TRUTHOUT UPDATE 5/21/06 : What We Know & What We Believe

Information Sharing on the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Sun May 21st, 2006 at 11:58:26 AM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation
(2 comments)

I'd like to break this posting into two categories: What we know, and what we believe. They will be clearly marked.

We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13. We know that each source was in a position to know what they were talking about. We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report. We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth. We know we have information that directly contradicts Luskin and Corallo's denials. We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all.

Further, we know - and we want our readers to know - that we are dependent on confidential sources. We know that a report based solely on information obtained from confidential sources bears some inherent risks. We know that this is - by far - the biggest story we have ever covered, and that we are learning some things as we go along. Finally, we know that we have the support of those who have always supported us, and that must now earn the support of those who have joined us as of late.

We now move on to what we believe. (If you are looking for any guarantees, please turn back now.)
more at:
http://forum.truthout.org/blog/
........

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
director@truthout.org

:thumbsup::hi:

More from the story:

"We believe that we hit a nerve with our report. When I get calls on my cell phone from Karl Rove's attorney and spokesman, I have to wonder what's up. "I" believe - but cannot confirm - that Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesman gave Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post my phone number. I believe Howard Kurtz contacted me with the intention of writing a piece critical of our organization. I know that Anne Marie Squeo of the Wall Street Journal attacked us and independent journalism as a whole in her piece titled, "Rove's Camp Takes Center of Web Storm / Bloggers Underscore How Net's Reporting, Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill." We believe that rolling out that much conservative journalistic muscle to rebut this story is telling. And we believe that Rove's camp is making a concerted effort to discredit our story and our organization."

Naw! Really? :hide:

"We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove."

Where are these two news crews? Are ALL of them obeying orders from Rove to just STFU?

I wept when I read this article; I had no idea I had that much interest and vetted emotion in it. I SO want this criminal thug KKKRove to be brought to justice. But I just can't take that leap of faith required, to believe that there was news coverage of this event, and it wasn't reported on; in fact, it wasn't even summarily commented upon. It was flat out ignored. And we are to believe that the press once again, when confronted with truth of great consequence and magnitude, chose to do nothing?

and if it is announced, the MSM will go wild for at at least two days before the Bush junta can whip them back into line. Getting all lathered up here over a report that has no confirmation is just a waste of time.

he will be http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1241783&mesg_id=1241783">pardoned.

The corporate media was only able to secure one source apiece, according to Marc Ash of Truthout. I'll try to find the link to Ash's statement, but TO is down for the moment.:hi:

But you should change the month from June to May. :hi:

I like this quote:

"We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone."

and I very much appreciate it...

:hi:

Not just that they would smear them, but they would ask for a retraction if it wasn't true.

The silence from the other side and the MSM in general is really beginning to become unbearable.

And to think ... I used to love the song of the

Sometimes the just sue for libel if it's bad enough.

I'm not saying Leopold's story was necessarily libelous, but there is this quote from the New York Sun on May 15:



http://www.nysun.com/article/32727

If someone uses the term "malicious," that's legalize for "I could sue you."

That in itself is a public request for retraction if you ask me.

And yes, I know everyone says Corallo is a liar. Well established point. Just repeating what he said, and debunking Ash's statement that may be technically true, is not true in the spirit of what has gone on this past week.

The only reason I can imagine that the story would be fabricated is an elaborate scheme to make truthout look bad. Can you think of anything else?

And I don't think fabrication would describe what happened properly. Con job by Leopold is more of what I'm suspecting to gain attention and traffic for Truthout. As for Will Pitt, I don't think he intentionally meant to mislead people. That isn't his style.

Any day now.

They're not going to sue them. They have all they need right now. Truthout looks like idiots as it stands right now.

and further, bringing up the possibility of larger developments.

but :bounce:

"...Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame..."

The thought makes my naughty bits all tingly.

The most important sentence in the entire post, I think. I had posted in another thread but it was locked...again...

:bounce: :evilgrin:

Was it an empty threat? A bluff? It's not something journalists do. Very odd, in any case.

so exposing the sources would would not be a good thing to do?

That's where the meetings were likely held. Fitz would not have control over what was leaked from staff at that firm. Hell, buildings have maintenance people too. Powerful people tend to ignore them but they can be just about anywhere. Like, who was it who locked down that floor in the building? And police aren't the only ones with access to swell electronic eavesdropping toys and gadgets.

is Patton Boggs. It's a big firm downtown. And if you'd ever been there, you'd know that their security makes the Pentagon look like a naked nun out in the bright sunlight.

http://www.pattonboggs.com/Locations/Office.aspx?office=6

What happened to the story about the "Secret Service lockdown"?

Don't buy any of it, my friend. This is a scam.

Don't buy any of it.

What is the purpose of an intentional scam on the part of TruthOut? Are they a complete misnomer? Should their name be FalseIn instead? Are we to disregard the fine reporting of theirs in the past? If this is a scam, is ONLY Leopold to blame? Is it Rove's scam also perhaps?

Why would T.O., & Pitt participate intentionally in a scam?

THAT part makes no sense whatever. They were set up either by Leopold, KKKRove, or BOTH. Who knows? You don't KNOW it's a scam.

All I know is that sometimes people do things for reasons that no one will ever understand.

There are people who have problems that manifest themselves in ways healthy people will never be able fully to comprehend.

As for "intentional," well, I suspect there were a number of folks who've been fooled, as well, so I would never address that issue. I simply don't know what choices were made by whom

But, I know a scam when I see one, and this is a scam. Take the story apart, and it collapses, bit by bit. From the beginning, the things delineated in it were so wrong as to be laughable. We're now in the second week of some "secret indictment" story, and the "facts" keep changing. Now, Ash publishes what he "believes," as in he "believes Howard Kurtz was given his phone number."

How lame can it get? A news organization publishing its BELIEFS?

Think of Janet Cooke at the Washington Post. Ask why she did what she did. Jayson Blair. The usual suspects. Even Mike Barnicle go caught fudging, but seems to have been forgiven - although not by me.

Keep in mind this one true fact so far: that no one knows anything, there is no indictment, and Patrick Fitzgerald will announce whatever happens when something happens.

That's all that's true right now.

you have no idea why this is a scam, yet you still believe its a scam....I'm I missing something here...I suppose I'm not the only one that would like an explanation as to why this is a scam.


I lost by your thinking..


:shrug:

I said I didn't know why people perpetuate scams.

See?

You lost by my thinking?

Yes, that's obvious.

thats exactly what you wrote, so....now you are twisting your own words.

There is nothing to be lost by what you said, its obvious....

Be careful now!!

Maybe I should asked.....who is the scam? TO, Leopold or Rove?

:shrug: WHO??? WHAT??? WHERE???

Thread after thread after thread. I haven't seen the like since Bev Harris got banned.

It's a scam designed to increase traffic to the Truth Out site. Sites like TO live and die by the number of hits they get. Anything that increases traffic, regardless of it's "truthiness", is a good thing.

They have to document and file the indictments. The judge and his/her staff and the clerk's staff would have access, if not direct knowledge, of any indictments that come down.

Also, you have to consider that the Grand Jury members, themselves, also would know what action, if any, they took.

So - no, it's not limited to Fitz, his office, Rove's attorneys and their staff.

and in this update, that no one (I am assuming the sources) has requested a retraction.

no mouth piece for ROVE has asked for a retraction of the story. They tend to do tht when they can prove that the story is false, but not when they can't.

That is telling ... along with the complete silence from that camp, unless persued and asked the question. No grandstanding press conferences or even on camera brief statements this time.

Not even a "no comment" to be found that is not solicited. If there wasn't something to it, you wouldn't be able to shut them up, would you? :shrug:

I was thinking all week that Rover's probably dealing, because we really want the elected officials indicted, and we all know Dick and George outed Plame intentionally.

Since it was retribution for debunking of the fixed intel, and since the order came from Shrub to make 9/11 be about Iraq, this will be the last nail in the coffin of the Boy King's reign.

For this, I'm more than willing to wait.



Tic, toc, tic, toc,

Thanks to Ash for letting us in on the details.

much obliged.

<reposting from the big thread>

Well, it is an interesting post, but he says he believes (not knows) that the indictment is sealed. Here is what Christy Smith at FDL said today:

to get big fish.

Sure, he has gone after the little folks first in previous cases, but I'd like someone to find an example where he obtained a sealed indictment, and then handed it over to the guy's lawyers.

Hi! regardless

Um, if the indictment were handed over in an effort to squeeze the underling into helping nail the boss, we wouldn't hear about it if the underling cooperated, now would we?

I'm asking for examples from his previous cases, not this one. Christy Smith at FDL believes that sealed indictments are secret and never given out, especially to the suspect's lawyers.

If anyone has a historical example from any other case, I'd like to see it. I'm open to the idea.

"handing over a sealed indictment to the client's lawyers"?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAAHHHA!!!!!!!!!!

Good one.

Are you saying you don't have an example? :)

which is actually a little french fry, then we need another national holiday. The Fritz Day.
Otherwise, man, I'm saying, if they get away with this, our country may never recover. Ever.

I remember my parents being all noid the day Nixon read his resignation. It was mentioned that he might refuse to resign and take Executive Control. Who do you think is more likely in this scenario? Bush? Nixon. Answered. It may have been high emotion hype, but you have to know that Democracy, as is, is not a fool proof system. Evidence, White House. A bumbling fucking idiot blood thirsty fool. I would say we might have a couple of things to think about. Like how to stop the insanity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1250901


P.S. Firedoglake has been slow for a couple of days
http://firedoglake.com/

Something about that I love.

if there was an indictment. There may be other sealed indictments? One thing that is obvious is that Fitz has closed down all media coverage?

I've been waiting for this. :hi:

They are shit at real journalism.

who always give us truthful reporting as the news breaks?!

Damn! :cry:

Who's dissing BatBoy?

Commies who hate America, that's who.

Is it possible that BOTH truthout and the MSM may be sensationalizing or skewing stories? You act as if one must utterly trust the MSM to disbelieve truthout. And yet, I can hold these two thoughts in my head at once: truthout and the msm are BOTH shit journalism. Strange, that.

and how's your blood pressure lately?

Blood pressures A-OK. You?

They jumped the gun on this one and will be forever tarnished by it. And no, the RW MSM is no better, but that doesn't automatically give truthout a pass, either. And I'm really disgusted with those on here who have nastily pounced on those expressing the slightest bit of skepticism.

We don't really "know" anything. Right now, not even the other liberal alt news internet sites are confirming any of it at all and Daily Kos may have really hit truthout's number.

we are all so anxious for judgement day to arrive that we will grasp at any little whisp of encouragement.

I understand that we are all supposed to be staunch stand up straight skeptics, but when we sniff a little hope that justice will finally be rendered, please give us a break for that.

Lately I think Liberals are all too content to allow a bozo criminal to be in charge of front office. Is it just too much fun to ridicule him, knowing how corrupt and inept he is? Evidently. If shit doesn't hit the fan at some point, sorry, I'm going to have to give up on the human race. And none too soon by my estimation.

I want Rove so bad I can taste it....this is how I felt back during Watergate. I wanted Nixon so bad I could taste that as well. I remember the day he resigned. I danced in the streets. We partied at Ohio State...closed the bars.

Of course, the media situation is so different today....the MSM is owned by 5 corporations and Walter Cronkite has retired. But we have the internet....thankfully. I was afraid that Jason had gone out on a limb when he predicted what day Fitz would hold a press conference....this situation is just too explosive and fluid to make predictions like that. Hell, given that W. is in control of that 'nuke button,' we're lucky if we predict the sun will rise tomorrow and it actually does!

I am certainly not going to jump all over Jason and Will about this....at the time, maybe this is the info, Jason received. NO ONE KNOWS. If someone thinks Jason is a scammer....that person in entitled to that opinion. But deep in my bones, I know that Rove is toast....burnt, smelly, encrusted in black carbon toast. Fitz will get him....and someday what occurred with Jason and TruthOut will come to light.

I will continue to read TruthOut. I think they do a great job. No one is perfect....everyone makes mistakes. And we all learn.

But I gotta admit, I am surprised by the reaction of some DUers who act as if Jason and TruthOut should be hung from the rafters. They seem to be more anger with them than with Rove. Get a grip folks. Remember who the true enemy is. Didn't your mama teach you....'You can't believe EVERYTHING you read.'

You know I have to think something is up. I thought Rove being indicted made sense in light of scotty leaving and Bush needing to make a big immigration speech..and then there was Hardball...Mathews expected to be working late last Friday ...I think he got the same wind TO had but something happend...

My question is what the hell is with a sealed indictment? What does that mean? How long can it stay sealed? If is unsealed do we get to know that was in fact sealed before? And once someone is indicted do they stay indicted even if they turn states evidence?

But nobody knows what that means.

the term "for 24 business hours" functions as a negator: ~

So, "It's sealed for 24 business hours" = "it's not sealed."

:rofl:

evidence? If not then they would come out with the indictment?


If I wanted a big fish I would put pressure on a little fish... Either sing now or get grilled now..


Just something the wife and I are talking about.

She honestly believe truthout AND the sources may not be coming from Fitzgerald's office. It could be coming from Rove lawyer's office.

defendant subsequently agrees to cop a deal. It still has to be dealt with in public at some point. If subsequent to indictment the defendant accepts a deal, some of the charges may be dropped, reduced and/or there may be consideration given at sentencing. But this process occurs in the court that is handling the criminal case resulting from the indictment. Like the Larry Franklin case for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/politics/29cnd-spy.html?ex=1148356800&en=9fe9cfc9ed7b5250&ei=5070

The point is, if an indictment is handed down by the grand jury Fitz can't just put it in his pocket and pretend it never existed.

Prior to indictment the would be defendant can deal and if so we may not know what total potential charges the person was told he could face without an agreement. We'd only know what, if anything, eventually was charged in a subsequent indictment.

Some have speculated that perhaps there was a sealed indictment and Fitz might have gotten permission from the court to discuss this with the defense to encourage a deal which might allow the defendant to avoid potential additional charges that might not have been included in the indictment, like obstruction of justice for example. Attorneys posting about the net generally appear to be saying that such an event is unheard of, unlikely, impossible, ridiculous, well you get the gist.

At any rate, if there's something on the table for negotiation at any point and indictment is in Rover's future if not past, just talking out of my butt mind you, I'd guess Rover wants no charges, no jail time and maybe at most a slap on the hand for having been so honestly confused in the past. Fitz may well insist on a stay in the slammer of some measure to vindicate the pulic interest and the public trust that has been violated. What Fitz might be holding over Rover, both carrot and stick, is a potential charge of obstruction of justice. Deal and that's off the menu. Don't deal and it's on your dance card, Karl. Again just my idle speculation since it's the season. ;)

because what you wrote isn't so.

You think maybe Rove himself might have authorized a phony leak? Sounds like his style to me....

Peace
PsA

Fitz has the goods on Rove....he has the indictment (sealed). Let's just assume this. Is it against the law for Fitz to work Rove for the bigger fish, Cheney? Could it be possible that Fitz spent many, many hours listening to Rove spill the beans on the big fishes so Rove could get reduced charges?

Now I know real life isn't totally like 'Law & Order,' but I would think DAs and Prosecutors would use this tactic frequently.

Please ellaborate for us non-lawyers, yet avid 'Perry Mason' fans.

I would like to know, when a sealed indictment is "unsealed" and filed, is the original date on it and B) Under what circumstances are sealed indictments never "unsealed"?

I expect flip answers, but would like a real one.

see why people expect it to be routine.

I would say it is still possible they are still dealing and taking more time than for an ordinary case.

This government works at its own pace. If the WH is trying to slow it down, they will use any obscure statute or regulation they can think of to justify it. With this administration, they might have some "national security" crap for dealing with it entirely in secret and the court might be trying to figure it out.

They could even just be flouting the law and the court is not sure what to do about it.

I think it is worth the wait for final developments -- and, it is pretty much what I thought.

K&R!

That tube of treason ..... Karl Rove

Remember Rove got people talking about Dan Rather instead of bush going AWOL

" " about how the story got to the press rather then Cheney shooting somebody
after drinking.


" " about Kerry shooting somebody in the back rather then his bronze star,
silver star, & 3 purple hearts.

Smothing makes the best stuffed artichokes around.

They only become S'mores when you roast 'em!

I want to be as cool as you two. You find words that are misspelled and then you make really funny jokes about it and WOW, it's soooooo cool!

Hey maybe you could make a funny joke about this post? Huh? Please?

I don't do cooooool things for strangers... :+

This tactic is used in every policy area and misdeed. Additionally, we see strawman arguments everyday.

Why does it still work so well?

it smells like ROOVST to me.


:evilgrin:

"Very reminiscent of the Halderman deal, indeed--after which came a flurry of guilty pleas..."

That was a bit before my time. Does anyone else here who remembers the Watergate stuff perceive this to be the case?

Once they started going down, they all went quickly. At least that's what it seems like now, looking back.

It surely didn't take this long. But then again, we had no internet or 24 hour news networks then. Today we are so used to instant news. So maybe it just seems to have been a quicker process. It's hard to tell.

Night Massacre? I can't remember either...

Sorry - what I do remember is that some bad guys on nixon's staff broke into the Watergate bldg and got caught. Then two years later, Nixon resigned. That seems a lot faster than this timeline we have with the Valerie Plame outing.

They were brought down over a piece of tape ... not recording tape but sticky tape. Tape that was used to keep the door unlocked.

You never know what small thing will lead to bigger things.

Keep hope alive!


<ps Ask Octafish or H2O Man these questions and they will be able to answer them without batting and eyelash.> :hi:

were not on Nixon's staff.

Go read up on the most significant Presidential scandal of the twentieth century. It really is a great story. And the heroes are the guys like John Sirica and Sam Ervin, among others.

"All The President's Men" is a good start.

head of security for CREEP. He was often in and out of the White House.

As was convicted Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt, who had an office in the White house, and was appointed to the WH staff in 1971 by Colson and Erlichman.

So ... maybe you need to refresh your reading?

The Committee to Re-Elect The President was a political outfit. Yeah, he went in and out of the White House and the OEB, but that gave him no status as a White House staffer.

Now, what about E. Howard Hunt? What did I say about him? I don't recall mentioning him.

Security for CREEP wasn't his first gig for Nixon.

"In 1971, after serving in several positions in the Nixon administration, Liddy was moved to Nixon's 1972 campaign, the Committee to Re-elect the President, (officially known as CRP but to opponents known as CREEP)" - Wikipedia.


"In June, 1971, G. Gordon Liddy, a man possessed with a purpose, ascended to the inner circle of power at the White House. His attempt to take over the thousand-man Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms enforcement unit of the Treasury Department on behalf of the White House group had been successfully resisted by the Treasury Department earlier that year

<snip>

"Krogh later recalled that he had "considerable apprehension" about hiring Gordon Liddy to work for the White House on the drug program. Rossides had warned him that Liddy was both disloyal and potentially dangerous." Indeed, these were the reasons Rossides tendered for dismissing Liddy from the Treasury Department."

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/agency/chap15.htm

Regards Hunt: you specified "Watergate burglars". That should include Hunt, inasmuch as he was convicted on charges of burglary, conspiracy, and wiretapping relating to the Watergate operation.

but it doesn't change the fact that Liddy was never on the White House staff.

But, Hunt was not one of the burglars. You overlooked that salient and very true fact.

on the charge of "burglary"?

As for "Liddy was never on the White House staff" - why then would Krogh have hired Liddy "to work for the White House on the drug program"?

He was a sort of non-employee employee?

Hence, the conspiracy charge. Don't you remember that?

You're either on the staff or you're not.

"non-employee employee"???

Thanks for the laugh.

http://www.watergate.info/burglary/burglars.shtml

"Convicted of burglary, conspiracy and wiretapping, Hunt served 33 months in prison." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/watergate/howardhunt.html

I rest my case. :)

Hunt was on the staff, and was convicted of being in on the planning of the Watergate job, although he was not one of the actual burglars. That's how the law works.

Check out the names of the burglars, and then remember who was the Best Friend of The Big Dick. You'll see how it connects.

Liddy was never on the White House staff. That site has it wrong. His own personal lore is that he was on the staff, but, in fact, he never was. He hung around the White House a lot, but he scared a lot of people (even Nixon thought Liddy was nuts - it's on one of the tapes, and it's a riot) and that was when Bud Krogh got him out of there and into CREEP.

Liddy's got a great track record as a liar, especially when his work history is brought up. He claims to have invented the DEA, which always amuses the people who actually did it.

Don't believe things you read on websites. Check out the original sources.

And you're right?

Show me your "original sources", and I might believe you. You seem to be on the "Leopold" side of this one :)

which is a trip all in itself.

It's called "Will," and it's remarkable. I happen to possess a signed copy, believe it or not.

Anyone who cites wikipedia as a credible source doesn't know the first thing about doing valid research, by the way. Keep that in mind. Stories in the Post are just as questionable, you know that.

The book is a real hoot, though. I like the part where he describes listening to Hitler's speeches over shortwave with his (presumably) young and attractive nanny during his formative years.

Also compelling is his description of arranging a private showing of Triumph of the Will (an infamous Nazi propaganda film) for the likes of Erlichman, etc. (was it actually shown within the White House?) and rounding off the evening with his advice: "that, gentlemen, is how to conduct an election campaign".

Wikepedia is not as bad as made out, in my opinion. But sourcing it there was merely a matter of convenience. If you use google, you'll find plenty of confirmation. But to recap: my other two "independent sources", Jay Epstein and the Washington Post, back up wikipedia's information that Liddy worked for the White House (via Krogh), and that Hunt had a burglary conviction. Planning is an essential part of a burglary, after all.

Say, a former lawyer with novels to his credit... You're not G. Gordon Liddy yourself, by any chance? ;-)

But, seriously, yeah, Liddy's a real character. The handburning and the rat menu were my personal favorites. And I really do have a signed copy!

I'm old, and happened to be at the OEB as the Saturday Night Massacre took place, while being a law student, so I was lucky enough to be on top of everything that happened during those halcyon days. My friend, Gus Weiss, who was on Kissinger's staff, was wonderful about keeping me informed. (If you're interested in what happened to Gus, a good lifelong Republican genius, when he decided to speak out against our invasion of Iraq, google his name - I loved him, by the way) I spent my spare time in John Sirica's courtroom, just watching him work. He was remarkable.

Krogh ran a political operation out of the White House (which would not be allowed today, since the law's been tightened up because of Watergate), but that did not make Liddy part of the White House staff.

You can be convicted of burglary if you plan it, even if you don't take part in its execution. That's why Hunt was convicted. Same with Jim McCord, who had the good sense to write a note to Maximum John, who then proceeded to bust the whole thing open, something for which I still believe he's never been given enough historical credit. But, along with Sam Ervin, John Sirica was the hero of Watergate. Ditto Pete Rodino.

Oh, and I'm a woman. So, it's "to her credit." Just for the record.

NYT. ( http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/n/richard_milhous_nixon/index.html?offset=135&s=oldest&inline=nyt-per )

Technically, working for CREEP may not have made him a White House staffer, but I think the above quote is in reference to his hiring by Krogh to work on the drug program that Epstein refers to. He also worked for the treasury department. Correct?

Wether you'd call Hunt a "watergate burglar" or not ... Hmmm. From what I've read, and as you admit, he planned the burglary. I think there's a reason why you can be convicted of burglary for that!

which, at that point in time (a John Dean phrase, by the way, if you recall), was legally situated within the White House. That's illegal now, as I last posted, because of Watergate.

But, that did not make him a member of the White House staff, and the phrase "aide" means nothing. It does not rise to the level of White House cleaning lady.

Liddy worked for Treasury, I believe, in the early sixties, when he was a new lawyer. He didn't last very long there, either. He never lasted long anywhere he worked. His talk radio gig here in NoVa is probably his steadiest employment ever, and it only came about because he's an unrepentant and disgusting felonious thug.

Convicted of burglary, as Hunt was, along with the conspiracy charge, did not place him at the Watergate Hotel that night, so, do you still think of him along with the rest of the guys who did the breaking in? The law does, but only for purposes of prosecution.

That's what the NYT's "aide" description refers to, isn't it?

According to Epstein, he was working for the Treasury Department (trying some bureacratic subversion on behalf of the White House group) as late as 1971. After he was dismissed there, Krogh hired him initially "to work for the White House" on Nixon's Domestic Council's anti-heroin campaign. Immediately after this he was shunted into working for CREEP.

And sure, Hunt wasn't physically apprehended at the Watergate June 17th. No argument there (incidentally, the fact he wasn't arrested and tried on that basis doesn't prove he wasn't on or around the scene - after all, he was physically involved with the Elsberg burglary, right?). But yes, I do think of him along with the rest of the guys - he was directing the operation, and that's why I think the law, in this instance, is not an ass for regarding him as part of the burglary team.

he worked for CREEP, which - must I say this again? - had its offices in the White House (the law has since rendered this sort of placement illegal). That's why the term "aide" instead of "staff" or "employee" was so carefully used.

See how it's done? This is, after all, Washington.

There was never any evidence that Hunt was anywhere near the Watergate that night, and your supposition is tinfoil hat thinking at its finest, so please don't make me think you're nuts. He was not physically there, but it didn't matter, ultimately.

Yeah, the law worked exactly as it should in the Hunt conviction, and it worked perfectly well right through the whole Watergate adventure. I am confident that it will work as well when this administation is brought to justice.

working for Nixon's Domestic Council just before CREEP? And for the Treasury Department, doing nefarious deeds on behalf of the White House group, just before that, as Jay Epstein tells us in my "nice" quote way up there in this subthread. You seem remarkably impervious to this information!

And you don't have to say again that working for CREEP did not make him White House staff, I already got that 3 or 4 posts ago ;-)

As for what you call my "supposition" about Hunt - there is no such thing. I merely pointed out that there's no clear information on his whereabouts. I'm not "supposing" anything, so please don't put words in my keyboard, and keep your tin hats to yourself, if you don't mind :)

Question: if the law worked "as it should", in convicting someone for burglary because they planned and supervised (however remotely!) a break-in, is that person or is that person not deserving of the epithet "burglar"?

You seem to think that I'm supposed to do what you want, and you do seem to forget that it's a message board.

If you're so taken with Liddy's employment history, I urge you to go and research it.

But, for now, I'm leaving this discussion, because, frankly, you don't deserve me.

Welcome to IgnoreLand.

<click>

I know in "Will," he re-produced a memo that he had written regarding the future of Hoover at the FBI.

Watergate! Dems had the majority in either the House or Senate....maybe after '06 Elections, we will be able to investigate and subpoena!!!! This has slowed our ability to get the lawbreakers.

we had subpoena power in both the House and the Senate Watergate committees. Without that, nothing would have happened.

Please remember, Watergate was more about the cover up than the break in.

DEAN: I think, I think that, uh, there's no doubt about the seriousness of the problem we're, we've got. We have a cancer--within, close to the Presidency, that's growing. It's growing daily. It's compounding, it grows geometrically now because it compounds itself. Uh, that'll be clear as I explain you know, some of the details, uh, of why it is, and it basically is because (1) we're being blackmailed; (2) uh, people are going to start perjuring themself very quickly that have not had to perjure themselves to protect other people and the like. And that is just--and there is no assurance--

http://www.hpol.org/transcript.php?id=95

they all did time, there were no deals.

That was Watergate.

This nonsense is Internet lunacy, that's all. Someone's pulling legs, and making funny.

There is no indictment.

No one knows anything.

Fitzgerald's investigations never leak.

The story's been nonsense and untrue from the beginning.

This is not at all comparable to Watergate, just so you know.

As I posted elsewhere, this could be an effort to bring down the leftwing bloggers and message boards, to cause dissention and eventually discredit us. We've been getting more powerful as Bush has become more reviled and hated by the general public. This seems like a perfect way to do it, altho it will probably not work in the long run.

Just my little conspiracy theory here (why not, it's a slow Sunday).

:thumbsup:

Unless of course, they really ARE onto something.

However, this does seem like the perfect set up by Rove to double cross TO and discredit our movement. It worked for getting rid of Dan Rather and making the MSM afraid to speak up. The RW simply MUST shut us up or the deluge is coming. This may be a last gasp before the tsunami pulls them under to their political death.

Well, theirs is a death by a thousand cuts, it seems. No day goes by in the MSM where a story appears about the upcoming 06 elections. It's shaping up to be an almost total disaster, to be saved only by the fixed voting machines. And we'll be able to figure that one out by the exit poll numbers.

...how else could someone like Fritz Mondale lose to a goof like Norm Coleman???:shrug:

that if the exit polls are THAT far off, as in 2004, in the upcoming election, we will have war on our hands. The 2004 thing caught us by surprise. That was then, this is now. Things are different. People know better and we on the left can pounce hard and long on it.

:toast:

Do a google on Rove and his tricks and you will find a great deal of irony wating for you.

I remember being pissed off that many sentences were months, not years.

And sorry.....but not everyone did time for Watergate. Remember Tricky Dick????

As a lawyer, maybe you can suggest a web site where lawyers are discussing this topic and we could all learn something....since people don't seem forthcoming around here.

Remember "unindicted co-conspirator," and the lesson America got in the absolute power of the Constitutionally-granted Presidential pardon?

I don't practice law online - I'm just here, giving my personal opinions. If you know a lawyer, you might want to call him or her and ask the questions you're asking here.

And, sorry, but I know of any such site you suggested. I wish I could help, but I can't.

But, you might want to consider the question you're asking, since there's no indictment, and no evidence that any indictment was ever handed down.

You might want to consider that you're being forced to watch a sideshow while the real show goes on, unnoticed.

I figured that was the true reason for his drive for power....having that little dick. Same with Napoleon.

And the real show is being televised where? Please enlighten...Hope it doesn't involve anything to do w/ Rupert.

I would like to see where lawyers are discussing this as well. We could learn quite a bit that way. Good point and good post!

maybe we can get some info over at Firedoglake....I believe there are lawyers there.

I was at a Law site a while back....it was a bit difficult to follow given the lingo...but it was fascinating. Now I can't recall...

We know that we have now three independent sources confirming that attorneys for Karl Rove were handed an indictment either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13

Really? Care to enlighten us as to who they might be?

We know that the office of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald will not confirm, will not deny, will not comment on its investigation or on our report.

WOW! What a bombshell! You now know that Fitz won't leak anything? Predicited, perhaps, on the fact that he never has? Amazing investigative work there, boys - take a bow.


We know that both Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo have categorically denied all key facts we have set forth.

That's a shock. I thought sure they'd hold a press conference and announce that, yep, you got 'em. Lawyers acting like Lawyers. Boy, you TO guys sure are on the ball.


We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove.

I'm guessing here that perhaps those news crews have been at that location maybe more than once? Like maybe an editor says "you guys camp out there - we don't want to miss anything when it happens".

We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night.

How do you know this?? Please tell us. We LOVE this one - we really do.

We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone.

Not to mean, here, but you're TruthOut, fer crissakes. Whaddya think, people are lining up to give you mea culpas? This is, of course, predicated on the fact that anyone connected with Rove and/or his attorneys actually pays attention to you.

And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all.

Your point???

Amazing. If anyone is buying this, I really feel for you.

Just when you think someone with good sense will just shut up and disappear, or else admit they fucked it up, or do something that makes sense, along comes some blather like this, utterly meaningless.

It's getting funnier, that much is true.

Who would possibly buy this? It's absurd. I sense a large joke being played on a small group of people, but I wonder why.

Anyway, Rove's on Death Row, I hear, and tonight's the night.

Midnight. Rove gets it.

Pass it on.

become a journalist! Please. Or maybe stand-up....you got one hell of a sense of humor. Funny, funny, funny....it's all so very funny.

So, you think Rove is behind this or do you just think Jason dreamt it?

I happen to be a published novelist, under contract to ::::: gasp ::::::: a publishing house owned by Rupert Murdoch, and they pay me to write.

Imagine that!

I think what I've stated - that someone wrote a pack of bullshit and now people are working overtime to try to get a small group of good people, people who have trusted and placed their faith in that source, to believe it, even as it unravels faster than the speed of truth.

Given the history of Jason Leopold - which I learned this past week - I find it hard to believe that anyone would hire him to write a menu for a pizza parlor.

I mean, you've got to be THE MOST pompous poster on DU, and believe me, that is really quite a prize given the very high level of competition in the category.

Yes, they do, and it's a great deal of fun.

It's a pity you're so angry. I do hope this little dump you tried - and failed - to take makes you feel better.

But, I suspect it won't, and so you now go to dwell in my IgnoreLand - which is better than you deserve, but, hey, I'm a forgiving OldLeftie.

<click>

Great post!!!!!

I certainly hope you overcharge that asshole for your services....or at least don't work too hard for him. Is his son still pissed at him?

After what I read about Rupert, I am surprised he can find anyone to work for him....if Jason is such a liar, maybe Rupert would like to hire him as PR for News Corp.

I admire truthout and I particularly admire William Rivers Pitt. But are they really important enough that a guy like Karl Rove would bother to set them up? At most, a few thousand people here and there will feel betrayed and truthout loses a bit of cred with those few thou. Is that really a big enough payoff for the world class criminals running our country?

Problems is: It's not a small group of people the joke,if it was one and not just a total flub up miscommunication by anxious folks jumping the gun for a scoop, was on the thousands of eyeballs out there who trusted "Truth Out" and passed on their articles to counter the RW Crap all their friends and relatives have been sending them for years.

So...who was the joke on and why was it perpetrated.

My only thought would be the dismantling of the Left Wing on the Internet. Cause dissention and fights amongst us and cynicism about any media...all media..even our own.

:shrug:

The infighting is restricted to here mostly. I'd ask myself if it is the tone of the skeptics, which the rest of the lefty internet is full of, or is it the defenders, a largely DU phenomenon, led by scathing rebukes from all-stars like Will Pitt and lala.

And I've seen it elsewhere as well. There have been some pretty big snide back and forths on Daily Kos as well--very similar to the ones that are so prevalent here.

I couldn't have said it better!! *high five*

The fact that nobody has received a request for a retraction is telling. And why the heck do you expect them to reveal their sources unless they are sure they have been had?

Truthout has broken stories before, and this IS a story no matter which way you spin it. Even if he hasn't been indicted there is a story; either an elaborate hoax is being perpetrated on truthout and it's readership, or truthout and co are a whole month and a half late on a crappy april fools prank.

Truthout was one of the few places I could go for the real news while the network and cable news still touted the WMD myth as a conspiracy theory, so if you care to know, I trust them more than most news organizations out there.

I can't expect everyone to feel the same, but you should at the very least trust that truthout know they would go down in a ball of flames if they laid a turd that big on us. Think about it.

a story, and unless Truthout has been taken over by someone else, there is no way they would 'lie' about such an important story ~ and I think those who, without any backup whatsoever, have made that allegation. Regardless of whether they were told the truth by their sources, it is extremely wrong to claim that they are lying.

There have been many misstatements made in these topics, such as 'the prosecutor will never go to defense attorneys' offices' ~ that was proven to be false regarding Fitzgerald ~ he has done so in the past, and proof of that was provided.

There have been other statements made here with equal certainty by posters, that have turned out to at least be questionable once a little homework is done. Therefore, I believe nothing coming from those posters, and give way more credibility to a site that has been a reliable source of information for a long time.

Thanks for your post, gorbal. :-)

....if they had, why would they stick with the same story all week if they knew it was false? Think about it.......what would they possibly gain by doing something like that? Eventually someone would find out about it and if that happened, their credibility really would truly be shot!

Rove is paying Corallo good money to spin ... this is how well he earns that fee from his clients ...

Quote:
"There has been no talk of resignation. The Republican Conference is solidly behind" the Louisiana Republican."--Mark Corallo - December 17, 1998


http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/clintoncrisis/121798_ctv.html

Two days later...

Quote:
Bob Livingston bows out of the speakership - He makes a stunning announcement on House floor--December 19, 1998


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/19/livingston.quits/

Never trust their hired mouth pieces. Never. Especially this guy.

I am asking innocently here.
links please.

belief, what is fact.


Way to go!!

From the belief section:

Further - and again this is "What We Believe" - Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one "off the record source" to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.

So they believe the indictment exists, and/or it's sealed (same thing, since an unsealed indictment would be last week's news). But they don't know it, all that's in the knowledge paragraph is the news crews, and three sources that agree on "either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13", and of course taking Snow's silence as proof. If I'm reading this correctly, they retracted or relabeled every fact in the article: the 15 hours, the 24 business hours nee 24 hours, the "get his affairs in order", and now the headline "Karl Rove indicted..." is filed under "what we believe".

Finally, we know that we have the support of those who have always supported us, and that must now earn the support of those who have joined us as of late.

Right, it's the new people's fault.

now.

there's no meaningful distinction between "facts" and "beliefs"; last week's sealed indictment fact is now categorized as belief. "either late in the night of May 12 or early in the morning of May 13" isn't confirmed by three sources; that's three sources confirming one of two different "facts" (one of which disconfirms the original moving target). Facts subject to change at management's discretion.

you hold dear being attacked for years. They wrote a story and have now retreated back to the basic facts. That is where they should be. Let us all learn from truthout to try and stay discerning no matter how hard it is when your heart is aching and you are angry. We are human. As we go from one level of understanding to the next with a WH like this.. we learn how not to fall into the pitfalls of this "new world".

Dan Rather and his producer did the same thing... they didn't following their own professional or discerning rules to a T.. they jumped too.

So did most of the people who watched colin powell and decided on the basis of that.. that it was good to go to Iraq.

We should all be learning about the attack on reality and how we think and how that is affected by the people in power today and the fears we have as the lives we've known, or the country we knew, or the press we knew, or what we knew we knew is under some fun little experiment by the people who lead the GOP.. the political arm of the GOP party.

Dan Rather didn't heap abuse on his audience, then change all the facts retroactively into predictions. Mr. Pitt appeared to realize the story was toast a week ago:


"under the bus" on the eve of their big scoop? From unwarranted skepticism?



Meanwhile, back at the ranch:


If the squirreliness of that last sentence doesn't speak for itself, it will.

same situation as people who don't have the experience or the establishment (checks and balances). Some say the establishment in MSM needs to do somehomework itself.

From the get go.. the people who first posted the breaking story added a narrative that this was going to be the pinacle of Leopold's career. Leopold didn't add that. Some others did. Which is very odd - in and of itself. So the story was personalized from the get go. And people defend themselves when it is personal. That is normal.

All in all we have people trying to be normal in a politcal situation and media era which is not normal at all. Stumbles and falls because information is so hard to come by. And so loaded with "fuzzy or phony" context.

Most of us go on the facts. Manipulators go on context. Remember Hitler had all of Germany acting as some organ of his particular anxieties. Including the part where gypsies, jews and communists were treated as the most evil thing Germany had ever seen... which was projection on Hitler's part.

Hard to figure it all out. Not a world most of us grew up in or became adults in. Not an adult or actualized world. Waves of bullshit and anger and wedges.. placed here and there.. all for the fun of people who need power for their own egos.. and not to provide any service whatsoever to their greater community.. cause community is such the vessle for their illness.

Imagine if the German people could have read all the history written about them .. at the time they were trying to discern reality... imagine... well ...we are almost there.

They say happy people are the most delusional. Depressives.. less delutional.. psychopaths the least delusional of all (cause they look at the world through a prism of NOTHING) and see all the rest of us as carrying baggage (often in the form of something called "feelings") and it is not so hard for them to stick a leg under us.. and make us fall.

This is not normal. Well, perhaps normal in the used car business, but even then... But it is the world Karl Rove has lived in his whole life. So he and his pals would be better at it than the rest of us naives. So we stumble and at times get angry (there is that "feeling" baggage again) which is very normal. When your whole life and everything you believe in is being constantly attacked... it is normal to be angry and to protect yourself. Normal for a human being.

From the get go - Fitz was never going to clarify any story. He just never does that. So it was going to be a mis-informed story that just sat around and inspired breaks and anger for a long time. A week is long enough I say.

Let's learn and heal and get back together.

With some help from feel-good reporting and made-up intelligence.

I think your archetypal psychopath is remorseless (possibly even happy), not emotionless ("negative symptoms" being the domain of psychosis):




Something to do with the amygdala. Anyway, I'm all for healing, but TO might want to disinfect the wound before slapping on another Band-Aid.

other people.. a view from outside the human spectrum of emotions. And just like being a walk the walk religiou type gives you a better view of the great works life can be about (or devoutly humanist) so you live your life that way despite the fact that others may think you waste your time on "helping others" or "not having a family"... so too looking at emotion from the vantage point on not empathizing.. not feeling that emotion in another.. would give them a clearer picture of how to manipulate it.

They are experts on being themselves. For sure they see emotion as probably the equivalent as we see weather patterns. Or perhaps like a epidemiologist sees disease (the scientist not being a disease himself can see it clearly).

he doesn't get indicted? What is the benefit for him? As in 'x' versus 'y'? Will his criminal, sleazy ass be saved from prosecution? Can he come out of this penalty-free and squeaky clean, except for his reputation, of course?

These may be obvious questins for many here... patience for the dim-bulb, please.

clear answers at this point.

Bullfight critics ranked in rows
Crowd the enormous Plaza full;
But only one is there who knows,
And he's the man who fights the bull.

If it applies to this case is unknown. How it would be applied, if it is or will be in the future, is also unknown.

recommendation of the prosecutor.

would this allow him to slip the noose

That no one knows anything.

And that there is no indictment.

Those are what the clear answers are to any questions, because that's the only verifiable truth and reality of this matter.

No one knows anything.

No need to out honest inside contacts when what is true one day/one moment changes instantly with new information and the people involved. Think about it. We are ultimately dealing with and talking about people. People are not robots. People are fickle. New events happen in an instant. The story is ultimately about a very corrupt administration and many who are involved in a crime (just one crime among many crimes), and they certainly don't want it it the news. And to discredit those who try to make it news are enemy #1. It figures --- truth is the enemy.

Why do some here at DU have to be so judgmental and so quick to eat our own? That is never a good strategy, it only serves and supports the other side.

I'm sticking with them and support their efforts to report the Truth.

That's the problem with the total anonymity of the Internet....

be vindicated.

And even if not, the service they've provided me for years and their level of commitment and invaluable reporting is one I am quite grateful for.

Truthout rocks and I appreciate wholeheartedly all they have done.

...and made a deal to stay out of jail.

Not hard to fathom at all.:thumbsup:

We are saying they were wrong. Dead wrong. 100% wrong.

There has been NO indictment.

Whether or not Rove gets indited next week or next month or next year is immaterial.

TruthOut was wrong.

Waiting for Godot in this case is an exercise in futility.

Read this latest statement, and compare it to the original story.

Then: Rove indited on the 12th. Now: Rove given papers on the 12th OR the 13th.

Then: Fourth floor locked down. SECRET SERVICE agents. Now: Fourth floor locked down.

Sense a pattern here??

Even in this thread. I don't get it, Will Pitt has been well respected on DU since day one, yet now some are saying he's always been unreliable. That's Freeper logic IMO.

I still think the story is correct, or was correct when it was reported and the big picture has changed.

I think a lot of people idolized him because they felt they were basking in reflected glory. He needed to impress people with every accomplishment. There are a lot of very accomplished people posting on DU, but their accomplishments are revealed slowly, in small increments, in the natural course of explaining their access to knowlege on specific topics, or experience relevant to a topic. I disagreed with him once - he had started a thread asking people to suggest what he should see on his first, short trip to Europe. I was a pretty new poster, and made a good faith effort to suggest some places & activities I'd loved. However, I made the BIG mistake of chiding him, as I would one of my own kids, for his query as to how to find a bar or pub where he could watch baseball games. We had recently heard a lot of dissing of Europe by the Republicans, including comments, like "I went there once; why would I ever go again?" I said something like, don't act like a Republican - don't go to Europe and sit around a bar with other Americans." WELL! as Jack Benny would say, he cursed me out good and proper and got my post deleted. After that, I just left him to his large crowd of worshipping enthusiasts. I was surprised to see the other day, one well-respected, long time DUer, explained Mr. Pitt's reaction as being a result of his ego. And that post was not deleted. I think of Mr. Pitt as someone who works very hard and has done some very good work, but cannot handle criticism or disagreement. And hey, we all make mistakes, both in our personal and professional lives. Like when I first started working with lobbyists and this one sleazebag took advantage of his long time acquaintance with my new boss, and lied to me as to what my boss had agreed to. I've learned the best way to handle that is to come clean immediately with an apology, taking full responsibility, telling people that this is a lesson I will never forget, and a mistake I will never repeat. So I didn't blame the lobbyist for lying to me - that's what lobbyists often do. I blamed myself for taking his word at face value.

their own 'buttons.' Maybe you hit one of his....I don't know. Being compared to a pug is a big 'button' for me.

If I recall correctly, a few days ago Will posted an apology about exploding over this TO extravaganza....did you see that?

In the scheme of things, I'd rather see people attacking Rove with the intensity that they seem to be using against Jason and Will.

You know something.....I bet if you compared Rove to a democratic, you'd be murdered by now.

Murder, that is. Unless you put a smiley face after it. There's another "m" word that applies. It's a matter of maturity. This is a discussion/debate forum. 90 percent of my post to him was great info about really enjoying Paris - obviously not written with any ill will. I have learned to scrupulously avoid people whose first expression of anger is an explosion, whenever possible. (There are some judges like that, and you are just stuck with them.) I didn't see his apology here. He certainly owed DU an apology for his explosion and threats of getting even with people who didn't give him the blind loyalty he believed he was entitled to. I think it shook him up that Skinner told him to cool it.

kidding....this regime is a group of 'm'ous folks. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Only kidding....they're really a bunch a sweet guys...kinda like frat boys.

Well...I won't waste my time or yours in attempting to get you to look at this situation in a different light.

on this thread. "M" meaning "Maturity."

And, btw, you are not the only one who had a "friendly" encounter with the person in question and were cursed at in a shocking fashion. Total adoration is demanded.

Many more than you can imagine have had that experience. It has made many very wary.

Your comments strike me as insightful.

"There are a lot of very accomplished people posting on DU, but their accomplishments are revealed slowly, in small increments, in the natural course of explaining their access to knowledge on specific topics, or experience relevant to a topic."

I have noticed that. The level of accomplishment and the brainpower present here is remarkable, yet most in that category who post here clearly do not seem to be seeking affirmation.

"...large crowd of worshipping enthusiasts..."

I think this goes beyond any one individual poster. And it applies to all walks of life - not just discussion boards. There appears to be a tendency on the part of many to gush over the utterances of most anyone who manages to generate some name recognition, especially words that contain a lot of drama, angst, emotion, and the like. All it takes to generate a following of devotees is either some name recognition or authority, and knowing which buttons to push - and those who master this are variably referred to as politicians, hot-dogs, management, lightweights, pastors, leaders, heroes, demagogues, and various other designations - depending upon one's point of view. ;-)

I think we need a Harriet Myers icon, or a smileyface serf tugging his forelock for the worshipping enthusiasts.

is that some participants claim to have expertise and, without any backup to that claim, they are believed by a surprising number of other participants even though they post anonymously, as most of us do. My rule of thumb is; on the net, anyone can claim to be anything and it means squat. I neither believe nor disbelieve them, I look to substance of the posts regardless of what expertise an ANONYMOUS poster may claim to have. It has stood me in good stead over the years.

I'm starting to think there are a few of those around trying to sway opinion.....I wonder how much Karl and the RNC pay these assholes to play on DU?

i sense a pattern of attacking a consistent source of good reporting by blowing small inconsistencies up into a big issue. it is a pattern that has been used against truthtellers, probably for all time.
that kkkarl could have starting singing when they showed him the writing on the wall should come as a surprise to NO ONE. that things change fast in situations like this should also come as a surprise to NO ONE.
jesus christ, people, can't you smell bullshit when it is right under your f'ing noses? don't you recognize the smell of a disinformation attack? fucking wake up.

would they drag this out to such absurd lengths, further exposing them to ridicule in the end? The initial jump to Rove's indictment could be explained as overweening pride taking precedence over good sense: I've seen this happen before when people's ambition takes over their mind because they want the fame so badly they just make stuff up. I've seen scientific researchers do this to clinch their experiments. It's an old story.

However, this is going on a bit too long for that scenario. One real explanation could be that the TO folks are being fed crumbs to destroy them and discredit the entire blogdom. The RW cannot sustain their powerful grip on the electorate without discrediting the burgeoning Internet opinion makers and swayers. This just might be their gambit.

The other scenario, which I know you reject but I don't just yet, is that TO has the jist of the truth and it's coming and it's gonna hit hard.

So there's my 2 cents.

sealed indictment?

How do they get vindicated if their story has already fallen apart? Does this mean that Bush is vindicated if Iraq turns into a peace and freedom garden spot in 10 years?

He could've flipped when confronted with the indictment. Not hard to imagine at all.

You, nor I know anything at this point.

A lot of imagining going on, though, that's for sure. Unfortunately, some of the imaginings have been presented as reporting

Claiming it to have done so does not make it true, no matter how badly some on DU for whatever reasons want them to be wrong.

I'm Behind Them.... Not only do I WANT to believe they are right, but I have no reason to really doubt them. Still on the fence and waiting to see. I am giving them the benefit of doubt. So far they have been pretty good with stories.

I get an internal server error when I try to access it now. hmmm.

...it took a bit for it to come up for me, but it's up.:thumbsup:

and usually that creates a ton of traffic...

I posted the update at her blog and she replied that she was attempting to get a response from them.

It should be an interesting evening for them, to say the least.

See kpete at #139 below with link to TalkLeft's talk with Corallo.

Guess not.

Sorry, but to speak in absolutes isn't wise or credible.

He might have been confronted with indictment, and decided to save his own porky hide by flipping on a bigger fish (like Crashcart).

That was the question. It's like Santie Claus; I'll believe it when I see it. Speculation is nothing more than rumor-mongering.

:thumbsup:

So is making decisions on speculation. It's also quite dangerous as displayed in the lead-up to Iraq.

His editors are still standing by him - putting the reputation of their publication on the line. That speaks volumes about how they feel about this story, doesn't it?:shrug:

Leopold never reported anything along those lines.

I fear that we'll learn that is the extent of that claim.

...and cried like the little sissy piggy he is and promised to blow in the whole syndicate.

You have to admit that's plausible, no?

It's hard to admit that you're wrong. Just ask the current administration.

...my point is that quite a few reputable people have backed him up.

I trust Larry Johnson.

I trust Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

I trust Marc Ash, William Rivers Pitt and, by extension, Truthout.

I DON'T trust Rove, Luskin, Mark Corallo or NRO.

That's where I'm coming from.

and many others were bamboozled, conned, deceived, deluded, duped, flimflammed, hornswoggled, jerked around, misled...

and the worst part - THEY ALL FELL FOR IT.

...appointed by St Ronnie Reagan himself. They're insiders. If they were fooled, I'd be utterly shocked.

?

THAT clears things up.

Why do you hate America?

:rofl:

My cousin's husband's sister's aunt's friend's kid cleared it up for me.