confirmation? (re: Rove indictment)

I don't know who Wayne Madsen is, but someone else posted on another thread asking that this be made a thread of its own.

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.

more at http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

thanks posting as new thread! if it follows the pattern of the libby indictment then it looks like friday party people.

and man oh man, will I donate heavily to truthout, DU, and madsen if ths pans out!!!!

xoxoxox-

p

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.


I read Madison for tips and clues, but a lot of his stuff doesn't always pan out.

stick it in the "it is possible" pile :)

from the same article:

"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."


http://www.cafepress.com/scarebaby/714748

Because just today bloggers on DU said that Jason Leopold was wrong and that
he wears "tighty whitie" underwear.

they are always right! :rofl:

because Leopold and Pitt said that the indictment had already been returned and served on Rove last Friday. Which would obviously preclude such redundancy.

* If I really have to insert a sarcasm emoticon here, there's something wrong with the reader.

** And, mercifully, I have no knowledge of what kind of underwear either of them wear.

...

Seeing as how they couldn't even get the name of the firm right...:rofl:

http://www.pattonboggs.com/Home.aspx

Um, if you bothered to check the 'about' section of the Patton Boggs web site you'd find it was founded by James Patton and Thomas Boggs. That would indeed make it Patton and Boggs...where is the problem? You're splitting hairs...

NOT Patton and Boggs. The name of the firm was NEVER Patton and Boggs, and anyone who knows anything about law firms in DC knows the name of the firm, and says "Patton Boggs" when they say it. Who's splitting hairs? He either got the name of the firm right in his scribblings or he did not. Guess what, ace? He did not. At the very least, it's lousy fact checking. But the bigger issue is this: Can we really believe that someone who makes such a simple mistake knows anybody inside Patton Boggs? I don't think so.

the firm was indeed called at one time Patton AND Boggs. This firm has been around a LONG time and assuming that he's been in DC for quite a long time that's an easy mistake to make.

as for fact checking, google "patton and boggs" in quotes and you'll see what many already know...ace.

*edited to add a comma, oh those pesky commas

Clearly the concatenation of the name was some misguided effort at "Branding".

here's a LEGAL document from 2004 reflecting the name "Patton and Boggs"

http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/July2004/031286p.pdf

seems to me the name change was only in the past couple of years huh ace?

It was Patton, Boggs, and Blow.

you are correct, those were the 3 founders. I made the assumption the poster assumed that was one name so I broke it out into the two primaries that most in DC are familiar with. apologies and thanks...

p

We always referred to it as Patton Boggs.

so was that within the past year, were you an intern, or are the legal documents and yellow page listings I pulled up under "Patton and Boggs" incorrect...again, perhaps you should get your facts straight ace?

B) It was in the late 1990's
C)You got me. Fine. I admit it, ace. I was wrong.

But the fact remains that the name of the firm currently is Patton Boggs, and he's wrong in the article.

I cant imagine a major announcement was made when patton boggs decided the "and" should go...alert the media, we're getting rid of an "and". Yeah, the media would have been all over that one.

and let's see, if I called AT&T to do a story, to wrap it up with my inside source I certainly wouldn't ask, "oh by the way, did you get rid of the "and" in in your name? are you still called AT&T?". Like I said you are splitting hairs. A debate on the substance of the article is what counts, not something as minimal as the disappearance of an ampersand. And the sarcasm was not appreciated or necessary...

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

..."ignore list" has been growing by leaps and bounds over the last few days.

Thanks for making my list!

your ignore list?

Besides, you must have threatened me with the same ten times, and yet you continue to respond to my posts. :eyes:

"Target Letter", which Luskin hasn't denied this time, but no one has specifically asked about a target letter, but rather confirmation of Leopold's details about indictment...

...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."

That happenened last Friday just as we were told by Leopold. That means that the Target Letter went out earlier just as reported.

The next thing that jumps out at me is the following:

"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."

So, if Madsen is correct, the only thing Leopold may have gotten wrong was the timing of the actual announcement of Rove's indictment.

"if Madsen is correct..."

about any of it....:rofl:

nt

If nothing happens on Friday, will you go with the new "Fitzgerald doesn't have to announce this week" language that's fast supplanting the manifestly ridiculous 24 business hours nonsense?

harsh on people? please come back on friday after the indictment is announced to eat well deserved crow, or better yet, dont bother.

Don't cry, now.

You are apparently both angry and ill informed, a dangerous mix. I'm just pointing out the obvious. Perhaps you are the one who should get your facts straight in either proving or attempting to debunk someone elses story. Or perhaps you should become a journalist and write your own.

May I suggest some kava root and some 5htp, that would be a start at taking the edge off.

Mr. Madsen's piece is such a mess of non-information as to be comical. But you're the little one who will be crying come 5pm Friday, I suspect.

if Rove is not indicted by 5pm on Friday I will be weeping for numerous reasons, the most important being simply that he was not indicted LOL.

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 On what basis can this be "confirmed"? A source? Madsen doesn't say. Curious, that. That proceeding lasted for less than 30 minutes and took place shortly after noon Who says?. Gonzales's personal security detachment was present in the courthouse during the Grand Jury briefing A detail added to make the report seem more impressive, and hide the fact that no source is referenced for any of this information, including this detail. From the courthouse, Gonzales's motorcade proceeded directly down Constitution Avenue to the Department of Justice Another meaningless detail used to disguise the fact that the confirmation has no substance - ah, very impressive! He even has the motircade route! Gimme a break. This guy is a straight up grifter.

According to sources within the Patton and Boggs law firm These sources within the law firm apparently didn't tell Madsen that the name of the place where they work is Paton Boggs, not "Patton and Boggs"! Great sources!, Karl Rove was present at the law firm's building on M Street. WMR was told by a credible source Now it's only one source? that a Patton and Boggs attorney Is that like an attorney that works for Patton Boggs, or is it the generic version? confirmed To whom? that Fitzgerald paid a visit to the law firm to inform Rove attorney Robert Luskin and Rove that an indictment would be would be? as in, some time in the future? Curiouser and curiouser...the celebrants don't even realize that this heaping pile from bizarro Mr. Madsen contradicts their Sacred Saint Leopold text 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 Huh? Which ones emanated from the Rove camp?, the meetings at Patton and Boggs did not last 15 hours nor was a 24-hour notice of intent to indict Is Mr. Madsen hard-of-reading? No report ever adduced a "24 hour notice of intent to indict. The previous Sacred Text clearly stated that an indictment HAD ALREADY BEEN RETURNED, and that the Mythical Man-Month of 24 Business Hours was for Mr. Rove to - it's OK to chuckle - "get his affairs in order" 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 28A strangely worded load of nonsense: the Libby grand jury "decided to indict" on October 21, but didn't actually return the indictment until October 28? I can see why the supposed argument from parallel case would serve Madsen's little scam here, but this is truly bizarre. Besides, it once again contradicts the leopold article which claims that an indictment was ALREADY returned on May 12, not that the GJ had nebulously "decided" to indict without actually having returned an indictment. What a joke. 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 Housean appropriate non sequitor to end this nonsensical article.

Madsen is an unrelaible source, and should not be linked to on DU.