Rove Indictment and Jason Leopold - Brief Update

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_steven_l_060517_rove_indictment_and_.htm

Rove Indictment and Jason Leopold
Brief Update
by Steven Leser

http://www.opednews.com

Steven Leser
In the bewildering situation touched off by Jason Leopold’s article asserting that Karl Rove had been indicted on multiple counts in the CIA Leak-Gate scandal, I wrote an article on Monday expressing support for Leopold. I was criticized by the Right for suggesting a conspiracy theory, and criticized by the Left for having the temerity to suggest that Leopold may in any way have gotten it wrong, even if by being fed disinformation.

It is now 12:39pm on May 17, five days after the publication of Leopold’s article on Truthout. I spoke a few moments ago with William Rivers Pitt who reassured me both that he and Jason were not offended by my Monday article and that they stick by their assertions 100%. I can not tell the entire contents of the conversation as much of it was off the record, but as a result of it, I am going to hold off further speculation until the end of the day on Friday, May 19, or until, how shall I put it, events obviously dictate otherwise. I thank my readers for being patient until then.

I am glad you are sticking by your story, Will. My hope is dwindling with each day...

I must say, I'm getting tired of all the Big Secrets.

this inside baseball is getting frustrating...

nt

Frankly, I think it makes little difference whether Mr. Leopold has it 100% right or not. In the end, most of us will be surpsrise if Rove is not indicted. If Mr. Leopold is wrong about Fitzgerald giving Rove's attorneys the paperwork last Friday, but Rove is indicted in the course of events, who is going to care?

This will only matter if for some reason Rove escapes prosecution altogther. Otherwise, it's a tempest in a teapot.

The apocalyptic pronouncements in regard to this affair that I have read on DU are amusing. Regardless of the outcome of "LeopoldGate", I take solace in the obvious attention the blogosphere is receiving by the MSM as that translates into the power to affect change by us Helots. Their ridicule reflects their fear and their fear testifies to our power.

Also, with the unprecedented level of scandal being produced by BushCo Inc., this story, if untrue, will fade away along with Leopold's credibility when the next bit of scandal and sleaze is revealed.

beyond its utter idiocy, is that the blogosphere is shown up to be populated by people with no responsibility, no liability, no accountability, no professionalism, and no ethics.

To use a trite phrase...

I am completely accountable for everything I have written. Go ahead, take me to task for anything I have written.

In any case, the main people on the line and out on a limb here would seem to be Jason and William. If they turn out to have been wrong and/or to have fabricated what they wrote, then they should suffer the consequences. I don't think this should have any effect on the reputations of the rest of the blogosphere. I mean, did Stephen Glass' lies mean anything to Time magazine just because he wrote for another magazine?

I trust real journalists with real credentials, not self-styled freelancers who decide they're journalists because they say so.

When your editor has determined that the triangulation has been proper, when everything has checked out, when your insurance carrier is willing to back you when you're hauled into court to reveal your sources, that's when you're accountable.

That's when you're a journalist. A real one.

I am on the editorial side. I rarely venture onto the news side of things. I broke the illinois indictment story, sure, but I posted a link in my article.

Just about everything in your post pertains to the news side, not the editorial side.

and your maintaining that that's what we're discussing here is an attempt to weasel away from something that's clearly not right.

Editorial v. news?

When you report something, even second-hand, and vouch for it, and then insert yourself into the story and decide you'll give it another two days before - what? - you tell the truth - that's neither editorial nor news.

It's a blogger with nothing to risk, nothing to lose, nothing on which he'll be held accountable, and nothing to say.

She really is fabulous, isn't she?

And her bit in Stephen Colbert's video just made her immortal.

He deserves a mention in the same breath with Helen Thomas.

Any others?

I think that the 'Net is self regulating in that it is a massive network that continually distills and clarifies the truth. The ability of millions to add their expertise and their unique life experience to any issue ultimately provides the basis for sound judgment for all.

Another factor that is inherent in the Internet is it's ability to perpetually archive information. Never before have the masses had such direct and comprehensive access to the past. Folks don't need to rely on their own resources or ability to research to put issues into context. There are others that can provide or point the way. That is the nature of networks. Specialization benefits all.

That being said there is, as you point out and I agree, a gargantuan amount of idiocy, incompetence and inane babble out there in the blogosphere. I guess that is part of the human condition. I believe that enough humans have the ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. Otherwise, we would have died off long ago.

I conclude by pointing out that there will be accountability on the Leopold story if it is ultimately and clearly wrong. Just a brief scan of the posts in regard to the affair should provide abundant evidence that some on DU will never let us forget.

Where's the indictment?

That's all that matters.

The rest of it is a laughable attempt to convince people of things that never happened.

Whatever happened to accountability?

This freelance journalist, Steve Lesser, posts this on a blog, and it has any kind of probative value?

Oh, and now there's another deadline - May 19 - so that this story can be proven true?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!!!

I guess Fitzgerald is still in that "Secret Service lockdown in defendant's counsel's office," and the "24 business hours to get affairs in order" has been extended by - what - another 16 hours?

Or is that in monkey time?

What a farce.

Hi OldLeftie - I'm not saying my article has any probative value, nor am I sure what to think about any of this right now. I just felt it time to tell my readers what was on my mind and when I would next be writing anything publicly regarding this whole thing. That is it. I gave no one any assurances of anything.

and why would that matter - what's on your mind. Why does that matter?

A more salient question might be, though, why give this nonsense another two days before you take a stand and call it for what it is?

This is why bloggers aren't journalists, and why their credibiilty is equivalent to diarists - that is, nothing.

Self-importance is a fine trait - if you've got something about which to crow. In this case, it's just a complete embarrassment to anyone on the left.

But, you gotta do what you gotta do, I guess.

it? What you just said, in a nutshell. Each person reading me will have to decide for themselves whether reading me is worthwhile. If they do then to them, I am important. If not, they will not read me. Depending on how many people find it worthwhile will determine whether or not I am successful. That is the way the editorial side works. I doubt I am telling you anything you do not know.

By your definition everyone on the editorial side of the house could be similarly criticized.

The point is that bloggers like you have no journalistic credentials or accountability, but people don't realize that, and so you invade their trust in an insidious way that leaves you with all the outs and them with all the shattered beliefs.

It's about your success?

Oh, child - you haven't even yet mastered the first rule of J-School:

You are not the story.

Let's recap the content of both of our seperate threads:

1. You: Someone is changing the goalposts again
me: All I'm doing is saying when I am going to discuss the situation again. I did not 'vouch' for anyone.

2. You: are not a real journalist, sources, editor, triangulation
Me: Since I write editorials, sources arent really part of the equation a good portion of the
time.

3. You: You this, you that, you this, you that. Oh my You are not the story, child.
Me: Um, well, I'm trying not to talk about myself, but that seems to be all you want to talk
about.

You realize that you said all this stuff about me and accused me of a ton of things, which basically is going to cause me to explain myself, then you chided me for saying things about myself. Do you have any idea how insane that is? Take off your lawyer hat and become a regular person for a few seconds. This isnt about arguing until the other guy gives up in frustration.

you got that right!
:rofl:

Why do you think the MSM has not touched this story? There must be a reason they are ignoring it.

Is it because no one believes the denials coming from the Rove camp?

They could knock this story down in a heartbeat if it were not true.

Why have they not done so? Are they being held back by management? How does that happen?

Could they nuke Iran without it being reported in the MSM?

Much more interesting questions than the ones you pose. But hey, there are many simple explanations to answer your question. Perhaps the jury was polled Friday and Fitz knows they will indict and he shared that info with the Rove team. No harm no foul, as AFAIC, until the Rove team starts lying about it all. See what I mean? I think you are asking the wrong questions, not that you shouldn't ask, just that it focuses on a small part of the issue, while overlooking a lot of stuff that just doesn't make sense if the story is all a hoax and completely untrue.

It happens. To good journalists, too.

Never put it beyond that Machiavellian Bastard to planta story of his own demise in order to destroy, discredit, and/or damage any blogger who runs with it.

It's so twisted as to bear all the hallmarks of a "Rove Special."

Not that I'm paranaoid, or nothin'...I'm just sayin'....

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

You leave out a tempting morsel to see what bites - in this case, a rumor that will leave Leopold's sources exposed. Nasty business, high stakes politics.

by someone he trusted. He told us something he still believes to be true because his sources were good.

Dan Rather was given information (on paper) by someone he trusted. He told us something he had a right to believe because he trusted his sources.

Rove has found one trick that always works, I think.

Hi Idealist Hippie! :hi:

whatsoever, but KR seems to be perfect in that regard.

Anything resembling decency in someone else's behavior is perceived as weakness, and I can only wonder if the people he has used so shamelessly will ever be waiting for him in a dark alley somewhere.

The person who did the through-the-looking-glass pass on the Rather/TANG docs has to feel like shit, don't they? To take something from a maggot like Rove and know it's false, and hand it to a newscaster with the implication that it's true? Those docs must have been laundered through several hands.

Wonder if I'll ever find out.

would have any reason to put himself on a timer for this? If he knows, the judge knows, and Karl knows, and he is not and never has been a publicity hound, why would he feel compelled to hold the news conference at any time other than the most convenient moment for a man with many cases and obligations competing for his time?

Especially since he knows, he just knows, that the news conference will set his phone to ringing off the hook and people will just be getting in his face and being a bother?

Fitz has no obligation to Jason Leopold or Will Pitt. No reason to reach out and take them off the hook. If they know, they know. Fitz will do what is convenient for himself and his office.

THE NEWS

May 17, 2006 -- LATE EDITION -- WMR can report tonight on more details concerning the confusing reports regarding Karl Rove and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald from last Friday. WMR can confirm that the appearance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Grand Jury at the US Federal Courthouse in Washington was a formality in which the jury informed the Attorney General of their decision to indict Karl Rove. That proceeding lasted for less than 30 minutes and took place shortly after noon. Gonzales's personal security detachment was present in the courthouse during the Grand Jury briefing. From the courthouse, Gonzales's motorcade proceeded directly down Constitution Avenue to the Department of Justice.

According to sources within the Patton and Boggs law firm, Karl Rove was present at the law firm's building on M Street. WMR was told by a credible source that a Patton and Boggs attorney confirmed that Fitzgerald paid a visit to the law firm to inform Rove attorney Robert Luskin and Rove that an indictment would be returned by the Grand Jury against Rove. Contrary to other reports, some of which may have emanated from the Rove camp in order to create diversions and smokescreens, the meetings at Patton and Boggs did not last 15 hours nor was a 24-hour notice of intent to indict delivered to Rove. In the Scooter Libby case last October, after the Grand Jury decided to indict Libby on Friday, October 21 and the Attorney General personally heard the decision the same day at a meeting with the jury, the actual indictment was issued the following Friday, October 28. Several sources have told WMR that an announcement concerning the indictment of Rove will be made on Friday, May 19 generally following the same scenario from October 28, 2005 -- the posting of the indictment on the Special Prosecutor's web site followed by a press conference at Main Justice.

WMR was also told by a credible source that part of the reason for Fitzgerald's visit to Patton and Boggs was to inform Rove attorney Luskin that he has moved into the category of a "subject" of the special prosecutor's investigation as a result of a conversation with Time reporter Viveca Novak, in which Novak told Luskin that Rove was a source for Time's Matt Cooper. The special prosecutor, who has prosecuted one defense attorney in the Hollinger case, is reportedly investigating whether Luskin, as an officer of the court, may have violated laws on obstruction of justice.

WMR has also discovered that last year Rove, realizing he remained a lightning rod in the CIA Leakgate scandal, made preliminary plans to move into the private sector from the White House to take political heat off the Bush administration. However, as it became clear that he was in over his head legally and his legal bills piled up, Rove decided to remain at the White House.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/