Salon Follows Up on Leopold Fiasco

[Unmarked Poster]

http://daoureport.salon.com/synopsis.aspx?synopsisId=c248c509-8faa-4e72-9087-abb3840bfbcf
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/05/16/rovereporting/index.html

Following up on Monday's post about Jason Leopold's Rove indictment 'scoop' (re-posted below), here's where things stand: the traditional media have picked up the story and rightwing bloggers are all over it. Meanwhile Leopold's true believers continue to defend him, though I would suspect with decreasing conviction. One of the lowlights of this unfortunate episode - unfortunate in the sense that Rove may likely be indicted but Leopold's story was still false and took a lot of people for fools - is the fact that it has devolved to the point where Jeff Gannon has jumped into the fray: "Jason Leopold got caught in an enormous fabrication last week when he wrote that White House advisor Karl Rove had been indicted.... What's worse, Leopold claimed he had been set up as part of a White House "disinformation campaign." That's pathetic." ...Pot, meet kettle.

Neither Grieve nor Daou question the fact that Rove may be indicted, so Fitzmas isn't off the table.

[Botany]

1. Please

"One of the lowlights of this unfortunate episode - unfortunate in the sense that Rove may likely be indicted but Leopold's story was still false and took a lot of people for fools - is the fact that it has devolved to the point where Jeff Gannon has jumped into the fray: ...."

If and when Rove is indicted Leopold will be vindicated ..... end of story.

You do not go in front of a G.J. 5 times because of "liberal bloggers."

[stop the bleeding]

2. sure you do

everything is the Dems fault along with their pesky "librul" bloggers.

[rodeodance]

3. and catch this Wall street J. article of today also on this DU thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x210851

[rodeodance]

5. its about bloggers, jason Article, chronical of events. etc.

[npincus]

6. They gave Porky way too much hair:

[reichstag911]

11. No, they just used...

...his 8th grade class picture. :eyes:

[dogday]

32. bwa-hahahaha

:rofl: still looks the same from the 1st grade on.......

[Joe Fields]

27. It won't be long before they can use his mug shot.

[ShortnFiery]

55. That's way too flattering, doubt he had that much hair in High School.

:puke:

[stevenleser]

70. That 'White House Conspiracy" comment seems...

...vaguely familiar

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. Vindicated?

Ha.

That's funny.

And not at all possible. Not ever. This is one for all time in terms of getting it so wrong as to be beyond laughable.

What indictment, by the way?

No one knows anything.

[speedoo]

8. As others have repeatedly said...

No one knows anything, including you.

[enough already]

46. I desperately want to believe it's true, but

I can't imagine how something like this could be kept a secret from the mainstream press for this long. I'm pretty sure someone would have gotten it by now if it really was true. I just don't want to be punched in the stomach again.

[speedoo]

56. Look at the big picture.

I'm convinced that Rove will be indicted, if he has not already been. Only thing that would represent a punch in my stomach is if there are no more indictments.

In the long run, whether JL was technically right or wrong will not matter at all, as long as Rove is actually indicted. I agree, reasonably soon would be good, but the timing is a technicality.

[mdmc]

10. time alone, time will tell

:shrug:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

23. How on earth ..... ?

How will "time alone" ever make correct those absurb allegations that were in that "story"?

The fifteen-hour session at defense counsel's office.

The fact of the indictment already being handed down, which is demonstrably untrue.

The blather about some 24 business hours to get affairs in order.

Those are just the funniest parts, actually.

No, you've been had, and now you can just put it behind you and don't put your faith in fools and liars ever again.

[mdmc]

29. If Rove is indicted next week

you owe me a coke. I haven't been "taken" by anyone. I've only read posts here at DU (T.O. claims Rove will be indicted soon - that is all I know about this). Frankly, we have been had by much bigger lies, imho. This is no big deal (outside of political junkies, not many folks know about T.O. I only am aware of them through posts here at DU).

Time will tell.

[5X]

36. JL claims to be a reporter, reporters use facts not fuzzy math....

will be indicted, has been indicted, 24 hours....
BS.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

39. Huh?

I'm not talkiing about "next week," and neither were you.

You claimed that vindication would follow, and your premise was based on an article that has been proven untrue.

Stick with the facts, or else you're going to turn into Jason Leopold.

There is no indictment.

No one knows anything.

[mdmc]

58. well if he does get indicted

then time did tell.

I didn't read the article, I just read threads here at DU. IF Rove gets indicted, then t.o. was correct. If he walks, then t.o. was wrong.


If the t.o. article said that he would be indicted by 2:30PM today, then time has already told. t.o. was wrong. It wouldn't be the end of the world. I doubt that it would even be a story for the m$m.

It is very simple, time will tell.

(and if the t.o. article stated that we would know by now, well, then we DO know by now).

[OldLeftieLawyer]

63. No, Jason Leopold will never be correct - not in that piece

And, if you read the article, you'd see that.

Now, how on earth can you possibly have an informed opinion without having read the article?

Time tells me that you're in over your head - go read the article, and then take a look and notice that there is no indictment.

Yeah, we know that Jason Leopold wrote a bogus article, and without even reading it, you've chosen to believe it's true.

You're the kind of guy George W. Bush just LOVES. Drink your Kool-Aid, honey.

There is no indictment.

End of story.

No one knows anything.

[mdmc]

67. Well, imho, TIME DID TELL

t.o. was wrong. Seems simple. Seems like WE DO KNOW. No need to read the article, is there? I never stated that i believed the t.o. article, I stated that time will tell us if t.o. was correct (correct that Rove would be indicted).

T.O. is read by a small group of progressives. If they got the story wrong, it really aint a big deal. At least I don't see it as a big deal compared to getting 9-11-01 and wmd info wrong.

What do you mean "No one knows anything"? It seems like we do know (there was no indictment).

[OldLeftieLawyer]

71. heh heh heh

You're all worked up now. That's good. Keeps the brain working.

You finally got it.

There is no indictment.

By the way, I happen to believe that people who post bogus stories should be drawn and quartered, no matter what the size of their readership, but I happen to be a fan of reality.

That's just me.

No one knows anything, because, if you've been following Fitzgerald's career and his utter professionalism, you'd know that his investigation is leakproof. That's one of his hallmarks.

You really didn't know what "No one knows anything" means?

Oh, dear ..................

[mdmc]

78. i'm not too big into reality myself.

So t.o. was wrong, and will now suffer for it. For me, it is the end of the story. I still think that Bush wanted war with Iraq, and lied in order to justify overthrowing Saddam. the fact that t.o. was wrong really is no big deal to me.

Yesterday, two candidates met with my dem committee, seeking our endorsement for 9th Circuit Justice. I asked both of them if they thought Rove would be indicted. Both responded that Fitzgerald is a class act, and that he would be able to get to the bottom of this. That much I know. (Perhaps Fitzgerald held off on the indictment, so that t.o. would be wrong, and t.o. would be forced to cite their source. Then Fitz could get rid of the leaker?)

The rest of this is tripe. I can understand fans of t.o. being pissed that t.o. was wrong. I can understand right wingers joy at the fact that t.o. was wrong. t.o. will suffer the consequences. I would much rather see bush drawn and quartered for the iraq war and 9-11, but that is just me. Those lies were much bigger.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

79. For someone who claims not to be

a fan of reality, you sure did just immerse yourself in a big pool of it.

[mdmc]

80. i don't think that i did

:shrug:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

89. See how it sneaks up on ya?

You didn't even notice.

[mdmc]

93. i reckon

:)

[Jigarotta]

48. that's a really great shot of Hillary.

still don't like her much, but had to comment nonetheless. ;)

[mdmc]

62. thanks

I think she is HOT.

[alcibiades_mystery]

65. No, TO claimed Rove had ALREADY been indicted

Past tense. Any further revision of this claim is futile. And if you still put your faith in Jason Leopold or truthout, then you sure as shit got taken for a fool.

[mdmc]

69. my statement was that time would tell

and it seems that time did tell (and thus, t.o. was wrong).

[Catherine Vincent]

82. Nice pic of Senator Hillary.

[mdmc]

96. thanks cat girl

:)

[Botany]

12. yes

Vindicated .... because the point of J.L. story was Rove was indicted .....
and if he is indicted then the focus of his story was right. The rest
is just high school debate stuff.

If Rove is not indicted or is indicted a long time from now then the
story will have been wrong and cause much damage.

I think NBC's David Shuster has good sources too ..... and he said the same
thing.

[dchill]

13. I agree. n/t

[11cents]

15. Wow, that's amazing.

If Rove hasn't been indicted yet but is in the future, that means Leopold wrote a story that was entirely false in every detail, and then came up with the "24 hours" laugher in order to defend it. And yet some here will say that he "the focus of his story was right," thus setting themselves up to be snookered again.

Leopold's story was the thing that he wrote; it wasn't some diaphanous prediction or notion. It was either true or false. If it was false, he's not a reliable reporter -- to put it mildly.

[Botany]

22. diaphanous prediction

I like it!

Word of the Day for Saturday July 27, 2002

diaphanous \dy-AF-uh-nuhs\, adjective:
1. Of such fine texture as to allow light to pass through; translucent or transparent.
2. Vague; insubstantial.

The curtains are thin, a diaphanous membrane that can't quite contain the light outside.
-- Eric Liu, The Accidental Asian

She needed more than diaphanous hope, more than I could give her.
-- Tej Rae, "One Hand Extended", Washington Post, August 12, 2001

But my whole life is based on diaphanous predictions.

I am still betting on J.L. 5 times in front of the G.J. is a lot.

[eleny]

17. And don't forget Tweety - who broke it first on Imus!

:rofl:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

24. He wasn't indicted

That's so hard for people to understand?

My goodness, the need to believe, even in demonstrated falsehoods, trumps good sense and the ability to see clearly what is in front of you.

There is no indictment.

The story was false.

There is no indictment. Insisting that there is won't make it so, my friend.

Reality.

No one knows anything.

There is no indictment.

You were rooked by a bogus story.

[deaniac21]

30. Couldn't it be said that the story was 'fake but accurate'?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

41. It could be said that the story was bogus

That's about all that ever needs to be said about it.

OK, maybe "wildly inaccurate" would be better.

There is no indictment.

No one knows anything.

[Igel]

45. But we have the word 'truthy' now. n/t

[Botany]

33. We will see.

But I have no doubt that this is just what Rove wants .... talking about J.L.'s
story and not him .... just like everybody talked about Dan Rather instead of bush
going AWOL.

I still think Rove will be or has already been indicted.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

42. Rove wants?

No, I'm focusing on other things and entertaining myself with the poor folks who insist on believing lies. Life out there is demanding enough without watching good people bite into bad apples.

Rove has not been indicted.

There is no indictment.

Now, put the Kool-Aid away and face reality.

How many Marines died in Iraq today?

How much is gas where you live?

How many Americans can't go to a doctor or a dentist today because they have no health care, no money?

Got groceries?

Who gives a shit what happens to Karl Rove? We have a country to take care of.

Priorities.

[Orsino]

37. No.

An awful lot of people have been saying that an indictment is coming Real Soon now. The scoop of Leopold's story was that an indictment had already occurred.

An indictment of Rove that occurs days later would be no particular credit to Leopold--no more so than it would be to Tweety.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

43. Sort of like claiming the sun will set tonight,

and then taking credit for it when it does?

Ah, true believers without a reality base.

Not good.

[karlrschneider]

49. So the result justifies lying to get it? I thought that was one of the

rightwing principles we're always deriding. By that logic you can rationalize mendacity for any desired end. Count me out of that agenda.

[alcibiades_mystery]

68. You must be joking

The fact that truthout and Mr. leopold published an article stating as facts events that never happened is no big deal? High school debate stuff?

Gimme a break.

The hedging on this issue is really comical. First it was ... er, 24 business hours, now it's "even if the article isn't true, it's FOCUS will be correct IF Rove ever is indicted!"

That's like me writing a newspaper article claiming that Alaska has been nuked. But it hasn't! Oh, well, if it ever is, my article will be vindicated!

Yes, it's THAT kind of stupid.

[Halliburton]

66. Leopold's story is so outrageous it's actually pretty funny

I busted out laughing the last few times rereading it!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

73. Damn right

When I read that "fifteen hours in defense counsel's office" part, I snorted so hard, the dog woke up and ran out of the room.

And the "24 business hours" part.

They were my high points, really.

[TX-RAT]

84. Question, as a lawyer.

If there was an indictment for Rove, why would his attorneys be served,is this common practice?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

88. I can't answer right now

I'm still laughing about Janet Cook.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/day/04_17_2001.html

[TX-RAT]

91. gotcha

[Halliburton]

92. It's not common practice

Fitzgerald cannot present a sealed indictment to Rove's attorneys, it's illegal. They are kept secret for a reason.

[bluestateguy]

14. There is a statute of limitations on that

If Rove is indicted in three months I don't think that Leopold can claim vindication. Are we supposed to believe that he gets indicted by the Grand Jury and that it is kept secret for that long? In Washington? Hah!

[OzarkDem]

50. Agree, Botany

None of this spinning is going to change the fact that Rove has broken the law and that the news media is covering it up.

[bluestateguy]

7. I'll give Leopold two more days before I call bullshit

And at that point, if that point comes, I will expect him and his admirers on this site to place the blame where it belongs--with Jason Leopold.

People lie to reporters all the time. Reporters get jerked around by unreliable sources all the time. Good reporters should be able to sift through all of the "noise" and separate the facts from the rumors. We would expect this from an MSM reporter and from an alternative media reporter.

Would we tolerate this kind of stuff from a Fox News or New York Post reporter? Would we tolerate such verbal gymnastics as "24 business hours" from an MSM reporter? Be honest.

[BlooInBloo]

9. I give it "24 hours"! LOLOL

God I hate it when writers treat me like I'm a fucking idiot and don't know my own fucking language.

[Orsino]

38. Twenty-four business hours...

...but lunch hours and bathroom breaks don't count. Heck, we could stretch this into next week.

[5X]

19. I have got to already call bs.....

Reporters don't get to go back and change the facts on
their stories...24 hours to 24 business hours.
Yeah, ok, whatever JL says.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

47. Why not fifteen hours?

Or 24 business hours.

Guess what?

An indictment hasn't been handed down. There is no indictment.

Where do people come up with these time frames, I wonder?

What "reporter"? The guy who put this story out is hardly any kind of "reporter". At best, he's a Matt Drudge clone, given what I've seen here.

Oh, and the grand jury won't be seated again until tomorrow, so you might want to extend your self-made "deadline." Hard to get an indictment when there's no grand jury to hand one down, you know.

[bluestateguy]

57. Perhaps you are right

Maybe I am being too generous with this Leopold character.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

59. Your dedication is admirable,

and I salute your tenacity.

But there is reality, and there is cupability, and there comes a time when you just have to call a lie a lie.

There is no indictment.

[BlooInBloo]

86. Was trying for funny - on the "24 business hours" goalpost-move...

... Apparently it didn't fly. :(

[LeftNYC]

16. Jason hasnt said this at all, has he? I dont think he backed down

"What's worse, Leopold claimed he had been set up as part of a White House "disinformation campaign."


Again, I have been trading emails with Jason and he said he received a phone call last night that made him feel even stronger about his convictions. He hasnt backed down yet. When, or if, he does/has to, he will be reminded of his promise to out his sources. We have been waiting months for this, why cant we wait until at least the end of the week. Patience people.

Are we really going to listen to Guckert?

[redqueen]

21. "Are we really going to listen to Guckert?"

Amazingly, it seems so.

[LeftNYC]

28. funny how quick people turn...

Whats next a "Judy Miller was right" forum?

[11cents]

34. Uh, no.

First of all, many people here have been skeptical of Leopold all along. Second, this isn't a matter of people changing their opinions about actual events or public personalities. It doesn't even have to do with opinions on whether Rove will be indicted or not. (I think Rove will be indicted, and that Leopold's story that claims he already has been indicted will probably turn out to be false.)

It's about this: Leopold wrote stories which make very definite claims about events he says happened. If those events in fact didn't happen the stories are false, not "true in spirit" or "on the right track" or "true because they make us feel good." We shouldn't allow ourselves to be manipulated by reporters who make things up, whether they write for the NY Times or a webzine. So it's important to know whether these stories are true or false.

[LeftNYC]

35. No argument...However, people are jumping on Leopold

and not giving him the week. I will be the first to question him if this drags into next week.

[Igel]

51. He imposed his own deadline.

If the indictment isn't dated 5/12/06 or before, he's fried himself. If the "24 business hours" (presumably counting only according to a 9-5 business, perhaps reporters' hours?) expires, presumably some time tomorrow and the sealed indictment that was delivered to the target (ahem) isn't unsealed, he's hoist on his own petard.

Translator's saying: Ambiguity is your friend.

[karlrschneider]

60. Ah, so "24 business hours" means 1 week. Nice.

:eyes:

[Individualist]

81. What will we hear next?

24 Plutonian hours? :silly:

[radio4progressives]

76. And isn't interesting there is so much Focus this Non-Issue ?

rather than the NSA story and everything linked to that?

It would appear to me that a certain set of charachters that hang out with the Salon Meleiu are about making sure that our Constitution and bill of Rights are in fact completely dessimated - because with every thread created with the intention of defaming an article about a non-issue such as this Rove indictment, is attention away from matters that REALLY MATTER TO EVERY AMERICAN FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

95. Folks from TO.org created the focus by posting, promoting the article here

[11cents]

18. Jason Leopold = Stephen Glass

I'll apologize of course if the promised paper trail emerges and proves me wrong. But at this point, all the signs are there.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

52. Jayson Blair

That Washington Post writer who won a Pulitzer for a series about a kid who never existed. Boy, did she sink fast. I can't even remember her name.

The list goes on.

This Leopold character, given his history, is probably not quite as worthy as Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair.

[TX-RAT]

85. Her name? LOL

[OldLeftieLawyer]

87. Yeah, her name - and it just came back to me

Janet Cook.

That was a huge disgrace for the Washington Post.

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/day/04_17_2001.html

Now, why do you think that's funny? I mean, besides the obvious?

[TX-RAT]

90. I may have misread, sorry

Thought you were making a joke, and referring to Jason as a female, to point out how much people on this board were forgetting the past.

I've always liked your posts, quick and to the point, with a little humor on the side.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

94. Aren't you nice?

Thanks.

That Janet Cook story is still a shocker. Ben Bradlee was the editor then, too. Bad, bad, bad.......

[texasleo]

54. glass worked for a very important magazine

[Catherine Vincent]

20. Yet another critical piece on Leopold.

Big deal. If Rove doesn't get officially indicted this week, I won't go into a tantrum spitting fire at Leopold or anyone else. Most of us have the good sense to wait to hear from the main man and that's Fitzgerald.

And who cares about Salon's war room messages. They're just a message board like DU.

[stop the bleeding]

44. thank you

[Catherine Vincent]

83. You're welcome!

[madmusic]

25. Setup?

Dan Rather was setup the same way with the Bush military record fiasco.

And Rove was probably behind both. They are desperate.

[idgiehkt]

26. Gannon, you dick:

sorry if that scared anyone, it was just supposed to be a link...(blushes)

never mind, it's nuclear, it wants to be posted no matter what, go here and click on Jeff Gannon archive at bottom. I can't believe he has the nerve to show his face anymore:
http://kellyanncollins.com/2005/02/reward-jeff-gannon-information.html

[Garbo 2004]

31. Actually so far Leopold hasn't claimed that he's been set up.

Daou's article quotes Gannon (of all people) saying Leopold claims he has been set up and links to a TL entry where Merritt says that if the story doesn't pan out then we can discuss if he was set up.

But earlier in the same blog article Gannon linked to, Merritt says Leopold himself doesn't think he has been set up:

"7. Jason does not believe his sources are setting him up. He thinks Corallo is not being truthful with York and Gerstein." http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014842.html

Daou perhaps should have clarified that Gannon's assertion isn't true, that Leopold hasn't claimed that he was set up and has in fact has stated that he doesn't believe that is the case. In the interest of good journalism and factual accuracy, since that's Daou's stated concern, why would Daou simply repeat Gannon's assertion without pointing out that it's not true? Gannon's of course a dubious "journalist" but Daou just lets it stand.

I'm not suggesting Daou's intentionally doing a number on Leopold, I don't know one way or the other, but he quotes something and then lets it stand and doesn't point out that it's a false statement. Something the corporate media does all the time, true, but there Daou is asserting that the blogosphere and alt media has to be really really careful about its facts if it's to attain/sustain credibility and he lets that whopper go by.

[stevenleser]

72. No, it was I who thought he might have been set up by his sources...

...and I will stick by that unless either Rove is indicted in the next 24 hours or Leopold recants.

[Garbo 2004]

77. I'm sure a number of people do. But Daou's article is the matter in

question in my post and his letting stand Gannon's false assertion that Leopold's already claiming he was set up.

[Junkdrawer]

40. Smelling like a Rovian "three-fer"....

1.) It would deflect the outrage if he isn't indicted.

2.) It could end up hurting several good people that could be tarred as bad sources (Joe Wilson???).

3.) It would tarnish the reputation of blogs - possibly at a time when they are needed most.

[Halliburton]

53. Leopold will be resigning in 24 business hours!

...DEVELOPING...

[Balbus]

74. Hell, that can mean 3 years....

depending on how you want to break that down.

[radio4progressives]

61. Lilly Livered Librul Gatekeepers are pathetic..

Arlen Specter is about to make "Legal" Bush's illegal, treasonous crimes Legal with a piece of legislation (which he co-sponsored with DeWine) and is set to be "marked up". - this is has everything to do with the state of our fucking Constitution, but all you lilly livered gatekeepers are fucking concerning yourself is demonizing, and defamation of a writer who obviously felt he had honest information about an indictment.

So it hasn't been confirmed in the MSM.

So FUCKING WHAT???

All this is about is a fucking turf war between a commercial (read capitalist MSM, Salon) and a non-profit, openly biased news site (truthout)

Lilly Livered Librul Gatekeepers are about the STATUS QUO. They WANT TO BE FAVORED by the MSM! And I know for a fact that some of these gatekeepers working as Librul journalists (read anti-leftist journalists and who claim to be progressive) are actually GATEKEEPERS and their sole purpose (what they are PAID to do) is to defame Leftist journalists.

That's their job, and this is their M.O.

I've been watching this behavior/activity in action ever since Iran Contra, but i didn't understand it then. It wasn't until sometime after the 2000 stolen elections that i began to see these lilly livered librul gatekeepers in the "journalism" world, who cruelly and unjustly defamed anyone (like attacks against Greg Palast)who had the temerity to claim that the 2000 elections were stolen. that Gore actually WON. Instead, the Gatekeepers propulgated the lie that Nader spoiled Gore's victory to take the heat and focus off of librul gatekeepers avoidance on how the whole thing was pulled off.

Then along came 9/11. and people were seeking answers to obvious questions of events which the official story just completely ignored. As soon as the 9/11 questions were being asked publically the librul gatekeepers like Chip Berlet and David Corn made it their complete mission in life to demonize anyone who dared to ask the obvious questions, by defaming those who were RAISING THEM.

Mike Ruppert, David Ray Griffin and others were defamed by these bastards. 5 plus years later, there is hardly a question worth noting either in the form of unanswered questions and/or known facts that have yet to have been proven false or lacked merit on a critical level.

But the likes of David Corn, Chip Berlet, and others devoted what seemed like their entire waking life for the entire year leading up to the Iraq War focused on demonizing those like Griffin and Mike Ruppert (and others) instead of devoting their energy and time towards the build up to Iraq. Only until after it was a forgone conclusion did Corn focus his writing in critising Bush and his lies with his book and articles. (gotta keep his "librul creds" intact don't ya know).

And that's exactly how I see this smear campaign - and i say to all others - FUCK THIS SHIT. Who gives a shit really whether or not Rove is indicted or not? Even if he is indicted he will no doubt be pardoned - this whole thing is NOT IMPORTANT. Rove isn't important.

What's important is that OUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN DESIMMATED!

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights no longer exists - and we have so called leftist gatekeepers to thank for helping that along by focusing attention on bullshit like this.

Focus your attention on Arlen Specter's bill that will make legal, the illegal activities of this administrations Domestic Spying programs.

Focus your attention on restoring our Constitution, which means working with Libertarians as well as Progressives on this issue.

Fuck these assholes who obviously gives a shit less about it otherwise they would be engaged with laser-like precision and focus on organizing massive PUSH BACK against this outrage.

In my 'book', lilly livered gatekeepers of "journalism" are traitors to the cause and may as well be working for the GOP as far as their usefullness goes. fvck them all.

They claim to care about "left credibility" but that is a cover, imo for what i believe is their actual goal, which is simply to be welcomed into the fold of the corrupt and co-opted fascists circles.

Once done it's over.

So please people... ignore these assholes and focus on Specter today.

[Ganja Ninja]

75. I couldn't agree more.

The 24 hours is up. The story turned out not to be true but it's not as if truthout is a major news outlet. It's over and that's that. Time to move on to more important things.

[speedoo]

64. In case anyone wants to actually read some words from Fitz...

see this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1204315

Far more intersting, IMO, than this silly, neverending argument about Leopold.