Lessons from the Truthout/Leopold/Rove non-indictment story

This Truthout/Leopold/Rove non-indictment story is an opportunity for us to learn some lessons about alternative journalism. We were all let down by Truthout and their tinfoil hat reporter, Jason Leopold. Why? Because they behaved just like the quacks back in the 90's that would not let go of tall tales that the Clintons ordered Vince Foster killed, or that Bill Clinton fathered an illegitimate black son, or Ron Brown was "disposed of" or nuclear secrets were sold to the Chinese for campaign cash, and on and on. Where did those so called "journalists" end up? On the fringes, at places like Newsmax or WorldNetDaily, at best. Just like the people at Truthout they too claimed to be meticulous reporters who dotted every "i" and crossed every "t", but they just became increasingly delusional and unable, or unwilling, to separate the facts from what they wanted the facts to be. Now Truthout has crossed into that territory themselves. This whole episode teaches us that we have our unreliable nutcase news sources on the Left too; we have crank websites and people who are so blinded by ideology that the search for truth just gets lost in it all. The Left also has gadfly self-appointed "journalists" who promise huge scoop stories, but in the end do little more than deliver a lot of heavy breathing and excuses when things don't pan out. We have these elements on the Left too, and it would do us all well to recognize that.

:)

a particular BBV advocate, eh?

I also lose patience with the people who scream about Diebold conspiracy theories with no evidence every time a Democrat loses an election (some people will spread conspiracy theories on the night of the election, as soon as the votes are all tabulated).

There is a decision by the M$M to ignore it, per orders from their corporate masters.

There is a very bad decision, IMO, by the Democratic party to ignore it because they are afraid it will lower turnout. Fraud on the level evidenced in 2004 makes voter turnout irrelevant and the decision by the Dems very stupid.

As for evidence, have you read the Rolling Stone article? It is thoroughly sourced and chocked full of evidence.

Have you looked at the accuracy of exit polls in US election history and around the world. Our exit polling was extremely accurate until 2000. Exit polling around the world is so accurate that an election in one of the former Soviet republics was overturned because of fraud as demonstrated by the difference between the exit polls and vote totals being greater than the margin of error.

We had exactly that situation in 2004 in states with the most electronic voting, always in favor of BushCo. Gee, it must be bad polling methodology.:sarcasm:

I lose patience with people who can't accept that our elections are rigged and will be until we do something about it.

No election fraud -- no indictment -- no no no no no. None passes my incredibly sniffy standards of reality.

Whatever. Quacks like a duck, guys. Beat off to harsh evidential standards all you want -- meanwhile, they're off to a new project. I swear, these guys all try to sound so ultra-reality-based, but it's so Wiemar Republic Functionary. 'There is No Evidence that Herr Hitler committed these crimes. Therefore, the crimes were not committed. We have maintained our intellectual purity. Huzzah!'

Off to the camps, guys. Can you not see what the fuck is coming? Journalistic Integrity on The Left is an excellent issue, but about thirty issues down from the Death of American Democracy in my book.

'Right Wingers rejoicing?' How 'bout 'ol 42-poster Woodward down there on the bottom, talkin' up the MSM? Goddamn! Intellectual Masturbators off to the ovens, that's what you are.

I don't buy any of this crap for a second. My well-honed intellectual instinct says TO's not the bad guy here.

'I trust the MSM.' WHAT? WHAT? WHO THE HELL ARE YOU?

Sorry, but -- no, I'm not. This thread pisses me off.

and to be diligent and critical minded and be able to tell the difference between BS and stories with evidence.
Not all of the BBV story is bullshit. Like most every current event, it's surrounded by truth and bullshit coming from all sides, not just the red or blue two. We shouldn't give things a pass just because they seem to be on our side. It's because people let their guard down to anyone wearing "our uniform" that a particular BBV advocate was able to take selfish advantage.
Bullshit detectors should be impartial, we shouldn't be afraid to use ours.
We on the left still come out way ahead.

Relative to the right, it's rare for the left to be led astray by media and politicians. I don't see anything wrong with increasing the distance and winning people to our side because what we say is more reliable.

outcome yet and we certainly are not privileged to see into the records or see the future. Comparing something that is not complete with something that is complete and comparing otherwise accurate writers with dirty politicians? Can't swallow this.

I have come to a point where I start out not believing anything. So, I don't have an investment in TO or Leopold. I don't get locked into any specific website or writer. I don't hold any of them up except the ones I can really learn from.

I'd rather get a flavor of what everyone who I think is on my side is saying so I can start to dissect and figure out what I think is logical - for myself. That includes what comes out of DU.

I never had a stake in Truthout except for Wills' contributions to DU which I admired. I never tracked any other personalities over there and never heard of Mark Ash - and I know I've not had a problem with articles they have written.

I cannot take them down, especially by comparing them to the vile, character assassinators against the Clintons? Lordy, that's really something.

When it comes time to know what went down on and around May 12 - when it's all over with - I'll make my judgment about Leopold's report and pronouncement.

Since Truthout hasn't embarrassed me, hurt me, or caused me to suffer any loss, I find the impassioned condemnations very interesting and odd - one more thing to try and figure out.

I don't mean "when" as in a date, I mean what needs to occur for us to be sure the final outcome has come?

A stronger, more direct denial from Fitz?

in terms of days or business hours?

By taking the weasel way and pardoning Libby. Whether they will make up a law to get rid of Fitzgerald.

The pivot point in justice would be the civil suit by the Wilsons - if it goes forward.

There may be some slip up that we will call a blessing. Who knows if there will be a whistleblower. Who knows if there will be a book or documentary that will be so simple to follow that many more citizens will get it and demand some decency. Who knows if Rove will be discovered doing something so awful that his deeds are unraveled.

Who knows if there was an immunity deal that will be peeled like an onion before our eyes by other investigative reporters.

Who knows if any of the various lawsuits being filed will target the lies that resulted in the deaths and the digging revolves around the lies which are key to the reasons Cheney or Bush or both ordered the Brewster-Jennings take down and the secondary, but more famous issue of attempting to destroy character and career of a family. (Families - if Brewster-Jennings families if that is admissible.)

Maybe Mary Matalin will be truthful and provide some WHIG witness testimony.

In the meantime, who knows. We are living the history of our country and suffering from attempts and successes to destroy it with the help of inattention of citizens and the blind loyalty of lemmings. And at this time the destroyers are still getting away with it. Truthout and Leopold are a little blip in the this living history. They didn't destroy anything in the way I calculate destruction.

Who knows how many more reporters-writers-bloggers-predictors are going to get other things wrong for the short or long term.

Observations since the anncouncement by the lawyer. The political advantage was taken by the WH and their partners on tv did their job of hyping it. And then it was dropped very quickly. There appears to be no long term attacks on TO by anyone else.

It didn't happen when he said it would, thats the end. Its over.

People need to read "Blinded by the Right" by David Brock if they think the people behind all the far-fetched Clinton stories EVER claimed the kind of reliability and accuracy that Truthout does.

many times over inconsistancies. So this isn't like Vince Foster's theories. Cause neither Vince Foster..or the WH (oh wait a second.. travelgate..white water.. the GOP were already trying to undo the electorates' votes on a President). So in this case.. nobody..but nobody... made the WH out Plame. Nobody did. Nobody made them use Niger forgeries to make a case for war. These things were all true. And the choices Rove made in contacting Novak and not telling Fitz about Cooper early on.. were Rove's choices. He has nobody to blame but himself for being under investigation for years.

So to claim it is a conspiracy to get Rove... and that when everyone was expecting and indictment (investigation which had nothing to do with Liepold or Truthout..but everything to do with WH actions).. and Truthout jumped on rumours at the very end...to compare that to something Bill Clinton never had a hand in..but was accused of..is hoping that we at the DU are plain stupid.

The parallel's you make are false. You should more likely compare Truthout to the NYTimes in the lead up to war with Judy Miller (who believed her sources..and we know that was a web of WH deceit). Oh wait.. that mistake was years in the making. This was a few hours of bad information.

Because he has already done what others said they would do: He outed his sources, and who they were is the key to his flawed "reporting".

For months, SHUSTER "reported" that the indictment would happen, near the end even with the deadline "within the next two weeks."

I forget whether he used the phrases, "sources CLOSE TO THE INVESTIGATION" and "sources WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE INVESTIGATION" but these sound very familiar.

It turned out that SHUSTER'S sources were DEFENSE LAWYERS who had had WITNESSES before THIS GRAND JURY. -------NOT----- persons specific to KKKarl's situation. Meaning that these "sources" were actually PUNDITS, no different from the ones actually ON THE AIR, puffed up with their "experience" and spouting their OPINIONS as fact. Compound this with the SECRECY/CONFIDENTIALITY of sources and these opinions being "reported" by a reporter, and there melts the ball of wax. Think Nancy GRACE's "predictions" about the Michael JACKSON case.

On edit: True sources need to be somebody who has physically SEEN or HEARD or TOUCHED actual THINGS or PARTICIPATED in the events in question. NOT pundits. Same goes with this business of GIULIANI and 9-11 families "testifying" in MOUSSAWI's trial, not having ANY first hand knowledge of HIS movements, thoughts, or deeds.

Another lesson is right here at DU. OldLeftyLawyer frequently posted, in the face of all the predictions going on, that NOBODY KNOWS what's inside the grand jury.

*******QUOTE*******

http://newsbusters.org/node/5873

.... Substitute anchor Brian Unger inquired: "David, as you reported, your sources seemed to indicate that Karl Rove would be indicted. What happened?"

David Shuster, from Washington, DC, answered: "Well, sometimes when you're trying to track a secret grand jury investigation, the legal sources, the defense lawyers who have witnesses in front of that grand jury, sometimes they get it wrong, and that seemed to be the case in this particular case. And, of course, we hate it when that happens, but in going back to all of those defense lawyers today with the exception of Karl Rove's lawyer, who said that he would never be charged, all of those lawyers said that if he had the same circumstances all over again, somebody testifying five times before a grand jury, somebody who had the burden to stop the charges, somebody who had to testify for three and a half hours the last time, and oh, by the way, he had a classification in the Libby case that almost suggested he would certainly be indicted, the lawyers say they would have reached the same conclusion. ....

********UNQUOTE*******

Sometimes you just get it wrong despite all of the signs.

So now I am disappointed with Shuster and Leopold for having sources who were predicting from tea leaves instead of people who actually saw/heard/touched facts about the indictment.

I am now more cautious about Leopold - but I am still waiting - and it may be year(s) - until the whole story comes out. Maybe charges were written up and read to Rove & lawyer's and somehow a deal was cut or a judge dismissed or...

I think there is more to know...

to doubt her ~ eg:

She stated emphatically that a prosecutor would NEVER go to a defense attorney's office. She was emphatic about it. But that turned out to be false, since Fitzgerald did go to both Luskin's and to Bush's attorney's office. He also went to Viveca Novak's attorney's office.

She stated also that there was 'no such thing' as 'Sealed V Sealed'. Many believed her, but that too turned out to be incorrect as most people now know.

I prefer to consider information that comes from credible individuals whose credentials are well known, ie, Jeralyn Merrit, if I want an opinion.

As far as the TO indictment story, other than Luskin's word, there is simply no proof one way or the other as to whether there was an indictment or not.

Much of the same vitriol that is aimed at TO now was also aimed at Cynthia McKinney in multiple threads, when the media gave more coverage to that minor incident than they gave to the multiple scandals swirling around the WH at the time, from Tom Delay to Enron to the Abramoff affairs, to the Pentagon Spy case and to the indictment of Scooter Libby in the Plame investigation.

The GJ in McKinney's case has thrown out the charges and made a public announcement that they did so. All the 'predictions' by some anti-McKinney posters did not come true after all. Obviously she, as she always has done, was telling the truth. I haven't seen many threads of apology for the smears and false statements that were made against her, nor any of those posters who were certain she was guilty of a crime.


So, as one poster above said, it's difficult to understand the focus on this story, which may or may not turn out to be true. And more difficult still to understand why anyone would claim their lives were practically ruined by a story that got no one killed (such as the media hype of the false info that has resulted in the deaths of, possibly, hundreds of thousands of human beings). It does seem a little fake to act so 'offended' and to predict the 'downfall' of Democratic Blogs because a media outlet might have gotten a story wrong. If that logic were to play out, the entire US media would not even exist today.

I don't disagree that people can get it wrong. Especially if we're using old protocols as any indication of what might happen next. This group of Republicans are just not big on tradition or protocol. Unless pure evil is traditional.

:rofl:

with the Chimperor in office, perhaps the use of the royal "we" is coming back into style.

n/t

There are people on the left who have high standards for journalism.
Seems to me that rightwingers are rejoicing in the fact that TO fucked up, while critically thinking progressives are saddened by it. Implying that anyone who speaks their critical mind against TO is a paid troll or masturbating right winger is silly.

I'd also like to refocus attention to the fact that Cheney's chief of staff was indicted.

The vast, vast majority of "right-wingers" couldn't care less about Leopold or this "story", and its accuracy or lack thereof will be quickly forgotten by the outside world.

The story's importance and impact were ludicrously overblown by people on this site. Most of the outside world spent about five minutes on it - if they even knew or cared that it ever existed - and then moved on.

In the real world, focus was never averted from the fact that Cheney's chief of staff was indicted. His indictment status didn't change. Barring a quick pardon, there will still be a trial.

None of that changed because TO published a story - true or otherwise - about a different topic. Most people can handle more than one topic or issue at a time.

I think you may have missed my point.

You read intent in my initial statement that simply isn't there.

So, I'll make this simple for you.

Why would ANYONE spend literally days bashing a left-leaning web site on another left-leaning web site - starting and bumping dozens of contentious threads, starting and restarting pointless arguments, and rehashing the same crap, over and over?

Here's a clue. The answer isn't, "because we want journalistic integrity."

Do you agree that there are leftwing progressives here posting their criticism of this particular TO drama?
Or, do you think that anyone that criticizes TO and Leopold is a rightwinger?

With some trolls mixed in with the party.

although as the poster above said, I'm not sure it's all "on the left", and I'm not really sure of the motivation. I learned that there is a lot of hate and anger on DU, far in excess of what was warranted.

I didn't learn any of the other stuff people are saying I learned, really - this is the 2nd or 3rd thread telling me "what I learned", and I must be a really slow learner, because that's not what I learned at all.

as what you are putting forth here.

I think you missed a few classes on COINTELPRO and netvocate.

So who are the FBI plants? Leopold? Will Pitt?

Reporters get jerked around by sources all the time. What differentiates between a professional reporter and a quack is that the professional does not run stories on the basis of unreliable information (Judith Miller would be an example of someone who failed here).

It's also about discrediting Left Wing sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cointelpro

In fact planting operatives in the media is more of a MOCKINGBIRD thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOCKINGBIRD

For all i know you could be a disinfo operative.

Sealed vs. Sealed
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Monday 12 June 2006

Four weeks ago, during the time when we reported that White House political adviser Karl Rove was indicted for crimes related to his role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, the grand jury empanelled in the case returned an indictment that was filed under seal in US District Court for the District of Columbia under the curious heading of Sealed vs. Sealed.

As of Friday afternoon that indictment, returned by the grand jury the week of May 10th, remains under seal - more than a month after it was handed up by the grand jury.

The case number is "06 cr 128." On the federal court's electronic database, "06 cr 128" is listed along with a succinct summary: "No further information is available."

We have not seen the contents of the indictment "06 cr 128". But the fact that this indictment was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case on a day that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury raised a number of questions about the identity of the defendant named in the indictment, whether it relates to the leak case, and why it has been under seal for a month under the heading Sealed vs. Sealed.

more at:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/061206Z.shtml

Leopold, it's time to STFU.

I'm sick and tired of this MIGHT BE, COULD BE, someone else did it to me, not my fault, I love to lie crap..

Being stupid and dishonest is no way to go through life, and dragging 400 blogs down with you must give you the rush that you crave since your drug days are 'apparently' Over..

When you say, "Once again the story is about ME" you REVEL IN IT.

You are NOT a reporter, you are a truth slayer, and as an old man once told me, "A Junkie is a JUNKIE, and that's ALL he'll ever be.."

Get out of the way, we have credible people trying to get some work done here.

Ooooohhhh, BOOGIE MEN wrecked my story, gimme a break, sometimes if you have to scrape it off your shoe and it smells like dogshit, then it's DOGSHIT, and that's what you keep pushing.

Fuck you.

You just outed yourself!

It has to be true, Will Pitt personally vouched for it, thats good enough for any rational person.

Not one penny yet.. sheesh, I thought being a commie cointelpro poo poo'er ratfink right wing troll is supposed to make you rich..

Maybe all those guys riding around in 1978 Toyota pickup shitboxes with a Bush/Cheney sticker on them are undercover and drive their Lexis at night :)

Used to be everyone knew the bag ladies were CIA, talking to themselves all day, but then cell phones were invented and now EVERYONE talks to themselves in the street :)

I can't believe that people fell for my 5 years of activism at Takebackthemedia.com where I pretty much didn't get paid a dime to make 50 animations, do radio shows, film events, Capitol Hill Hearings on Electronic Voting, etc, etc..

Suckers! :)

(but thanks for the donations from DU'rs so I could keep the charade up, making DVDS like "Rove's War" and the "Downing Street Minutes complete Hearing", etc)

How improbable is it that Rove decided to talk in exchange for dropping the indictment?

Leopold is batting about .0001 % at this point so I wouldn't even bother to ask him directions if I was lost in his home town..

As I understand it, there are TONS of Sealed cases and Rove's case is NOT the only one, and apparently it's not one being dealt with at all..

Like I said, MAYBE there's some dealing going on, but I'd trust Leopold as far as I can throw him, and I have arthritis of the spine, so there's your answer..

And the Easter Bunny is DEAD, Santa is a Myth, and Christ, well, look what they've done to the one guy that told the fucking TRUTH.

downplaying the message.

It's called ad-hominem; a logical fallacy.

A Messenger relays INFORMATION, he hasn't..

a very large percentage of what he wrote for TO is nothing but unadulterated bullshit. I bet a 1000 dollar donation to the DU that he couldn't deliver BEFORE he came up with the Rove Tooth Fairy story. No Takers. Now I know why.

But it's a free country, pick up a Tabloid on the way out, something for everyone in there.

And I'll Harp all I want, I've worked for 5 years at great expense to create credibility for the left with my own money and sweat, and this turkey comes along and starts singing about the Easter Bunny and makes 400 blogs look like idiots, what are THEY supposed to do about THEIR credibility now? What do THEY do about the tin messages he passes along to them?

He's a clown, and he ain't funny.

How about "don't believe your own hype?" Or "just because its what you want to hear doesn't mean its true?"

The lesson I learned from all of this was to take pretty much everything from the so-called "alternative media" with a huge grain of salt. For all of their well-documented faults, I still think the MSM (particularly newspapers) have a lot more credibility than the "new media."

:eyes:

Fake BBV Site Owned by Diebold PR & More


Edited on Tue Jun-06-06 03:23 AM by Einsteinia
Dear DUers--

Quick Prologue:

I just received an impassioned letter from Jim March, employee and Board member of the Blackboxvoting. Because he says that the message can be shared, I'm going to post it here whether he approves of it or not--because I think it's so very important that DUers know what's been going on.

I think most people who post here realize nothing less than democracy is at stake in waking people up to the vulnerabilities of our election systems. I think most people who post here realize that there is a concerted effort by the mainstream media and many election officials to ridicule and dismiss our efforts to minimize our impact.

But things are changing:

Recently it appears that the tide is turning a bit on the media front with the advent of RFK, Jr.,'s new article, as well as the Mark Crispin Miller book--not to mention the fact that Newsweek finally covered our issue. Also, we have seemingly for the first time a few election officials who've become heroes, such as Bruce Funk and Ion Sancho. So, what is it that has emboldened them? Investigations have shown irrefutably that the equipment made by the "Big-3," including Diebold, are so easy to rig that they don't work for their intended purpose. And who has spearheaded much of the investigations of the election equipment far beyond the rubber stamp of the ITAs? Blackboxvoting is definitely one of them. If the content of the below revelation is not reason enough, I hope that the Bev-bashng crowd here will in the interest of fairness let this point of view have a moment to exist uncensored. Because it isn't about BBV, it's about people undermining OUR efforts for OUR common cause.

So here's the news I just received:

This is Jim March speaking on my own time, my own computer and my own dime.

I'm too pissed off right now to write while representing BBV and part of what I've got to say might be seen as too partisan for Black Box Voting's 501c(3) status. But I still have free speech off duty.

There has been an internet smear campaign going on for years now. Much of it has focused on Bev Harris but it has extended to other activists and even the single best mainstream reporter on the issue, Ian Hoffman of the Oakland Tribune.

The smears have occurred under multiple fake names online, at DemocraticUnderground, Slashdot, the Yahoo financial forum for Diebold, Bradblog's comments system, Fark and lord only knows how many others. It has sown dissention and distrust. One entire website sprung up claiming to be activist-based promoting this stream of BS. See this report for details:

http://blackboxvoting.org/diebold-PRmachine.pdf

Black Box Voting just posted proof that it was engineered, at least in part, by people within Diebold. One major smear site was run by a Diebold employee (Rob Pelletier) tied into Diebold's above-ground PR efforts and actions at the California Secretary of State's office and elsewhere.

IP addresses and other data have been traced linking Rob P. to malicious activity at various sites including identity theft of activists, signing up as names such as "The Real Pat Vesely" and the like.

At various times BBW people were able to watch this clown on his own webcam surfing the blackboxvoting.org website while we sniffed his incoming IP.

This brutal joke of a website was promoted as an "informational site" to county elections officials by other Diebold employees, esp. Steve Knecht.

The whole thing would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and unethical.

I predict "Rob P" will be fired. But it doesn't matter. Take a look at BBV's report on this whole mess:

http://blackboxvoting.org/diebold-PRmachine.pdf

The stuff involving the illicit PR by Rob and an unknown number of others starts on page six. It's juicy reading although BBV tried to treat this mess as professionally as possible given the subject matter. But Bev also covers their "aboveground" PR on pages one through five. There's as many ethical failures there as there is in the underground PR.

This. Company. Doesn't. Belong. Near. Our. Votes.

End of discussion.

Jim March

PS: Somebody get this into the Alameda board of supes and anybody else considering Diebold.

----------

Oh, here's the FAKE site:

Edited on Tue Jun-06-06 03:33 AM by Einsteinia
http://blackboxWATCHDOG.com /

It is a website ostensibly dedicated to providing a "watchdog" service for all the disinformation foisted by BBV.

Now, we learn it is a fake watchdog--it's really a front for Diebold propaganda.

I see now that the title I chose is confusing. But does it make sense now?

it does not gain credibility.

I am tired of any critic of Bev being accused of working for Diebold. It is a very convenient way to dismiss evidence of her sins.

The evidence of Bev's misdeads offered on the site are HER OWN WORDS. The watchdog site offers an MP3 of Bev speaking on the Randi Rhodes show. rather than deal with the substance of what Bev ACTUALLY said and how any reasonable person actually LISTENING to Bev would come away with the distinct impression that Bev is a liar, they attack the source posting Bev's OWN WORDS.

Even if Deibold posted the MP3 to their own web site, it would not make Bev's OWN WORDS any less damning.

I challenge everyone to actually listen to the MP3 and judge for themselves:

http://blackboxwatchdog.com/node/13?PHPSESSID=87afb2151d6caf9154c7a6395ff5bcd6

Just how unlikely is it that if BBV is a threat to the RW, that the RW would use their usual tricks to try and discredit BBV? Their usual tricks include posting messages such as we see here in this thread.

If so, come out and say it.

Again, the issue is dodged.

BEV'S OWN WORDS indict her. Unless you are now going to claim that the MP3 was manufactured by the CIA at Karl Rove's order, in which case there is no hope.

to be.

posters here are Wingnuts.

I have posted links to back up my facts. Most connect to Bev's own words and posts. I would prefer to read rebuttals based on the evidence, not comments from the likes of Jim "Diebold is going to make me rich" March or accusations that this person is a spy with no evidence other than weak conjecture.

Although I am new, and cannot possibly compete with your team of attack dogs, I believe this community deserves an answer to my question.

I actually swallowed a lot of the stuff people post, and I slammed Ms. Harris myself in a few posts, but since the report on Robert Pelletier was well documented, I began to delve into things.

The more I delved, the more I found. Right now, I could probably blow a lot of people out of the water.

But for now, all I want is a simple answer to a simple question.

WERE YOU INVOLVED IN ANY WAY WITH THE POSTING OF THE ARTICLE, OR THE AUDIO, OR BOTH, AT BLACKBOXWATCHDOG.COM?

(please keep in mind that your answer, though not under oath, is evidence towards possible future legal action.)

When I first got here, after posting a little in other forums and receiving an invitation to visit this one, I quickly got caught up in this drama.

I believed at first that Bev Harris was bad.

And then I began to question my initial belief. And I discovered many things.

I discovered that this report on Robert Pelletier is air tight.

I discovered that NC Beach Girl (Robert Pelletier) was tag teaming with many others here at DU.

I discovered someone who claims to be a Georgia activist, but in a thread from last year on Blackboxwatchdog, pretended to not live in Georgia. I also discovered in the same thread that NC Beach Girl was more active in that thread than any other thread I can find at Google.

And I discovered many other things.


I recently discovered your own words from May 12th, 2006:

"As soon as I get a copy, I will post it. And you will hear the interview."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=427331&mesg_id=427470

On May 20th, the interview and a link to the audio was posted at Blackboxwatchdog.com, Robert Pelletier's website. Just 8 days later.

And you have never posted it here. You've had more than a month to post it here. You said you would post it...but you didn't say where you would post it.


SO I WILL ASK YOU NOW - WERE YOU INVOLVED IN ANY WAY WITH THE POSTING OF THE ARTICLE, OR THE AUDIO, OR BOTH, AT BLACKBOXWATCHDOG.COM?

(please keep in mind that your answer, though not under oath, is evidence towards possible future legal action.)

David -

I'm still amazed that you continue to promote the Blackboxwatchdog disinformation site as evidence of *anything* (other than that Diebold and their paid propoganda hit squad folks will stop at nothing in their appalling attempts to slur election integrity advocates at the cost of both our democracy AND our own tax dollars!)

While I appreciate your interest in electoral integrity, I must admit to being continually flummoxed at your wholly unuseful -- and frankly, incredibly destructive and inappropriate -- attacks on Bev Harris.

If you have problems with her or her work, I'd urge you to find a more constructive way to express them and deal with them. I have done so myself on the occassions that I've had concerns with various elements of her work.

In the meantime, I assure you that your continued public attacks, and perhaps worse, support of despicable, misleading, and obvious disinformation sites such as the one you pointed to, are decidedly NOT helpful towards electoral integrity in America.

If you give a damn about democracy, David, you may wish to rethink your tactics in helping to restore it. We could use your tenacity. If you can figure out how to use it constructively.

Brad

I am getting sick to death and actually very suspicious about Mr. Mace showing up here on DU whenever there is anything BBV mentioned to spew his unreasonable bile of hate and distraction.

good lord, man, leave it alone, you sound dementedly obsessed.

... don't think they were wrong...

They'll continue to come up with more and more logically-possible-but-evidence-free theories to "support" their initial decision to turn their backs on the reality-based (i.e., EVIDENCE BASED) community.

They'll never admit to being mistaken, so there's not much point in pursuing it.

the true measure of a site is whether it admits error and corrects.

When you adhere to a lie despite compelling evidence, your credibility goes to ZERO.

Any site that fails to understand this is doomed.

which does not mean there's no indictment against him.
So there's no evidence showing that TO has lied.

"All we know is that Rove has not been indicted, which does not mean there's no indictment against him. So there's no evidence showing that TO has lied."

My head's reeling a little from that one. :crazy: If we know Rove hasn't been indicted, wouldn't that mean that there's no indictment against him? And wouldn't that mean that TO lied, or was at least incorrect in their story?

grip on reality when they post stuff like that.

Such tortured logic is usually heard from the likes of Donald Rumsfeld.

Exactly! I knew I'd heard that somewhere before. :)

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.

"If I said yes, that would then suggest that that might be the only place where it might be done which would not be accurate, necessarily accurate. It might also not be inaccurate, but I'm disinclined to mislead anyone."

"There's another way to phrase that and that is that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. It is basically saying the same thing in a different way. Simply because you do not have evidence that something does exist does not mean that you have evidence that it doesn't exist." - Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

it's almost routine in legal procedings.

of the wildest sort.

Rove talks, the indictment is dropped. Result: there is/was an indictment but Rove is not indicted.

:rofl:

Rove is the ultimate loyalist. Note he is still working at the White House. Were he dropping the dime on Crashcart Cheney, he'd be collecting unemployment.

Or perhaps it means Fitz is incompetent or corrupt?

Solid evidence that would hold up in court. Must everything be absolute black and absolute white in your world?

But this is not evidence that they are not planning to attack at this very momen, or that an attack will occur at some future date.

attacking your home.

Yours is a typical over-the-top ridiculous attempt at ridicule.

But the logic that arrives at the conclusion is identical.

My methods are no different than Jon Stewart's. I just hope I can one day be as funny as he is.

seriously, or perhaps to be taken as the opposite of what you seem to be saying.

I am quite serious. I can't help the fact that many positions taken by my opponents are laughable.