characters of both Pitt and Leopold (by bringing up Jason's former drug problem & Pitt's drunken rant from the other night).

That's all I meant. :hi:

[BurtWorm]

37. Not to start things up again, I hope

but wasn't that rant where a lot of the lines were drawn in this battle?

Peace!

[Cooley Hurd]

41. Yes, but Will was drunk and, heaven knows I've said & done regrettable...

...things when I was snockered.:beer:

The majority of Will's contributions to DU and to the progressive cause have been noteworthy and admirable.

[BurtWorm]

45. Okay.

I'm not going out any further on that branch.

:toast:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

49. Was Will drunk? Or did someone infer that?

[Cooley Hurd]

57. He posted earlier that evening that he was going out to a pub w/ a friend.

I saw the actual post. In total fairness to Will, he'd been getting stalked by the usual band of Pitt-haters quite a bit in the past few weeks, and one could hardly blame him for a bit of escapism.

Disclosure: I'm not a Will Pitt friend nor detractor, but the drubbing he's been getting here was/is pretty intolerable.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

79. No, I didn't see that post. But, like you, I don't blame him for....

...whatever he said to that group. I'm surprised he lasted as long as he did without lashing out.

[arwalden]

106. RE: Lashing Out

Nice way to build up that highly-valued and sought-after "goodwill" and "benefit of the doubt", eh?

[izzybeans]

111. The post was made prior to going to the pub.

I know of one group who attacks Will for going to bars with friends...and a mention of their name breaks the rules. It is a shame to see that shit spread here.

[arwalden]

62. Weren't You Paying Attention Earlier??

This isn't the first time your question on this subject has been asked AND ANSWERED!! -- Wake up! Continually denying the obvious really isn't doing much to help your cause.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HereSince1628]

52. Well, it didn't help his professinal image, but I'm old school

I guess I should have read that new Blog Journalism 101 much more carefully cause there seem to be new rules for proper journalist behavior on the internets. Clearly blogging allows interactions and writers can respond to issues raised by readers. But, I never had a clue that it's ok and forgivable for "professional" blogjournos to get pissed off and apply vulgar ad hominem attacks on readers and blog administrators.

[Cooley Hurd]

66. Of course it didn't, help his professional image, but he's human

...and has weaknesses like anyone else.

I think, if Skinner were TRULY offended by Will's rant, Will would be spotting a tombstone. As of right now, he isn't.

[HereSince1628]

96. Ya know, George W. Bush and Karl Rove are human, too.

It doesn't seem to affect anyone's ability to doubt everything they say.

Seems to me "Professionals" communicators should be held to higher standards.

[Cooley Hurd]

99. ...but Will Pitt didn't kill anyone. They did.

[HereSince1628]

117. Gee, I guess that does make them less than human.

[Snivi Yllom]

124. sometimes..

[DancingBear]

50. I got it

It's a strident bunch we've got on here today, that's for sure, and it's a thin line between character attacks and using something like the aforementioned diatribe to make a point.

For me, that rant you spoke of was beyond the pale, and (to me, at least) did great damage. For others, perhaps not. The responses to it, again to me, seems to be goose vs. gander, and seemed to be in-bounds, because they are in the context of the article and how those responsible for it chose to respond.

Character assassination designed to do nothing more than that (i.e. outside this political context) has, as you say, no place on this board or anywhere else, but demonstrating a pattern of dismissals and firing is within the lines, I think. I'm not dismissing the whole drug thing that you spoke of, it's just that that is the one thing I had not heard about (can't believe I actually missed a thread on that one...)

We'll see how it goes.

Thanks foe an even-tempered response, BTW.

A rarity these days.

Hee, hee - can't wait for primary season... :)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

48. "Demonstrably false story"? Hmmm. You're welcome to your opinion....

...and yes, your opinion does place you in the "anti-Pitt/anti-Leopold" faction. That's not an abusive or insulting phrase, it's what you've proven yourself to be.

But, if you think you're being perceived as "some kind of right-wing mouth breather", that's not the case at all. Did someone actually call you that, or are you getting defensive in some way not warranted by the facts?

As far as Leopold's article goes, why don't you want to see this played out?

[arwalden]

73. What Are You Basing That Statement On?

<< why don't you want to see this played out? >>

How do you know that such a thing is true? I read the previous posts and I didn't come away with that conclusion... how is it that YOU have arrived at that conclusion?

It almost sounds to me as though it's a play (or the mirror-image) of the old RW question: "Why do you hate America?"

I think the logic-train pulled out of the station a little too early. The connection you're trying to make between the two things just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[DancingBear]

77. No, actually, it doesn't

It places me in a faction that looks at a story that had "DONE" stamped all over it, then said "MAYBE NOT", then said "SOON", now says "WE"RE PRETTY SURE." To think that someone is anti-anything because of that is not correct.

Please, stop with the straw man "you don't want to see this played out" argument. According to the story it HAS been played out. It's already done. Over. Karl should be packed and gone. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.. Now you want me to just have faith. When does the faith end? If Rove gets indited next week, was TO correct? Next month? Next year?

The facts are these: TO said he was already indited. He has not been. They were wrong. If he gets indited, I will do the mother of all happy dances from now until my legs fall off. But the fact will still remain that the story was wrong.

That is ALL the argument has ever been about. Not about who we like, or who we don't. Not about whether we think Karl should get 20 years, or 10. Not about whether certain folks are too strident, or too docile. It's all about having journalistic responsibity for what comes off your keyboard. If you don't think so, then replace "Rove" with "Hillary", have Drudge post an article that says she has been already served with new(!) Whitewater papers, and she has 24 hours to get her affairs in order. The next day, read where Drudge has clarified the 24 hours into 24 business hours, then watch day after day go by without anything coming to fruition. I don't know about you, but I'd be screaming BS for all I'm worth.

If you let emotion enter into it then you may as well pack it in, because your conclusions will meet your expectations every time.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

104. Well, you're welcome to your opinion. As far as....

...I'm concerned, the story has not yet played out. You can call my opinion a "straw man" all you want, but that's the way I'm currently looking at it.

But, even if the story does fall apart, that still doesn't give me the right to call Leopold and/or Will Pitt a liar. IMHO, it doesn't give ANYONE the right to call either one of them a liar, but they're doing it as fast as they can.

[DancingBear]

110. Stop that

NO ONE is calling them liars.

Many are saying the story is false as it currently stands.

HUGE difference.

[arwalden]

113. There's The "Straw Man"...

... in fact you did NOT call them liars, yet MLD suggests quite clearly that you DID. Then he can knock down that mean-old-straw-man by proving that you "did not" call them liars.

See how that works?

[DancingBear]

121. I am humming an old Animals tune

"We gotta get out of this place,
if it's the last thing we ever do"

Ain't life sumthin'. :)

[Goblinmonger]

34. Isn't it kind of ironic

that you agree to the peace, but then put in a little jab? Kinda makes your peace offering look pale.

[Cooley Hurd]

43. What jab? I've explained what I meant (see my reply to DancingBear)

...why are you being so defensive? Hmm.

[Goblinmonger]

53. OK

I'm backing off. My misinterpretation. Peace.

[Cooley Hurd]

59. Peace to you, too...

:thumbsup:

[Taxloss]

68. Stop poking me with that olive branch. n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

71. Just in case you missed my clarification:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1227513&mesg_id=1227791

:hi:

[Taxloss]

76. OK.

But I would point out, with all due respect, the that flaming was started by the pro-Leopold side, and escalated by the pro-Leopold side. "Fuck y'all", "cretins", "cockroaches", "Freeper plants". I haven't seen anything that strong from the naysayers.

[BurtWorm]

82. To be fair, I called one a "shithead"

But that was a couple of years ago on another subject.

;)

[Cooley Hurd]

84. Actually, it started with the anti-RawStory posts from last week...

...and bled over to TO because Leopold has worked for both entities. IMO, Will was reacting to that.

[SidDithers]

109. rawstory can kiss my ass...

but they're not the issue here.

Those who question the accuracy of "Karl Rove has been Indicted" are no more Pitt / Leopold haters than those who unquestioningly support Messrs. Pitt and Leopold are brown-nosing boot lickers.

Sid

[Cooley Hurd]

116. Umkay...

Read what I wrote again - never did I say that EVERYONE who questions the veracity of the story are Pitt/Leopold haters, but there's a faction here that are more interested in bashing RS, Pitt, Leopold & TO than interested the Rove indictment story.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[alcibiades_mystery]

74. I suppose it doesn't help when you attack in your very offer of peace

The usual passive-aggressive bullshit.

Tag-teamers? Ay yay yay.

[Cooley Hurd]

80. There are those who are attacking the messengers very blatantly...

...and they show up on EVERY thread.

Yes, tag-teamers.

And, speaking of passive-aggressive:

I suppose it doesn't help when you attack in your very offer of peace...
Fair enough. But, then you wrote:
The usual passive-aggressive bullshit.

That, my friend, is the very definition of passive-aggressive. ;)

[alcibiades_mystery]

127. No, that's just aggressive

Your post says this: We should have peace, you freaking tag-teamers. That's passive-aggressive.

My post says this: I don't like your bullshit characterization. That's just plain old aggressive.

The fact is that your use of tag teamers is, I suspect, wrong. Tag teaming implies some coordination, and there is none. It just happens that many people are drawn to these threads, on both sides. To characterize your side as just being drawn while suggesting that the other side is engaged in some coordinated attack is - apart from plain old childish and stupid - an incorrect imputation.

And I ain't your friend.

[Cooley Hurd]

130. Funny - my post NEVER said anything of the sort

"We should have peace, you freaking tag-teamers" That's just your mischaracterization of what I wrote (and a weak one, at best)

Why all the aggression, MAH FRIEND?:rofl:

I'd give up, if I were you...

[alcibiades_mystery]

134. Because

Your silly passive aggressive stance irritated me. Congratulations.

And that's exactly what you said in essence. You want peace, but you continue to characterize the "other side" in a negative light. It's cowardly.

And you can My friend me all you want. It won't change my opinion of your trifling bullshit.

[Jigarotta]

11. k, I'll bite. I'll try to be peaceful in this Thread 5

not that I think I was violent in the others.

Jason has nice sounding initials - just to say something nice. JL

say it fast, it's got such a rhythm to it.

JL JL

[Swamp Rat]

36. peace from New Orleans

:)

[BurtWorm]

42. Lovely as ever, N'Orleans!

:patriot:

[Cooley Hurd]

44. Peace to you, Swampy!

:hi:

[Generator]

6. Does desperate housewife pundit get any credit?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1050402&mesg_id=1053283


YES I was forced to hear CNN in the background of my breakfast in (humid but so pretty) Puerta Vallarta. No indictment of Rove. But heh-I think I got the date as good as Jason Leopold. I'm hoping we are both right.

I understand WHY people are so pissed. It's being told Santa is coming and the tree is bare. It's just NOT done.

[sheelz]

17. Nope

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1902738#1902992

[Generator]

25. Wow thanks for all the facts! That makes my DAY!

If you read my link I predicted on April 28th that Rove would be indicted on May 12th. Which is apparently exactly what Jason Leopold wrote. :P

[sheelz]

63. LOL

Now we have two sources. :yourock:

[Justice Is Comin]

108. I'm off by at least

one week. You can't depend on that Patrick Fitzgerald for nothin'.

[stop the bleeding]

30. WOW

what a thread - that was right after a became a member of DU again, for the record the 1st time was right after the stolen elction of 2004, I was walking around in the fog of war and found this site via BBV.com

I had to re-sign up because I had forgotton my old passwords and what not.

WOW what a thread

[sheelz]

81. You should read the Plamegate

threads and Waterman Paper along with American Judus! Great stuff!

[stop the bleeding]

87. LOL!

The Waterman Paper and American Judas were how I fell down into this rabbit hole. Ever since then I have not been able to find the way out.

The Plame threads are some of the best reasearch on DU at times.

Cheers!!!:toast:

also I have been storing all of the Libby court filings here in the DU Research Forum there are older ones that I have yet to add, but here is what we have so far.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x3589

[magpie]

7. I don't have enough posting experience to know how to fix this

On thread 4, I posted something silly. I was just goofing around, but someone misunderstood me. I think. What is proper form for this? Continue here or just let it go? I am having a hard time just letting it go...

[BurtWorm]

14. You could PM the person with an apology if you feel sorry.

If you don't feel sorry, though, you can explain yourself more fully here. Definitely don't bring a fight to the level of PMing someone unless you want to get banned.

[stop the bleeding]

15. you can delete your old post or

you can respond here with a paste and cut version of what was said with a link.

or you could just pm the DU'er and tell them what you thin in private

or you could just move along but it sounds like this is eating at you.

or there probably is another way, but I am not remembering it right now.

[BurtWorm]

19. Number six: There is no number six.

Number seven...

[stop the bleeding]

22. I'm sorry BW I don't follow

Are you talking to me or the person upthread?

[BurtWorm]

26. Twas a Monty Python reference.

Nuffin personal meant by it, squire!

:toast:

[DancingBear]

31. Is your name not Bruce?

:)

(sorry - hope I didn't statrt a rash of these things)

[BurtWorm]

40. It's not dead, it's restin'.

The palindrome of Leopold would be dlopoeL.

[Goblinmonger]

56. It's pinin' for the fjords. n/t

[Jigarotta]

83. I'm a journalist and I'm okay

I'm a journalist and I'm okay
I drink all night and I work all day
He's a journalist and he's okay
He drinks all night and he defends all day

I cut down Pugs, I eat my Dems
I go to the lavat'ry
On Wednesdays I go shopping
And have buttered indicts for tea
He cuts down Dems...
He's a journalist...

I cut down Pugs, I skip some facts
I press wild accusations
I put on progressive's clothing
And hang around in bars
He cuts down Pugs...
He's a journalist...

I cut down fellow Dems, I am such a heel
Suspended beliefs and a brazen 'tude
I wish I'd been a sober
Just like my dear blah blah
He cuts down Dems...
He's a journalist...

maybe not so peaceful, but certainly not violent.
;)

[stop the bleeding]

35. cool

I think we all could use a little comic relief

:toast:

[spinbaby]

8. Indictment tonight

My tarot cards told me so, and I think that's at least as accurate a method as any other I've seen here in recent days.

[Mr_Spock]

32. Lots of folks will be indicted this afternoon...

Who in particular were you refering too?

[savemefromdumbya]

33. as someone said

the moon is in the wrong phase for an indictment

[hootinholler]

9. note to mods:

Hi,

First, thank you for establishing these threads.

Second, a humble request. Could you please include Skinner's original note in the OPs that open the threads?

Thank you.

-Hoot

Edited to add Skinner's text:

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

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

Thank you for your understanding.

Skinner
DU Admin

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

12. Later Tonight

I stand by my hunch that it will break between 6 PM & Midnight EST tonight.

[arwalden]

13. Reply To "stop the bleeding"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1226805&mesg_id=1227498

stop the bleeding (1000+ posts) Thu May-18-06 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #69
122. That may be your opinion that one has to earn it,
but your opinion differs from mine. I come from the school that people have the benefit of the doubt until all of the facts are in.

I know as well that the body of your message was not directed at me, but at JL, can't say I agree on that either, but we are not here to agree.

I realize we all have different takes on this, but I also realize that people always don't have to agree to be part of the same team.

Peace!

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

I guess I just place a higher value on such things. It's not something that I give away as freely as others do.

There are many things that I take into consideration before deciding to give someone that "benefit". Their own reputation and humility have a lot to do with earning respect. Those things can also serve as a multiplier of any good will that they might be entitled to simply for being "on the same team". But, as I pointed out earlier... that well is already dry.

[stop the bleeding]

18. cool

I can appreciate your opinion without agreeing

Peace!

[yodermon]

16. Talkleft entry from today

Not sure if this has been posted yet for the junkies:

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014875.html

Warning: she's talking about the W*yne M*ds*n's article.

She also doesn't seem to think that Fitz walking around with GJ indictments in his pocket (without having filed them with the court) is impossible.

One last note: I've been talking a lot about a sealed indictment, but if Fitzgerald just sat on the Indictment after the grand jury returned it without filing it, there's no reason for him to ask for it to be sealed now. He'd just file it Friday a few minutes before the press conference. I still think there are issues with Rule 6(e) if he shared the signed Indictment with Luskin and Rove ahead of time, as it would be a "matter occurring before the grand jury." Of course, as I also pointed out once before, he could have shared a list of the charges he intended to submit to the grand jury, or a proposed plea agreement that contained the charges on which he intended to indict Rove.

[Justice Is Comin]

125. That's similiar to

what I've been suggesting. Or the judge may be giving Fitzgerald permission for what he wants to do.

Things are probably changing faster than we can even imagine behind closed doors.

I'm sticking to one thing, come hell or high water. Fitz is not going to let Rove get away without jail time involved.

[lyonn]

131. Will this grand jury be finish this Friday and will that mean

that Fitz could ask for new one? Thought I read this on an earlier Leopold thread. Also, what does sealed indictments mean? What would be the reason, could it be that Fitz is going to get a new grand jury?

[Name removed]

20. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[theboss]

21. Why this is important for TO: It would be Drudge breaking Lewinsky

Except more important.

I posted this on the other thread, but felt it was a pretty good thought:

Drudge proved that the "Old Media" can no longer control access to the news. If a magazine like Newsweek spikes a story, the Internet will get it eventually.

This ...this is a whole other kettle of fish. This would prove that the New Media can break the major story of the year on its own and based on its own reporting.

Rove would be the highest ranking, sitting White House official EVER indicted I believe. (Everyone who went down in Watergate resigned first). This would be the top news story of the year.

And little Truth Out broke it.

That's what is at stake.

[survivor999]

23. It makes sense

With fewer and fewer resources spent by big media to actually cover real news and do serious reporting, it's bound to happen: groups of independent reporters, highly motivated and resourceful, will start scooping the big media.

[democrank]

27. Sure is hard waiting, isn`t it?

Reminds me of the way I felt on election day, 2004. Hang in there, DUers. Take care.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

97. Waiting for what?

That's the part I don't understand.

[Beetwasher]

On Healthy Skepticism and Obsessive Vitriol (Replies)

Original:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1226805&mesg_id=1227027

Goblinmonger wrote:

It seems to be in the eye of the beholder

My ENTIRE reaction to this is the blind following of groupies that, literally in some cases, are saying that they will follow JL and TO 100% regardless of anything that happens. That is silly and foolish.

Then when those same people don't have their bullshit dectectors go off when the "24 business hours" explanation comes out, it seems too much for me to take. TO said that the indictment was made on Friday. TO said that Rove was given 24 hours to get everything in order. And now it is Thursday with nothing at all in sight. And for some reason, those of use that call bullshit on Leopold are the just spreading vitriol.

And you said this:

"I must say, witnessing the obsessive vitriol of a small minority of posters is really something...people here who are holding out hope for the accuracy of this story do not deserve the type of mockery and scorn that is being heaped upon them by a small, but obsessively vocal few...I have seen it said that "no one knows anything". I suggest that advice be heeded unless it can be shown otherwise by both skeptics and those holding out hope."
----snip---

Ummm, where did I tell you to shut up???? I said to heed the advice that no one knows anything. You obviously think YOU know something. That's not telling you to shut up. Discuss it all you want, but keep in mind, none of us really does knows anything. Call bullshit all you want on anything you want, spew vitriol, derision and scorn all you want. I will continue to call it as I see it, and I see it as unwarranted, but by all means, keep it up. I've got plenty of questions too, but there's civil ways of going about discussing these things w/ people who are not your enemies and who may be misinformed or deluded by false hope.

It's disengenous to put words in my mouth that I neither said, nor meant, I too will call you on that bullshit. Eye of the beholder, heh. Bullshit.

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

Oldleftielawyer wrote:

You clearly haven't been reading my posts

For this past week, I've delivered all the legal information you might want in order to adjust your thinking and understand that this Leopold story is bogus. Other attorneys who frequent DU - specifically "Seabiscuit" - have also been spending time trying to explain to non-lawyers that how these things work is NOT how they are portrayed by Leopold in this obviously bogus piece on nonsense.

Before you condemn - which is what you're doing - understand that there are not two sides to this matter.

This is a set of lies without any kind of triangulation or verification of a sort that a responsible journalist would employ.

And there are seasoned and experienced lawyers - I've been in DC for 30 years now - trying to explain how none of this could ever have happened the way Leopold claims it did.

I've seen vitriol, all right, and it's all come from the folks who, for whatever reasons, can't bring themselves to face the fact that Leopold (and Pitt) have conned them.

---snip--

Heh, see, there's the problem. That bit about Leopold and Pitt conning people. You know this how? There's no other possibilities in your narrow world view, such as perhaps they were conned? You know nothing, and have said as much and yet you continue to speak in absolutes and as if you think you know a whole lot. Which is it? To think that there are not two sides to this matter is absurd. Of course there's at LEAST two sides. What sort of world of human interaction do you think you live in (especially as a lawyer) that you think there's only one side to ANY event?

The only vitriol I've seen has been very, very one sided and it's mostly coming from you. If it's come from elsewhere then it's possible I've missed it, especially if it's happened before today as I've haven't been around (that goes for seeing any other of your posts), but if you don't think you're being vitriolic and obsessive about this, you need to take step back. You are really quite obsessed w/ this thing, but hey, that's your perogative. Keep it up. You think I'm condemning you? Whatever, perhaps that's your conscience speaking. I have no dog in this hunt and have plenty of unanswered questions myself, but those holding out hope are not enemies, at worst they are misinformed and deluded. As I said, freepers and bushbots deserve scorn and mockery, DU'ers holding out hope don't. Just calling the way I see it, by all means keep it up if it makes you happy, but I'm entitled to my opinion as much as you are to yours.

[dweller]

46. well put.

:kick:

checking out, hope to return to official thread 25.


dp

[Karmakaze]

65. I agree that "conning" is harsh...

but what OldLeftyLawyer is saying is that her legal knowledge tells her that the process described are NOT the processes actually used. So your argument about there being two sides to the story is a lot like the Evolution\Intelligent Design debate - there is only one LEGITIMATE side to the story in her eyes, because the other side is not factually based.

For example it is a fact the Moon orbits the Earth. But say you didn't KNOW that, and someone argued it didn't. Would that persons argument be a valid "side to the story"? Or just a factually wrong assertion? To you it may appear to be two sides to a story, to a scientist there is NO DOUBT that there is only ONE side - the truth.

Is OldLeftyLawyer right? Are the processes described by Leopold NOT the processes actually used? If so, then you can see why she would call it conning. If it is possible for anyone to know that the processes described are bogus, then the author chould have known that. If they did and reported anyway, then that IS a con.

I dunno either way, but so far Leopold's story seems more and more unlikely to be true. If it isn't I dunno whether to say he intentionally lied or was just a fool who thought he had his big break and didnt check the story thoroughly enough. I don't believe Will Pitt lied though. I think he is trusting Leopold and sticking up for him, and that he may be about to get burned more than anyone.

I sure hope not.

[Beetwasher]

72. If That's What She Meant

It certainly wasn't clear.

Even IF that's so, there's STILL more than one side to the story. There may be facts which cannot be disputed but there's still PEOPLE involved, and people get fooled, they misunderstand, they lie etc, and we have NO CLUE what is going on really. In OLL's words, we know nothing. OLL certainly talks as if she knows a whole lot more than nothing. Either we know nothing, and that includes her, or she should enlighten us, which she doesn't. If she has done so in other posts, she should refer people to those posts, but so far, all I've seen is a whole lot of vitriol, derision and ad hominem's doled out obsessively and aimed at people who at worst are misinformed and most certainly NOT enemies or worthy of such scorn.

On another note, you can hardly compare legal proceeding to something scientific like evolution. There's LOT's of ways legal proceedings wrangled, finagled etc. Not so w/ scientific method and scientific evidence. The legal system is WAAAY more open to subjective interpretation and manipulation, especially when your dealing w/ people who have lot's of money, power and care not a whit for the law.

[Karmakaze]

86. It not all one sided...

I think feelings have been hurt all round on this one, and thus some of the vitriol is a lot like siblings bickering. They really know how to hurt the other side, because they know all the right buttons to push, and getting in the digs has become more important that the original argument.

Neither side is innocent of this, and the biggest problem is there is no timetable for when it will be over. If there was a set date when we would know one way or the other it would probably not be as contentious.

[DancingBear]

105. Hey beet, let me try and clear up the "no one knows anything" part

If you've read OLL enough you'll see that that phrase means that Fitz runs an extremely tight ship, and that no one can leak, because no one knows anything.

That is what the expression means - it is by no means a shot at anyone here, but rather the firmly held belief that there is one person and one person only who knows what is happening, and he lives in Chicago.

That is truly all it means. Hope that helps.

I'll leave it to her to chastise me if I am incorrect. :)

[Beetwasher]

114. Yes, I Know, Thanks

However, OLL certainly speaks as if she thinks she knows a whole lot more than nothing. And she merely insults rather than elucidates. If she's done otherwise, I certainly haven't seen it.

And while Fitz runs a tight ship, I suspect there ARE other people who still know certain things, maybe not the whole picture, but there's always ways to gather clues.

I don't claim to know much about what's going on. The point is, no one here really does either, but that doesn't mean they deserve scorn and derision because they may be misinformed or possibly holding out false hope.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

85. Do you have any kind of point here?

I mean, there's nothing you said that goes directly to anything in the matter except to insult people.

So, what's your point?

Oh, and there is no indictment, in case you haven't noticed. Someone has to keep on top of this, so I will.

You've missed a lot. It's obvious.

So, what's your point?

[Cooley Hurd]

90. Whattyaknow... no point by point rebuttal from OLL...

...just more circle-stammering.

Dance, Leftie, Dance.:rofl:

[Beetwasher]

91. If You Don't Get It

I suspect you never will.

"I mean, there's nothing you said that goes directly to anything in the matter except to insult people."

Wow, my irony meter just took out the block!

[DemonFighterLives]

28. Wowser, thread 5 was just starting

So I checked with thread 4. Not much happening aye- am I reading this right?
Any high points in the threads besides bickering?
No problem, I'm waiting for the dominoes to fall.
:dem:

[Marie26]

38. It's just waiting for Godot.

[Goblinmonger]

39. But do you have a belt? n/t

[Marie26]

69. You haven't got a bit of rope?

We have to come back tomorrow. Then we can bring a good bit of rope. He didn't come, and now it's too late. Unless Godot comes. And if he comes, we'll be saved.

[DemonFighterLives]

54. Well , I learned something

I had to Google the play. :rofl:
Shall we go?
:bounce:

[Marie26]

70. Yes, let's go.

:)

[canichelouis]

47. My .02

ZACK

Let's think about this logically. She's either alive, or she's dead.


From which TV show/Movie?
Movie/TV Quote of the Day

[stop the bleeding]

55. Scooby Doo?

Damn I don't win, why is it always Marsha, Marsha, Marsha.

I will check back to what the real answer is ;)

[Marie26]

101. Ooo! Go?

I loved that movie.

[LeftHander]

51. OldLeftyLawyer Bait - Rove is touchable...

In a previous post you commented about how everyone should focus efforts on the war, Halliburton and several other of BushCos creations...

I think the reason why Rove is such a hot target is because he has directly influenced this Administration and helped facilitate turning the GOP into a NeoCon stooge.

It probably could be stated that had it not been for Karl Rove. There would be no GW Bush as President.

So when it becomes clear that Karl Rove's head is possibly on the chopping block it could mean that many many other things will fall into the gallows as well.

Can you or I stop the war?
Can you or I stop Halliburton and Cheney from sucking off the nation?

No.

But we see one person who is symbol of what is left in America. A symbol of what hasn't been destroyed by Bush and Rove. A symbol of honor and integrity and it is embodied by Patrick Fitzgerald. A man doing his job. With nothing but truth for tools.

Rove's reach is long and sticky. I am sure he is pulling in all markers right now as he is backed into a corner. If a honoreable law man like Patrick Fitzgerald cannot put this man out of the business for lying. Then we all will lose.

Leopold reported what he felt he had to. I believe Rove has been indicted but America is still unaware of the stranglehold the Rove personally has on the media. The scope of which is clearly evident to me...based on a series of connected "dots" spread across a wide area. Call it "chicken bones" if you want. But people do think differently than you do. And we are no less wrong for making projections and conclusion based on action and motives that other are making in this extremely complicated affair.

Your argumentative style suits you well in the courtroom I am sure as it does here on DU's impersonal, anonymous stage. But right now it simply muddies the water and only raises doubt and divides this community.

So here we are now...waiting for the shoe to drop. Or to not drop...beating each other with the first shoe.

So feel free to take your "just the facts" and "credibility attack" courtroom tactics down the hall. Frankly most people here are NOT professional argumentarians such as yourself but people just trying to get a handle on the truth in an time when the only truth we have is a constant barrage of spin coming from paid television pundits on the White House payroll.

I have read most of your post and come to the conlusion that you add very little FACT to your arguments and seem to be taunting more than contributing. From reading your numerous posts I have come to understand you.

I am sure that you care not how I feel because that is not your purpose, is it?

Where does your truth end and someone else's truth begin, based on your comments, never it seems.

[Cooley Hurd]

61. *bounce*

:bounce:

Spot on!:thumbsup:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

94. Fact?

Oh, dear. The fact that there's no indictment doesn't impress you?

The fact that the Leopold story is bogus doesn't impress you?

The fact that there's no "24 business hour" rule or language in the law doesn't impress you?

The fact that someone claiming to be a journalist never did the necessary legwork to authenticate and triangulate sources quoted doesn't impress you?

I should have read your post, not just skimmed it, huh?

But, you know, now that you're on Ignore, what difference does it make?

My truth is verifiable. Check out the "Secret Service lockdown" and the "get affairs in order" nonsense, and see what you come up with?

Or is that too much like work?

So long, honey. Enjoy Ignoreland.

[stop the bleeding]

103. Excellent more people

on the ignore list to join me,

still doesn't explain why you are so mean and bitter.

[kpete]

123. Is the toast ready?

Hey, STB, you are working overtime today. I thought you could use a laugh.

I thought it kinda looked like Cheney and (a fatter) Rove...

[Karmakaze]

129. I thought only the anti-Leopold\Pitt crowd...

were hurling personal attacks and insults?

[dogday]

58. EVERYONE needs to take a Chill Pill!!!!

And Here It Is!!!!!!




edited the shouting

[HereSince1628]

60. Yeah, and QUIT SHOUTING, this has given me a headache!

[dogday]

64. Then you need it now

sorry :hi: I toned it down...

[HereSince1628]

Thanks. ; ^)

[Sydnie]

102. a quiet and gentler chill pill

[radfringe]

67. I'm just patiently waiting for fitzmas

[Generator]

78. Truthout standing by story

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/17/125248/099

snipola~ May 17th

We can now report, however, that we have additional, independent sources that refute those denials by Corallo and Luskin. While we had only our own sources to work with in the beginning, additional sources have now come forward and offered corroboration to us.

We have been contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media - network level organizations - who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support. When we asked why they were not going public with this information, in each case they expressed frustration with superiors who would not allow it.

snipola~

There were a lot of talkers, and they confirmed our accounts. We do have more information, but want additional confirmation before going public with it.

**
The Bush administration years=down the looking glass, Kafka squared. OH WELL hope is eternal...FOOLS we are FOOLS I tell you.

[Karmakaze]

100. I think Truthout are handling this badly...

They would have been much better off sticking to one simple statement after Leopolds article: "We stand by our story, and are waiting to see what develops."

All this continuing to add new sources or new wording is only adding to the fire, and may if for some reason the article does turn out to be untrue be devestating for their credibility. It is one thing to be wrong, it is another thing to insist over and over again that not only are they not wrong, but all these other people support them, but we can't know who they are.

If the story is right, all this other stuff would have added nothing to the original story. If they are wrong, they will look far more stupid, and maybe even look like they were being intentionally deceptive.

[magpie]

89. OK. I'll try again. Please stop attacking him. What if he's right?

Won't some of us feel really stupid for slamming him? He'll be all sanctimonious and we'll have to bow down to him and it will be embarrassing. Sure, others have said what he said, many here have said it. But, he is claiming to have inside sources to this information and I ask?beg?! Shouldn't we just be waiting to see if a big storm comes and that will be our proof? what if he is right? Please stop attacking Pat Robertson.

[diamondsndust]

92. YAY!! 9 more posts ...

til this one is gone...

[Snivi Yllom]

115. 8!

.

[Marie26]

120. 7!

[Snivi Yllom]

126. getting close!

we can do it!

[PATRICK]

93. Holy mackerel, thread 5?

You have to be kidding. What relevance is there for anything but to wait and see? I mean Leopold isn't going to be impeached and change the course of American history. Whatever happens to Rove is at the mercy of the process and the mainstreamers who control the public pronouncements have nearly won the game of midwifing the news.

In fact, the only assistance I see here given to this issue is to help said MSM retain their talking points and their position as the prime arbiter of facts and news. But what news is there now about the news, old or new, hidden or breaking?

This is showing that the internet amateurs are having an identity crisis again. We ARE, smaller, less sourced, less "professional"- which has some big pluses at this strange point in time. Bouncing off the mainstream news presentation IS the main preoccupation of internet investigators and critics. Defensive sense of inferiority flapping wildly against an equally defensive sense of superiority(by default of most corporate paid professionals) could stand a little realistic patience here. Nothing is going to happen that fretting will make happen or make happen faster. Are we up to our encampment in the great void of genuine news and truthtelling in America? We can never fill it and tragedy of the void itself is more important than the default heroism of we free few.

In a healthy MSM the blogger role will be reduced to checking and balancing and preserving truth lost on the fringe. Today what should be kept in mind are the egos inflating into the vacuum and the need to change the forces that created this oppotunity- the desertion from the job of the general US media.

I share the opinion of some that the story appears solid and reasonable- even if it eventually proves to be blatantly false or mistaken in important details. What else can you do? Points taken by skeptics and the those for whom the second Coming did not happen on Monday causes justifiable disappointment have all been pretty well exhausted.

Five threads????

But then, here I am too. Sigh.

[theboss]

95. I love wonkette.com

Not as much since AnneMarie left, but still...God bless 'em:

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/truthout/finally-new-media-iconoclasts-daring-enough-to-be-against-bloggers-and-the-msm-174554.php

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/karl-rove/karl-rove-indicted-everyone-with-a-blog-to-get-their-own-unicorn-173762.php

[Inland]

98. I want an Official Indictment, Not another Official Thread.

Just saying.

[Marie26]

107. I'm kind of liking

the absurdity of it.

[Inland]

112. I did for a while, too.

I put "KICKED AND RECOMMENDED!" in every thread about rove and this supposed indictment or leopold or commenting on the divisions caused by the same. It was performance art, but nobody got it, and in fact, all those threads got on the greatest page. Even the thread that asked, "if it happens today, will you apologize?" got onto the greatest page where it stays for two days.....one day past the point the question became moot.

[Marie26]

119. The irony might've been lost,

but oh well. At least you were amused. Are there any good movie/TV quotes you'd like to contribute to the discussion?

[Radio_Guy]

118. So do we all

At least, most of us anyway. It seems some want Will and Jason to be wrong. Others seem to think they know Will and Jason are wrong, and those people just might be right. But I am shocked to see the number of people who openly hope Rove is not indicted just so they can tell Will and Jason "I told you so."

[Karmakaze]

122. Wow, someone actually said that?

got a link?

[stop the bleeding]

128. Wow - I didn't know that people were saying that

I would love to see this if you could point us to the right place.

Thank you in advance

[alcibiades_mystery]

132. Basic error here

A Rove indictment at this point will not prove Leopold and Will Pitt correct unless that indictment is shown to have been returned on Friday May 12 or before. One need not hope for NO indictment to be able to say "I told you so," in other words. ;-)

But I'm a special case. I hope for no indictment because I have an online bet at stake. My signature line will be marred for three whole months should an indictment happen, and I don't want that. :evilgrin:

[Chomp]

133. You lot make the dungeon seem sane...n/t

[Skinner]

135. Locking

Continue here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1228597