Truthout is "Standing Down on the Rove Matter"

[IsIt1984Yet]

http://forum.truthout.org/blog

By Marc Ash,

Wed Jun 14th, 2006 at 06:52:40 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation
Yesterday, most Mainstream Media organizations published reports about a letter supposedly received by Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. As an example of the supposed letter's contents, TIME Magazine stated that, "Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said or wrote, 'Absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove.'"

Truthout of course published an article on May 13 which reported that Karl Rove had in fact already been indicted. Obviously there is a major contradiction between our version of the story and what was reported yesterday. As such, we are going to stand down on the Rove matter at this time. We defer instead to the nation's leading publications.

In that Mr. Luskin has chosen the commercial press as his oracle - and they have accepted - we call upon those publications to make known the contents of the communiqué which Luskin holds at the center of his assertions. Quoting only those snippets that Mr. Luskin chooses to characterize in his statements is not enough. If Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has chosen to exonerate Mr. Rove, let his words - in their entirety - be made public.

Reporter Jason Leopold

Mr. Leopold did not act alone in his reporting of this matter. His work, sources and conclusions were reviewed carefully at each step of the process. There is no indication that Mr. Leopold acted unethically.

Please keep in mind that over the years we have reported on many examples of individuals being scapegoated in crisis situations by superiors seeking cover from controversy. Truthout, however, does not do scapegoats. And we stand firmly behind Jason Leopold.

The Confidentiality of Our Sources

As journalists, nothing is more critical to being able to report guarded facts than the guarantee of confidentiality we provide to our sources. Truthout has never compromised the identy of a confidential source. We will protect our sources on this story, as we have on every other story we have ever published.

Expect a more comprehensive accounting of this matter on Monday, June 19.

Marc Ash
Executive Director - Truthout
[e-mail]

[IsIt1984Yet]

1. What, exactly is "standing down"?

Backing down or standing up?

[Joe for Clark]

3. Yeah,

What the hell does that mean????

Joe

[Vickers]

7. It's a military term: disengaging.

Not retreating, but taking a breather.

[IsIt1984Yet]

12. Huh. Thanks for the definition.

[Vickers]

17. Honestly, I'm not sure how they mean it here. It can also be used

to a subordinate, "Stand down, soldier" kinda like shut the fuck up before you're thrown in the brig type of thing.

At any rate, it means to collect yourself and reassess the situation before you get into trouble.

[Joe for Clark]

31. Please,

Don't ever talk to me about military terms - not ever. I lived them.

I will not engage you on it.

Taking a breather - what the hell does that mean??

Joe

[Vickers]

45. I have lived them, too.

Not sure what your problem is, but I hope it gets better. :patriot:

[Joe for Clark]

68. I hope all of our problems get better,

Vickers, the guy is not a soldier - he is some blogger that got caught up in his own bullshit.

I don't know him, maybe he thought he was right and all that -

but for god's sake - don't use military terms with me, it is a real sore point right now.

Joew

[Vickers]

72. My apologies, Joe.

I thought your missive was directed at me.

[Joe for Clark]

75. It is cool,

No problem at all.

Joe

[WildEyedLiberal]

129. Then why did you ask what "standing down" meant?

:eyes:

[Jazz2006]

137. Um, he didn't.

That was the OP who asked.

[JNelson6563]

281. Yet you asked "what the hell does that mean?"

And then, "don't tell me what it means"

Oy.

[Canuckistanian]

That's what I read it as, too.

A withholding of further action. No retreat, but no attack, either.

[IndianaGreen]

232. Another military term: Advancing to the rear

i.e., retreat, every man for himself, Jason who?, etc.

[lonestarnot]

529. like debriefing, delousing and dbshing.

[Seabiscuit]

175. It's just more bullshit disingenous obfuscation. Ash is an Ass.

[salvorhardin]

14. It means they're still not taking responsibility for their actions

But hey, keep clicking that Truthout bookmark. Tabloidism is good money.

[IsIt1984Yet]

19. To be clear

I firmly believe this is another serving of bullshit they're dishing out.

[salvorhardin]

29. I'm sorry

I didn't mean for my post to imply that you personally were credulous. I've seen your posts in other threads on this matter. Obviously we concur.

[grytpype]

65. Yep. It's just more bullshit.

"We don't really know what the hell is going on but we are kinda stand by our story and we won't reveal the 'sources' even though Leopold said he would if they burned him which they did, assuming they ever existed."

Period. This is just more bullshit.

[LiberalHeart]

121. But doesn't it sound like they want the exact wording so they can...

...know for sure whether they've been burned?

[grytpype]

132. Uh, if Rove was not indicted on May 12, then their story is wrong.

And their sources, if they had any sources and that is doubtful, burned them. Period. What difference does it make what's in the letter? (Answer: it doesn't make any difference.)

[johnfunk]

167. Unless the indictment, as is done in these sorts of cases, was SEALED.

I strongly suggest that the Truthout detractors who have been spun by Rove's lawyer -- via, good grief, Byron York -- with such ease read Emptywheel's elucidating post over at Daily Kos and Christy Hardin Smith's analysis of the facts.

By the way, both NBC's David Shuster and CNN's Ed Henry were CERTAIN that Rove was on the verge of indictment or had already been indicted under seal at the time Jason Leopold's Truthout article came out. Shuster reported it; Henry played his cards closer to the vest.

[Marie26]

229. The sealed indictment rises again

I thought there was already a wake?

[Jazz2006]

249. There was indeed....

Poor indictment, we barely knew ya'

:rofl:


That was a very good thread :D

[Virginian]

241. Luskin said "charge", not "indict."

I read on another post that the GJ did indict, but Fitz chose not to charge.

Perhaps the indictment was incentive to get Rove to paint a more vivid picture of Cheney's involvement.

Wouldn't Rove have more credibility in front of Cheney's jury if he was not also charged with a crime in the case?

I think Rove is just enough of a snake to have "something" on everybody, (like J. Edgar Hoover did) not just on his enemies.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. Sometimes you have to turn on a "friend" first before that "friend" turns on you.

If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.

[Jazz2006]

248. Huh?

Indictment = charges.

An indictment is the piece of paper that sets out criminal charges on paper.

Don't know what website you're getting your info from that says "indictment" does not mean "charges" but that is just wrong.

[druidity33]

300. can an indictment be rescinded? n/t

[Virginian]

434. As I said I got it from another thread on DU.

As I also said, the Grand Jury does the indicting.

From what the thread said, Fitz does not have to bring charges after he gets the indictment from the Grand Jury.

Are you a lawyer or just a flamer? If you are just here to flame people, put me on ignore. If I wanted to get criticized for posting I would go to Vote.com or some other flamefest site.

[Marie26]

444. Indictment = charges

Charges can be brought a couple ways, and one is by indictment. Once someone is indicted by the grand jury, charges have been brought against them. At that point, it's out of the prosecutor's hands. He has already brought charges against the defendant the moment the GJ returns an indictment. The defendant can later move to dismiss the indictment, or the prosecutor can agree to plea bargain the charges, but that doesn't change the fact that charges were brought against the defendant.

[Cameron27]

449. Marie26, your investigations and explanations

have been a tremendous help to me as I've been reading through these threads. Thanks so much.

[Marie26]

528. Thank you!

:hug: And here I thought I was just wasting incredible amounts of time. :)

[yodermon]

459. At what point can a prosecutor say "nolle prosequi"

and could such action be sealed?

IOW, would it technically be possible for:

1) the GJ indicts
2) a judge seals it
3) prosecutor files nolle prosequi
4) a judge seals THAT
5) lawyer of erstwhile defendent says prosecutor "does not anticipate seeking charges" and is not technically lying.

Is this legal? feasible? likely? laughable?

Please understand I'm not asserting that this has happened, I am just trying to flesh out all remote possibilities.

[Marie26]

527. Don't think so

Well, IMO, it tends to go from feasible to unlikely to laughable w/each step.

1.) GJ indicts - So charges have been brought against Rove.

2.) Judge seals indictment - This always seemed very unlikely to me. There's really not a legitimate reason to seal this indictment here & it wasn't done in the Libby case. Not Fitz's MO. But it's feasible, I guess. However, TO's contention that Rove knows about the sealed indictment, and that it's still been sealed this long pushes it over into unfeasible for me. The sealed ind. is usually unsealed as soon as it's served on the Defendant.

3.) Prosecutor files nolle prosequi - That's an interesting suggestion, but not too likely IMO. AFIAK, in federal law, this is a dismissal under FRCP Rule 48(a). The prosecutor can file to dismiss after an indictment is brought, but he can't decide to do this on his own. Under federal rules, he also needs the approval of the court. So, Fitzgerald could file to dismiss, but the judge must decide whether she wants to approve the dismissal or not. In order to approve the dismissl, the judge needs to hear a valid reason for the action. The judge's role is to prevent prosecutorial abuse & ensure the dismissal is in the public interest. So, anyway, the federal judge would have to approve the dismissal & Fitz would have to supply a valid reason for doing so. Also, the defendant (Rove) would also have to know of the indictment & approve the dismissal.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/NRule48.htm

4.) Judge seals dismissal - Here's where it goes to impossible. I've never heard of a judge dismissing a sealed indictment, & then sealing the dismissal. Indictments are sealed because of a pressing reason (flight, publicity) etc., usually until the defendant can be arrested. I've never heard of sealing the dismissal, too & am not even sure how that'd be done. I hope it can't be done - cause it would remove any sort of accountability that the judge's dismissal approval is supposed to provide. Also, it means Rove officially has been served the indictment, & doesn't object to the dismissal, & the judge is hearing evidence, yet, the indictment is somehow remaining sealed this whole time. Yeah - no.

5.) Lawyer of erstwhile defendent says prosecutor "does not anticipate seeking charges" and is not technically lying - Here's where it goes to laughable. First, that'd have to be what the prosecutor said, as well. If the defense lawyer lies about that, he's facing a ton of potential sanctions from the court & the bar. Based on news reports, Fitz said that "Rove won't be charged with any crimes... prosecutor called Luskin late Monday afternoon to tell him he would not be seeking charges against Rove." So, Fitz is saying that he will not seek charges (an indictment) against Rove. It doesn't make any sense for him to say that if he'd already sought charges & indicted Rove. Cause that would be, technically, lying. And Luskin would also know about the dismissed indictment, while publically stating that Rove wasn't indicted. I can't believe Luskin would commit career suicide by lying about that letter, & also don't believe Fitz would collaborate to cover up his own indictment. (that the judge & GJ would also know about). So - that means the language of the statement is correct - Fitz won't seek charges against Rove, & he never sought any charges against Rove.

That's a pretty creative scenario, though! "Nolle prosequi" & all. It's the only remote possibility that can even hypothetically explain how an indictment could've happened here, but it's got too many holes & is way too unlikely. Fitz's statement basically sinks that possibility, IMO. Even w/o the statement, the concept of a "sealed dismissal" is completely w/o basis in the law as far as I can tell.

[Virginian]

544. Thanks for explaining.

It is nice to know who really has the facts when you get conflicting information.

[Jazz2006]

462. Virginian

I don't know why you think that explaining that indictment = charges is flaming.

And yes, I am a lawyer.

(Civil/commercial litigator, not crim, but I do know how the crim system works as well)

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

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

[Strong Atheist]

282. Agreed.

:yourock:

[Cronus Protagonist]

27. The opposite of "noted in the building"?

...too late for that.



Educate A Freeper - Flaunt Your Opinions!
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[bigtree]

28. whatever.

time to get over it and move on.

Truthout should be allowed to continue their fine work, relegating Jason's unsubstantiated story to the history bin until it can be corroborated by the prosecutor's office.

Let Truthout move on. The site's not called Jason Leopold and Truthout. Countless important stories and articles have graced the pages of the site throughout the controversy. Important stories. Only a narrow mindset would detract anyone visiting the site from that effort.

Go to the site. http://www.truthout.com/

I challenge anyone to find fault with what they've offered:

from the site:

June 14, 2006 | Armed forces personnel carry the coffins of Lt. Tom Mildinhall and Lance Cpl. Paul Farrelly at the Royal Air Force Brize Norton Air Base in England. Soldiers of the Queen's Dragoon Guards were killed by a roadside bomb in northwest Basra on May 28. Like many other cities across Iraq, Basra has seen a large loss of life of both Iraqi civilians and soldiers. Last month, 11 British soldiers died and many were injured, resulting in the most urgent British calls for withdrawal so far.

Bush Acknowledges
Guantanamo Damages US Image

ACLU Sues Pentagon Over
Anti-War Group Monitoring

Baghdad Security
Crackdown Launched

Fraudulent Katrina and
Rita Claims Top $1 Billion

Reinventing
Globalization

Military Has Ordered
All Independent News Media
off Guantanamo

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Threatens to Explode

House Accepts
$3,300 Raise

Global Image of the US
Is Worsening, Survey Finds

EU and US "Partners in Crime" on
CIA Flights: Amnesty International

House Approves Another
$66 Billion for War

Attacks Aimed at
Iraqi Civilians Kill 27

First Trial in Lobbying Scandal
Goes to Jury

Farmers, Activists
Resisting Eviction at
Nation's Largest Urban Farm

State Department Tries
to Distance Itself
From Guantanamo Remark

Rival US Labs in Arms Race
to Build Safer Nuclear Bomb

Oil, Politics and Bloodshed
Corrupt an Iraqi City

5 States Hold Votes;
Dems Battle in Virginia

Congress to Debate
Iraq This Week

Judges Press CIA Lawyer
Over Withheld Documents

Nonaligned Nations
Prepare to Back Iran

Outcry Over
Suicides at Guantanamo

Religious Leaders
Urge US to Ban Torture

Florida Candidate Arrested
While Investigating Voter Fraud

Top Court: Death Row Inmates
Can Pursue Appeals

US Defends Warrantless
Domestic Spying

For Youth, Advice
on Military, and Dissent

Smoke of Iraq War
"Drifting Over Lebanon"

The Pursuit of Indecency Escalates
on American Radio and Television


Caught in the Crossfire
The Untold Story of Fallujah
A Film by Mark Manning
06.12.06


Go Tell It on the Mountain
A Film by Rebecca MacNeice
06.07.06

The Daily Astorian:
We Cannot Afford This Extra
Pollution

AFL-CIO to Invest
$700 Million in Big Easy
Rebuilding Projects

Caryl Rivers:
Newsweek's Apology Comes
20 Years Too Late

Gene Gerard:
Religion Running Roughshod
Over Cancer Science

June 14, 2006 | Baghdad's passport office has been inundated with applicants, as Iraqis seek safety from violence. An American refugee advocacy group counted 644,500 Iraqi refugees in Syria and Jordan in 2005. The US Congress is poised this week to conduct its most comprehensive debate on the Iraq war yet, with both Democrats and Republicans eager to delineate the parties' differences in advance of the fall Congressional elections.

Sarah Olson:
Is the US Army Trying to
Silence Lt. Watada?

J. Sri Raman:
Must India Join Bush
War on Nepal's Maoists?

Sara Rich:
Fear for My Daughter

Stewart Nusbaumer:
"Every Rocket Was a Painkiller"

Robert Dreyfuss:
The Other Cheney
Behind the Scenes

William Fisher:
Arab Voices

David Swanson:
The Iraq War as a Trophy Photo

Greg Palast:
Keeping Iraq's Oil
in the Ground

Robert Scheer:
DeLay's Mission Continues

Le Monde
Democracies:
Recovering the Flame

Cindy Sheehan:
Cure the Disease

Richard Falk:
The Death of al-Zarqawi

Brecher and Smith:
Lieutenant Watada's
War Against the War

Bill Zide:
The "C" Word

William Fisher:
And the Oscar Goes To ...

Dahr Jamail and Arkan Hamed:
Another US Cover-Up Surfaces

Norman Solomon:
Why Pretend That
Hillary Clinton Is Progressive?

Dahr Jamail
Ramadi: Fallujah Redux

Maj. Gen. John Batiste:
Root Causes of Haditha

Tom Engelhardt:
John Brown Helps the
President Address the Nation

Marjorie Cohn:
Spinning Suicide

Daniel Ellsberg:
Iraq's Pentagon Papers

The New York Times:
Blind Man's Bluff

Kenneth F. Bunting:
When Will Mainstream Media
Question 2004 Election?

Daniel Yankelovich:
The Tipping Points

Jackson Lears:
The American W

[johnfunk]

170. relegating Jason's unsubstantiated story? How about David Shuster's?

See the last question in this post -- and then think again. Methinks you're awfully eager to crucify Jason Leopold while IGNORING David Shuster, Ed Henry, and others in the SCLM.

[bigtree]

195. godddam John I'm defending TO and Jason! I'm withholding judgement

it just is never enough for some people

[JuniperLea]

373. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Why the hardon to condemn TO w/o hard facts and concrete evidence?

[IsIt1984Yet]

374. I wonder MORE about how TO could publish a story as FACT w/o

hard facts and concrete evidence....

THAT's the bigger question.

[JuniperLea]

377. Why should they be held to higher standards than any other

news source?

[IsIt1984Yet]

378. If we can't trust our "own"... who the fuck can we trust?

We should expect more from "our own".

In addition, GiC stated it VERY well here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1429533&mesg_id=1436610

Stinky yards suck.

[Name removed]

275. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

359. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Strong Atheist]

286. For this to go away, one of three things has to happen, none of which

has so far:

1. Large numbers of people have to stop caring about whether truthout is accountable for the truth of its stories or not. I don't think that any of truthouts supporters want THAT to come to pass.

2. Truthout has to come clean, and explain this whole story. They have not yet done any actual EXPLAINING, which is keeping the story alive, and making them (and especially Liepold) the focus AND the story. Maybe we will learn something of actual factual value on June 19th, but given truthout's track record on releasing facts on this particular story so far, I ain't holding my breath.

3. Rove has to be indicted, with May 12 on the paperwork. Seems THAT ain't gonna happen, either...

[gasperc]

327. great job

something stinks about the Leopold thing, a trap? who knows but history will play this out.

I can't help but think that Rove tried to Dan Rather as many progressive websites as possible but many, smartly didn't take the bait as well as the MSM

although, WHERE THE FUCK IS THE LETTER

You gotta wonder, Fitz knows Luskin is full of shit but is just holding his cards and will indict when he's good and ready or they(Bush and Rove) decided that Libby was going to get thrown under the bus, Cheney should shut up and like it and wait for a pardon and Rove is 'cooperating'

[Moloch]

432. That's absolutely ridiculous.

A trap??

Are you serious?

Perhaps giving Rather and CBSNews fake documents to discredit them but nobody outside of DU, DailyKOS and a few other websites gives a flying fuck about truthout or jason leopold.

He is a disgraced "journalist" who has been fired from every job he has had and used to steal cars.

Nobody set up Leopold. He made the story up. Just like he plagiarized from the Financial Times.

[Just Me]

114. How's about acknowledging they're being ATTACKED by the RW?!?!!

Just a possibility thrown out there,....

I will say this, "TruthOUT" will not suffer my loyalty to their allegiance to truth.

That's all I have to say about this bullshit.

Carry on with the oblivious distractions, demands for perfection, character assassinations and whatnot,....all you observant, cynical, resigned participants. Carry on up river.

[johnfunk]

172. So why won't the right wing attack David Shuster too? Selective targeting!

And many DUers are being played like a seven-foot Steinway Model D with Billy Joel at teh keyboard.

[Bamboose]

310. what's that mean?

>>I will say this, "TruthOUT" will not suffer my loyalty to their allegiance to truth.<<

I've read this sentence six times and can't figure out what you're saying.

[dogday]

360. It's called righteous indignation

I don't believe the story, but I can't seem to gather up all that indignation either... :shrug:

[Marr]

164. Backing up, standing down, backing down...

Gotta love english.

[cherokeeprogressive]

237. From the Online Thesaurus

Type "stand down" and this is what you get as synonyms:

abandon, abdicate, abnegate, back down, cast, cast off, cede, cut loose*, desert, discard, ditch*, drop, drop out, dump*, forbear, forgo, forsake, forswear, hand over, kick, kiss good-bye*, lay aside, leave, let go, opt out, quit, release, renounce, repudiate, resign, retire from, sacrifice, shed, surrender, swear off*, vacate, waive, withdraw, yield

Way to go Truthout.

[rman]

352. Actually it's "Standing down ON"

Like "put their foot down on" as in "sticking to their story".
They do this by calling the MSM's and Luskin's bluff. It looks like Rove was in fact indicted, then a deal was struck: Rove talks and in exchange they drop the indictment. Now Rove et all is trying to hide the (not so insignificant) details, with help from the MSM.

[IsIt1984Yet]

355. WHERE do you see any proof that "It looks like Rove was in fact indicted"?

I'd like to see that.

[rman]

357. I don't need proof to say the "it looks like"

I'm not a lawyer or a prosecutor.
And i don't just pull it out of my ass, it's based on information that we've all seen. People draw different conclusions. I'm not going to argue this now. Time will tell.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Rove will do something so egregious and illegal in the coming

months there won't even need to be a trial, it will be straight to the clinker for him...

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

24. May I Have What You're Smoking?

What exactly makes you think that anything will ever happen to rove? He could do 20 illegal acts in the next 24 hours, and still would get away with them.

[aquart]

44. I'm sure you underestimate his capacity for felonies.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

55. A little birdy told me so..... tweet tweet...... I have confidence in

Rove, past performance will guarantee something equally vindictive and illegal from him some time soon.

[asthmaticeog]

64. Hey, you should publish a news story about that!

[Orsino]

135. Unfortunately, most or all of what Rove does...

...is perfectly legal.

But pass that pipe, please.

[Bamboose]

312. but the NASD told me

that past performance is no guarantee of future results? :)

[JuniperLea]

78. From your keyboard to Goddess' eyes...

Although this may take pre-meditated murder on a live, nationally broadcast television news program...

Still, Karma happens.

[Roon]

4. Can you imagine a newspaper

or a cable outlet having to do this? People would be ruined.

[JuniperLea]

87. Can you imagine

A newspaper or cable news outlet that gets it right 100% of the time?


:shrug:

[Roon]

122. I have never seen anyone blunder

as bad as TO has.

[OzarkDem]

139. You must not read the news or watch tv much

Try to remember, Judith Miller was part of the criminal process and lied her ass off about her involvement and that of others.

THAT is bad journalism.

[Roon]

154. No, I don't poison my mind with TV

You are correct there.

[JuniperLea]

301. Thanks for proving my point

Just because you haven't seen something, and haven't allowed yourself the opportunity of same, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

141. Judith Miller NYT in the lies leading to Iraq

That is much, much worse both in harm done and just as bad in getting burned by a dishonest source.

I'm sick of all the TO bashing. Yes, they either fucked up or got fucked over. I don't know which, so I reserve judgement.

As for the piling on by some of you here, it just sucks. You've probably never lifted a pencil for publication and jump down the throats of somebody trying to do some good.

[Seabiscuit]

182. When real journalists fuck up they apologize, and retract. They don't say

they're just going to "stand down" on the story. Newspapers issue corrections almost daily. Of course, the NYT's rather lame apology about Judith Miller was a rather big exception to the rule. The NYT shamed itself w/r/t her. And took a much bigger beating than TO has.

[JuniperLea]

257. Can you name a real journalist that's still reporting? n/t

[Jazz2006]

259. Can't think of a single one who ever said they were "standing down"

on a story, can you?

Can't think of any news source who ever published a "partial apology", can you?

Can't think of any news source who ever published a series of "here's what we know and what we believe" stories.

Can you?

Can't think of any news source who ever said they were "standing down" on a story that they portrayed as the scoop of the decade a few weeks earlier.

Can you?

Come to think of it, can't think of a single news source who would have ever published such a ridiculous story in the first place (i.e. the original story which was rife with internal and external inconsistencies) and can't imagine how no less than a "dozen eyes" could have reviewed that story and missed all of the obvious inconsistencies and lack of substance.

Can you?


Edit: formatting.

[JuniperLea]

261. If you don't want to answer the question

just say so.

[Jazz2006]

348. That's funny coming from you.

Seeing as how you didn't answer a single one of the questions I asked above, and seeing as how your question was so vague as to be meaningless.

[JuniperLea]

555. Why the hell should I answer yours after you refuse to answer

Mine?

You answer questions with questions and never get around to giving a straight answer to a straight question.

[druidity33]

315. the difference is...

TO still thinks they are right. I'll bet they are going to wait and see if Fitz's actual wording to Luskin can be verified before they make another comment... but let me ask:

What would you do if you had invested a couple of years cultivating a source that had never steered you wrong? Said source gives you the scoop of the century and say it's locktight, you confirm through other backchannel sources that don't want to be named... but the scoop doesn't materialise. Everyone is on your case for making things up and destroying journalism or whatnot... but your sources still say they were right... the papers were there, it happened. Would you dump your sources and name them?

btw, i think they should've held the story until they could've named a source...
but i'm not taking it personally, like some folk... shit happens, y'know?

Peace out

[Jazz2006]

350. Agreed that

they should not dump on their sources - and they never should have said they would.

Also agreed that they should not have published the story without anything to back it up.

Early on, I said the story was badly written and full of internal and external inconsistencies - which is why I doubted its accuracy. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and they offered zero evidence in a badly written and poorly edited story. That kind of poor journalism should set alarm bells off for any discerning reader, no matter how badly we want the crux of the story to be true.

I also said that if it turned out that Rove was served with an indictment on May 12 as claimed, that I would say, "hey, great scoop, and the story was still very badly written and full of internal and external inconsistencies".

Since then, truthout has done nothing to change my opinion that it was a badly written story rife with inconsistencies, and they have still offered zero evidence of the extraordinary claims that they made.

Offering up "partial apologies" and occasional updates that serve only to obfuscate rather than to illuminate are simply further instances of unprofessional journalism.

They'd have been better off to say nothing unless and until they had some evidence to offer.

Oh well ~ I have no personal stake in the matter, either.

[druidity33]

422. was hoping you'd answer...

my hypothetical, "what would you do?" question. If i were to get annoyed at anyone in this whole debacle it would be with Leo's source(s)... i think TO got shafted. But what would you do if your usually rock-solid source even at this stage insists they are right? Would you take the heat? In some respects i admire that TO/Leopold has stood by their sources (note that i don't say story) despite the pressure to issue a retraction/apology/correction.

[GoneOffShore]

430. Thank you for this post

Of all the bullshit that's been written by the circular firing squad here since the first hint of the "Rove indictment" was mooted, yours is one of the few sane ones.

I'm not taking it personally either, I'm still reading TO, and I still think Pitt knows what he's doing.

[druidity33]

437. no problem...

sanity is my forte... and i still read TO and Will Pitt too. There aren't too many voices out there worth lending an ear to and i'm not going to sacrifice any of them unless someone gives me a damn good reason... being misled by a source ain't one of them.

peace out

[SmokingJacket]

5. "Stands down..."

Interesting choice of words...

I just hope we find out *exactly* what happened here. Whatever it was, it can't keep happening to the liberal blogosphere without serious damage being done.

[Seabiscuit]

184. Don't count on TO clearing anything up. They have no integrity.

They're almost 5 weeks late and about a gazillion dollars short.

[asthmaticeog]

6. How cute. Protecting the sources that fucked them over

and made them look like jackasses. Well, they're definitely Democrats...

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

143. Maybe somebody lied to their sources

Maybe something is going on that is not public, like Rove rolling.

[Snivi Yllom]

177. or more likely, there NEVER WERE ANY SOURCES!

you cant out them if they did not exist

[Seabiscuit]

189. I've gotten to the point that I agree with that - it was pure fabrication.

And a very bad sloppy one at that, showing complete ignorance of criminal investigative procedures.

[Marie26]

226. That's my suspicion as well. nt

[Strong Atheist]

288. Agreed. It is Liepold's M.O.

Edited: Truthout was conned by Liepold.

[DisgustedTX]

427. Correct

We all know.

[wakeme2008]

8. Weeks late as far as I can see.....

As far as standing behind their "secret sources" that falls under the same category as Drudge's "secret sources".


Their changing time lines smacks of Rove talk at it's best......

From this point on they are just another Wayne Madsen...

[Gabi Hayes]

9. read what Eric Boehlert has to say about skunks like Malkin and Powerline.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/factchecking-the-blogs-_b_21493.html

he devotes a chapter in his book, Lapdogs, to Malkin, Powerline, and the other LYING LIARS who comprise the RW blogosphere, and it's MUCH worse than you think

they routinely just MAKE STUFF UP, never admit it, then GO BACK to it when pimping their latest lies

the above post gives a great example: the Schiavo case

He also devotes a much needed chapter to the egregiously right wing tilted "The Note". If I can find a link that details his myriad QUOTED examples of the outrageous things they've said that completely toe the RW/junta line, I'll linke them here, but the things he quotes from them read as parodies, as does much of the mendacious garbage spewed from Malkin/Powerline/Little Green Footballs, and the other "estimable" wingnut blogs

[Gabi Hayes]

16. from the Huffingtonpost link: this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

Conservatives thought they smelled a rat and in an effort to connect nonexistent dots they set off on an "investigation," quickly concluding the Schiavo memo was likely a farce from the get-go. Based on nothing more than their vivid, partisan imaginations, they surmised that a wily, unknown Democratic dirty trickster had typed up the memo and gotten the willing press corps to report that the fake memo came from the Republican side. Charging into battle alongside Power Line, a Minnesota-based conservative blog run by three attorneys who posted over a dozen conspiratorial reports about the Schiavo memo, bloggers like Malkin seized on misspellings in the memo as proof of deception and, relying on anonymous GOP staffers on the Hill for tips, became more certain in their pursuit of the "political dirty trick."


• " does not sound like something written by a conservative; it sounds like a liberal fantasy of how conservatives talk," Power Line, March 21.
• "Talking Points Story Imploding?" Power Line, March 22.
• There is no evidence that this memo came from the Republicans at all," Power Line, March 24.
• Will ABC News officials continue to stonewall? Or will they come clean and promptly issue a correction?" MichelleMalkin.com, March 24.
• There is not a bit of evidence connecting the memo to any Republican, and, for all of the reasons we have repeatedly spelled out on this site, there are excellent reasons to believe it is a hoax perpetrated by still-unidentified Democrats," Power Line, March 26.
• I still believe the has no basis for implying over and over again that the memo was distributed by Republicans," MichelleMalkin.com, March 26.
• ABCNews.com still hasn't retracted its unsubstantiated characterization of the memo as 'GOP Talking Points,'" MichelleMalkin.com, March 30.


Six days after Malkin's insightful post, the author of the infamous memo reluctantly stepped forward--he was the legal counsel for Mel Martinez, the Republican senator from Florida, which meant, of course, the memo was written by Republicans, it was distributed from a Republican office and it was used for talking point purposes. The right-wing press critics though, refused to acknowledge their colossal blunder. Instead, they actually congratulated themselves for helping get to the bottom of the memo story--a story that they stitched together out of whole cloth in the first place.

[JuniperLea]

308. Perfect example

And no one seems to be able to answer a simple question: If Rove wasn't indicted, then why the need for a letter clearing him?

:shrug:

I'm not saying the TO article was correct, I'm just saying the arguments are flawed.

[OzarkDem]

142. Some folks here seem to have forgotten

Perhaps they would feel more comfortable over on Malkin or Savage Weiner's web sites, where people really know how to make stuff up.

[JuniperLea]

309. Zing!

I'm beginning to think this explains the sudden rise in population around here.

[BlooInBloo]

10. I don't see how this can deserve anything other than scathing criticism.

Again - do we have principles or don't we? Protecting the sources that BURNED you? After all the squawking we do about that? Cmon.

[OzarkDem]

158. Given no one knows the real story but Rove, his lawyer & Fitz

I don't know how anyone can jump to such a ridiculous conclusion.

[JuniperLea]

304. They want to condemn on no evidence

Amazing, isn't it? And just because people like you and I won't jump the "Bash TO" bandwagon, we are called stupid and ignorant and are said to be in support of TO.

:shrug:

I smell a rat. I can't imagine why so many are so eager to bash and condemn, and even lie and say they are a lawyer... as if that would lend some weight to the lack of evidence.

Yep, a big, fat, swollen, rotten, stinking, bloated rat.

[Canuckistanian]

194. But that's the point

We don't if anybody burned TO at all. They stand by their story and their sources.

And as they said and have said all along is that this has been checked and re-checked endlessly, not only by the staff at TO, but SEVERAL sources as well.

If it's a mass burning, then they should be outed. All of them.

It all depends on whom they've put their trust in.

And it hasn't failed them up to now.

[BlooInBloo]

254. "And as they said...." . Sigh. We never learn.

[Bucky]

289. But of course you don't *know* that the source was lying & not duped

We also don't know whether there was only one source or a giant misreading of signs from multiple sources. It's not just from you but from a lot of commenters in this thread making huge assumptions about the reporting process on this storoy. I'll wait for the facts to come out. I suppose I'll probably be waiting quite a long time.

[KoKo]

11. To be fair...."Truth Out" says "More" on June 19th. So ...somethings

in the works where they will clarify their statements.

If they "stand by their story" then lets wait and see what they have to say...:shrug: This doesn't EXCUSE their JUMP THE GUN...where they thought they had the "Scoop of the Decade" but it does say that they stand by their sources and will put out more info.

The damage to "TO's" reputation is already done...so why shouldn't we wait to see what they have to say next Monday before we "Pile On" and beat the "Dead Horse?" :shrug: GIVE THEM ONE MORE BREAK...why not?

[wakeme2008]

18. Why wait another week....

They are just leading ppl on.... :grr:

[KoKo]

36. But, they know their readers are totally "Fed Up" so if they don't have

new info then why would they want to tank themselves further with their readers?

I say...hold the fire and cynicism until we see what they say. After all...most of their readers have trashed them so bad...why would they try to do another hoax...it wouldn't make sense.

I say...give 'em one more look. And, I'm not a "TO Groupie," here...believe me..!

[Tin Man]

82. It's just more of the same old TO stalling tactics...

...just like 24 hours became 24 business hours. It's just more of the same nonsense. On June 19th, there'll be a whole new version of the Rove indictment story on TO.

[Karenca]

13. .

[madokie]

15. something smells here and I don't think it is TO

I don't go to TO but I think they are a scapegoat,

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. They're getting swiftboated

and it's a shame to see us eat our own. Rove is laughing his ass off at us.

[madokie]

56. sure they are, I believe it was the plan from the start

[ktlyon]

331. If so, we must really have them worried. If they would try to mess

over a blog. Lies lead to more lies and cover-ups, only time will tell. I think everyone is being played by Rove and the gang because that is what they do, have done and will continue to do. The trip to Iraq by George is prime example of playing it up. They must be laughing. They think they are so slick that they can get away with anything and they pretty much have. We must start trying to outsmart them, get ahead of them or cut them off at the pass.

[JuniperLea]

83. Not only are we eating our own

But we are relying on news sources who are known liars to do so, and then condemning TO for not being any better than said sources.

Looks like TO is taking the wait and see stance I've always taken in this... I'm still waiting to see something directly from Fitz. I've said it before and I'll say it again... Fitz is the only fat lady in this opera.

[IsIt1984Yet]

85. The big unanswered question is... why? If they verified the facts... why

wait and see? They claim to have shown thier "cards", but they have provided no evidence to what they claim as fact.

That's just.... odd.

[JuniperLea]

94. Everything that ever came out of this administration has been...

odd to say the least. There is no history to match any of it's actions with. Speculation based on no facts is a tiring and endless and useless waist of time and energy.

When Fitz closes the case or otherwise makes a direct statement, when the fat lady sings, we will know...


To sit with elders of a gentle race, this world has seldom seen...
To talk of days for which they sit and wait...
When all will be relvealed...


Wise men wait; fools rush in.

[IsIt1984Yet]

98. See? You said it ALL. You did.

"Speculation based on no facts is a tiring and endless and useless waist (sic) of time and energy."

That's what the whole story is... speculation. Until proved otherwise, it's just speculation.

Also, you said "Wise men wait; fools rush in." - which one of those is Leopold?

[JuniperLea]

102. We won't know until the fat lady sings, now will we?

Then I'll be able to tell you. Until then, there's not enough information.

Oh, and thanks for so kindly pointing out my typo... sheesh... spell check will pick the closest thing and sometimes, no, most times I'm hitting and running here. Yes, waste...

[IsIt1984Yet]

104. The fat lady did sing. There was no indictment May 12. Leopold's story has

been debunked.

[JuniperLea]

255. When did Fitz issue a statement, directly from himself?

What did I miss?


:shrug:

[Jazz2006]

258. Why would you expect him to?

:shrug:

[JuniperLea]

260. I wouldn't expect him to send a letter to Rove's attorney either

But the attorney said he did... but where is it?

Attorneys have been known to lie, ya know.

[Jazz2006]

264. It is ridiculous to expect Rove's lawyer to produce the letter.

In the real world, lawyers do not do such things.

Not even to appease a few DUers who think that the rules of professional conduct should suddenly be changed to suit their purposes.

Not even to appease a guy like Jason Leopold who, rather ironically, says that he doesn't think he should be too quick to issue mea culpas for getting his story wrong without seeing "the letter" even though he was obviously content to publish a ridiculous and unconfirmed story without seeing the non-existent indictment that he reported on. (And as an aside, doesn't it seem strange that with all of those allegedly high level sources of his, which he claims to still be talking to and still receiving info from, that he hasn't been able to come up with a single cogent provable fact for the past 5 or 6 weeks that might corroborate his story?_


It is also ridiculous to think that Luskin would publicize the fact that he is in possession of such a letter if he wasn't, in fact, in possession of same. No benefit to him, and all manner of detriment to him if he was telling porkies because you can also bet that in the real world, had Luskin misrepresented Fitz's letter, the response from Fitz's office would NOT have been "no comment".

[JuniperLea]

265. "No comment" is the perfect response

in an on-going investigation... happens all the time.

I'm reminded of someone who had no real evidence that Terri Shaivo was coherent... yet he did.

I'm also reminded of any number of lies from high places.

I think it is ridiculous to think that Fitz wrote such a letter anyway. What purpose does that serve... since you want to suppose so much.

The whole thing is a muddled mess and we don't know a damn thing to be the truth. Not the TO story, and not Rove's story.

[Jazz2006]

266. It's nice that you want to believe something that is

not believable in light of the facts....

(i.e. your assertion that you think "it is ridiculous that Fitz wrote such a letter anyway"

But as much as you want to believe that, the reality is that you're very wrong.

It's not ridiculous at all, but predictable.

And, aside from everything else, the FACT is that if Luskin had misrepresented Fitz, you can bet with 100% certainty that Fitz would have said so when asked, and would NOT have had a representative say "no comment".

[JuniperLea]

267. There are no facts

On either side. Seems you are the one believing in the tooth fairy here.

Prove Fitz wrote the letter. That's all I'm saying. As much as you want to believe he did, there is no proof. Unless you want to believe Rove's lawyer... I'm shocked at the thought that anyone would believe him.


"If Luskin had misrepresented Fitz, you can bet with 100% certainty that Fitz would have said so when asked, and would NOT have had a representative say "no comment"."


You have no idea what the underlying circumstances are, so your assertion is invalid.

[Jazz2006]

272. Nonsense.

You're the one buying into the tooth fairy here, not me.

The story was ridiculous at the outset, and it only got worse and worse since then.

For whatever reason, which I cannot fathom, you seem to be clinging to the ridiculous belief that Leopold and truthout were correct in the stories they published about the non-existent Rove indictment. Without a shred of evidence, that is. You never asked for any, you never got any, (because they don't have any).

And here you are asking for "proof" that Fitz wrote a letter to Luskin. That tells me that you have ZERO concept of how lawyers deal with each other and how things work in the real world.

We don't publish letters from opposing counsel on any subject matter.

Not even for purposes of appeasing a few people on the internet who think it's a big conspiracy.

While we might have to sometimes produce letters in the course of discovery, etc., we fiercely guard our privileged communications and only disclose them when it is absolutely necessary.

You are truly deluding yourself if you think that Leopold and truthout got this nonsensical story of theirs right and if you think that there is any reason on the face of the earth why Luskin should publish a letter from opposing counsel on the internet to appease a few DUers who want desperately to believe that reality hasn't actually happened.

You really should do a bit of reading and research about these things if you're going to opine on the workings of the law and lawyers. Because so far, you've got it all dead wrong.

And to go back to the first paragraph, why is it that you feel justified in demanding "proof" from Luskin that the letter from Fitz exists, without ever having asked or obtained a shred of "proof" from Leopold or truthout about the allegations they've made?

[JuniperLea]

276. Don't put words in my mouth

"For whatever reason, which I cannot fathom, you seem to be clinging to the ridiculous belief that Leopold and truthout were right about things that they themselves have no concept of."

Don't misquote me. I never ever said the TO story was true. I merely stated that there isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove.

"You're asking for "proof" that Fitz wrote a letter.... that tells me that you have ZERO concept of how lawyers deal with each other and how things work in the real world."

You are assuming BushCo follows the rules... that speaks volumes. Your assumption that Rove's lawyer is like any other lawyer is pretty funny.


"We don't publish letters from opposing counsel on any subject matter."

Well what's the difference in referencing a letter? What was the point in doing that? Just because you do or do not, doesn't mean a thing. BushCo doesn't operate in your "real world". Never have, never will.

"Not even for purposes of appeasing a few people on the internet who think it's a big conspiracy."

Then what's the point in saying anything at all about this alleged letter?

:shrug:

"You are truly deluding yourself if you think that Leopold and truthout got this right and if you think that there is any reason on the face of the earth why Luskin should publish a letter from opposing counsel on the internet to appease a few DUers who want desperately to believe that reality hasn't actually happened."

You are truly deluding yourself if you read all that into anything I've said on this matter. Seems to me a lawyer would read with a little more comprehension.

"You really should do a bit of reading and research about these things if you're going to opine on the workings of the law and lawyers. Because so far, you've got it dead wrong."

Perhaps you should do some reading so you can realize that these people don't operate within the law, because so far, seems you are dead wrong with that assumption.


"Oh, and by the way, please explain why it is that you are now demanding "proof" from Luskin or Fitz in a manner which is wholly inappropriate while at the same time, it seems you demanded no "proof" of any kind about that ridiculous, internally and externally inconsistent story the Leopold spun back around May 12, 13?"

You missed it, eh? I'm asking for proof of the assertions on both sides. Neither side has a leg to stand on at this point because, and at the risk of repeating myself, there is no proof one way or the other. If you believe one word on either side, you're not paying attention. You assume that just because I'm not jumping on the "TO was wrong" bandwagon, because I'm not agreeing with you, that I'm supporting TO in this. Boy, that is a stretch.

When the Plame case is closed, maybe, just maybe we will know something concrete. Until then, it's all speculation.

[Jazz2006]

277. Good god....

Let me reduce this to a couple of paragraphs because you seem to want to turn this into something much larger than it really is... and it doesn't deserve it because your posts are ridiculous on their face.

So, to summarize....

Here you go:
The entire Bush gov't sucks and is utterly corrupt.
Rove is a bad guy, a very bad guy.
Rove has not been indicted.
Rove is not likely to be indicted in the Plame case.
Fitz has said as much.
There is still, of course, the potential for same some years from now (i.e. after Rove testifies at Libby's trial) but that has absolutely nothing with the ridiculous threads and posts that are going on here and now - and which you keep feeding to DUers despite the fact that if you had a remote clue about the law, you would not be posting such drivel at all.

Yeah, your posts are included in the "ridiculous" when it comes to legal issues because it is apparent that you haven't bothered to research any of it and it appears that you are simply parroting someone you heard or read about somewhere, and that is not helpful unless you actually look for the source and can report upon it.

And now, just because you're so fond of cut and paste and of attributing to others things they nevef said, I guess I should also do this....

" Don't misquote me"

Never did. Please point out anywhere that you allege I did.

That said, you're being quite disingenuous if you're pretending all of a sudden that you haven't been all over these boards defending leopold and truthout without any evidence whatsoever to support their ridiculous stories.

"I never ever said the TO story was true. I merely stated that there isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove."

So, do you believe it? Did you believe it on May 13 when they first published it and do you believe it now? A simple yes or no will suffice.

"You are assuming BushCo follows the rules... that speaks volumes. Your assumption that Rove's lawyer is like any other lawyer is pretty funny.

Bullshit. I'm assuming no such thing and you are making crap out of whole cloth (gee, who else do we know around here that does that ~ Leopold springs to mind) ~ THAT speaks volumes. I was talking about the Leopold story - YOU avoided the simple straightforward question, and went off on a tangent of your own ~ hmmmm, who does that remind you of? And as for your failure to address the lawyer issue, yeah, you've failed again.

"Well what's the difference in referencing a letter? What was the point in doing that? Just because you do or do not, doesn't mean a thing. BushCo doesn't operate in your "real world". Never have, never will."

There's a big difference between saying, I've received confirmation from counsel about X and producing the actual document. The fact that you don't know that there's a difference and the fact that you pretend that it means nothing only shows your ignorance about how lawyers actually deal with these things. Again, you seem to want to pretend that you have some knowledge about things that you clearly do not. Why is that? For Leopold and truthout of all people? Strange.....

"Then what's the point in saying anything at all about this alleged letter?" :shrug:

Are you really so obtuse that you don't get that? The purpose was clear: to say, hey, the prosecutor cleared my client. Duh.


"You are truly deluding yourself if you read all that into anything I've said on this matter. Seems to me a lawyer would read with a little more comprehension."

Eh? I'll take from that the obvious that you had no legitimate response to what I said so you just changed a few words of my post and pretended that you were actually responding in a meaningful fashion.

"Perhaps you should do some reading so you can realize that these people don't operate within the law, because so far, seems you are dead wrong with that assumption."

Oh, please. It seems as though you're just spouting off because you know you have nothing of substance to say in response to what I wrote. Of course I know that these people don't operate within the law - they are utterly corrupt, evil, pathetic, horrible, etc.

But here you are attacking me instead of them because you couldn't make any meaningful response to a legitimate post.

"You missed it, eh? I'm asking for proof of the assertions on both sides.

Yes, I certainly have missed your posts asking for proof from truthout, and I've only seen your requests for proof from those who don't buy the truthout story. Please post some of those requests for proof from truthout from say, May 13 or 14 or even later if you weren't asking them back then.

"Neither side has a leg to stand on at this point because, and at the risk of repeating myself, there is no proof one way or the other. If you believe one word on either side, you're not paying attention. You assume that just because I'm not jumping on the "TO was wrong" bandwagon, because I'm not agreeing with you, that I'm supporting TO in this. Boy, that is a stretch."

Well, that would also be nice to see - can you provide me with a few links where you're asking truthout for proof of their assertions? Hey, I'm not saying you haven't, but I certainly haven't seen any posts from you at all saying, hey, truthout, show me the facts, show me proof. I've seen a whole lot of your posts saying "nobody can prove truthout wrong because it isn't over" but I don't think I've seen a single one where you asked truthout for proof of anything. I'll be pleased to be wrong about that and would be pleased to see that you actually asked for proof from them ~ so a link, please.

I have seen hundreds of threads in which you have defended them beyond reason and not a single one in which you asked them for proof, so yes, I look forward to seeing these alleged posts.


"When the Plame case is closed, maybe, just maybe we will know something concrete. Until then, it's all speculation."

And this means something... anything... because???

[JuniperLea]

295. I hope you had fun chasing your own tail

You make no sense whatsoever, have not addressed a single thing I've said, and the only thing you seem to have boiled down is your own anger and cognitive reasoning.

"Are you really so obtuse that you don't get that? The purpose was clear: to say, hey, the prosecutor cleared my client. Duh."

Are you really so obtuse that you don't see your own folly? If there was no indictment and no need to prove anything to anyone, including message board warriors, then there was no need for this alleged letter in the first place.

You are no more a lawyer than I'm Karl Rove.

JuniperX rule #1: Don't have a battle of wits with the unarmed.

Go ahead and talk yourself in circles... it is quite entertaining.

[BlooInBloo]

321. Shorter Juniperx: "As long as it's LOGICALLY possible...

.... for truthout to be correct, I'm gonna believe it!"

Who needs stinkin evidence anyway?

Who cares about STRONG evidence to the contrary anyway?

What - did folks fall for DUers' claims to be members of the reality-based club? Boo-fucking-hoo.

:sarcasm:


Don't worry juniperx - thanks to the likes of you, it's possible I'll never fall for a DUer's claim to be reality-based ever again. They fooled me once - I won't be fooled again. This is an example of CHANGING one's belief-structure when it doesn't serve the cause of truth well. Would that DUers cared enough about truth and evidence to admit error when errorneous, and take steps to prevent in the future.

If only they so much as CARED.

[JuniperLea]

329. That's all I'm asking for

Concrete evidence... from either side...

[Jazz2006]

340. In other words, Juniperx

Re your #295

You have no legitimate response so you, once again, attack the messenger instead of addressing the message.

Not surprising.



Edit to add message number reference

[Name removed]

412. Deleted message

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

[IsIt1984Yet]

418. Name one fact that there is to prove this story of indictment 5/12.

Just one fact... one verifiable fact.


You boldly claim to be "sticking to them"... what facts? There are none. See? That is the whole problem.

[JuniperLea]

421. There is one fact, and only one we can be absolutely sure of...

Fitz has "no comment".

Adding anything else is foolishness.

When Fitz comments, I'll listen.

[JuniperLea]

453. Ah, yes...

The buck stops here:)

[Jazz2006]

464. Au contraire, Juniperx

Re: your #412

I haven't "made up" a single thing.

What are you on about?

[JuniperLea]

521. Everything you have said...

other than Rove said "no comment" is pure guessing. No proof of anything. Proof goes both ways. We won't know exactly what went down until Fitz actually says something. Everything else is guesswork and meaningless.

[Strong Atheist]

291. Apparently, from those in the know, it doesn't work that way:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1420495#1420549

[JuniperLea]

323. Oh, right... a letter of non-indictment

That makes perfect sense...

:eyes:

Careful of your sources... some have been blowing hot air, and untrue, ill-informed hot air, since day one.

[Strong Atheist]

333. I am not a lawyer, nor do I know how these things work, but OLL

in another post that I could find if you want me to sys that there are horrific penalties to lawyers for making a false announcement of this nature... makes sense to me...

[JuniperLea]

337. Lawyers make false statements all the time

Be careful of your sources. The internets are an evil place... what appears to be one thing is often quite another.

[JuniperLea]

263. No one but the Bush administration

and Fitz knows what goes on behind closed doors... unless there is a leak... and there have been leaks... that's what started this mess... leaks about Plame... anything goes with those criminals.

I think it's sort of like voting to support a president, then finding out he lied or wasn't smart enough to know he was given bad intelligence. Either way, the voter was duped.

None of us has the slightest clue as to what has gone on in this investigation. All arguments are based on supposition... no one knows enough to even hazard a guess. That is my only argument. That is why I say only the end of this whole Plame case, or a statement from Fitz, will give us enough information to make any kind of solid statement.

You can't go on history, and you can't go by laws or what has gone on in any other administration since the beginning of US history. You can't compare to what is now.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

146. The Dan Rather Treatment

Set up, knocked down and then their supposed friends here shit on them.

Wonderful.

[Tin Man]

157. So, after they took down Rather, they set their sights on TruthOut?

Considering the size of Rather's audience, I can understand why the neocons would want to take him down. So logically, the next target for the neocons is some podunk online outfit that reaches a few thousand people? It doesn't make sense - far too many bigger fish for the neocons to fry first.

[Jazz2006]

250. Riiiight...

Like Rove etal would think Leopold and truthout a serious target for such treatment.


Get a grip.


99.9% of the population doesn't even know that the truthout site exists.


So, suggesting that Bush or Rove or others at the White House targeted truthout in such a fashion is patently silly on its face.

[Tin Man]

278. correction

99.9999% of the US population doesn't know that TruthOut exists. Doing the math, this figure would allow that roughly 30,000 folks are aware of TruthOut - seems about right to me. sorry, I'm an engineer and can't help myself... ;)

[rpannier]

320. funny you should ay that

I am one of those people who never had heard of truthout until about one month ago.
On a few notes here:
1) I have serious doubts that Rove or anyone on the right (anyone with any real authority) would have chosen truthout as the object of their smear campaign. I mean, on the political stage truthout barely rates a blip. The only people who think otherwise are truthout followers.

2) If we decide to give credence to the theory they are a target, my question would be "Why?" What special insight do they have or report have they done that a place like MoveOn, TrueMajority or MediaMatters doesn't possess or hasn't covered?

3) When this whole story started back in May I took the approach (and posted) 'hope for the best but expect the worst' so I'm not so upset that it didn't pan out. What bothered me was the attitude that pitt and some others from truthout took towards those who questioned their story. They were hostile, condecending, etc to the point where they questioned to commitment and integrity of their detractors.

[Jazz2006]

342. LOL ~ no need to apologize....

I like precision and I defer to your more precise calculation ;)

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

294. Need some toilet paper?

nm

[Moloch]

433. Oh my god.

That is the most asinine statement I have ever read on DU in the two years that I have been here.

Swift boated? How so?

Because a shady "journalist" lied about something they are a hero??

Because some of us don't appreciate being lied to, Rove is laughing at us???

I doubt Rove even knows about DU, and if he does, I'm sure he doesn't care what is said on here.

Jason Leopold and William Pitt should resign from journalism in disgrace.

[lyonn]

41. Thoughts on the setup theory

If the person(s) that gave them the story was setup then you could possibly see why they wouldn't out their source. Guess this is grasping for an excuse for TO, but, anything is possible.

[DisgustedTX]

428. It's ROVIAN I tell you. ROVIAN!

That plotster!

[Placebo]

20. Stick a fork in Truthout...

It's done.

[aquart]

52. And that matters to you, why?

Do you feel you have been deliberately lied to? Do you have proof you have been lied to? Why is it very important to see TO destroyed? How will that help.......democracy or Democratic causes?

[Placebo]

80. Because it has proven itself to be a useless resource.

In fact, it's worse than being useless, it's a weight on our leg and making us look foolish and sloppy.

Screw TO. It's part of the problem, not the solution.

[lostnfound]

112. Not useless to the several friends I have whose eyes have been opened

I'll judge it by its fruits, nobody is perfect.

[Laurab]

115. Maybe for you

not for me. I trust them far more than I trust this administration.

[Placebo]

188. I trust a lot of sites more than I trust this administration.

Just not TO.

[OzarkDem]

145. Don't you wish, but its not likely

Liberals will continue to have their sources of news on the web whether the GOP likes it or not.

Someone has to hold them accountable. The hypocritcal whining of the GOP about TO is truly amusing.

[Placebo]

187. Don't I wish?

I'm not GOP.

And it wasn't me who was responsible for TO's total loss of any sort of credibility and significance.

[cali]

21. Pathetic

obfuscating "statement". And anyone who uses the argument that right wing sites and journalists do even worse, has just lost their way.

[Strong Atheist]

292. Agreed. They are going to have to come up with a real explanation if

they want this to go away. Maybe they will on the 19th, but I won't hold my breath. I think they were conned by Liepold, and can't admit it...

[w4rma]

22. There sure are a lot of pompous idiots who spend nearly all their time

on DU attacking Truthout. Maybe Truthout is doing too good a job and some folks want to cut these fighters down some?

[cali]

33. There sure are a lot of people at DU

who are beginning to remind me of the knight in Monty Python's "Holy Grail".

Talk about living in a delusion.

[w4rma]

35. Are you one too?

Are you saying that Truthout is "dead" and should stop fighting?

[cali]

54. I'm saying that I didn't find that statement

useful. It didn't clear up anything. I have is the past, appreciated the work that TO has done, but from early on I thought the Rove strory smelled fishy. Leopold's past problems with Salon didn't inspire trust in me either. At this point, TO has lost credibility as far as I'm concerned. They promised that if the story didn't pan out they'd reveal their sources. At the very least, I think they need to do a serious post-mortem and report back to their readers.

[meisje]

53. Thats what they say about Bush

[Kingofalldems]

What do they say about Bush?

He's doing too good of a job so they have to criticize him? That's the way I read your post. Am I wrong?

[Laurab]

120. I've noticed that, too "nearly all their time"

Working overtime, even. Maybe it's just me, but I find something odd about that. Rovian, even. "Progressives" attacking progressives. far above and beyond the call of duty. It's been an interesting few weeks, as the attacks started the day the first article came out. I just don't quite understand the motivation.

I do know that Truthout hasn't "ruined the liberal blogosphere" or "made fools of us all". I don't think "people will never take us seriously again", or any of the other ridiculous things posted.

Me, I'm still waiting to see what exactly this criminal mis-administration has done, NOT that they ever do illegal or underhanded things. I personally think Rove gave Cheney up, and time will tell, but damn these attacks are getting ridiculous.

[mirandapriestly]

415. yep, you'd almost think they wanted to create divisiveness

or something. Odd subject to be so strongly opinionated against since, as they say, it has so little influence anyway.

[Your-Other-Right]

534. Truthout (or lack of it)

"Maybe Truthout is doing too good a job and some folks want to cut these fighters down some?" Excuse me? Why waste ordinance on someone committing suicide?

There are clearly some folks here that value ethics in reporting. It's equally clear that most - well, don't. This Rove-will-be-indicted-on-insert-date-here nonsense is just one story, after all. Acknowledging the story to be completely bogus doesn't obligate you to stop visiting Truthout, require you to re-assess your politics, or compel you to toss Leopold under a bus. Well, OK, the bus idea has merit but, hey, it's not like when you found out that - yes - Hiss and Oppenheimer really were traitors, now is it? Course not. It's just one story, and not that important a story, right? Life goes on. So one of your favorite lefty screed-screechers has the journalistic scruples of a small soap dish? Duh. Regarding Leopold, this is not exactly breaking news, people. His personal and professional descent over the years is a sooper-classified secret known only to those who use Google.

Just wanted to clear up a couple points raised by Ash's latest ass-covering (and by some commenters):

- Rove was “formally notified” of Fitzgerald's decision. In legal terms, that precludes a phone call, a fax, an IM, an email, or numerous other types of communication. Ash's lame "wrote, or said" is just bullshit. When Rove's attorney read excerpts from a letter, its because he got a letter. From Fitzgerald. Directly. A letter I have no doubt was also provided to, if not reviewed by, District Court Judge Thomas Hogan prior to transmission to Luskin. This is such SOP it is simply unbelievable any other method would be used. What say the attorneys on my assumption?

- Some here insist that a "no comment" by Fitzgerald leaves the door open, somehow, to Rove's ultimate destruction, in the future, maybe, we can only hope. But none of you have revealed the question that elicited the "no comment". Put another way -- Fitzgerald was asked a question, and answered "no comment". Well, what was the question?

Glad you asked. By my read, there were two: First, Fitzgerald's minion Randall Samborn was asked if the investigation was continuing. Second, Samborn was asked to respond to a statement by one of Rove's attorneys (Mark Corallo) that Rove had made no deals with the prosecution in any way, and the decision not to indict was based purely on Fitzgerald's own findings. To both questions, Samborn replied "no comment". I bring this up because some here are asserting that "no comment" is actually wiggle room, a glimmer of hope, the faintest of prayers, that Rove will get his, God willing, just you wait and see, it ain't over til the fat lady....yadda yadda. Dream on, butch up, get over it. Rove has left the building. Laughing.

[JuniperLea]

539. Ok, Mr. or Ms. one hit wonder...

Why the need for a letter clearing Rove when his lawyer already said he wasn't a target?

See the bottom of this thread for links.

[Marie26]

23. So is this a retraction or isn't it?

They're "standing down" on the story, but they're "standing behind" Leopold? Ooohhkkaaayy. Lame. Not that we could expect anything different. What's magically happening on June 19th? There's nothing stopping them from giving a full accounting now. IMHO, this looks like Truthout's editors were in as deep as Leopold in whatever mistakes/fabrications were made here - they're not protecting sources, but protecting themselves.

[IsIt1984Yet]

26. No, it's more "we're gonna wait and see" shit.

[Marie26]

38. "deferring to the MSM"

Yet demanding to see the letter. "Standing down" on the Rove matter? That's military terminology, not journalism. A real newspaper stands behind the story, corrects, or retracts. TO creates some sort of limbo land where it's not claiming it's right, but not admitting it's wrong. Not saying it was Leopold's fault, or the sources' fault, or the editors'. Not admitting any errors at all. It's just completely dodging any accountability or responsibility for the story. Maybe they're hoping another indictment does materialize on June 19th? I just can't understand TO's actions here.

[Tin Man]

93. Translation: TO up Shit Creek without a paddle.

...and need more time to find a paddle. Maybe one will come floating before next Monday.

[Orsino]

134. This statement is very understandable...

...from one point of view, at least. Ash backed Leopold, and continues to do so. If he still believes that there's any truth to the story, then this is a cry for help. IIRC, there were supposedly a couple of MSM sources for the tale, and Ash would certainly like anyone else with knowledge of the matter to come forward.

He wants to believe in his reporter, which is a good sign that Leopold has not burned all his bridges.

[Marie26]

409. That's one way of looking at it.

Here's another way of looking at it: Ash knew Leopold didn't have real sources, knew the story had errors, & decided to publish it anyway for the sake of a scoop. Then, when the indictment didn't materialize at the right time, he had a choice - to retract the story & admit it was wrong, or reaffirm it & hope and pray an indictment eventually comes. Ash chose the second option. TO quietly revised the story to "24 business hours" & crossed their fingers. 24 business hours come & go. TO tries to stretch it out a little longer w/"updates" & nonsense about "getting too far in front of the news cycle." Ash states that he has personally verified all of Leopold's "high-level" sources, hoping that will reassure readers. The whole time, they're hoping an indictment is eventually announced, they can claim victory, & hope everyone forgets about all the other errors.

4 weeks come & go. TO readers are getting restless & demanding Leopold's sources. But TO knows they can't reveal Leopold's sources, because that would mean revealing their own complicity in Leopold's fraud. They've got no choice. They have to hold on & pretend they still believe the story, because if they retract it, questions will be raised about why it was published & how TO's editor "peronally verified" the false sources. Leopold can be discredited, but if Ash is, the whole site goes under. So, they STILL stand by the story, hoping for some miracle to save them from having to admit the truth. Rumors are swirling that maybe the indictment was sealed. Leopold first says that wouldn't make sense, but then later warms to the idea because it's a possible out. He reads a Wayne Madsen rumor online how a "sealed v. sealed" case might be Gonz. v. Fitzgerald. And a lightbulb goes off - Sealed! Fitzgerald! Why not pretend that's the Rove indictment? Who can prove it isn't? He checks the court docket, finds nothing from May 12th, but he does come across a missing sealed case from May that seems to be from the Fitz grand jury. (06 CR 128). He decides it's close enough; makes up a new BS story that this missing case is actually the Rove indictment. It's sloppy - but he figures, if it's sealed, who's going to prove him wrong? He takes the BS story to Ash, who, incredibly, publishes it - for the same reason. It's an out. This case number is sealed, so they think no one can disprove Leopold's theory. They finally have an answer to quiet the critics & they think no one can prove what the case actually is. Then, the very next day, Fitzgerald announces that he did not indict Rove. Oops. They're caught; it's over. Now they have to reveal the (non-existent) sources - unless they cobble together a way to stand by Leopold, while still acknowledging the Fitz announcement. So, they announce that they're "Standing Down" while standing by Leopold & his sources. It's lame, but at this point there's not a lot of options (short of telling the entire truth).

Whew - this post got long. All that to say - it's not necesarily loyalty, but necesity that's inspiring this decision by TO. Readers might forgive an incorrect story, but not a deliberate intent to mislead people & cover up after the erroneous story was released. With each lie, they've dug in deeper to the point that they can no longer find a way out. "Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive," etc. They're still hoping something, anything, will happen before June 19th to make this all go away. But it hasn't worked before & it won't work now. It's over.

[IsIt1984Yet]

417. Nice work, Marie!

:thumbsup:

[Snivi Yllom]

283. "deferring to the MSM" = "we are less reliable than the MSM"

unprofessional

[Catherine Vincent]

25. All of this is interesting.

We've got four groups here:

Nay sayers, Yay sayers, Wait-and-See-sayers and last but not least, the fuck truthout-sayers

[Joe for Clark]

57. Cat Girl -

If there was an indictment it would be public.

There were some friendly lawyers here that said that.

I don't want to be right, I want to win - it is different.

Hell it was never about rove to me in any event. It would be nice if he were to be distracted for a few more months.

But if he is or not, same fight facing us.

Joe

[yowzayowzayowza]

73. Naw, tharz another group...

...that believe that the entire controversy is completely and utterly meaningless. Rite er wrong, nothing TO does iz gunna change squat. So far an awful lotta folks erlookin pretty silly with their panties in a wad over a single anonymously-sourced news story.

My first and last post on the matter.

[Snivi Yllom]

180. you forgot a group, the TO kneepad brigade

always faithful to serve

[Catherine Vincent]

338. What do you mean by "kneepad" brigade?

[dogday]

339. It is a rude childish

way of saying getting on your knees and s*ck one's d**k.... I would prefer the direct approach.

[arwalden]

363. Hmmm... I Do Not Agree.

Unless one's brain is already has a predisposition to assume such things... (ie: "mind in the gutter", so to speak) I don't necessarily agree that we can automatically interpret that to have such explicit sexual connotations.

Being on one's knees can also indicate general submission, prayer, or worship, or idolizing, or prostration. Unless there's a piece of the puzzle that I'm not seeing... something that I'm missing... I just don't understand why some folks jump to the conclusion that it refers to cock sucking or blow jobs. (It's ok*y to s*y th*se w*rds.)

[dogday]

367. Yes let's just have our little tea party

and not worry our beautiful minds about these ugly words that are being spoken.. You must be the only one here who does not know that republican phrase....

[Name removed]

369. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

371. Oh Brother...

:rofl:

[arwalden]

375. One Lump, Or Two?

Don't forget your pearls.



<< You must be the only one here who does not know that republican phrase. >>

What about catgirl?

[dogday]

379. Catgirl was trying to get the poster

to say it like a man instead of imply it like a coward....

[arwalden]

383. So She Was Baiting Him?

Trying to get him to break the rules... I see. :rofl:

[dogday]

391. Was the poster baiting her

with the innuendo, she was trying to get clarification....

watch that premature jubilation, I hear they have a pill for that :rofl:

[arwalden]

400. I'm Not A Mind Reader... Are You?

<< Was the poster baiting her with the innuendo, >>

It's only dirty if you MAKE it dirty... or for those people whose minds automatically "go there".

<< she was trying to get clarification >>

Was she?

<< watch that premature jubilation, >>

I'm not sure I understand what specific thing that cryptic 'warning' is referring to. But it kind of reminds me of the "rove was indicted" celebrations... now THAT's some "premature" celebrations!!

Only... the party is over, the band has packed up and gone home, the fat lady has sung, the lights are on, daybreak as arrived... and they still WON'T GO HOME!

<< I hear they have a pill for that >>

Really? Which one: Lithium? Xanax? Ritalin? Prozac? Sominex? I'm afraid I don't know much about that topic so I'll have to defer to your own expertise in the matter.

:shrug:

[dogday]

402. You pick

sounds like you are familiar with all of them.. Heck I don't even know the names... I don't believe anyone.. What I don't like are the snipes, the innuendos, and the ridicule...

Is there a pill for that? Cause the first round is on me...

[arwalden]

406. Then It Would Appear...

... that for certain people with extremely delicate sensibilities and puritanical senses of propriety that a public discussion board with MORE rules and that's MORE moderated would be more appropriate for them.

Or... the just need to learn how to use the ignore button and develop thicker skin and learn to tolerate it when the object of their cult-like-worship is subjected to scrutiny, criticism, or even ridicule.



PS: Which pill did YOU have in mind? :rofl:

[dogday]

408. Thicker skin is good

Maybe some just need to develop inter-personal and social skills... It will come to them.... As they progress down the road... This is not a flame board regardless of what you think, it is a discussion board.. For discussion, not dissection.. But alas, some just want to keep their righteous indignation, or they get off on it, or they have a personal reason for doing it...

I will continue to ask why when it seems absolutely unnecessary to do so....

[arwalden]

441. And That's Where YOUR Ability To Choose Comes In...

... YOU have the power to choose which people aren't up to whatever puritanical standards you use as a yardstick for acceptable inter-personal social skills.

When someone come across someone whom you find to be too abrasive and harsh for their fragile egos and delicate sensibilities... then they can make the other person vanish with a click of the "ignore" button.

The people who are SO fucking miserable and the groupies who wilt in dismay whenever their cherished idols are attacked would be doing themselves a favor if they learned the benefits of the ignore button.

<< I will continue to ask why when it seems absolutely unnecessary to do so.... >>

You also continue to fan the flames and then complain about the heat. Why is that? :shrug:

[JuniperLea]

445. Live and learn from fools and from sages

I love a juxtaposition.

Groupies who will wilt with dismay... clearly, you haven't a clue and don't care to have one.

You want to insert your little divisions too sparingly; some of us just want to see truth, not manufactured hatred and faux standards. And some of us have the maturity and the patience to wait for it instead of making crap up for the sake of argument.

[dogday]

446. Again you managed to get in personal attacks

"The people who are SO fucking miserable and the groupies who wilt in dismay whenever their cherished idols are attacked would be doing themselves a favor if they learned the benefits of the ignore button."

Whatever anyone thinks, they should not be made to feel like they cannot share it on this board... You know as well as I do, some just back off in the face of confrontation... You always find the time to put in your own personal smear touch....

"YOU have the power to choose which people aren't up to whatever puritanical standards you use as a yardstick for acceptable inter-personal social skills."

Actually you have the power on that one. My puritanical standard is asking people not to rag and ridicule on each other -- not radicals who want to ridicule others at every step.... The first week was understandable, the fifth is radical....

"You also continue to fan the flames and then complain about the heat. Why is that?"

Do not accuse me of fanning flames Arwalden, what all I have asked for is civility from everyone on both sides of this issue. Why must there be the need for this ridicule and righteous indignation and then laugh about it like little kids...

[arwalden]

448. I Predict Continued Disappointment For Anyone...

... who honestly believe that they have any chance of imposing their personal standards onto others. Such exercises in vanity seldom work out as well as one hopes. We can't all be Professor Higgins. But still... Good luck with that! Let me know how it turns out.

In the meantime, all I can do is to remind you (again) that the ignore button is there for a reason. When you tire of trying to bend other people to your will, then maybe you'll use that solution instead.

<< Whatever anyone thinks, they should not be made to feel like they cannot share it on this board... >>

Yet there you are... trying to silence the critics. Go figure. :shrug: You say one thing, but do another thing that's entirely opposite. :eyes:

<< what all I have asked for is civility from everyone on both sides of this issue. >>

No, you're trying to silence people who point out how silly it is to continue to believe in the fantasy that Rove is/was/has been indicted. You're trying to squelch all criticism of Pitt/Leopold/TO and defer instead to their groupies/fans.

These folks do and say funny things... people laugh at them for their antics, and who do you blame? You don't blame the people who are doing the funny things, but the ones who find it amusing. :shrug:

<< Do not accuse me of fanning flames Arwalden, >>

Of course you fan the flames. That's what you're doing now. The more you demand others simply shut up simply because you wish it, the louder they become. You cannot win.

For the life of me I will never understand why it is that people throw gasoline on the fire and then they wonder why the fire gets bigger? :shrug:

[Name removed]

451. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

460. Here's Your Reply, Dogday

<< Play coy all you want, but the ones that are trying to impose their opinions are the insulting rude crowd >>

How exactly does one "impose their opinions" on someone else? It's not "opinion" that Rove was not indicted... that's fact.

It's not "opinion" that Pitt/Leopold/TO were wrong... that's also a fact.

It's not "opinion" that Leopold said he would reveal his sources if it turned out that Rove was not indicted... yet another fact. Noteworthy is the FACT the he has not yet revealed the sources he said that he would reveal.

<< and it is a shame it has come to this... A damn shame that they care more about ridiculing then actually trying to inform and enlighten. >>

For some, the "cause" is more important than the TRUTH. For those with such a fundamentalist mindset, it is a waste of time to try to "inform and enlighten" (as you say).

<< Point your finger all you want, but make sure you point it at yourself and your own actions first. >>

Two words: "Ignore" and "button". You know what to do.

<< If by asking civility from both sides, that somehow makes me wrong, then I am wrong and I am happy to admit it.. >>

That's not what you're doing.

<< I blame anyone who wants to ridicule others... >>

These folks you defend are not shrinking violets. They just have no other cards to play... so their only retreat is to become "victims".

<<I do however wonder why the acrimony is so high...>>

You wonder? Really? :shrug:

<<I am not demanding anything, I am asking everyone to stop the madness... >>

:rofl:

<< You accuse me of imposing my standards on others while you ridicule people for not believing your standards. >>

That makes no sense either. If anyone is being ridiculed it's because of their insistence that Rove was/is/has been indicted. That's simply not the case... their refusal to let go of the fantasy is laughable.

<< I never asked anyone to shut-up, you are lying on that... >>

Are you calling me a liar? Please, don't get personal.


<< You are the one with the gas, I am the one with the hose trying to put the fire out.... >>

That's what you say, but it seems that your efforts are only making things worse. Yet you continue to make it worse, why?

<< Good at twisting people's words, but I see right through you.... >>

Are you calling me transparent? Please, don't get personal. :rofl:

[Name removed]

466. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

473. Yes, You Are Getting Personal With Me.

<< No I am not calling you a liar, I am saying you lied.>>

Same thing.

<< You did, and whether you are a liar only you know that... >>

I think I should let you know that the extreme care you're taking in parsing those words and splitting those hairs only serves to convince me that your ACTUALLY DID know what you were saying.

<< I am not getting personal I am stating a fact.. >>

You may be able to point out and demonstrate where a *mistake* was made, but in order to use the word "lied" or "lying" then you would have to be able to prove that I knew a statement was incorrect. Can you do that?

<< Show me where I said to anyone to shut-up.. >>

One doesn't have to use the words "shut-up" in order to convey their desire that they would prefer someone's silence... or that they actually want them to "shut up". Your vanity challenge will not be addressed. You know what you're doing and so do I.

<< I have asked and asked nicely for the rhetoric to be tuned down and I freely admit to that... >>

Nicely?

<< I still wonder why the acrimony is so high, you did not answer the question, so I will assume you do not know either... >>

You want philosophical answers to rhetorical questions? Sorry, I'm not here to entertain you.

<< You take a post apart, and post cute little phrases and icons that mean absolutely nothing, and again are meant in your own way to inflame or incite... This is your calling card and your give it out frequently... >>

:shrug: :hi: :silly: :crazy:


<< So you believe it is your job to ridicule others who want to believe something other than you than so be it. >>

I cannot account for the people who continue to believe in the fantasy that Leopold wrote about. Nor am I able to account for their insistence that traditional media outlets be held to the highest standards of journalistic integrity... yet, they fail (miserably) to demand that progressive journalists be held to the same standards of accountability.

Weird. :shrug:

Again... what we're continually witnessing from this claque is that the "cause" is more important that the TRUTH. :crazy:


<< You are good at your job, you can take pride in the fact you have ridiculed so many.... >>

You're getting personal again.

[dogday]

474. You can't answer the question

I never said that and that is what you stated, now you try to twist and turn the meaning.. I am not buying it or any of your dissection posts...


On edit there is a difference between someone who is a liar and always telling lies. And someone who speaks one lie that is caught, and asked about... There is a difference in my mind, maybe not yours, because you are putting that label on yourself....

[arwalden]

477. True... I Do Not Know The Answer To Your Question...

... if you think that you're scoring "extra points" by repeatedly asking a philosophical rhetorical question, then knock yerself out. :eyes:

Whoo-hoo! :shrug:

Who knows why people do what they do? :shrug:

Who knows why people believe in make-believe fantasy "news" accounts of Rove's "indictment". :shrug:

If you want to spend your time figuring it out... then enjoy yourself. Be sure to report your findings back to us when you've finished your analysis and research. I'm certain it will be a page-turner.

If you want me to entertain you by pondering your questions, then you'll be waiting an awfully long time.

[dogday]

480. Scoring points

Are we in a match? I did not know that.. You said I was telling people to shut-up. I deny that, and ask you to show me that statement, you cannot.

Don't make a statement unless you can back it up... That simple...


This is not a game, I am not in it to win.. There is no prize.....

[arwalden]

487. ~

<< Are we in a match? >>

That's rather up to you, isn't it? :shrug:

<< I did not know that.. >>

An understatement if I've ever read one! :eyes:

<< You said I was telling people to shut-up. I deny that, and ask you to show me that statement, you cannot. >>

You're splitting hairs, and that demonstrates that you're arguing from a very weak position.

Fact is that you don't have to say the words "shut-up" to someone in order to indicate your desire that they do so. Stop playing word games. You'll never win.

<< Don't make a statement unless you can back it up... That simple... >>

Don't try to impose your will on others. Also simple.

<< This is not a game, I am not in it to win.. There is no prize..... >>

So why do you treat it as such? :shrug:

[dogday]

492. And it continues and we could do this

all day long.. Back and forth like a ping pong ball... Funny how you still don't address the issue of the false statement you made.

I am not the one posting about scoring points, you are, and not just in the post to me, so again, I will ask you, is this all a game to you?

[arwalden]

497. What False Statement?

<< Back and forth like a ping pong ball... >>

Ping pong is a game. So by making that comparison, you clearly see it as being a game. :rofl:


<< Funny how you still don't address the issue of the false statement you made. >>

I don't know what you're talking about? What false statement?

<< I am not the one posting about scoring points, >>

No, you're talking about playing ping-pong. :rofl:


<< you are, and not just in the post to me, so again, I will ask you, is this all a game to you? >>

No. It's not a game. I'm dead serious, lady.

[Catherine Vincent]

392. No, I was not.

The poster didn't have the balls to say what he really wanted to say. That figures.

[bettyellen]

397. i guess the poster knows joking DUer give blow jobs is okay ....

but anal sex, well that's offensive.
:shrug:

[arwalden]

401. Oh Pshaw...

<< The poster didn't have the balls to say what he really wanted to say. >>

I doubt that. The poster was CLEVER enough to say EXACTLY what he wanted to say. That poster knew enough to stay WITHIN the DU rules. And obviously that perturbed you.

So... you wanted to draw him out and make him explicitly BREAK the DU rules. You're just mad because he spotted the hook in your bait and didn't rise to take it.

[dogday]

404. Oh now you know what the poster is saying

because up-thread, you had no knowledge of what he meant... It is not ok to ridicule, I don't care what terms you put it in when you insult someone, the thought is layed out there just as sure as if he had said the actual words and I will repeat the message as long as it takes to sink in....

[Name removed]

419. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

438. Actually, I Was Giving You The Benefit Of The Doubt...

... by agreeing with and following your premise and assumptions for the sake of this discussion. And STILL you're not happy??!! Good lord, Lady... :eyes:

<< It is not ok to ridicule, I don't care what terms you put it in when you insult someone, >>

As I said before... some people are simply too delicate to be out in public (as it were) and are so easily "insulted" that the very act of challenging their ideas (or heroes) is an affront to their sensibilities. Coddle them if you like.

<< the thought is layed out there just as sure as if he had said the actual words and I will repeat the message as long as it takes to sink in. >>

Some things are ambiguous enough that they are only obscene to those who choose to MAKE it obscene. I didn't find it to be obscene. Why did you?

[dogday]

455. There is no benefit of the doubt

the intent was clear.. I just ask if someone is going to post the innuendo, to be brave enough to follow through... You had it to do it for that poster and I give you kudos for trying every which way to Sunday to explain it away, but it is what it is, an insult....

[arwalden]

465. Yes There Is... I Gave It To You And You Fault Me For It...

... and try to score points with it. :eyes: Not everyone thinks as you do, and not everyone shares your worldview. It's only as dirty or obscene as someone wants to interpret it.

Your actions certainly do not match your rhetoric when it comes to

<< There is no benefit of the doubt the intent was clear.. >>

Clear in your mind, perhaps. I see it differently.

<< I just ask if someone is going to post the innuendo, to be brave enough to follow through... >>

In other words: you want them to break the rules. Well, that's not very nice.

<< You had it to do it for that poster >>

I had it to do it for that poster... huh? :shrug: (Proofreading is our friend.)

<< and I give you kudos for trying every which way to Sunday to explain it away, but it is what it is, an insult.... >>

Apparently the moderators did not agree or they would have taken action on that post. It appears to me that your beef is with the moderators.

[dogday]

468. They have removed those posts before

They are common here, because like I said mentality falls by the wayside, when insults and ridicule begin... It is that simple..

[arwalden]

475. Here's What's Simple: You Want To Impose Your Own Standards...

... and people resist you. You don't like it and you try harder, but it makes things worse. So you continue. :shrug: Go figure.

[dogday]

476. Same could be said about you

[Catherine Vincent]

407. Clever? Pshaw!

We shall see if the poster stayed within the DU rules. I plan to use that phrase in the future minus the TO. And no, it didn't perturb me. You do not know what you are talking about. Sorry.

[arwalden]

439. I'm Afraid Your Denials Are Inconsistent With Your Actions.

And everyone knows that actions speak louder than words.

If you're concerned whether or not a poster stays within DU rules, then you should alert. If nothing happens, then the post you alerted on was within the rules.

[JuniperLea]

447. Boy! Did you miss the entire point or what!! n/t

[arwalden]

450. How So?

I can think of no finer example of someone's actions NOT matching their words. She claims not to be perturbed by a particular phrase, yet the evidence throughout this thread (and separate thread started by her) we can clearly see that this is not the case.

So where exactly did I "miss the entire point or what"?

[JuniperLea]

452. You're trying to read between the lines

What's your "evidence"?

[arwalden]

456. Stop Playing Games.

<< What's your "evidence"? >>

And open your eyes instead. The abundant evidence you seek is throughout this thread. Just look for the catgirl posts and you're likely to stumble upon them. --- You strike me as being competent enough that you can handle your own searches (or just visually scanning the threaded subject lines/links).

And then there's this separate thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1435794

... in which she admits that she was perturbed enough to alert on someone using a phrase that she found offensive.

Pretty odd behavior that directly contradicts any claim of not being perturbed. :shrug:

[Catherine Vincent]

457. I am not perturbed at all by that phrase.

After all, the OP didn't accuse any individual posters of this. If I was perturbed, I wouldn't have it in my sig line.

Cheers!

[arwalden]

461. Your Sigline... ROFL!!

You were perturbed enough to alert on the post, perturbed enough to complain that your alert wasn't acted upon, and now you add it to your sigline?

That's hysterical!

[Catherine Vincent]

463. I'm glad I made you laugh.

Although you're still wrong, brother.

[arwalden]

467. That's Funny Too!!

<< Although you're still wrong, brother. >>

:rofl:

[Catherine Vincent]

471. Okay. Let me rephrase...

Although you're still wrong, sister.

[arwalden]

478. Frankly...

... that one missed the mark. You should have quit while you were ahead. But feel free to try and score more points. You might accidentally come up with SOMETHING that tickles my funny bone. :shrug:

[Catherine Vincent]

481. I wasn't trying to tickle your funny bone.

You're the one that's always :rofl: at posts that isn't warranted for that type of reaction.

[arwalden]

485. So You Disapprove Of My Sense Of Humor, Too?

<< I wasn't trying to tickle your funny bone. You're the one that's always (rofl) at posts that isn't warranted for that type of reaction. >>

That anyone would be concerned about such a thing is astonishing. :shrug:










And it's also HYSTERICAL!!

[Catherine Vincent]

489. Why on earth would I be concerned about anything you say?

I am responding to your posts but I am not concerned about them.

[arwalden]

495. Another Funny One!!

<< I am responding to your posts but I am not concerned about them. >>

Oh yeah... I see how "unconcerned" you are. The same way you weren't perturbed with that other poster. -- I see your many denials, but the evidence speaks for itself.

[Catherine Vincent]

496. So you rather I ignore your posts and not respond?

I'm not the type to post and run....like that other kneepad brigade poster.

[arwalden]

498. "like that other kneepad brigade poster"

:rofl:

[Catherine Vincent]

500. Glad I made you laugh again.

Well, I gotta go, sweetie. It was fun chatting with you. And since you like posting pictures, enjoy this one. I enjoy it quite a bit. :hi:

:loveya:

[bettyellen]

394. or play stupid and selectively blind.....

to commonly used derogatory terms (involving various acts of sodomy) often used against gay men.

[arwalden]

440. No. She Was Playing Games...

... and the other poster was too clever to fall for her trick. It happens all the time. Nothing new. She tried. She lost. :eyes:

[dogday]

454. We all lose when someone post crap

like that, that simple.. This whole forum loses when intellect falls by the wayside and insults take over... WE ALL LOSE

[arwalden]

469. Face It... Some Folks Are Not As Puritanical As Others Are.

There will always be a certain element that is capable of taking offense at damn near anyone who disagrees with them. Whether they use humor or logic to refute the fantasy that "Rove was indicted"... there will always be those folks who refuse to let go, and who become indignant at anyone who contradicts the world (and the "facts") as they see them.

<< This whole forum loses when intellect falls by the wayside >>

Indeed it does.

One person's "crap" is another person's humor and debunking a myth. You can't silence someone just because you think their that viewpoint--or how they express it--is "crap".

But what you can do is use the ignore button and they disappear.

[dogday]

470. No one is trying to silence anyone

the purpose is to get the people who are trying to silence others by ridiculing them.. That is the type of silencing going on here....

[arwalden]

482. So You Approve Of Hypocrisy?

Is it not hypocritical to demand a HIGH journalistic standard and a HIGH level of accountability for traditional journalists and corporate media... but then to have ANOTHER standard that applies only to progressive journalists and non-traditional media?

I think it's very important to silence hypocrisy. How do you feel about that? Why are you defending the hypocrites?

[dogday]

488. Sure it is

But you or I don't get to decide who is a hypocrite and silence them, we are not the judges. All I can ask is that when people discuss it, they try to "maintain low tones" as the cone-heads used to say...

I am madder at the M$M for cheer-leading us on to war. My only Son, my first born child, is in that War and I guess that is where my acrimony lies.. That is something I get angry about... Articles that cause the deaths of thousands...

TO has been a good news source and has never had a blemish that I know of, to throw them out with the trash seems like the wrong thing to do.. To demand accountability of this story is well-placed, they should tell it all and it looks like they are working on it... Not as fast as I would like them to though, cause I too want to know what in the world and why in the world this story broke in the first place...

Honestly, when I heard Jason on Schulz, I just did not believe any of it, he was erratic and had no answers for what has happened...

Maintain low tones should be the mantra of the day here... I understand everybody's point.....

[arwalden]

494. I Was Wondering How Long It Would Take...

<< But you or I don't get to decide who is a hypocrite and silence them, we are not the judges. >>

I think it's extremely important to silence the hypocrites.

<< All I can ask is that when people discuss it, they try to "maintain low tones" as the cone-heads used to say... >>

What's to "discuss"? :shrug:

What middle-ground do you think can be reached? Some maintain that Rove WAS indicted, others know the truth. Should we "compromise" on the truth to reach some middle-ground and everyone agree that he was slightly indicted? :eyes:

<< I am madder at the M$M for cheer-leading us on to war. My only Son, my first born child, is in that War and I guess that is where my acrimony lies.. That is something I get angry about... Articles that cause the deaths of thousands... >>

Irrelevant. You often do this. We're all concerned about your son. I'm very sorry about the danger your son is in, and I've told you so before... but you can't keep trotting him out whenever you feel like you're losing an argument.

<< TO has been a good news source and has never had a blemish that I know of, to throw them out with the trash seems like the wrong thing to do.. >>

They are the ones responsible for maintaining their own reputation. That's rather THEIR decision to make whether or not they want to have a good reputation or not. -- At this late date, it would seem that the harm to their reputation and credibility (at their OWN HANDS and with their OWN NEGLECT, and the OWN stubborn defiance) their credibility is permanently tarnished.

Pity. But who is to blame? They are.

<< To demand accountability of this story is well-placed, they should tell it all and it looks like they are working on it... Not as fast as I would like them to though, cause I too want to know what in the world and why in the world this story broke in the first place... >>

Okay.

<< Honestly, when I heard Jason on Schulz, I just did not believe any of it, he was erratic and had no answers for what has happened... >>

I was equally unimpressed and suspicious.

<< Maintain low tones should be the mantra of the day here... I understand everybody's point..... >>

Understanding their motivation is one thing. Permitting hypocrisy and coddling their insistence that the fairy-tale is true, well... that's quite another.

[dogday]

499. It is not irrelevant if you ask me to

hold TO to the same standards of media and yes I do that because of that statement in itself.. To hold truthout to those standards is to say what the M$M are doing, and what standards they themselves are presenting, and I don't see the difference there.....

You think it is extremely important to silence the hypocrites, and there is where we disagree. Not on the meat of the subject, but the way it is approached. I cannot sit in judgment of anyone and I don't understand where you can justify your actions of judging anyone..

As to trotting out my Son....(make sure you read this part)

Shows me ignorance is only exceeded by rudeness. I tend to trot out my Son on most of my posts, do a search and you will see, that I bring his name up a lot, so does another mother on this forum.That is why I am here, it is because of my Son.

Seems to me you are the one losing the argument if you even have to make those kind of statements about my Son. You have to dig pretty low to of posted that and that just shows me I am getting to you.

[arwalden]

501. Trust Me...

... you're not "getting" to me at all. Nothing could be further from the truth.

<< Seems to me you are the one losing the argument >>

If it seems that way to you, then your perceptions are skewed.


<< if you even have to make those kind of statements about my Son. >>

No, that is untrue. It is false. You are wrong.

Actually, the TRUTH is this: (and make sure you read this part) other than to express my concern over the danger he's in, I've made NO statements "about your son".

What I *did* do was to point out that *your* trotting him out had absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. It's obvious that you simply did it for the sake of doing it or for other tactical reasons. It was completely irrelevant to the discussion/argument.

What did you hope to accomplish? :shrug: Creating an off-topic diversion? Congratulations on your success in that regard.

Score a point for you! :eyes: Whoo-hoo!

<< You have to dig pretty low to of posted that and that just shows me I am getting to you. >>

Believe what you will. My criticism was of what YOU were doing, and not about your son.

Do you see any similarity between what you're NOW doing (what you're accusing me of) and those who say "if you don't support the war then you don't support the troops". -- I do. It's very similar.

It's NOT "low to of" pointed out what *you* were doing. You're just pissed off because I called you on it.

[dogday]

506. Sorry to disappoint you

I am not pissed off, I am disappointed that anyone would make that kind of statement... I feel sorry for you... I don't think I have indicated anywhere in any of my posts that I was angry and I am not...
Your are stating I was using my Son's duty in Iraq to win an argument, and if that is not a low blow sir, I don't know what is.....

You thought you knew exactly what you were doing by saying that I trot out my Son when I am losing an argument, you were trying hard to hurt and that is so sad that you could stoop so low...

I am pissed off at President Bush, and The Iraq War, and I am angry my Son is over there and everyday I wonder is this the day? When someone knocks on my door, my heartbeat goes into double-time... Oh yes, that makes me so angry I could spit nails...

Justify your actions all you want, you said what you said and now you have to live with it...

[arwalden]

510. ~~

<< I am not pissed off, I am disappointed that anyone would make that kind of statement... I feel sorry for you... >>

You're getting personal again.

<< I don't think I have indicated anywhere in any of my posts that I was angry and I am not... >>

River in Egypt.

<< Your are stating I was using my Son's duty in Iraq to win an argument, and if that is not a low blow sir, I don't know what is.....>>

Then clearly, you don't know what is. :shrug:

<< You thought you knew exactly what you were doing by saying that I trot out my Son when I am losing an argument, you were trying hard to hurt and that is so sad that you could stoop so low... >>

You're getting personal again.

<< I am pissed off at President Bush, and The Iraq War, and I am angry my Son is over there and everyday I wonder is this the day? >>

Yes, yes. There you go again. We all are mad at Bush and we're all concerned for your son. But that doesn't have anything to do with the make-believe indictment, or the Pitt/Leopold/TO fiasco.

<< When someone knocks on my door, my heartbeat goes into double-time... Oh yes, that makes me so angry I could spit nails... >>

My heart goes out to anyone who has to endure such fears. But again... it's irrelevant to the make-believe indictment, or the Pitt/Leopold/TO fiasco.

<< Justify your actions all you want, you said what you said and now you have to live with it... >>

Live with what? :shrug: I've done nothing to be ashamed of.

[dogday]

511. My deepest sympathies

:cry:

[arwalden]

515. Here...

[arwalden]

503. PART II

<< I cannot sit in judgment of anyone and I don't understand where you can justify your actions of judging anyone. >>

How's the view from up there?

<< You think it is extremely important to silence the hypocrites, and there is where we disagree. >>

Well then... just continue to defend them. :eyes:

[dogday]

508. You tell me

seems you are the judge of us....

[arwalden]

513. "You Tell Me"???

Is that the equivalent of Bart Simpson's "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I?"

:rofl:

[dogday]

514. That line has been used to death

get some fresh material if you are going to keep this up...:rofl:

[arwalden]

516. ROFL

So why did you use it?

:rofl:

[dogday]

517. Tag

your it :rofl:

[arwalden]

519. "your it" ??

YOUR??

OMG! :eyes:

[Name removed]

507. Deleted message

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

[dogday]

512. But it is not personal ya know

who needs republicans when we have these kind of Democrats, eh?

[Name removed]

524. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

502. Deleted message

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

[arwalden]

505. Heh-heh! You Said "But Butt"

:rofl:

[Name removed]

Deleted message

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

[bettyellen]

509. dupe

no point in getting deleted twice

[Catherine Vincent]

458. The other poster did not act cleverly.

In fact, it cut and ran.

[Name removed]

525. Deleted message

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

[dogday]

530. That is really weird

why would anyone do that????

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. That Was A Great Statement And I Respect The Hell Out Of It.

I look forward to the additional details on the 19th and am proud of them for standing behind Jason. They are an organization with integrity and I think they raised a great point about having Fitzgerald's words be released in their entirity to show the whole picture, rather than just choice phrases that are no doubt spun by the likes of Luskin and the MSM.

Rock on T.O., and keep doing the great service to this country that you do. Even if in the end this story turns out to be proven wrong and with bad sources, so be it. One mark on an otherwise impeccable record is not worthy of any outrage from me. By overwhelming numbers T.O. has always provided an amazing contribution to real journalism and the progressive cause and I remain proud to have T.O. on our side.

[wakeme2008]

34. Why wait for something that is more BS...

Their changing definitions of the dates was my first clue that they were BSing ppl...

[KoKo]

40. Since they've lost their credibility ...why does it hurt to wait and see

what they have to say? They have NOT Retracted their original story.

If they had...I'd say PILE ON! Obviously they think they have some leg to stand on or they wouldn't keep at it since they've already lost their credibility with most on the "Internets." :shrug:

[IsIt1984Yet]

42. I really think that they are HOPING that something...anything happens

between now and the 19th.

[Tin Man]

99. Yep.

Maybe Rove will rob a bank during the next 4 days.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

47. I Find No Reason To Believe Whatsoever That They Were BS'ing Anybody.

Maybe in the end their sources were wrong, but the end isn't here yet. We don't know if their sources were wrong or not, or if there was some other shit going on behind the scenes that none of us know. Lord knows the way this administration works and that sneaky pig Rove works that can't be out of the realm of possibility. But regardless, if it becomes known that Rove didn't deal at all and he simply was exonerated due to innocence or not nearly enough evidence, then it would be the sources that were dishonerable in my opinion, not Truthout. I have read them for quite a while and have always found them to be valuable and of the utmost integrity. I see nothing in this situation that given their past would lend credence to the possibility that they intentionally misled. The fact some are so readily trying to make it like they had bad intentions and were out to BS is perplexing, but lord knows to each their own.

[IsIt1984Yet]

51. B.S. does not have to be "intentional" to BE B.S. It's the job, dare I say

the primary responsibility of a journalist to verify facts that they claim as facts. All signs point to the reality that they did not do this.

That's my point.

[aquart]

63. Yes, of course. Why wait. Trash now.

I'm sorry, but the value of that eludes me.

What it does do is remind me of the storm surge of protest over "Rathergate," which decided that the letters were fake when there was not and never has been any proof that they were fake. The distorted focus on the "24 hours" is exactly like the distorted focus on the "th" in the letters.

Don't wait to examine the evidence, condemn now.

I don't think I plan to condemn them. I'm simply fascinated by the people who feel a screaming need to, however.

What, precisely, is the time necessity for a stampede?

[IsIt1984Yet]

66. The main problem with your statement... pssst... there IS no evidence

that any of that story was true. None. Nada. Nothing.

If there were, I'd love to examine the evidence.

[dogday]

361. Like that little lie the administration

told about Uranium? Or the one about the miners being alive? A lot of shit isn't true, but as long as I have been here, I have never seen the outcry for justice louder than this one....

[IsIt1984Yet]

70. OK, another problem... when a "journalist" publishes stuff as "fact", it's

the journalist's job to verify that; not the reader's job to DISPROVE it.

That arguement completely baffles me.

[Marie26]

46. OMC, Why?

What do you think that statement is trying to say? Are they affirming the story, or denying it? Are they admitting it was wrong, or still claiming Leopold's story was right? Do they still believe the sources are correct? What does "standing down" on the story mean, exactly? I'd respect the statement a little more if it actually gave us some information. Sorry, maybe I'm missing something. What is the status of the story at this point?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

58. I Think They Made It Pretty Clear,

that they will elaborate more on the 19th. As far as standing down, it means they are not going to go into the forefront and declare against a horde of MSM that Rove was indicted and not fully exonerated. It means they are going to take the backseat right now while the MSM has their field day with choice snippets from a Fitz letter, fax, phonecall, smoke signal, heiroglyph, or whatever the heck it was. They know they are way too outnumbered right now to compete so they are standing down for now, while they investigate what's going on or what happened that made the outcome so contradictory to their expectation.

They are standing behind Jason and that's respectful as hell. They are all in it together. At this time they still trust their sources and firmly believe in their story, but now must believe that some underhanded dealings must've taken place behind the scenes that turned everything around. They are trying to say that their reporting was thorough, Jason was thorough, their sources seem reliable, and that on the 19th they'll clarify more their feelings on the issue.

And even if in the end they were totally wrong, like I said in my post they have an impeccable record of valuable progressive reporting and action and I'll be damned if I am to erase all that due to one big miss.

I enjoy reading truthout and they have always been one of the best journalistic outlets for our side.

[Marie26]

69. OK

Thank you for explaining some of the reasons for your position. You've confirmed my impression that this post is not a retraction of the original story. It does seem like they're simply regrouping while they do more inquiries, or whatever. Truthout's done good work, but IMO they've damaged themselves w/this story. But I've said that already. They did make it clear that they'll make it clear on June 19th. I guess we'll just have to see what they end up elaborating on later.

[arwalden]

124. Many TruthOut Admirers Have Extraordinarily Low Standards...

... when it comes to their evaluation of journalistic capabilities and responsibilities and accountability.

<< And even if in the end they were totally wrong, >>

Uh... hello? The end is already here. They were wrong.

<< like I said in my post they have an impeccable record of valuable progressive reporting and action and I'll be damned if I am to erase all that due to one big miss. >>

"Impeccable?" Not exactly the word I would have chosen, but then again... I suppose many people are more easily impressed than I am. --- And actually, when you think about it... their record and reputation is their own to protect, discard, or "erase"... not yours. You really don't have much to say about that one way or the other.

It probably wouldn't have been so "big" if they hadn't tried to be so stealthy with their undocumented post editing and so stubbornly and defiantly "standing by" their story when all evidence indicated otherwise.

But what do I know... I'm just a fuckwit.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

149. "But what do I know... I'm just a fuckwit."

Fair enough.

[arwalden]

156. ~

[Techno Dog]

192. It seems

this guy/girl doesn't understand Ash HAS to stand behind Leopold becuase he said he verified the sources. William Pitt too.

Now whowhatwherewhenwhy it went wrong isn't the point. They HAVE to stand behind Leopold.

Pity.

[arwalden]

208. Verified? What Does This Mean... In Real Terms...

... how does one go about "verifying" the source? I keep hearing this term used, but I don't fully understand all that's involved. Is a verified source more credible than any other type of source?

<< Now whowhatwherewhenwhy it went wrong isn't the point. >>

I think it's a point they want to avoid dealing with, but it's certainly a valid point that people are justified in being curious about and in wanting explanations regarding those things.

<< They HAVE to stand behind Leopold. >>

Only if they don't want to come clean. Only if they don't care about their credibility.

<< Pity. >>

I reserve the right to make that determination at a later time.


PS: WELCOME TO DU!! :hi:

[Techno Dog]

238. Thanks

The time for "coming clean" was before Ash and Pitt went on the record as having spoken to the sources.

So they made themselves part of the story, they can't come clean about Leopold without coming clean about themselves.

That doesn't mean they feel they have anything to come clean about, I'm just pointing out the guy/girl that seemed to be giving you attitude doesn't realize TO "standing by" Leopold is a red herring and has nothing to do with honor.

[Divernan]

245. You hit the nail on the head with that insight.

A lot of the TO defenders argue that Leopold must have been set up or lied to. Now since every reliable journalist & his/her editor will require at least two reputable sources, that means TWO sources lied to, set up or misled Leopold. When the TO editors jump in and say the story is valid because they also spoke to or in some manner validated the source(s), then if the story collapses, the editors also are shown to be incompetent and unprofessional.

I find the phrase "stand down" to be so bogus - quite macho and military - and what you'd expect from someone who is incapable of admitting error. Was Ash ever in the military? Or Pitt? If not, the phrase is as out of place as Bush prancing around in his pilot's costume.

[Techno Dog]

246. There is a lot of victim language

in there. I think the militarism you noticed in the "stand down" comes from the siege mentality that sets in when under attack. It is also, as you note, a very macho statement that says in effect "you win because there are more of you, but I'm still right".

[arwalden]

287. "you win because there are more of you, but I'm still right".

Excellent way to describe & explain it. :thumbsup:

[Strong Atheist]

297. Welcome to Du.!

:toast:

[Moloch]

435. They don't have to stand by shit.

The story was wrong. It had so many inaccuracies and contradictions that the average editor of a high school newspaper wouldn't have published it.

When Rove was NOT indicted, Pitt and Ash should have retracted the story.

What did they do?

They insulted those who questioned it with extreme arrogance.

Pitt and Ash have the same credibility as Leopold. None.

[JuniperLea]

90. It means what many of us have always said

There isn't enough information, so let it rest until there is.

When the fat lady sings, the opera will be over, the curtain will close on the final act and all will be known. Until then...

[Marie26]

243. The opera's over.

But I'm done arguing over it. People will believe what they want to believe.

[JuniperLea]

256. When did Fitz issue a statement?

Or is the case closed? What did I miss?

[Jazz2006]

269. Rove certainly hasn't been indicted if that's what you're after....

And, unless things change in the future, he won't be.

Was there something else that you were getting at?

If it was about the Leopold story - that's in the past tense as truthout claimed he'd been indicted more than a month ago, and obviously, he wasn't.

But if you're talking about something other than that, do tell.

[JuniperLea]

414. Quit putting words in my mouth and trying to read between lines1

Because there is nothing there.

When Fitz makes a statement other than "no comment" I will listen to that statement.

I will not make up things like you seem to like to do. I will not see things that are not there no matter how hard you try to will me to do so.

No comment means no comment. Law 101... no comment means no comment. Fitz has no comment, therefore, he said "no comment" and until he says something other than "no comment" there is nothing further to discuss.

Go read your fairy tales elsewhere.

[Jazz2006]

472. LOL

I haven't made up a single thing.

As for fairy tales, the most recent fairy tale I've read is the truthout story that Rove was served with an indictment on May 12.

[Goblinmonger]

343. The fat lady

has already sung, removed the costume, had supper, been laid, and smoked the post-sex cigarette. But you keep hoping.

[IsIt1984Yet]

347. Hee

:rofl:

[JuniperLea]

423. Cool! Fitz said something more than "no comment"???

Did I miss it?

Because until that time, this opera is still playing. You must be in the wrong opera house on the wrong side of town.

[Goblinmonger]

518. It ain't just a river in Egypt, my friend.

It's over. Leopold was full of shit (AGAIN) and this time it was TruthOut that was on the supportive side of his crap. He has a history of making shit up and it looks like he done it again.

If you are the only one sitting in the opera house, there are no lights on, nobody is on stage, there hasn't been anyone on stage for an hour, the orchestra is gone, and the ushers are staring at you like you are a maniac, the opera is over my friend. And sitting in your chair telling yourself this is just a REALLY long intermission (24 business hours is a shit load of time according to Leopold) doesn't make it so.

[JuniperLea]

520. It may very well be that Leo was full of crap

But to believe Rove's lawyer is just stupid.

Like I said, when Fitz actually says something, then there will be firm evidence. Until then, everything is speculation. Everything.

Fitz has said nothing.

[Goblinmonger]

532. I'm not believing Rove's lawyer.

My bullshit meter red-lined on the following two phrases.

"we meant 24 BUSINESS hours"
"standing down"

Both of those are complete crap. There is no business hours in the legal world and they are just using military jibberjabber to sound tough. EVERYONE'S bullshit meter should have gone off at DU with those two. If either of those had come out of the mouth of someone in the Bush administration, we would have called them on it here at DU. Shouldn't be any different for Leopold, Ash, Pitt, et al.

And me being called a cretin fuckwit shitdog for having a bullshit meter only made me more willing to voice my opinion more loudly.

Do I want Rove to be indicted? Fuck yeah. TruthOut just wasn't right about it and has handled it very poorly since their 24 business hours were up.

[JuniperLea]

533. Things change

That could have very well been the truth at the time and we won't know until we hear something real... not imagined. All Fitz will say is "no comment". That's the only concrete thing we have.

Sounds like you have your own personal axe to grind. So be it. It's your right. I don't think it does you any good or makes your arguments any more solid, in fact, it makes all your arguments and reasons for not liking TO nothing more than sour grapes. Just my opinion.

My bullshit meter went off when I heard that Rove got some letter clearing him. Clearing him of what? What's the point in getting a letter clearing him if he had not received a much different letter to begin with? Do they hand those letters out to everyone? Can I get one?

[bluestateguy]

49. Yep, those additional details will be w/in "24 business hours" of the 19th

:rofl:

[Strong Atheist]

298. ROFLMAO! Good one!

:rofl:

[IndianaGreen]

431. Are those Pluto business hours?

Because they sure ain't Earth business hours.

[OzarkDem]

150. So do it

And I anticipate they'll still keep following the story, seeking the truth.

We've lost enough good independent journalists to Rove's dirty tricks, its time to stand up and not cave in to the GOP dirty tricks campaigns.

[HEyHEY]

274. You respect people blowing smoke up your ass?

Kinky.

[bluestateguy]

37. That statement is completely incomprehensible

I literally cannot figure out what they are trying to say.

Truthout is now in the same category as Newsmax, WordNetDaily and the Drudge Report.

I also hope the Administrators will take notice and ban the use of Truthout as a legitimate LBN source.

[texasleo]

39. they're allowed in LBN? wtf?

no effing way.

[Roon]

43. Ban posting stuff from truthout all together

not only in LBN, but this whole forum.

[OzarkDem]

151. Another Rove talking point

Can't you folks come up with something more original?

[bluestateguy]

178. Not everything bad that happens is a Karl Rove masterminded conspiracy

It's getting old real fast, and making this site look silly and moonbatish. I would dare say that Rove is less powerful than he was a few years ago anyway.

TruthOut fucked up and they need to do what we would expect of any reputable news source when that happens: apologize, hold the incompetents accountable and take systemic steps to prevent the screwups from happening again. So far, TruthOut has not done any of that.

And before someone replies to this post by whining that the New York Times, or Fox News or whoever has not owned up to their mistakes, that is not my concern. The fact that the NYT or FOX or ABC or whoever fucked up does not excuse TruthOut from being held to the same standards. If that publication wants to be taken seriously then they will have to act like a real news organ with real journalistic standards. The fact that ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN and the NYT fucked up at such and such date on such and such story is not an excuse. Standards should not be dumbed down just because we have been let down by corporate media organizations.

[ClintonTyree]

280. Stop making sense.........

making sense isn't widely accepted around here lately. ;)

[Strong Atheist]

302. Well said!

:yourock:

[rpannier]

326. How can you say that????

Don't you know that rove has been given all omnipotent powers? I have heard, maybe it was read (or I just made it up) that he has the power to stop the Earths orbit and stop the sun from shining. That devious rove is so smart that he took a website that a huge majority of people never heard of (including me, that is until May 12) and used his all omnipotent power to bring them down. He didn't target MoveOn, or TrueMajority, MediaMatters, or any group like that because truthout must have special insight into the administration or they must have written stories that the other three groups I cited missed (not to mention HuffPo, Salon, Crooksandliars and a slew of other organizations).

On a serious note:
I agree with you. Everytime something doesn't go the way we would like it's not always bevcause of Rove or Diebolt or any other special circumstances. Sometimes bad things happen -- it sux, but the conspiracy whining does need to stop, it detracts from when shady things happen that are real.

[OzarkDem]

328. I'm sure you're right

Rove would never involve himself in any scheme related to saving his own ass from going to jail. How silly of me to assume he would pull a dirty tricks campaign in order to avoid going to jail. :eyes:

[DisgustedTX]

426. Do you doubt his ROVIAN powers?

He attacks the unknown and releases his ROVIAN wrath!

[H2O Man]

48. Good.

I can appreciate why TO is standing down on the Rove report.
I stand with TO.

[Straight Shooter]

59. Thank you, H20 Man, for that succinct response

So do I.

[Marie26]

61. Hi H2OMan

Just wanted to tell you how much I admire all the work you've done on the Plame story. In your post today, you stated "However, Karl Rove is not facing indictment at this time. And there is no reason to expect that will change anytime soon, if ever." If this is true, why hasn't TO retracted the story that Rove was indicted? Why is the story still linked to the TO front page? Do you believe that affects their creditability in this issue? Do you believe it's still possible that the TO story was correct?

[H2O Man]

84. I think

that at very worst, TO made an error. As I noted in my essay, I also am wrong from time to time. That may cause people to conclude that I'm not credible. That doesn't concern me. I'm an old man, and have met thousands of people in my life, and have yet to meet anyone who has not made mistakes.

Many years ago, a friend taught me that there are three types of people: smart people learn from others' mistakes; most of us have to learn from our own; and some folks just never learn. One thing I've learned is that things are not always what they appear to be. Another is to trust people to do what is right when it comes to things that are important to them. I have enough respect for Will Pitt that I have no problem applying those two things to this situation.

Could the TO report be correct? I do not think that it will turn out to be accurate in every sense. Great if it is -- I certainly wouldn't mind being wrong on that. But I will say this: other people believed that something was going on. That includes David Shuster, who I think is a very good journalist. And there are others, too, who aren't on record, but who were hearing similar things.

The Plame investigation is an iceberg. We see the surface, floating above the water .... but the vast majority of what is happening lies below the surface.

[Marie26]

105. Thanks

for answering my annoying questions. I do agree that trust is something that is earned, but TO has lost my trust over this issue. This seems to be a situation where they are not learning from earlier mistakes, but making them worse by reaffirming Leopold's inaccurate story. It does feel like there's a whole lot going on beneath the surface in this case, though, whatever that turns out to be. Life in general is like an iceberg - we're only seeing the tip of what TO's actions are here, & can only guess at what's motivating them. Some people believe they have good motives, some believe there are self-interested motives, most don't care. But I can see why someone could choose to believe that they have good intentions here, especially based on prior experiences. Maybe we'll eventually find out the entire truth.

[Spazito]

197. Thanks, H2O Man, as always, for your succinct comments

"The Plame investigation is an iceberg. We see the surface, floating above the water .... but the vast majority of what is happening lies below the surface."

Indeed, the vast majority of what is happening is below the surface which we cannot see nor know.

[evermind]

354. Here's my version of those three types

1) Those that notice something's wrong and try and fix it

2) Those that notice something's wrong but just want to get on with their lives

3) Those that prefer to sit around tearing down the efforts of type 1)

We probably each have a little of each of those in us - the proportion we act on each says a lot about us.

[Cha]

67. I agree..it's better to

"stand down" now and live to fight another day. Truthout is strong and they will bounce back from this alleged rove, temporary, "victory".

[Coexist]

332. Nice post.

I agree.

[meisje]

50. Cowards Stand Down Mr. Ash, Patriots Stand Up! You are no Patriot!

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[KoKo]

71. I admire your Pluck.......

But, you'd be more believable if you toned down your rhetoric. Being Partisan.
is a good thing in some situations, but you need some experience to "pick and choose." Being a Cheerleader 24/7...kind of put's you in a rut...

I admire your "Pluck" but sheesh...it's so predictable.

Peace!

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Kingofalldems]

97. I understand the outrage of some DUers about this story

But piling on is too much. No one here knows the whole story. The sad thing is they have lined themselves up with a couple freeper disrupters IMO.

[The Straight Story]

126. My only real problem with TO on this:

Sure, they made a simple mistake (not so simple to some). They made a prediction, based on word of mouth from someone, and ran with it. Then nothing occured. And still nothing.

Ok, I can give em that. Crap happens. They did what they thought was right, and ran with a story they believed to be true. But - and there is always a 'but':

Their communication abilities seem somewhat lacking. When three business days had passed and nothing they should have issued a simple apology for the furor they knew the whole thing would cause. And they had to know something this big would get all kinds of people talking, writing, spending hours of their time online discussing, blogging, etc.

-----
A real simple worded - 'It appears our sources were wrong on the time, which implies that they may also be wrong on the indictment. We believe our reporter has good sources but it appears that they were mistaken in what they heard. Should the story change, or we get new information, we will get it straight out to you. In the meantime, we are unable to verify the original facts and apologize once more for stating something that at this time appears not to be fact (at the minimum, the timeline).

We believe our sources DO have it right that there was an indictment, but until such a thing can be proven we will move on to other items. Thank you for understanding.
-----

I think - once again - the rub is NOT that they were wrong, but in how the PR of it all unfolded. One story does make or break the credibility of a site, nor does it diminish their hard work. It is hard to move on from a story when things keep lingering like this.

Just my 2 cents.Well 3 cents, with the tax cut and all...

[Strong Atheist]

305. VERY well said! nt.

[Goblinmonger]

344. So you're saying

that when it seemed clear the story was wrong, coming on DU and calling people that thought the story was wrong "fuckwits" was not a good move? :rofl:

I'm sorry I keep going back to that post, but, damn, it's such an easy target.

[IsIt1984Yet]

351. Stop that, you cretin!!

heee :rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

381. Don't forget shitdog!

Can't pick which one is my favorite. :rofl:

[Crabby Appleton]

60. Monday, June 19

what year?

[stepnw1f]

76. the year you evolve

unless you believe

[Strong Atheist]

306. .

:rofl:

[Tin Man]

74. This is nuts! What is to be gained by Luskin lying about the letter?

Let's assume for a moment that the 'Fitz letter' is simply some kind of neocon misdirection... If so, it seems to have worked splendidly, because 'the letter' has been the top news item in every media outlet. And even Bush joined the chorus, stating at today's presidential press conference that he was happy the Rove issue was behind him.

Now, what would happen if Fitz were to suddenly announce an actual Rove indictment? The ensuing media shit-storm would make Bush's Whitehouse look something like Dorthy in the tornado during the Wizard of Oz.

I can't imagine this administration assuming that kind of risk just to make KKKarl look good for a little while.

[IsIt1984Yet]

79. It's textbook "straw man".

Person A: ROVE WAS INDICTED ON MAY 12!! I'M SERIES!!!!11!!

<chirp>

<chirp>

<chirp>

<chirp>

Person B: We received a letter from the special prosecutor stating that we do not anticipate an indictment for Rove.

Person C: Show us the letter!!


BULLSHIT! Prove why you stated as FACT that he had been indicted on 5/12!

[BeFree]

100. So...

....you would out a source? A source that might be in grave danger if he were known to have said something?

Just so you could get some internet warriors of your butt? No, I don't think you would, or should. Definetly it would be your last time any one ever trusted you.

'Course, rove would love to know that source, eh? Why do rove's bidding? Why?

[IsIt1984Yet]

101. No, see - I wouldn't have published the story unless I verified facts.

And... I will turn a portion of your argument back on you... if you were Luskin/Fitz, would you go out of your way to make public a private letter "Just so you could get some internet warriors of your butt? No, I don't think you would, or should. Definitely it would be your last time any one ever trusted you."

These are attorneys in legal matters.

And, seriously, don't try to thinly veil a "troll" accusation at me with the "Why do rove's bidding? Why?" bullshit.

[BeFree]

106. So...

...what is it you want?

And why wouldn't Luskin tell the world his boy was off the hook? You make no sense.

What is it you hope to accomplish?

[IsIt1984Yet]

108. Huh? Luskin DID tell the media of the letter. He is not obligated to

share its contents.

And, as a lawyer, he's obligated to protect his client, no matter how large of an icky scumbag the client is.

I'd like to see TO cut the cancer that is Leopold from their staff and admit that they fucked up and didn't properly verify the facts.

[BeFree]

111. What you want

You ain't gonna get.

And if you did get what you want, so what? It wouldn't make a difference in the world.

Glad to see you backed off from wanting the source exposed, that's wise.

[IsIt1984Yet]

113. Psssh. You make me laugh.

Show me where I stated that I wanted sources revealed. ooo... you can't, cuz I didn't.

[BeFree]

117. Well, you said

"
BULLSHIT! Prove why you stated as FACT that he had been indicted on 5/12!"

The only way to prove it is to expose the source. So you wanted the source exposed so you would get what you want. And rove would like that too, please, don't claim rove wouldn't.

[IsIt1984Yet]

119. I did not say "expose the source". Did I? You THINK that's the only

way to prove it? I don't know and neither do you. I would assume that journalists require evidence... proof, even when someone makes a claim.

I should call Jason and tell him I saw the Boogie Man. I bet he'd write all about it.

[BeFree]

123. You don't know?

I don't either. But lets consider this... TO says their source is a good source, and I guess they wouldn't have done the story if they didn't trust the source. So, as far as we know, outting the source is the only way to get your proof.

Or, you could say they made it all up. I doubt they made it all up, but who knows? Who cares? You do. You ain't gonna get what you want.

[IsIt1984Yet]

125. Consider this. I'm a reporter and you're my pastor's wife. You're WAY

credible, completely honest and I'd trust you with my life.

And... you tell me that you saw TinkerBelle. You give me a fabulous description, meticulous details and a plausible time line.

I, as a reporter, would push real hard: "gee, BeFree, do you have pictures? Any pixie dust she left behind? some shred of evidence?"

If you couldn't provide me evidence... that I could VERIFY I'd - guess what... NOT publish your story as FACT.

But, that's me. I took journalism when I was a freshman in High School and got that much out of it.

On edit: Do you see how silly it is to publish a story without evidence; based SOLEY on the word of someone, despite how trustworthy they may be? So, I go back to saying that they either A) have some evidence and are holding out or B) did not GET evidence

If they HAVE the evidence, then they ought to come clean and prove it up. Did they SEE the indictment? Do they have a COPY of the indictment?

And, if they haven't any evidence, that speaks volumes to their journalist integrity. Even Rather had SOME evidence, faked as it may have been.

[BeFree]

133. Tinkerbell? WTF?

Yes, it is silly, unless that someone was very highly respected. And I guess TO doesn't respect that source as much, nowadays. But that doesn't mean they should expose him.

Did TO screw up? Duh. Big deal. It happens.

The thing is, Rove is a crook and he needs to be indicted, and he may yet. Lets hope he does get indicted, yes?

[IsIt1984Yet]

140. I REALLY hope there's an indictment. My criticism of how TO and JL

handled this debacle speaks nothing of my contempt for the man.

Yes, I hope he and the whole administration are held liable for the mess that they've made and every life lost in 9/11 and Iraq and Afghanastan. With every fiber of my being, I want this administration gone and called to the carpet for every wrong that they've done.

And, I am working everyday (among other things) to make sure that we get out of the Middle East, women's rights are protected and that afforable healthcare is avaiable to EVERYONE.

I am sickened that criticism and questions of TO and Leopold over this dumb-ass story make people throw around these fucking "troll" comments. It's ridiuclous. I am a life-long Democrat, rasied by 2 incredible bleeding-heart pinkos (love ya, ma!). I have voted Democratic in every election since I was able to vote, I volunteer, donate blood and raise a HELL of a lot of money for charitable organizations.

It feels like some WANT me to what... vote Republican so that can whine and cry about being oppressed?!? Fuck that, I am a Democrat who fights for the TRUTH and what's RIGHT. We must stop speculating and start demanding the truth... even from our "own". FUCK, especially from our own!! If we can't trust them, we're seriously fucked.

[BeFree]

159. The Truth is Out there.

Good on you. I'd of never expected that you were such a good Dem by the way you ranted.

Still, to the troll issue you are so injured with: I implied that if you wanted rove to succeed in any endeavor he might have to injure someone on 'our' side, this is one way to go about it.

Because that is the end all of all this: rove wins as we go down fighting amongst ourselves over a relatively minor matter. That's how I see it.

[IsIt1984Yet]

163. Don't you see though... your rush to judgment is a HUGE

problem. Search my posts, read my journal - but don't call me a troll or imply that I am a "Rove operative based on my opinion of THIS issue. That's a joke.

You know what prompted me to register here after lurking for eons? Women's Rights. Specifically the ruling in SD. I was sickened. Like most great Democrats, I am passionate about issues in which I believe. Truth being a big one. Like I said, search my posts, read my journal, you'll see a few of other issues I am passionate about - Feingold, human rights, women's rights, outrage at the war.

Don't judge people on a single rant or their views on one - admittedly STUPID issue (is TO full of shit or not?).

That's just... wrong.

We're on the same flippin' team... we're just debating a topic.

Note: this is not directed to you, necessarily, but a general "get it off my chest".

[Llewlladdwr]

199. Because that's what TO said they would do?

But at this point I'm not at all certain that they even bother with sources. And I certainly no longer trust them as a news source anyway.

[DisgustedTX]

127. Exactly - with a duplicate "editor" in defense

:rofl:

[Maven]

223. I think you mean a "red herring."

But otherwise, excellent point. :thumbsup:

[Catrina]

240. But that's NOT what 'person B' (Luskin) said at all! He said that the

prosecutor told him that he 'did not anticipate any charges against Rove. You said 'indictment'.

That leaves open the possibility that there was an indictment, but that Fitzgerald is not anticipating acting on it by 'charging' Rove. This may or may not be the case, but Luskin never said there was NO indictment, just no charges.

In all the research that was done over the past few weeks we discovered that:

1) There is such a thing as 'Sealed V Sealed'...(despite the legal certainty of some DU lawyers to the contrary)

2) That a sealed indictment may be shown to the indicted individual, if the judge permits it.

3) That if that happens, all parties are forbidden to reveal it, which means the public will not be aware of it.

4) That a sealed indictment may remain sealed for over a year, at the least, which was demonstrated by DU researchers by looking at other cases.

5) That an indictment (again contrary to the legal certainty of some DU lawyers) is not sealed ONLY because of a risk of flight. Since the Patriot Act went into effect, there have been many more instances of totally secret sealed indictments, even secret trials and convictions that the public has been unaware of.

With all of that information, it's entirely possible that there was an indictment and that something happened to cause Fitzgerald to decide not to file charges and that TO was right.

Otoh, it's also possible that there was no indictment.

I believe that TO has integrity, that they are stunned at the outcome BECAUSE of what they know. This can happen to anyone. I doubt very much they would stand by this story if they didn't have a good reason for doing so.

If Luskin will not reveal the letter, he will perpetuate the idea that he is hiding something. TO is right to challenge him to reveal it.

Patrick Fitzgerald has NOT cleared Karl Rove ~ and the question is, why not? That would be the right thing to do if indeed, Rove is innocent.

Rove would be demanding such a statement if he were in a position to do so.

[JuniperLea]

86. Oh please

Assumptions, assertions, wild imaginings and claiming to have not enough imagination...

:eyes:

If Fitz announces or denounces a indictment, aka the fat lady sings, it's over. Until then, this is all a bunch of wasted energy.

[Tin Man]

110. You're right - in due time, everyone will know the truth of the story

...even TruthOut.

[JuniperLea]

262. Yep

That's what I'm saying... no one knows a damn thing right now.

[stepnw1f]

77. I Have Plenty of Time

While I wait I'll keep working.... ahhhhhhhh

[johnnie]

88. I honestly hardly ever went to Truthout

Unless someone posted a link here to something that sounded interesting, I never really went there.

I consider them to be just one of the many places on the internet with some sort of news. It doesn't mean I think any less of their writers than I do any other of the millions of writers around the country, just that there are thousands of places for me to read what I want.

As it stands right now, I think they have handled this whole thing quite well and I have yet to lose a wink of sleep over their Rove story. After a month of reading the posts on DU and reading what Truthout has to say, I have concluded that Truthout has handled this much better than a lot of the people here have.

It sucks that so many people have so much anger inside of them, but that is just the way it is I guess.

[arwalden]

89. Why Do They Use This Terminology?

Is that the same thing as admitting that they were WRONG?

<< We defer instead to the nation's leading publications. >>

Does that mean that the "leading publications" are RIGHT?

This reminds me of when Walmart settles on a slip-n-fall liability case but admits no wrongdoing.

What happened to the previous emphatic declarations of Leopold revealing his sources? Is that still an option that's on the table? Or will TO weasel out?

This recent announcement does NOTHING to improve my opinion of TO, it's "journalists" or its defenders.

[IsIt1984Yet]

92. Why? It's elusive and romantic sounding... Oh, that and

it pretty much says to the reader, "ok, yeah... be a moran and believe what THEY tell you.".

[Marie26]

107. It's manipulative. nt

[kiahzero]

116. Alternatively

"We disagree, but we can't show all our cards right now"

[Bluebear]

95. They were just ahead of the news cycle, remember.

The nation's leading publications evidently were not. :crazy:

[Goblinmonger]

345. They were SO FAR ahead of the news cycle,

that the space-time continuum had time to change and create a different reality. Come on, didn't you watch Back to the Future? Pay attention here and stop dragging down those that speak truth to power :crazy:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

155. It's snarky. They were better just to say "we'll have more on X date" than

this thing about "deferring to the leading publications". WTF is that supposed to mean.

[arwalden]

161. Reminds Me Of The Language MATT DRUDGE Used The Other Week...

... when he "deferred" to the denials of the DNC (rather than issuing any sort of formal retraction or apology).

It's sleazy. It's cheap. Their careful parsing of language only confirms and validates my worst feelings about TO.

[Canuckistanian]

207. "We defer instead to the nation's leading publications."

To me that's a sarcastic statement which really means "You guys in the MSM think you know so much? Then go ahead and publish your bullshit. We'll be vindicated in the end. In the meantime, we'll enjoy our popcorn."

[Bluebear]

91. "We weren't right or wrong but standing down on the matter for now."

:crazy:

[high density]

96. uuhh yeah...

:crazy: is right!

What a big middle finger to their readership. Bye bye TO.

[Jazz2006]

118. But but but...

Just yesterday, they were standing behind their story and Leopold was on the radio saying that he was working on it "24 hours a day" and promising to continue to "get to the bottom of" it, even while saying that he was no longer claiming that Rove would be indicted. Talk about bizarre.

Sheesh.

Not to mention the irony of Leopold saying that it would be premature for him to start issuing mea culpas until Luskin produced the letter from Fitz ~ it seems apparent that if Leopold had exercised the same restraint when he had never seen the non-existent indictment before writing a bogus story, he and truthout wouldn't be in this predicament.

[Strong Atheist]

314. Agreed. nt.

[DancingBear]

103. "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

"I don't know, officer, that phrase just popped into my head."

"You've been looking at those 'updates' again, haven't you?"

"Well....."

[Name removed]

109. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Catherine Vincent]

128. Wow!

Some moderators have itchy trigger fingers.

[DisgustedTX]

130. K&R! for big effort to bury Kool-Aid stories

:)

[Orsino]

131. Small contradiction here.

"And we stand firmly behind Jason Leopold....Truthout has never compromised the ident{iy}y of a confidential source. We will protect our sources on this story...."

When Leopold promised to out any sources who lied, he contradicted that policy.

While I'm not pleased with the vagueness of "standing down" (they've remained pretty silent for weeks), I'm glad to see any update, and a promise of more substantial reporting/"accounting" sounds hopeful. They seem to be endorsing Leopold's honesty in this matter. I hope that we'll learn the full story of the story, so to speak.

[OzarkDem]

136. I trust them, not a problem

Truthout has a record of being responsible and reliable, Rove, not so much. Kudos to them for holding their ground and not going the scapegoating route. That's credible journalism.

[IsIt1984Yet]

144. And Leopold? Hmm... not him so much.

[OzarkDem]

152. Leopold vs Rove? Leopold any day, TO any day

Rove - nope, doesn't fit my values.

[IsIt1984Yet]

153. It's not a "versus" question. Leopold is a known fuck-up among fuck-ups.

Where have you been?

[OzarkDem]

160. Your opinion

Sorry, but I'll reserve judgement. TO has been just fine so far and I'm happy to give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Strong Atheist]

316. Liepold makes s*** up. It's what he does. Especially to hawk his

new book:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1415027#1417248

Many other source about Liepolds' lying, if you bother to google it....

Truthout was conned by Liepold...

[johnfunk]

186. Leopold is a known "I admit I was wrong" among journalists.

That's more than I can say for Tony Snow, Byron York, Robert Novak, Elizabeth Bumiller, Judith "Monica" Miller, Lisa Myers, Rita Cosby...

You sound awfully like the unforgiving, rigid moralist scolds who got all upset that Bill Clinton got a hummer from a zaftig intern. I'll bet you also wonder why Clinton's so popular with big women...

[IsIt1984Yet]

190. Don't play the "I bet you think..." game with me. Soooo 4th grade.

If you think I am a "Rovian plant" come out and say it, you wouldn't be the first. However, that doesn't make it any more accurate.

[Name removed]

201. Deleted message

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

[IsIt1984Yet]

206. Saying Leopold is a fuck-up makes me sound like a Rovian plant?

Huh...

on edit... wait, no ... you think it makes me a "Clinton hater".

Super huh.... that makes even LESS sense.

I voted for him a couple times, too.

[IsIt1984Yet]

209. The way that you are turning this so personal and divisive is far more

suspect than my calling Leopold a "fuck-up".

Don't you see though... your rush to judgment is HUGELY divisive! Search my posts, read my journal see if you really think that, then make that claim if you see fit. But don't call me a troll or imply that I am a "Rove operative based on my opinion of THIS issue. That's a joke.

Like most great Democrats, I am passionate about issues in which I believe. Truth being a big one. Like I said, search my posts, read my journal, you'll see a few of other issues I am passionate about - Feingold, human rights, women's rights, outrage at the war.

Don't judge people on a single rant or their views on one - admittedly STUPID issue (is TO full of shit or not?).

We're on the same flippin' team... we're just debating a topic, and you have to ACCUSE people of being "less liberal" than you? Get over yourself, chief!

[johnfunk]

215. Now you're gettin' paranoid, guy.

Grab a beer, relax... here's my take in a nutshell (and please, no rude comments about "nuts").

First, TO's latest move is in my opinion prudent. They should take a day or two, regroup, strategize, tacticize, and decide their next move.

I think Jason was right (or 95% right, which is more than I can say for CNN) about Rove being indicted. I suggest you give THIS and {link:www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/13/dodging-cipa-graymail-bulletsand-other-legal-notes/|THIS] a good read. Now, do the math: sealed indictment + "24 hours" to get your affairs in order = opening salvo in prosecutorial graymail negotiations.

And those negotiations don't happen overnight.

I agree with Christy and with Mike Mazur at NLJ, who posits this theory from the known facts:
-- Rove was in fact indicted under seal;
-- Rove's people and Fitz's people cut a deal over the last 3 weeks;
-- the White House has SUDDENLY said they're not going to fight prosecutorial requests for evidence;
-- Fitz is going after Cheney's crew, and the Bush-Bolten axis are throwing their biggest liability of all, the Office of the Vice President, over the side--starting with Scooter---and Rove's going to be a witness for the prosecution...

My advice: grab the popcorn.

[IsIt1984Yet]

218. I'm no "guy".

You accused me of sounding like a "Clinton hater".

I still don't believe this TO story has an ounce of credence.

And you know what? I am still a Democrat and I still liked "Big Dog". Nothing you think or say will change that.

[johnfunk]

290. Hey, laaaaaady

I compared you in a specific way to moralist scolds -- y'all still sound like you're on a jihad against Jason.

[IsIt1984Yet]

299. You sure are good at "stretching" the facts and make silly speculations.

No wonder you're such a cheerleader for Jason.

Gimme a J! Gimme a A! Gimme an S.O.N.!! Goooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Jason!!!!!!!!!

[johnfunk]

319. Who says I'm a cheerleader? And Jason...

... wasn't the only person reporting either an impending or actual indictment of Rove.

I think Jason, Dave Shuster, Mike Mazur and others were right: their sources ALL said the grand jury delivered an indictment of Rove.

And frankly, hon, your constant harping on Jason based primarily on a SINGLE-SOURCED story originating with Rove's lawyer and originally flogged by a Neocon toady make YOU a cheerleader for Karl Rove and Byron York.

Send me your address, I'll buy you some slightly used pom-poms on eBay and havethem shipped to you. RED pom-poms, sweetie...

[IsIt1984Yet]

322. Could you be ANY more condescending or divisive?

Come on, tell me how YOU really feel!

Stop being a chauvinistic PIG with the "hon" and "sweetie" shit.

I repeat, your divisiveness and bullshit accusations are far more suspect than my calling Leopold a fuck-up! Careful, your colors ars showing.

[windbreeze]

268. thank god, a voice of reason...

I have read for hours tonight, and on many other nights, all the hoopla about the Rove indictment/TO/JL, and said nothing....I will finally comment....I think YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!

I believe there WAS a sealed indictment for ROVE...
Leopold stated, that IF he/we were burned, he would OUT his sources....and the reason those sources won't be outed, is because they WERE CORRECT...

I admire TO for standing behind their reporters....I tell ya..wouldn't we all want our employer to stand behind us, and refuse to just throw us out to the dogs....???Does it occur to any of us, that they must have a good reason for doing so...even when it's caused them no end of grief over the last month?? I have found the venom aimed at everyone involved, amazing...I swear we don't need enemies...we are our own worst ones...to the absolute delight of all those that get enjoyment out of our ranting and raving.....how they must be laughing their asses off at us...
windbreeze

ps: one thing is for sure, with "Operation Forward Challenge 06" taking place on June 19th...maybe we'll be forced to think of something different on that day...

[originalpckelly]

138. Interesting statement: So truthout is going into the fertilizer business?

Did not know journalists were so good at helping farmers, things that make you go, "hmmm." You learn something everyday, don't you?

[DisgustedTX]

147. Correct. The ground and this continuing "story"

have an odor - a BAD odor.

[Blue State Bandit]

162. The lack of an indictment does not indicate an abundance of innocence

It looks to me that Rove is back to work with a vengeance. He's got you guys slashing at each other's throats like frightened prey encircled by a Mongolian hunting party.

True, Jason and TO walked the line, and odds were they would slip eventually, but who has been in front of this story from the door? Who broke Libby's implication? Who kept the drumbeat going on the CIA leak case?

It's a dangerous game we play. This is not some pick-up game of RISK for who's buying the beer. Their are actual lives at stake here. Millions of Americans are counting on the work done by people courageous enough to search for the truth. How many families have lost loved ones due to the lies and deceptions perpetrated by Bush and his band of thugs?

Jason Leopold and Truth Out may have dropped the ball on THIS ONE story, but what have they contributed? Look at the poll numbers. They may have been played, but haven't we seen this happen before with other outspoken journalists?

The more people within the progressive movement attack and condemn TO and Jason for a considerable, yet insignificant chink in the armor of a profound body of work, the more the movement will suffer.

All of this bickering is tantamount to cutting off our collective noses to spite our mildly embarrassed faces. I'm not here to start a fight, just to remind all that this plays right into Turd Blossom's hands.

Rove still walks the streets a free man. That's not Jason's fault.

Let's keep that in mind

[jaysunb]

227. At Last !

Somebody injects some mature thinking into this silly assed conversation.

Thank you. :toast:

[WillyT]

233. What Jaysunb Said !!!

Thank You!!!

:toast::yourock::toast:

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

148. They have other things to report on - dropping Rove for now makes sense

The Plame/Rovergate story is not over by a long shot.

They made a mistake, got burned or whatever.

They stand down and I stand by them as well.

[RagAss]

165. What is this???...A High School Newspaper ??

[IsIt1984Yet]

166. Gawd, no. In High School they teach you not to print as fact unless

you have evidence of fact.

[RagAss]

181. Love it !!

:bounce:

[Strong Atheist]

317. Lol! nt.

[Canuckistanian]

168. Holy S***

This is getting curiouser and curiuoser.

Nice job of throwing it back in Luskin's court (if he's even paying attention at all).

[Seabiscuit]

169. "Standing down" my ass. Can you spell "retraction", Mr. Ash?

WTF is the matter with you, you phony wimp?

[OzarkDem]

174. Yawn...

This phony outrage is getting so boring.

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

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

[Seabiscuit]

234. Didn't take long...

whine, whine, whine.

[dogday]

296. As opposed to bitch, bitch , bitch

I am either seeing one or the other

[johnfunk]

176. I don't see MSNBC retracting David Shuster's reports, Seabiscuit

Why are you ONLY calling out Jason and Truthout? What about the mainstream journailsts / outlets that were simultaneously saying that Rove was facing indictment, and talking about a sealed indictment? Where in the wide, wide world of sports do you get your "facts"? Newsmax?

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

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

[OzarkDem]

200. So we're only allowed to bash Dem news sources

and ignore the GOP controlled news media, which lies daily?

[Seabiscuit]

203. You can do both. It's not an either/or situation.

TO fucked up and behaved just like the GOP controled media by lying and obfuscating just like them. If people like you on DU can't see that, we're all in serious trouble.

Stop insulting my intelligence the way Marc Ash just did.

Why don't you start your own thread about your MSNBC gripe.

[johnfunk]

212. You completely missed my point, and drop the cheap shots

TO's latest move is in my opinion prudent.

maybe you should read THIS and THIS before you continue your hissy over JL and TO. It's looking more and more like Jason was in fact right: sealed indictment plus "24 hours" to get your affairs in order = opening salvo in prosecutorial graymail negotiations. And those negotiations don't happen overnight.

I agree with Christy and with Mike Mazur at NLJ, who posits this theory from the known facts:
-- Rove was in fact indicted under seal;
-- Rove's people and Fitz's people cut a deal over the last 3 weeks;
-- the White House has SUDDENLY said they're not going to fight prosecutorial requests for evidence;
-- Fitz is going after Cheney's crew, and the Bush-Bolten axis are throwing their biggest liability of all, the Office of the Vice President, over the side--starting with Scooter---and Rove's going to be a witness for teh prosecution...

My advice: grab the popcorn.

:popcorn:

[Name removed]

216. Deleted message

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

[IsIt1984Yet]

221. You should take your own advice upthread regarding the "cheap shots"

Just sayin...

[Seabiscuit]

235. Didn't take long...

Pounce, pounce, pounce, then whine, whine, whine.

[Garbo 2004]

247. FDL does not support the claims that Rove was indicted. FDL steered

clear of the TO story and did not support it as credible fact at the time it first was published and certainly not now. And emptywheel also was and is not among TO's supporters on this story. Her comments at the Plame panel made that clear IIRC.

[Blue State Bandit]

228. Dang Strait!!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1429533&mesg_id=1430949

This is like the icing on Rove's Cake.
The way I remember it, Luskin was the only one saying he'd get off.

[Garbo 2004]

244. As I recall, neither Shuster or Merritt claimed that Rove had been

indicted. Merritt, a defense attorney not a journalist, looked at the sealed indictment issue simply because TO had said sources told them that Rove was to be indicted under seal and then later claimed that Rove had indeed been indicted. An indictment that was not sealed would be public record. As Merritt noted, the sealed case TO specifically mentioned this week could, for all we know, be a garden variety criminal case unrelated to the Plame matter. And as she also noted, it was filed May 17, not around May 10 as TO reported on Tuesday. http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015081.html http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015081.html .

Lots of people, media and otherwise, thought Rove would be indicted as far back as Cooper's testimony in July 2005. Even Bill Kristol predicted a Rove indictment in October 2005. But only TO publicly asserted that Rove had been indicted on May 12th, 2006.

[HEyHEY]

273. It is not THEIR job THEY didn't break the story

[MADem]

353. I watched Shuster's reporting, and Tweety's heavy breathing, too

They filled their commentaries with caveats. They covered their asses with "mays" and "coulds." They reported it as chatter, which is all it was.

The rumor was clearly circulating around DC with a vengeance. We don't really know who started it. The error that TO made, and it was a grievous one, was to print rumor as hardboiled fact, with dramatic details that did not come to pass. They compounded the error by refusing to correct their mistake, by parsing (the business hours nonsense) once it became evident that they had been duped.

[Snivi Yllom]

171. so no outing of the sources huh? TRUTH OUT THE WINDOW

"Truthout has never compromised the identy of a confidential source. We will protect our sources on this story, as we have on every other story we have ever published."

So when Jason Leopld said he wpuld out his sources he was lying right?

[johnfunk]

179. Maybe because they weren't lying -- ever heard of a SEALED indictment?

...or graymail? READ THIS. That could account for why Jason AND Rove's attorney may BOTH be telling the truth (albeit with plenty fo spin coming from Luskin.)

[Snivi Yllom]

217. come on

use your brain

it did not happen

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

183. At least Mark Ash is consistent.

He posted 100% support for this story.

He then posted a partial apology.

He just posted a non-statement and a "stay-tuned" teaser.

Following his consistent trend, the next installment must be partially negative. I hope it doesn't meet up with his earlier positive statements or there could be an explosion. Or a whimper.

[Triana]

185. it appears to me that, unfortunately...

...they've already been decimated by it, at least temporarily. Not saying that is right or fair or not, but it appears to be the way it is. Standing down when you've already been run over by the truth train is a tad - uhh. Late?

[johnfunk]

196. They've been decimated by righties who hate Truthout and suckers...

... who bought a single-sourced report that Rove was off the hook.

FACT: The single source for this story is Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin -- first channeled to the press via Neocon operative Byron York.

FACT: Luskin's claim to the press is in the best interest of his client -- and not the press or the public.

FACT: truthout.org says Luskin's claim is directly contradicted by multiple-sourced information; yesterday morning they said they are standing by the story, and tonight they're taking a breather given the unfair hammering they've gotten -- in comparison to the SCLM who ran with a single-sourced story tailored to fit the Bush/GOP/Neocon narrative.

FACT: Luskin, a mob lawyer who has mastered fighting for his clients in the court and the press, had been spinning nonstop since Rove clearly became a "person of interest" to Fitz; now, suddenly, and well before Truthout decided to take a break from the story, Luskin says he's not going to be discussing the matter -- clamming up, in effect.

Luskin is trying to "close" this story with one (hopefully, for him) last spin. Don't get spun the way the so-called "liberal media" did!

[Divernan]

242. What is with this shouting in bright red oversized letters?

One of the first rules of internet etiquette I learned was not to "shout" by typing in all caps. Are you a believer that whomever screams the loudest wins the debate? What visual chaos would ensue if we each posted in different colors and took up more thread space with oversize type face. Guess it would be green for envy; blue for sad; yellow for pissy; red for enraged?

[Garbo 2004]

252. TO IMO needs to go back & consult its legal experts on the likelihood that

Luskin would publically claim that Fitzgerald told him that he didn't anticipate seeking a Rove indictment unless that was the case. Perhaps they can get some of their legal experts to go on the record for attribution this time.

FDL and Talk Left, for example, have already weighed in on the matter. They believe Luskin. There may be some fine points on the matter that Luskin doesn't want or isn't allowed by Fitz to disclose, but such a statement is of such legal magnitude that it is highly unlikely (and others would put it more strongly) that Luskin would put himself or his client in jeopardy by making such a statement if unfounded.

TO asserts that it believes that Fitz would publically contradict their story if it wasn't true and yet apparently believes Fitzgerald would let Luskin make such a statement, if it weren't so, without a quick public correction and/or serious consequences to Luskin and perhaps his client? Luskin's not a complete idiot and the consequences for him and potentially his client would be legal suicide if he did not in fact have Fitz's approval to release such a statement.

[MADem]

356. Well, there could be more than one source on that story, with only one

named. Rove talks to the press all the time, on background without attribution, or as a quoted but unnamed "senior administration official." No doubt he, as the client, has also seen the letter. Odds are good to excellent that someone asked him the question, as well.

Remember, it was Rove who called Tweety to tell him that "Joe Wilson's wife is fair game." That generated Tweety's call to Wilson, and got the whole game afoot. I know that wasn't the first time Rove picked up the phone and called Tweety. Rove's probably got two thirds of the DC press corps on speed dial.

[Divine Discontent]

198. OH MY GOODNESS!!!

what does it take to make people see your point! so many are saying "well, we don't know all the facts".... um, there were NEVER any!

Truthout.org is totally 100% a load of crap in my book for the hit they've done to the liberal blogging community. if in the 1 in a million chance they aren't full of crap, we'll all chip in and buy them a card, how's that? LOL...



www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable <--- CHECK THESE TOP STICKERS OUT!

[johnfunk]

202. See the directly above, Martyred

Don't play into the right's disinfo attacks.

[Imajika]

204. Truthout...

..must have as their "source" someone that they just can't accept would burn them this badly.

I suppose it's Leopold's "source", but one that Ash and Pitt somehow became comfortable with.

Giving Truthout the benefit of the doubt - they may now sortof understand that their story was crap, but they can't understand how it turned out this way since they still apparently have faith in the "source".

Leopold has a sketchy track record to start with. The first question that jumped into my mind when this entire episode began was, why the hell would anyone with these kind of inside details of Fitz's investigation give the story to Jason Leopold? I mean, in the world of journalism, Leopold was already a nobody writing for a tiny Internet news outlet. So if you've got this sort of information to shop, why would you give it to Leopold of all people in the first place? I dunno if I'm even right with this line of thinking. It just seemed odd to me from minute one.

Either way, the "Rove was indicted stuff" was bogus from day one. This latest Truthout explanation is pretty pathetic. Truthout still doesn't accept any responsiblity for trying to pass off this stinkin' pig of a story. It's hard to admit your wrong. It seems Truthout is flailing away trying to avoid the inevitable, but eventually they are gonna have to bite the bullet and admit to have made a major mistake.

Hopefully in their June 19th installment, Truthout will admit they made a colossal error, apologize to their readers, fire Leopold, hire a journalist with a track record of integrity to replace him, resolove to learn from their mistakes, and move on.

[Tin Man]

236. Your initial suspicions were entirely logical

In a city brimming with well-respected journalists and their bona fides, how could it happen that only JL has reported this story? Weeks have elapsed since the first TO report, and still, no one else in the press corp managed to crack the 'Rove indictment' story. How could it possibly be that TO has exclusive access to the sources and/or evidence supporting the biggest story in recent years? There's just too many talented reporters in DC, all of them aware of Rove's legal jeopardy, for a story this big to escape their collective attention - it just isn't plausible that JL could hold a monopoly on this story if it were true.

[Strong Atheist]

325. Very well said.

Stonewalling and cover up is always what gets people in the most trouble. Truthout should have come clean on this a long time ago. They are making it worse (making THEMSELVES and their reputations/integrity) the continuing story by not explaining things. The way you phrased things would be the perfect way for them to talk (or how they should have already done.)

I think they were conned by Liepold...

[Snivi Yllom]

341. 3 possibilities

1. There was no source, it was fabricated

2. The source was a nobody, some copy room xerox jockey who thought they 'saw' something important pass by them.

3. The source was well known figure, with some power. TO is too chicken to out them, or is now protecting that source.

[iconoclastNYC]

205. I'm so sick of this Truthout story

Right-wing media gets it wrong deliberatly on purpose, very often, and yet much of the left is tripping over itself to light the bonfire under Leopold.

It would be helpful if the left could muster the same level of indignation towards the right-wing's numerous lies, distortions, half-truths, and manipulations.

[Seabiscuit]

210. If that were an honest statement you wouldn't be reading this thread. n/t

[iconoclastNYC]

213. Excuse me?

What kind of bullshit accusation is that?

[Seabiscuit]

220. You're excused:

You posted: "I'm so sick of this Truthout story." If that were true you wouldn't be reading this thread.

[iconoclastNYC]

222. I see them in the forums.

This is the first one I've commented on, becuase it seems now it might be the end of the story and all the conspicious *i think the lady doth protest too much* hand-wringing over this NON-STORY.

[Seabiscuit]

230. OK.

Sorry I was so hard on you.

[ruggerson]

211. Monday, June 19th is 16 Business Hours from now, no?

n/t

[tandem5]

214. Out, damned truth! nt

[Balbus]

219. Just when you think TO is ready to flush,

they go and spew out some more shit. That, at least, is impressive.

[peacetalksforall]

224. I love how Bigtree, Generationmindcrime, H2Oman, Koko1 and a

few others said it and I liked the way

Itsthemediatstupid

topped if off:

"Set up, knocked down and then their supposed friends here shit on them."

And I'll add one thing - we should all read at least 4 articles by lawyers speculating on what they think might be going on - then combine it with the mind that 'knows' that it ain't over in spite of the Luskin high that will last a few more hours or days.

Bigtree - 46
Generationmindcrime - 32-47 58

and Itsthemediastupid - 146

I'm off to buy a lotto ticket.

[mmonk]

225. While you all fight,

Rove, guilty of acting against a CIA agent and others with others, walks. That's the real story. We are ruled by people above the law. That's not a representative democracy by the way.

[depakid]

231. Still no apology

For acting irresponsibly. Guess I didn't really expect one.

[arwalden]

303. Their Weasel Words Indicate Irresponsibility And Weak Integrity.

Defiant to the end... in the face of the overwealming body of evidence that disproves their original story, the are only willing to "stand down" and (essentially) claim: "we're-still-right-and-we-won't-admit-to-being-wrong-but-we're-outgunned-so-we-can't-keep-fighting".

They are pleading "no contest"... but not admitting guilt.

Weasels!

[BlooInBloo]

307. I suspect they're working on their non-apology apology now.

[arwalden]

311. I Wonder What *THAT* Might Sound Like...

... hmmmm. :shrug:

[EFerrari]

239. Sounds like a good plan. I'll be interested to see what

you turn up.

[orleans]

251. this thread is so long...has fitz made a statement yet?

has rove apologized to valerie yet?

has bush apologized to the country for having this crap go on in his administration?

[garybeck]

253. Still suggesting that Rove is actually indicted?!

if you read between the lines, this letter is basically suggesting that Rove has actually been indicted, that Luskin is lying, never got a letter, and the media is just buying the lie.

PULEEZE. give it up. let it go. say you made a mistake. move on. the longer you cling to this incorrect story, the more you drag it out and the farther you put yourself out on a limb.

[Jigarotta]

270. yet another clear nonspeak message from the great communicators...

'you see, folks, seeing as we were ahead of the news cycle by 24 business hours, we now stand down, that's our story and we're sticking to it. As to Leopold stating the revealing of source, that was a typo. He was sauced not sourced'

:rofl:

[HEyHEY]

271. This is not the way to handle this

Truthout, should not only stand-down, but should apologize to its readers, take the kick in the nuts, then go home and put ice on them.
What I get from this is truthout is not accepting responsibility for what they've done. They've just basically said, "Okay people, let's drop it." And what they did in publishing the Rove story is not NEARLY as bad as refusing to admit they had made a mistake for so long.
To read this letter that just says, "we are standing down" then automatically launches into a demand that other media show this letter is nothing more than trying to divert attention from their fuck-up. At least that's how it appears to this cynic.
Now, as for the letter, I don't know if these mainstream publications actually HAVE the entire letter or just snippets. However, I don't know that the entire letter needs to be published. If the only really substancial piece of information in it was that Rove won't be charged, I understand why that was the only quote printed. If that is indeed the case, then it's not cherry picking information.
I don't know how laws work in the US regarding FOI, but if it is an offical letter about a public official then its contents should be available to the public. So, perhaps truthout can get a copy of it... or at least phone Luskin, who evidently gave it to other publications, and get a copy. It doesn't sound like it would be too hard.
So, for TO to sit there and challenge other publications to release the info would seem to show they don't really care about knowing what's in it.
As for the standing behing Jason Leopold and all that, I think TO is doing the right thing. Reporters fuck up, and if they didn't act un-ethically and if they don't fuck up too often, there's no real reason for heads to roll.
As for protecting the sources, it's a tightrope. Some would say that these sources deserve no protection, however, if you promise someone that protection, they should get it. If it's a situation where TO can prove the source mislead them on purpose, then they should out the source, until then I trust they have their reasons for protecting this source.

[stevenleser]

279. Folks, don't be so 'immediate gratification' oriented. TO are doing the

the right thing at this point. They have as much as admitted that they got the story wrong and now are in the process of composing what will likely be a long and detailed article on the process of how the original story came about.

Why is anyone freaking out between now and then?

[Strong Atheist]

334. "They have as much as admitted that they got the story wrong"

It is far from clear that this is a true statement. Their statement was so confusing and poorly worded (deliberately, I suspect), that it is really impossible to tell what they are saying or not saying. Look at all the confusion in this thread over what their statement meant...

[NavyDavy]

284. here we go again......infighting just like the righties want.....

you all need to "stand down", and get on with getting our people elected in November.....even if he was indicted, * would give him a presidential pardon at the end of his term.

[Strong Atheist]

335. Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

[Freddie Stubbs]

285. Perhaps they are the victims of 'faulty intelligence'

[lynne]

293. Oh, My -

- the irony is such that I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry . . .

:banghead:

[BlooInBloo]

313. Notice that EVERY single piece of the puzzle that led to this...

.... REMAINS IN PLACE.

Soure is still anonymous.
Leopold is still writing.
Ash is still editing.

Every single part of the situation that, as a whole, led to the outcome, remains situated just as they were.

What is reasonable to suspect will happen in the future?

More outcomes similar to this.

If you don't change the inputs, the output won't change.

That makes me think truthout DOESN'T CARE about the output they, well, put out.


EDIT: At truthout, JUST LIKE THE MSM, there are no consequences for anyone, apparently, to getting things wrong in a big way. There is no disincentive to getting things wrong at truthout. How any reader can take truthout seriously is completely beyond me.

EDITEDIT: I used to be hard on the don't-need-no-stinkin-evidence DU believers, and agnostic on truthout. No longer. They have now shown themselves to be no better than the MSM, who similarly refuses to admit error, refuses robust apology, and refuses to take strong steps to try to prevent this from recurring.

EDITEDITEDIT: If I wanted to continue being hard on the don't-need-no-stinkin-evidence-faith-based-belief-lied-about-being-reality-based-credulous, I might say something like "hey - lookie at that wonderful horse you hitched your belief to, dumbass". But I'm done being hard on the credulous about it. They've made clear that they see no pressing reason to change their ways. Let's work on truthout a bit - maybe we can at least work on feeding the chriping credulous baby birds something nutricious and edifying, since they won't monitor their own intake.

[theboss]

318. We are slowly backing away from the story and slinking out of the bar

I've done this a few times when hitting on women who turned out to be involved with bikers.

Which means I did it when I did something insanely stupid that I hope nobody saw.

Too bad, we've all seen TO be stupid here.

[kitkat65]

324. Two words come to mind: Dan and Rather

Was there some deception in order to discredit?

[theboss]

330. Leopold needed discrediting?

His whole career has been an exercise in discrediting himself.

[Freedom_Aflaim]

336. OK, so Lie and get caught = "stand down"

I had no idea thats what it meant.

[stop the bleeding]

346. This will be a stain on

Jason and TO for quite some time, if it ever leaves them. This has been debacle for the ages.

I understand TO wanting to stick by their people, I also understand why people want to toss TO to the wolves - to each their own.

This whole thing has taught me to be even more skeptical than I already was, it has taught me alot about other people, but most importantly it has taught me a few things about myself.

Take care everyone and that includes people from all sides of this issue, I hope that we all can come together and move beyond this, and if I offended anyone in the process - I AM SORRY

Peace and take care. :)

[BuyingThyme]

349. It's like TO can't write about this anymore without lying.

It's bad enough that they're still parsing words (like "stand down"), but now they're piling lies on lies with this crap about compromising sources.

TO: If you stop lying, people will not accuse you of lying. I understand that's an advanced concept for you at this moment, and I understand that your motives are honorable, but you're destroying yourselves with this nonsense.

You guys need a coming out article. You need to tear it all down and start over. You need to admit to all of the improper things you've done, including this "stand down" bullshit. You need to go through EVERY thing you've written and explain why you wrote it. You need to come back to what you used to be. Do it now.

And, perhaps most importantly, you have to stop attacking people who look out for the truth. That has made despicable rats of all of you. And some of you don't deserve it.

[vote4dems]

362. new 'open blog'

I've set up an open blog at:
http://www.spewblue.com
Registration (quick/free) allows you to post to the front page of the blog. Visitors can comment on your posts...
Enjoy!

[Vinnie From Indy]

358. LOL!

What a fine collection of lurking freepers, misdirected anger and out of proportion responses. It is, quite frankly, amusing because this tempest in a teacup is taking place in the shadow of the gargantuan media operations of the BushCo regime. TO got a SINGLE story wrong compared to the daily, unrelenting lies being told by hundreds of media outlets everyday and some suggest that TO is the villian. I, and I hope most other rational people, won't buy it. In short, spending this much energy to villify everything TO instead of focusing on the DAILY tsunami of lies being told by the MSM about really important issues should tip many of you off to the some of the real motivations of the most rabid anti-TO posters.

[HEyHEY]

364. Heaven forbid left wing media is held to account

:eyes:

[arwalden]

365. "The Cause" Takes Priority Over "THE TRUTH"

(Apparently.) :shrug:

[HEyHEY]

366. Pheew, it's you

I saw I had one reply and was bracing myself for yet another flame battle.

[Vinnie From Indy]

382. I won't flame you!

My original post was rather hastily done and not quite as clear as I had hoped.

I believe that Leopold is quite deserving of the hits he is taking because he has a history of bad reporting. I think dragging TO and WIll Pitt down because of their association with Leopold is quite another matter. I am not sure they are making the right choice about Leopold, but I am willing to be a bit more patient before I harden my position on the whole matter.

As for the poster that implies I am more for the cause than the truth, I say there are few absolutes in the world and we are all constantly battling with half-truths and grey areas in all aspects of life. In the end, it is rare that anyone ever know "the truth" about anything. All we can hope for is to keep moving humanity to the light and not the dark side of our human condition. So, in that sense, I am for the cause.

[IsIt1984Yet]

387. TO and Pitt involved themselves in this matter. In fact, they should

know better.

[Jigarotta]

370. that's what I don't understand.

the basics of this all and what it means.

are we now to be called Deepers or Dupers? (as I've been accused of being a 'freeper' because I have a curiousity)
same shit, slightly less smelly pile doused with a different flavor of Koolaid.

I'M DISSAPOINTED!

but I'll get over it in about 3 minutes.

[IsIt1984Yet]

372. I've been called a "Rovian plant"

:rofl:
Yet, these ridiculous divisive tactics are so much more destructive than questioning a bullshit story. Who's motives are REALLY more suspect?

[arwalden]

380. How Much Sunlight And Water Does A Rovian-Plant Need?

Is liquid fertilizer (Miracle-Gro) okay?

What's the best way to display a Rovian-Plant: in a hanging basket, or on a table top?

How do you get your Rovian Plant to bloom?

[IsIt1984Yet]

384. .

:rofl:

[Jigarotta]

389. it needs a lot of pig shit, now the question is...

how do to tend to Sweet Williams?

[salvorhardin]

410. ROFL!

:evilgrin: :bounce: :yourock: :bounce: :evilgrin:

[Jigarotta]

386. I don't think it's motive driven for the Believers...

it's a harvestable human nature thing that all take advantage of.

I've been called a Rove apologist plant Dr. Phil-adendrone too! and because I don't have a fully explanatory profile that can describe me and my intent on this earth for the past few decades - that was under question as well. I'm obviously hiding something because I would cough it All Up for a forum profile.....

and whether I was a man or a woman... :rofl:
still wonder which was the 'right' answer for that one.

[IsIt1984Yet]

388. I don't give a fuck what "drives" it, it's wrong. Divisive and wrong.

No excuses.

[Jigarotta]

398. it's neither really wrong or divisive. it's just nature.

pack mentality.

break from the pack and you're dead meat.

[JuniperLea]

424. Right.... you think it's wrong that everyone doesn't agree with you n/t

[BlooInBloo]

376. "reality based" was JUST marketing for a lot of DUers.

[GirlinContempt]

368. Here's the thing.

First of all, I don't agree with politically motivated news period. I think it's a travesty. But, as long as the left is going to try to use politically motivated news to hit back at the big media, it has to be honest, fair, and true. This DU frenzy is pretty ridiculous, but it's even more ridiculous to dismiss all people who take issue with this as freepers. You cannot effectively fight dishonesty with dishonesty, or misrepresentations with misrepresentations. It's just a mud flinging party between two politically motivated sources that do nothing to shed light on real issues.

Ignoring the crap in your own backyard to go after someone elses will, first of all, discredit you, but also create the same problems in the future. A stinky back yard.

[Vinnie From Indy]

390. Thanks!

I would have hoped you noticed that I didn't use the word "all" but rather the word "some" in my description of posters on this thread.

I also am not against holding Leoopold to account for his errant reporting. I simply think that there are so many more subjects that are infinitely more important to Americans than Jason Leopold's story on TO.

I guess at this point I am ready to bow out of the Leopold orgy of madness and get back to the daily grind of fighting relevant battles.

Cheers!

[GirlinContempt]

483. Whatever works for you

[Marie26]

413. Great post! nt

[GirlinContempt]

484. Thanks, Marie26

I don't think I'm the only one who's saying it. It's just easy to lose in the battle :D

[arwalden]

442. And There You Have It, Folks. Thirty Words... Beautifully Stated.

<< But, as long as the left is going to try to use politically motivated news to hit back at the big media, it has to be honest, fair, and true. >>

:thumbsup:

[GirlinContempt]

486. Eek

Thanks arwalden. Glad you enjoyed.

What are your feelings on politically motivated news?

[Catherine Vincent]

385. This has all been fun. Time to lock now.

Thanks for playing everyone. :hi:

[IsIt1984Yet]

393. You're not a mod. If you can't take the heat, get outta the thread.

[Catherine Vincent]

403. That is not why I said that.

And I didn't say I was a mod. This thread has a lot of posts and that is the only reason I said it.

[greatauntoftriplets]

395. Are you a moderator?

n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

405. No.

[arwalden]

443. No... But Let's Pretend. --- Playing Make-Believe Is Fun!

Let's have a tea party! -- One lump, or two?

[IsIt1984Yet]

396. kick

[Jigarotta]

399. Fightz!

:hi2:

heh. don't know the emoticon language.
but I gave you a wave, not as a 'get outta here', but as a friendly hello, if that's allowed.

[stop the bleeding]

425. Do you see the

words "Smilies lookup table" above the subject area/line?

That is where all of the smily people are :hi::freak::beer:

[meisje]

411. You're just pissed your threads were deleted

[Catherine Vincent]

416. I had one thread that was locked.

I knew I was probably taking a chance on it. I didn't see a post from you though. Darn!

[Rex]

420. Smart idea.

Stand down until further notice.

[Warren DeMontague]

429. "Standing Down" - What are they, fucking NORAD?

Jesus. You were wrong. Just admit it, ferchrissakes.

[Bluebear]

436. 'What are they, fucking NORAD?'

:spray:

[confludemocrat]

479. Truthout had time to admit they were uncertain and recover from the mess

since they first announced this "scoop" way back. That they stuck with the story until proven utterly wrong is bizarre or is that too obvious an observation?

[Djinn]

490. this is the funniest thread I've ever read

People really believe that the forces of evil would spend their time trying to take down a pissant media outlet like TO?, that they'd bother "planting" posters on DU? (take out all the tombstoned and no longer here posters then work out what percentage of the voting public EVER comes here)Even if they DID give two hoots what was posted here they are well aware that there are plenty of rightwing types who troll out the goodness of their hearts, they don't need to be paid or organised.

People really believe that sources with this kind of scoop would take it to TO at all let alone J"oops I did it again" L?

TO & DU caters to a tiny minority who will only ever vote Dem anyway, neither are influential, they are interesting to read sometimes but they are NOT movers and shakers in the political scene, not even close.

As a former media whore I found the initial story dubious (and for me it lost all credibility with the subsequent backtracking) as someone who's also been a political party whore I find the "rove would love this" chorus utterly and completely hilarious

[Beelzebud]

493. Agreed.

I'd say about .5% of the population even knows who Jason Leopold or TruthOut.org is. To suggest this was some grand Rovian Masterminded Conspiracy is just... Well... Dumb...

[Beelzebud]

491. I still stand by my "Man Lands On Mars" scoop!

History will vindicate my reporting.

[DisgustedTX]

535. bahahaha!

:rofl:

[garybeck]

504. Can't have it both ways, TO

standing down is a way to weasel out of this thing without admitting they did anything wrong. shameless.

the truth is Leopold promised to out his sources if the story isn't true. Now we get this "protect our sources" statement. Which way is it?

the truth is that if rove has not been indicted, there were some very serious problems in the way the story was reported. and if that's the case, TO should apologize and explain, rather than "stand down."

[Name removed]

522. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

523. Deleted message

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

[Marie26]

526. What the heck?

Mod deletes own post locking the thread?

[JuniperLea]

531. Why would Rove get a letter clearing him if he hadn't first received

a letter saying something completely different?

Where can the rest of us get an "all clear" letter?


Just asking.

[dogday]

536. Check out this statement from his lawyer

Newsweek yesterday described e-mails from Cooper relating his July 2003 interview with Rove. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told The Washington Post yesterday that his client spoke to Cooper, but did not identify Plame by name. Luskin also said Fitzgerald has told him that Rove is not a target of the probe.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2005/07/11/BL2005071100701_pf.html

And also this little diddy

Luskin’s Word Parsing Suggests Rove Is A Target

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/06/rove-target

Previously, Robert Luskin, Karl Rove’s lawyer, has insisted that Rove was no a target of the leak investigation. From the Washington Post, 10/6/05:

Robert Luskin said, Fitzgerald assured him in October and again last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation.

Today, Luskin has a different talking point:

I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel.

[JuniperLea]

537. Very interesting indeed

I find it highly unlikely that anyone who is not a target and has never received a target letter, would later receive a letter clearing him.

But then Rove's lawyer could be lying, in one or both instances. He certainly does hang with a bunch of very accomplished liars.

But then, that's the point, isn't it.

Thanks, dogday:)

[dogday]

538. Rove's lawyer also denied that he

was a target, but yet there is this letter from the Prosecutor's exonerating him... Obviously Luskin has been spinning this story like a bad rug as well...

[Garbo 2004]

540. A subject of an investigation doesn't have to be designated a target

in order to indict. A subject can be indicted without ever having been designated a target of the investigation.

Clearly Rove was under the gun, and very publicly so, even if his status as a subject didn't change. As FDL's Christy noted at the Plame panel, it would be expected that Fitzgerald would let Rove's attorney know that he was off the hook.

Additionally, Luskin's press release did not claim that Fitz told him Rove was "exonerated." Or "cleared," or "innocent." Just that Fitz did not anticipate seeking charges against him.

[dogday]

541. Exonerated or No charges, however you say it,

If he was never a target, why the letter is all I am wondering, and why no confirmation if they felt the need to put it on paper....

Why the letter to let Luskin know Rove was off the hook, when he was never officially on the hook does not make any sense to me.. All I want are the facts...

I don't know about indictments, I am just saying Luskin has been spinning this story as well... And according to the reference I posted above, that was the thinking....

[Garbo 2004]

543. No charges does not mean exonerated. Significant difference. And again,

one need not be designated a target of the investigation to be under threat of indictment or to even be indicted.

Clearly Rove was a focus of the investigation and in jeopardy of indictment as a subject, even if he was not designated a target. When Luskin said Rove was not a target that would be the truth if Fitz had not designated him a target of the investigation. That didn't mean that as a subject Rove was free of jeopardy of indictment. So Rove indeed was on the hook until Fitz said otherwise.

[dogday]

553. That is the whole point

Fitz has not said anything. Luskin has, and though I believe Karl was never indicted, I believe also that Luskin has not been forthcoming as well about all that has taken place...

[Marie26]

542. WP Columnist: My Unwitting Role in the Rove 'Scoop'

Interesting Washington Post column on the Truthout/Rove saga, and some of Leopold's journalism practices. The columnist actually claims Leopold impersonated him while calling Rove's spokesman. This story just keeps getting weirder -

My Unwitting Role in the Rove 'Scoop'
By Joe Lauria

"The May 13 story on the Web site Truthout.org was explosive: Presidential adviser Karl Rove had been indicted by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald in connection with his role in leaking CIA officer Valerie Plame's name to the media, it blared. The report set off hysteria on the Internet, and the mainstream media scrambled to nail it down. Only... it wasn't true.

As we learned last week, Rove isn't being indicted, and the supposed Truthout scoop by reporter Jason Leopold was wildly off the mark. It was but the latest installment in the tale of a troubled young reporter with a history of drug addiction whose aggressive disregard for the rules ended up embroiling me in a bizarre escapade -- and raised serious questions about journalistic ethics...

Leopold says he gets the same rush from breaking a news story that he did from snorting cocaine. To get coke, he lied, cheated and stole. To get his scoops, he has done much the same. As long as it isn't illegal, he told me, he'll do whatever it takes to get a story, especially to nail a corrupt politician or businessman. "A scoop is a scoop," he trumpets in his memoir. "Other journalists all whine about ethics, but that's a load of crap."...

Merritt had called Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department spokesman who is now privately employed by Rove. She reported that Corallo said he had "never spoken with someone identifying himself as 'Jason Leopold.' He did have conversations Saturday and Sunday . . . but the caller identified himself as Joel something or other from the Londay Sunday Times. . . . At one point . . . he offered to call Joel back, and was given a cell phone number that began with 917. When he called the number back, it turned out not to be a number for Joel." A chill went down my back. I freelance for the Sunday Times. My first name is often mistaken for Joel. My cellphone number starts with area code 917.

I called Corallo. He confirmed that my name was the one the caller had used. Moreover, the return number the caller had given him was off from mine by one digit. Corallo had never been able to reach me to find out it wasn't I who had called... I don't really know why Leopold may have pretended to be me to Corallo. I can only speculate that he either was trying to get a reaction and thought Corallo would be more likely to respond to a conservative-leaning mainstream paper, or he was trying to get Corallo to acknowledge that Rove had been indicted by bluffing that the Sunday Times had confirmed the story. In fact, Corallo told me that "Joel" told him that he had Fitzgerald's spokesman on the record about the indictment. He has also said he believes Leopold made up the whole story.

We may never know what really happened. Most mainstream news organizations have dismissed the Leopold story as egregiously wrong. But even if he had gotten it right and scooped the world on a major story, his methods would still raise a huge question: What value does journalism have if it exposes unethical behavior unethically?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601754.html

[Catherine Vincent]

545. I can't believe this....

Basically the Washington Post is pissed a small time news outlet scooped them. Accusing others of being unethical? Don't make me LAUGH!

[arwalden]

546. What Scoop Would That Be?

:shrug:

[Catherine Vincent]

547. That Karl Rove was indicted, silly.

[HEyHEY]

550. HE HASN'T BEEN - it's easy to see he hasn't been

[arwalden]

554. Wouldn't It Actually Have To Be TRUE In Order To Be A "Scoop".

Otherwise... it's just, well... POOP.

YOU: << Basically the Washington Post is pissed a small time news outlet scooped them. >>

And why would the Washington Post care one way or the other if some "journalist" got the poop?

:shrug: Weird.

[Garbo 2004]

548. Actually the author is a freelancer who writes for a variety of pubs, not

a WaPo regular. What he's tweaked about is the idea that Leopold impersonated him in order to get statements out of Corallo.

The relevant May 15 Talk Left posting by Merritt here: http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014843.html

Truthout editors may be willing to bite the bullet and take the heat on sources/info they say they themselves vetted. But will they be as willing to continue to support Leopold if he indeed misrepresented himself as another journalist/publication while working for TO? That remains to be seen. We'll see if they address issue on Monday.

[HEyHEY]

551. IF they have a shred of integrity they'll fire his ass now.

[Marie26]

557. I'm betting - no

When have they ever really addressed the questions people have raised? It seems like this is pretty well confirmed by both Lauria & Merritt (both liberals - so no Rove conspiracy here). TO should fire Leopold for this alone, regardless of the merits of the indictment story. It's just so bizarre & unethical.

[HEyHEY]

549. Cat_girl, please give it up.

You fought a valiant fight, but it is becoming increasingly clear that Leopold screwed the pooch. Take a step back, and look at the situation.
As well, I can tell you national papers aren't so petty as to release a column like the this one because some web-site scooped them. They're not that petty, when you get scooped you blame yourself, not the guy who scooped you.
Plus, there's somethign called Libel. Unlike Leopold, I bet you the Times can PROVE everything in that column is true.

[HEyHEY]

552. THis Leopold is a dodgy camper

He fucked up, but what makes me still wonder are his sources.
Unless he is completely stupid, he wouldn't have cooked the story from scratch. Someone had to make him think Rove would be indicted. He sounds like a bad reporter who's been lucky once or twice (By his own admission, due to shady practices).
So, I doubt he really knew what he was doing, which is why his ass is a flaming shade of fire-engine red right now.
I hope he does the right thing and comes clean.
Then he can start his new career, working at the car wash with Stephen Glass and Jason Blair.

[Marie26]

556. Yep

I agree that Leopold wouldn't have made up this story w/o some indication that an indictment was going to happen. It seems like rumors were circulating around DC for awhile about a possible Rove indictment. Shuster & Chris Matthews both reported these rumors - as rumors. IMO, Leopold went that extra step & reported it as a fact; & then went looking for a knowledgeable source. He was trying to bluff Corrallo into admitting the indictment by claiming Fitz had already confirmed it (concealing his identity so his unethical means wouldn't be discovered). As awful as this column makes Leopold look, it does seem to indicate that Leopold did believe Rove was indicted. Whether he believed it because of his sources, or his delusions, is less clear. In his interviews, Leopold didn't seem to have real legal sources - he kept asking the interviewer questions he should already know from a source (Could it be sealed? Could the indictment have gone away? etc.) If I had to guess, I'd say Leopold just picked up on the rumors from someone in DC, & his "source" is someone who has no first-hand information about the proceedings. I do have a sort of morbid curiosity to see what they come up with on Monday.

[theboss]

558. I think it is entirely possible that Leopold made it up

And the reason he made it up were the rumours. The odds seemed good that an indictment was coming so Leopold, I think, wrote his story. I assume his logic was "Once Rove is indicted, no one will care about the details."

How he conned Mark Ash into printing it, I don't know. But if Ash runs his outfit in the same manner he writes his "retractions," it couldn't be too hard to trick him.

[dogday]

559. From what I have read

Ash has met with Leopold's sources several times..

[theboss]

560. Oh, well, then it's all true

I'm not sure there are "sources." And what Ash has said is that he personally vetted the sources. He never said he met with them.

[dogday]

561. I don't know if it is all true

but people's opinions aren't worth much either.. I would rather stick to the facts.. Ash has met with Leopold's sources..

[theboss]

562. Is that a fact?

What proof do we have of that?

[dogday]

563. It is a fact I read this, yes

Is it true, I don't know... But opinions are not facts, if you read something and report it, that is one thing, if you just post your opinion that is another.....

[theboss]

564. Did you read it on that Larisa blog?

So I person I've never heard of has confirmed that Mark Ash met with sources face to face?

Second-hand stories from people I don't know are all the proof I need.

[dogday]

565. I said I read it

I said whether it is true or not, I don't know... You stated that Leopold made this up with rumors and somehow conned Ash.. Is that true? Did you read it somewhere, or is that your opinion? I just posted what I read...

[IsIt1984Yet]

566. Awaiting a "comprehensive accounting of this matter" it's June 19...

tick. tock.

[Clarkie1]

567. Don't hold your breath. n/t

[IsIt1984Yet]

568. I'm not, I'm eating salad.