Jason Leopold and Marc Ash|Indictment Still Sealed, Fitzgerald Still Busy

[helderheid]

Jason Leopold and Marc Ash | Indictment Still Sealed, Fitzgerald Still Busy

Indictment Still Sealed, Fitzgerald Still Busy
By Jason Leopold and Marc Ash
t r u t h o u t | Report

Monday 21 August 2006

An indictment first reported by Truthout said to be connected to Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's Plame investigation remains sealed, and Fitzgerald continues to work on the leak case.

The indictment, 06 cr 128, was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case between May 10 and May 17 - right around the time that Truthout reported, based on sources close to the investigation, that Karl Rove had been indicted on charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

However, that indictment remains under seal more than three months after it was filed - an unusually lengthy period of time, according to experts in the field of federal law. The indictment could be dismissed down the road, meaning the public may never get the opportunity to learn the identity of the defendant or the substance of the criminal case.

These experts said the length of time the indictment has been under seal suggests that the defendant named in the complaint is cooperating with an ongoing investigation and may have accepted a plea agreement.

MORE >>

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/082106Z.shtml

:popcorn:

[The Count]

1. Here's to the beginning of a long thread...

[helderheid]

2. 1 post. 1 ah ah ah ah ahhhh! 2 posts! 2 ah ah ah ah ah!

:)

[grytpype]

60. aw jeez

[goclark]

3. Can you edit your post? It says bus not busy~

Glad to read about the BUSY, makes a big difference. :)

[helderheid]

4. Deleted a couple spaces and made it work. Done :)

[DemReadingDU]

5. last line is interesting

indictments are sealed because if they're made public, "Someone is going to be shocked and upset," and that can hurt the integrity of an ongoing investigation.

[durrrty libby]

9. "Someone is going to be shocked and upset,"

I find it impossible to believe that there is anything that could shock

anyone at this stage of the game.

:freak:

[flyarm]

13. THAT SENTENCE GOT ME TOO...

who would be shocked an upset?? and who gives a shit if someone is shocked and upset..

the only people i see that would be shocked and upset are the most fervent freepers..

to find out all their "daddy's" lied to them and are guilty of treason..

the rest of us know damn well these bastards are guilty of treason..

so who would it shock?? and who would it upset??

not I...i would be dancing in the streets buying anyone around a glass of champagne!!

fly

[femrap]

59. All of the fundies and conservatives without

consciences would poop their collective pants if this went all the way to cheney!

They don't read the 'tubes'....just the corporate news.

[wordpix2]

94. I spent time driving with a conservative dummy today---he was railing

against the judge's decision against * in the NSA spying case and wenton and on about, "Why shouldn't we spy if al Queda is calling and Bush needs to stop planes from getting blown out of the sky?" I quickly jumped in, reeled off many facts and asked why are we in Iraq? He stated we're there for the WMD! You can imagine how that got me going for a half hour spiel on what is happening because this guy is clueless.

In the end, I think he learned something. All I learned is the guy doesn't know shit and eats McDonald's greasy food and IHOP pancakes. He's heading for a heart attack and if this indictment goes to Cheney, one supporter's heart attack will be hastened.

[femrap]

115. Let's hope that McDonald's and IHOP

lose a customer with a Cheney indictment!

Actually, I would prefer if this person would pull his head out of his ass and see what these neocons are doing to our once wonderful Democracy.

Maybe we should be giving these people copies of Orwell's 1984...it is still mandatory reading at my hometown's high school.

[The Backlash Cometh]

68. The only thing that will surprise me at this time, is if they prove

JonBenet did it.

[wordpix2]

95. lol. love it

[Marie26]

6. .

:rofl:

[brentspeak]

7. I thought that DU banned all further Jason Leopold articles

[wakeme2008]

8. Zzzzzzz Truthout Shit

:grr:

[exlrrp]

103. Agreed: ZZZZZZZ Is it Fitzmas yet??

At the rate Fitzgerald is going, he may have it all wrapped up by the end of the next administration but I wouldn't bet on it. For a case involving a few conversations, he's not only been obligingly secretive for the Republicans but played right off their wish list in stringing it all out beyond any election where it will do any good. Mission Accomplished Fitz! And you didn't make all the other Republican-appointed prosecutors look bad by being effective, either!!
I don't see why our side is so in love with Fitzgerald. Why people renamed their holidays for this guy is beyond me. Wake me up when he actually acomplishes something useful--like a CONVICTION? Untill then:ZZZZZZZZZZZ
And please everybody--don't come running in to tell me how much integrity he's got because he put away the mob in Chicago. I bet he didn't spend 3 years and millions of $$$ on that to indict one 2d rank conspirator.

[Justice Is Comin]

10. I'll just call up Fitz and ask him what's going on.

[madinmaryland]

11. . .

:popcorn:

[acmavm]

12. Oh for goodness sakes. If, after all the bitter sniping and

nipping & yipping that people did on this board, Jason Leopold is somehow vidicated I will laugh my frigging ass off.

[helderheid]

14. you took the words out of my mouth

[librechik]

24. me too

we ought to be called Leapingtoconclusions.com

[driver8]

34. Me too...and I will never let certain people hear the end of it. n/t

[sendero]

64. I hope you have a list..

.. I will help you. The vitriol heaped on certain people that was basically misplaced anger has not been forgotten. People who don't know the facts either but are willing to call someone else a liar are standing on shaky ground themselves.

[Seabiscuit]

90. "standing on shaky ground"?? I'll tell you what's "shaky ground":

"24 BUSINESS HOURS"!!!

:rofl:

[Seabiscuit]

106. I would be honored

to be on that list.

I followed the story closely and can't find a shred of credibility in it. For all the reasons that many people have enumerated here last May.

I fail to see how a thoroughly botched hatchet job of a story that keeps morphing into something different could possibly ever by confirmed as "true". Which version???

Anyway, I never made Nixon's enemies list, and never made Bill O'Liely's list of his personal enemies, but I'd be honored to make it to a list of enemies to be spat on by the DU groupies.

[tbyg52]

65. I sure hope he *is* vindicated--

I liked the original version of this story much better.... ;)

[mmonk]

87. I heard that. I'll be laughing too.

[seemslikeadream]

15. seized on the single phrase

It was Luskin, sources said, who seized on the single phrase from Fitzgerald's letter that gave the appearance of exoneration trumpeted by the US commercial press. In fact, the letter, taken as a whole, paints no such picture. According to those familiar with the letter sent to Luskin, it details the obligations of a subject, Karl Rove, who must choose between cooperation and further prosecution. If the document were made public it would indicate those obligations, the sources said.

Michael Clark, a former federal prosecutor now in private practice in Houston, Texas, said that he has never heard of a sealed indictment referred to as "Sealed vs. Sealed" despite the fact that more than two dozen cases are filed under that heading in US District Court.

"Two dozen out of hundreds of cases that are filed under 'US vs. ' are still unusual," Clark said. "If this sealed indictment involves a government official, you wouldn't expect that to happen unless you're talking about a high level official and there has been a fair amount of behind the scenes negotiating going on. To have a federal indictment sealed for three months is very unusual."

When told that the federal indictment was returned by the same grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case, Clark said, "There is a good chance there is some linkage there. There aren't any other high profile cases coming out of that court that we know of, so chances are that the indictment involves someone important, and that keeping the identity of the case under seal has to do with the fact that the investigation is ongoing. It's entirely likely that if the person in the indictment is cooperating, the indictment could be dismissed down the road. It's not unheard of."




Dick Cheney exposed Valerie Plame to cover up his association with A.Q. Khan's Nuclear Walmart. Read about it here: http://s93118771.onlinehome.us/DU/AMERICANJUDAS.pdf

[stop the bleeding]

19. after all he is a lawyer, half truths and double talk

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1952044&mesg_id=1952044

[meisje]

25. .

[RB TexLa]

16. Shouldn't this be in the Lounge or SciFi?

[Beelzebud]

31. Or the 9/11 conspiracy board...

[Snivi Yllom]

36. DU needs a "fantasy" forum

Appropriate for Jason Leopold material, Loose Change 9/11 garbage, etc

[LSK]

40. do the London liquid bombers tinfoilers belong there too?

Oh wait, they were right.

[Beelzebud]

43. lol, yep. we were.

Althouh this London Liquid Bomber Tinfoiler, has his limits, and Leopold hasn't earned a shred of my trust.

[Sparkle]

75. "...and Leopold hasn't earned a shred of my trust. "

As if anyone here gives a damn. LOL! These TO threads crack me up everytime!

[bvar22]

52. Or the "Lamont doesn't Stand a Chance" people?

DU should have a smilie for "Eating Crow".

[LSK]

32. can we get over that already???

:eyes:

[Mr_Spock]

83. WRONG!!! It goes in the POPCORN Forum

:D

[seemslikeadream]

17. Who else is reporting on this?

ANYONE, ANYONE?

Why not critize the fact that no one is


We all KNOW Cheney's guilt


Dick Cheney exposed Valerie Plame to cover up his association with A.Q. Khan's Nuclear Walmart. Read about it here: http://s93118771.onlinehome.us/DU/AMERICANJUDAS.pdf

[AngryAmish]

18. I'm glad Cheney and Rove are getting their due.

[Blackhatjack]

20. Sealed Indictments Are Not Unusual At All, Have No Expiration Date...

...have no idea if that is the case here, but any Clerk of Court will confirm that their files are filled with indictments that were originally sealed and later disclosed.

[helderheid]

22. thanks for the info

[Peace Patriot]

27. Sealed indictments are common. But "Sealed v. Sealed" are rare.

Usually it's "U.S. v. sealed." That's what led to spec that it was Fitz v. Gonzales--in some kind of backroom struggle over Fitz's powers vs. Gonzales' indictability in this case. If it's "U.S. v. Rove" --why is U.S. sealed? Odd. Anyway, those of us who have been following the case closely figure Rove is on the hot seat to rat on somebody or somebodys, in court testimony in the Libby case, or Rove will be indicted for perjury. Rove maybe drove a deal where he gets to play the media piano for a while. Fitz has said nothing--NOTHING!--to exonerate Rove, or Novak. I'm inclined to think Rove is going to, a) confirm Libby perjury/obstruction, and/or, b) blame Cheney. That's where Fitz's docs lead. Those who dis Truthout/Leopold generally don't know anything about the case, never contribute anything to the discussion, and just do these "hit and run" posts against them.

[stop the bleeding]

30. good post

kicking for all of the haters

*middle finger* for em

[Jazz2006]

86. Haters?

Just because some people were not convinced by a badly written, internally and internally inconsistent and implausible story written on May 12 or 13, which followed several false alarms of similarly unsubstantiated stories over several months, and which has (since May 12/13) been followed by several subsequent, equally implausible, goalpost-shifting, morphing, and also unsubstantiated stories, does not make people "haters".

[Seabiscuit]

91. Precisely. That kind of evidence

generally indicates that the person reponsible for the internal inconsistencies, implausibilities, false alarms, unsubstantiated stories and constant morphing/goal shifting (looky, people, now Cheney's the one!) is an unrepentant compulsive liar.

Period.

[Crabby Appleton]

45. if it is Fitz v. Gonzales or something similar

then it can not be an indictment.

[Peace Patriot]

105. The spec was that Gonzales tried to interfere with Fitz when he was

pressuring Rove, and Fitz replied with a sealed indictment of Gonzales. When Gonzales was WH counsel, he alerted the WH to the investigation giving them overnight to shred docs and work on their cover stories. This was obstruction of justice. Bush then elevated him to AG. Fitz has powers independent of Gonzales, but with these particular perps--the most powerful and evil men on earth--you never know what they would try. Fitz theoretically works for Gonzales. But the previous AG Ashcroft had to recuse himself from this case (couldn't protect the perps) because he, too, had a conflict of interest. Fitz was made special counsel at that point, with delegated AG powers. But Bush then appointed Gonzales (Bush Cartel toady) as AG likely with the mission of stopping Fitz if he could, or bottom line, protecting Bush. Rove is very close to Bush. A Rove indictment could mean that Bush is next. They would go all out to stop it. This particular spec is that they did--and Fitz replied with a sealed indictment of Gonzales. Legal powers--Gonzales vs. Fitz--is an issue in this case (or, WH/Libby have tried to make it an issue). We have the Bush junta in essence investigating itself. They own the Justice Dept. And Gonzales has been particularly craven in his twisting of the law to suit Bush junta purposes (on torture, for instance). So, how do you frame a federal indictment of the federal government--the people you are working for (the people who own the Justice Dept., the FBI, the CIA, and the military, and who have in addition claimed extraordinary, unconstitutional powers that laws don't apply to them)? U.S. vs. U.S.? That is possibly what "sealed vs. sealed" is hiding. A war within the government (over Fitz's powers). But it's still just a spec. Sealed indictment could be Cheney, Rove--or any number of people.

Re: Rove. Fitz has Rove by the short hairs on perjury. This is quite obvious from court docs and other info. Fitz's SOP in that event is to pressure the lieutenants to get the generals. (Something else that seems pretty clear in this case is that Rove was a lieutenant not a general in the Plame-Brewster Jennings outings. He did not have the power, and likely would not have risked his own skin, taking on the CIA on his own initiative--court docs point to Cheney). Rove's lawyer has refused to release the Fitz letter which purportedly says that Rove will not be indicted, because the letter likely says that Rove will not be indicted UNLESS...(fill in the blank--probably truthful testimony in the Libby trial).

It would be quite easy--getting signals and reports from this very tangled situation--for reporters and their sources to misread signals (for instance, that a Rove indictment is imminent)--and also, to get "stung" by somebody's disinformation. The perps and their lawyers have worked overtime on "spin" in this case, and Rove of course is THE most devious political operative in our history (probably behind the Dan Rather sting, the Kerry "swiftboating" and all sorts of "special ops"). A leftist blog would be particularly vulnerable. Their enthusiasm for a Rove indictment (--a particularly satisfying political development) would incline them to over-interpret signals, and could also make them an easy mark for a Rove sting.

There is a difference between lying and getting something wrong. Why certain DUers insist that Truthout/Leopold LIED about an imminent Rove indictment is beyond me. There is zero evidence that they lied. They got one part of a larger story wrong, is all--this seems a much more reasonable and likely interpretation of their reporting. The Libby trial is going forward. There is no evidence AT ALL that Fitzgerald has been stopped--other than his silence, which is typical of him. And there is LOTS of evidence pointing to Rove as a perp (--a lieutenant on the outings; lied about it to the investigators). What makes the MOST sense is that Rove was threatened with indictment and is now under duress to tell the truth and name names. He is only temporarily off the hook. That an indictment of him was imminent would be a completely understandable mistake, given the secrecy of this investigation/grand jury proceedings, and the difficulty of reading sources and signals. And we are in a hiatus now, with the outcome an unknown. Why jump on leftist bloggers with such viciousness, in these circumstances? So they WANTED Rove to be indicted. So did we all. (Not me actually--I DIDN'T want a second perjury indictment; I wanted Rove to sing.) So did most of us. I prefer Truthout/Leopold's leftist ENTHUSIASM--even if it leads them astray--to the crap we read (and the vital stories that are black-holed) in the war profiteering corporate news monopoly press. And no amount of DU "hit and runs" can change that. I trust Truthout/Leopold, even when they're wrong, way more than the "hit and runs" and the corporate press.

The case remains open and on-going. Anything can happen. But we shouldn't be depending on this case to save our democracy--or to out these criminals before the November elections. Saving our democracy is up to us, not to any prosecutor.

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

Throw Diebold, ES&S and all election theft machines into 'Boston Harbor' NOW! Join the grass roots voter revolt--vote by Absentee Ballot! If enough people do it, we can get rid of these machines peacefully!

[jasonleopold]

112. Thank you.

Peace Patriot
Thank you kindly for writing this. I appreciate it dearly. We did not lie. We are reporting the facts. And these are the facts. Unless people on this board have information from Fitzgerald regarding this issue there is no basis to say this story is wrong. The only person who has spoken publicly thus far regarding Rove is Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin and Robert Novak, the columnist.

[Sparkle]

116. Hello!

:hi:

[Jazz2006]

54. Not particularly rare.

In June, as I recall, approximately 1 in 5 (20%) of the cases filed in the DC District Court were titled "Sealed v. Sealed" as was pointed out on a thread at that time.

[Jazz2006]

73. Too late to edit, so I'll clarify. Sealed v. Sealed is NOT rare.

They sure weren't in June when the previous thread on this was up here and approximately 20% of all criminal cases filed to date at that time were designated "Sealed v. Sealed":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1406622&mesg_id=1408661

Leopold proceeds to quote a "former federal criminal attorney" as saying: "The question here is that nobody who I have spoken to -- top criminal attorneys, law professors, etc. -- is aware of the left part of the case title having been sealed."

Oh, really?

We checked the U.S. District Court's database this morning. Approximately 158 criminal cases have been filed since the beginning of the year, and approximately 31 of them -- or one out of every five -- have been styled "Sealed v. Sealed." And each and every one of these "Sealed v. Sealed" cases contains exactly the same description -- "Case is not available to the public" -- as the one provided for 1-06-cr-128, the case that Leopold suggests may be Rove's.

And, it's also odd that the June source said that none of the "top criminal attorneys, law professors, etc." consulted (at the behest of Truthout by inference) at that time was aware at all that the left side of a case had ever been sealed, when nearly 20% of all filed crim cases were, in fact, sealed in precisely that manner.

Truthout reports very differently this time around. Surprise, surprise.

Also, in June, Truthout reported that its source(s) said it was "very common" to keep indictments sealed for "weeks or months" and now they are reporting that three months is "an unusually lengthy period of time".

I'm not convinced. Mind you, to be clear and up front for those who are taking names, I wasn't convinced on May 13 either because the story was so badly written, full of contradictions, and therefore implausible (not to mention the numerous false starts going back to, what, October of 2005?).

However, again for the benefit of those taking names, as I said in May, I'll repeat now, if it turns out that Karl Rove was, in fact, indicted on May 12 and served with that indictment late on May 12 or early on May 13, as reported, I'll be the first to say, "Congratulations on the big scoop, and your story was still terribly badly written, full of contradictions and implausible."

[grytpype]

61. Uh, they do have an expiration date.

It's called "speedy trial."

[Blackhatjack]

21. Self Deleted

[Poppyseedman]

23. There truly is a sucker born every minute

[Seabiscuit]

92. Leopold must have a plaque on his wall saying just that, so that

as he sits there typing up this Rove spew he can look up at it and just laugh his wiggy little arse off.

[meisje]

26. TU must be low on donations

[Catherine Vincent]

28. Thanks for the link.

I see a lot of Ignore lines. Any mention of Leopold and the roaches come out.:)

[Roy]

33. Yup.... Ya got that right....

If they don't want to hear from Mr. Leopold, why won't they just hide the thread.

It is really strange that these folks don't want other people to see this information.

Oh yea, now I remember. Reading articles from Jason Leopold will make 'US' look bad.

[mopinko]

49. always good to have a chance

to update my ignore list.

[lonestarnot]

29. Interesting.

[Straight Shooter]

35. I file the Rove indictment in the same folder as the Kennedy assassination

That is to say, I seriously doubt the truth will ever be known about either of them. All I know is, the story I've been told by the Powers That Be is most definitely not the truth.

Sometimes I wish Fitz were as big a blabbermouth as Ken Starr. Then we would know.

[babylonsister]

39. As curious as I am, I'm glad Fitz has remained mum.

If and when he does start 'talking', I think it will be big. That's his m.o. anyway.

[Straight Shooter]

44. So am I. It's a testament to his character. n/t

[badgerpup]

37. Weird...I was wondering about this just yesterday.

I'm not gonna get excited or nothin' like that...
but I am gonna make sure there's plenty of drinks and snacks and stuff just in case there's going to have to be a BIG celebration down the road...could be of one thing, could be of another...
y'all understand. :bounce:
:popcorn:

[helderheid]

38. sounds like we have the same attitude

[robcon]

41. Are we 24 business hours away from the unsealing?

Don't people get it? When Jason Leopold lied to Will Pitt, and in desperation said it was 24 business hours until an indictment, no one could ever rely on that outlet for the truth?

This is just self-serving bullshit, IMO.

[helderheid]

42. Did Will Pitt say he lied?

[robcon]

46. I don't know whether Pitt thought Leopold lied.

I do know that I believe that Leopold lied.

[helderheid]

47. thanks for the clarification

[yodermon]

67. "24 business hours"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%2224+business+hours%22&btnG=Search
"Results 1 - 10 of about 370,000 for "24 business hours".
Examples seem to indicate it's pretty commonly used; I never understood the big deal about that one.
e.g., the top link reveals

• All orders are processed within 24 business hours.

• All orders will receive usernames and passwords within 24 business hours. A valid E-mail address must be used to receive your username and password information. If you do not receive your username and password within 24 business hours you must contact us for help.

Oh, and Pitt had said that he talked to Jason's sources directly, IIRC, FWIW.

[Jazz2006]

77. I doubt that you'll find such a term used by

a prosecutor telling an allegedly indicted and served indictee that he has "24 business hours" to "get his affairs in order" (especially on a Friday night or in the wee hours of Saturday morning).

Clarity is everything when delivering an ultimatum, even one as odd and unlikely as that one, and I cannot imagine that Fitz would have said it. It is wholly unnatural in the circumstances. I believe that had the marathon session into the wee hours taken place in lock down on the 4th floor with the Secret Service and all, he would have said something much more precise, like, "I need your response no later than 5 p.m. on Monday" if that is what he meant.

[liberalhistorian]

48. It's an "unusually lengthy period of time"

because the damned thing doesn't exist in the first place. I can't believe they're still claiming this bullshit, and I can't believe people here are falling for it, either.

[helderheid]

50. I don't know if anyone is "falling" for anything. I'm cautiously watching.

I happen to trust Will Pitt. Don't know about Leopold, but I trust Pitt and he hasn't distanced himself from TO. Cautiously watching.

[Seabiscuit]

93. To his credit, WP has avoided this thread like the plague.

Perhaps he's learned something from his May/06 blunders here about the Rove/TO fiasco.

[Me.]

51. K & R

Will come a day.....

*shadow government*

[blogslut]

53. Thanks for this

:)

[wicket]

55. Hoo boy

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[patcox2]

56. Indictment to be unsealed by the Great Pumpkin on October 31.

The press conference will be held in the most sincere pumpkin patch.

[mucho macho]

72. TruthOut Bull

Were those the same sources that told Jason Leopold that Karl Rove had received a target letter???

[Raksha]

99. I know you're being facetious,

but I've been thinking about the Plame case and wondering why we haven't heard anything for so long. And I've had the feeling--based upon nothing whatsoever--that we're gonna hear from Fitzgerald either right BEFORE or right AFTER the November election. And that it will be BIG. Whether the Great Pumpkin has anything to do with it or not I have NO idea.

It's just a hunch.

[Ghost in the Machine]

57. Thanks for the update... I can't wait to see how this plays out.

I understand other people's mistrust of Leopold and TruthOut over this though. Hell, I'm one of the ones that told everyone I knew to watch that week for Rove to be indicted. Yeah sure, I came up with egg on my face, but it wasn't the end of the world and hey, shit happens! I pass no judgment on Jason or TruthOut over this, I firmly believe they were mislead, probably intentionally, but I don't know that for a fact. However, given the scope and reach of the corruption of this misadministration, I wouldn't put it past them one bit.

[wryter2000]

58. So...

The indictment could be dismissed down the road, meaning the public may never get the opportunity to learn the identity of the defendant or the substance of the criminal case.

If Rove gets indicted, that's proof Leopold was right. If he doesn't get indicted, that's no proof that Leopold was wrong.

[Jazz2006]

79. Pretty convenient, isn't it?

They've been shifting the goalposts on this since May 12, beginning with the badly written stories of May 12 and 13, the "24 hours" to "24 business hours" to "that means 3 days" to "that means 5 days" to "partial apologies" to "standing down" to "getting too far out in front of the news cycle" to "hey, Luskin should have to prove us wrong instead of us having to prove we were right" to "we're going to check every vet withing 20 miles" to "well, there must have been a deal" to "we CAUSED them to make a deal" to "there MUST have been a deal" to "well, it could all go away and nobody will ever know and you can never prove us wrong" because, of course, "it could all be a Rovian plot carried out the all powerful KKKarl" because everybody knows that the BFEE would "set up" a little known internet blog like Truthout to carry out their nefarious purposes.

Yep. It's all so plausible. Watch for another "update" in 60 days.

[Stand and Fight]

62. ... Interesting Article. n/t

[bluestateguy]

63. Jason Leopold is a crank buffoon

nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

66. Makes A Whole Let Of Sense. Keep Up The Great Work Truthout!!!!

Maybe, just maybe, we'll be fortunate enough to have the facts of this case see the light of day someday.

[SPKrazy]

84. What Makes A Whole Lot Of Sense?

not being snarky

just wondering?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

85. Not Being Snarky, But There's A Link There To An Article.

Read the article. When you're done reading it, tell yourself "hmmm, that does make a lot of sense", and see if when you say that you'll see the context of how I was saying it.

[SPKrazy]

104. Been There Done That

didn't have a hmmmmm moment

thanks for the advice

[Balbus]

110. Try reading with blinders on, put pictures of sheep all over your wall

and then have a recording in the background that repeatedly says "Leopold is always right - Truthout is real news, Leopold is always right - Truthout is real news, Leopold is always right..." Then you might share the same "hmmmmm" moment that the poster above you was referring to.

[SPKrazy]

111. LOL Your Words, Not Mine

I have liked Leopold

I don't know what happened with the Rove thing

I don't think this idea of a sealed indictment is happening

I don't know though

He surely hung himself out to dry

[stevedeshazer]

69. This thread is a gold mine

I've learned a great deal.

Thanks for posting it. :)

[autorank]

70. Great work helderheid...we will see this turn around... K&R n/t

[goforit]

71. This investigation is turning out to be a farce.

[DancingBear]

74. Here's the best part

Most of the fan club is actually going to BELIEVE it. :rofl:

[Jazz2006]

80. No way.

There is only a certain amount of gullibility to go around, after all :)

[BlooInBloo]

76. Good evening everyone! Has truthout been 100% vindicated yet?

Or have "24 business hours" not yet passed?


Boy - some people will NEVER give this stuff up - on "truth"out as well.

[Vidar]

78. Who knows?

[Mr_Spock]

81. You BETTER have opened a box of popcorn. A BIG fuckin' box!

:rofl:

:popcorn:

[Truthiness Inspector]

82. I think many of us here were hopeful

but as time passes, skepticism is in order.

I don't know what went wrong, or how, and I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Seabiscuit]

88. What went wrong with the story? It's really quite simple.

Leopold, et. al. lied and lied and just can't stop lying 3 over months later. Of course, by the time Bush is out of office in 2009, and Rove is no longer in the White House, and Fitzgerald is still stymied due to an atrociously written and unenforceable statute, if Leopold just keeps it going off and on for another year, no one will remember his story by 2009. That way he never has to admit to his duplicity.

A thousand times worse than Stephen Glass.

[stepnw1f]

89. Well, Well, Well, Well....

And I recalled a few people asking about Fitzgerald just a few days ago. This will be interesting....

[usregimechange]

96. Rove or "the defendant" ???

[orleans]

97. kick n/t

[w4rma]

98. I'd like to know wtf Fitzgerald is doing. What is taking him so long to

finish this case off? Why is the case totally sealed, except maybe to help his friends in the Republican Party through November elections. This case needs to be finished, or unsealed, before November. Waiting until after the elections is a disservice to Americans.

I don't trust Fitzgerald, myself. Repukes have always been too friendly with him.

[Missy Vixen]

107. Here we go again.

>I'd like to know wtf Fitzgerald is doing. What is taking him so long to finish this case off?<

Let's see: Not only is he working on the Plame investigation, he's running an office in Chicago. He and his staff are addressing corruption in Northern Illinois that's gone back generations. I hardly think he's out working on his golf game.

You may also want to bear in mind that Libby's defense attorneys have asked to move the actual trial back twice now.

Did you know that there are only five attorneys working on Plame, and they're not full-time on it? It took Kenny Starr seven years to find nothing, didn't it? Oh, yeah: Patrick Fitzgerald's getting paid once for working two jobs. How'd you like to moonlight from your full-time-plus job on another full-time-plus job for free?

>Why is the case totally sealed, except maybe to help his friends in the Republican Party through November elections. This case needs to be finished, or unsealed, before November. Waiting until after the elections is a disservice to Americans.<

Yeah, they're his friends, all right. That's why they've raked him over the coals repeatedly for actually investigating their heroes in the White House. That's why he has repeatedly stated (and shown by his actions,) that he is apolitical. The case is "totally sealed" because it's the LAW.

The real "disservice to Americans" would be to conclude the investigation before he had the goods to return convictions.

>I don't trust Fitzgerald, myself. Repukes have always been too friendly with him.<

Just out of idle curiosity, what Repukes would those be? Please. Name names.

It always amazes me when, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people believe what they want to believe.
Julie

[Jazz2006]

113. It's not Fitzgerald's fault

He is an honourable man and a VERY good lawyer. I don't believe that he is in with the Republicans at all; do you have any evidence to show otherwise?

I also disagree that "waiting until after the elections is a disservice to Americans." The right time to finish the investigation is when the investigation is complete, without regard to politics. It would be, in my view, quite wrong to try to rush things and get it wrong instead of taking the time to get it right.

I do not think that Rove has been or will be indicted, but it's not because of political interference with Patrick Fitzgerald. Rather, it's that the statute governing the main issue is almost impossible to prosecute and on other charges (such as perjury or lying to investigators), Fitzgerald is smart and thorough enough to know when he can or cannot prove a charge.

As for the case being "totally sealed" - what do you mean? The grand jury proceedings are private by law and Fitzgerald is being appropriately tight lipped about the investigation until it is complete.

[rosesaylavee]

100. I have to admire your guts

in posting this! You are a stronger person than I. :) Personally, I find this fascinating and am very hopeful for a great outcome. But then, I am very used to delay gratification. If the docs remained sealed in 6 months, than I will let go of hope and accept that this is not what it seemed to be. And I do trust William Pitt. If he stands by the original story, there is more than smoke there.

Until then, WTG Fitzgerald. He is a very careful, very thorough prosecutor. It took him several years to dish the dirt on the former governor of Illinois. If there is something to be done here, he will do what he can.

[symbolman]

101. Take a look at the Alexa ratings

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=6m&size=large&compare_sites=&y=r&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.truthout.com

It appears that sometime in May that TO's numbers peaked, then started to take a dive, to at best HALF of what their traffic was.. and it looks like it's flatlining near the end of the graph.

I would personally view this as indicative of the Leopold saga, that he SANK them.

Still don't know if they've been reinstated as an actual "news organization" by Yahoo and Google, maybe that's where the dive took place.

It would be in their interest to dump this guy and build their credibility back up, they were doing great for a long time.

Here's a link at Alexa comparing the DU to Truthout.. I don't see the DU taking a major dive..

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=6m&size=large&compare_sites=democraticunderground.com&y=r&url=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.truthout.com

[etherealtruth]

109. Hmmm ...

I know that I have not relied on TO since the "Leopold Debacle."

I do wish they would have addressed his questionable reporting and cut him loose ... because there ARE so many questions about his work. He does "taint" the site for many of us.

Hey, I'm just one person ... so who cares? If the stats at the link are correct, there may be a lot of people that feel the same way, though ...

[Jazz2006]

114. Interesting

Heck, I don't even like clicking on the Rove indictment stories that pop up every 30-60 days because I don't even want to give them one visit statistic but since I have to go there to get the complete story as they are only posted in snips here, I just click once, copy it into a Word document and get out.

So, I'm certainly not surprised that others don't go there either. I was never a big TO reader but I used to visit the site at least semi-regularly. Not any more.

[robcon]

102. I think there are a lot better sites than Truthout.

I think the fact that they haven't yet admitted that Leopold lied is a damning indictment of Truthout. No credibility for Truthout... and very little for Will Pitt (a great writer, but a questionable editor.)

[deaniac21]

108. I noticed that Marc Ash also signed the article. Now that

Leopold has help they should be able to dig a hole to China twice as fast!

[Lochloosa]

117. Kick

:popcorn: