OFFICIAL TRUTHOUT/LEOPOLD THREAD

[pinto]

PLEASE NOTE: We're going to leave this thread open.

Previous thread is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1240889&mesg_id=1240889


There is also a current thread about the latest from Truthout here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1241124&mesg_id=1241124

Thanks.

[symbolman]

1. Here's some info for ya'll

Hey, here's something that I don't think anyone has brought up yet..

Some folks are using the AMAZING Rationale that NO ONE would be so STUPID as to Make a Mistake Like Leopold so Obviously did, correct?

Well, I have some news for those folks.

THAT is Rove's DEFENSE.

Enjoy it.

[The empressof all]

2. Just a friendly reminder

Please keep futher discussion of this topic to the two threads currently open.

Thanks!

[Karmakaze]

5. two threads? Wait, Im missing one?

Where?

[Moloch]

7. Here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1241124

[benburch]

3. For my good friend, "Golfboy"

[Sydnie]

4. Reply to Karmakaze from previous thread.

TalkLeft confirmed it was Johnson that made those posts days ago. That fact is not in dispute.

Did you read his posts? Did you read that thread? Wilson heard the same thing that Leopold did, from different sources. Wouldn't you think that Wilson's sources would be well in the know on such subjects? Or are you implying that Johnson is Leopold's sockpuppet too?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

9. When Libby was indicted, Wilson was interviewed by Keith Olbermann, and

according to Wilson, in that time he had only seen Fitzgerald twice, and that was the only contact he had with Fitzgerald. I also recall somewhere else Wilson was interviewed, and he said that he was not kept apprised of anything going on in the case. So if he heard it from somewhere, maybe it was from the same "sources" that Leopold heard it from.

[Sydnie]

13. Again, Johnson does not say that the sources were the same people

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1183853&mesg_id=1183853

"Joe Wilson heard the same from other sources."

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

80. So this means that Johnson and Wilson are supposed to know the sources

that Leopold used for the "scoop"? Odd, isn't it?

[Karmakaze]

12. Hmmm

he has made 3 posts on DU - the one you linked to, one that gave you permission to repost it, and another that I have not been able to find - because I can't search.

So the only info I can see is what you linked to. As I said, that info looks like it came from TO - Will also claimed that Wilson had confirmed, although how Wilson would know is beyond me.

I still say, if Johnson confirmed it, why hasn't he written about it on his own blog? Could it be that he thought about it and the only confirmation he had stemmed from discussions with the Truthout people - that THEY told him that Wilson confirmed?

As for TalkLefts confirmation, this is getting weirder and weirder.

TalkLeft is confirming that Johnson really posted a confirmation that Leopold really has sources. Why the hell doesn't Johnosn confirm HIMSELF? All he has to do is put a note on his blog. 30 seconds work.

[Sydnie]

15. He did confirm it

but he did it on DU. Perhaps he is attempting to let TO carry the story themselves? He did link to it, with very little commentary as well. He, like Fitz, appears to be holding his cards close to the vest as well.

[Karmakaze]

18. No, the poster...

calling himself Larry_Johnson confirmed that he was Larry Johnson. Seriously. You can't make this stuff up - or maybe you can.

Like I said - a simple note to say he had posted on DU. He doesn't have to confirm the story, just that he posted on DU, because from his blog, there is NO indication that he did post on DU OR confirmed the story.

[Sydnie]

20. Here is the confirmation from TalkLeft

Posted by TalkLeft
May 15, 2006 02:10 AM
I e-mailed Larry Johnson and he confirmed he posted the message on Democratic Underground.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014841.html

Someone at TalkLeft said he was asked at his blog, in the comments, if he posted here. I haven't read that nor have I looked to see if he responded there or not. That might be a place to start looking between these lines though.

[Karmakaze]

27. Someone asked...

No one replied.

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/05/rove_indictedfr.html#comments

Still as I said, even if it was Johnson, there is no indication that he was not just telling us stuff that he had been told by TruthOut.

[Sydnie]

35. Yes, there is

Johnsons says clearly "Joe Wilson heard the same from other sources".

[Karmakaze]

41. Yeah, but who told him that?

Joe Wilson? Or did Will Pitt tell Larry Johnson that Joe Wilson said he had heard it from other sources? Damn it sounds like high school gossip.

The fact is Pitt said it on DU, so he could just as easily have said it earlier to Johnson. Who knows? Johnson has not said a word about it on his blog, so for all we know he never even said it here.

[Sydnie]

46. Wilson told him that

He is very close to Joe Wilson. He was speaking about what he was told by Wilson.

[Karmakaze]

50. But it doesnt say that in the post.

he doesnt say Joe Wilson told me... he just said Joe Wilson said... and that assumes HE WROTE THE POST!

See the problem here - 1) IF he wrote the post 2) he didnt make clear that the info didnt just come from TO.

[Sydnie]

52. If he didn't write the post then he lied to TalkLeft about it OR

TalkLeft reported it without him asking for a retraction. Anyone familar with Johnson should also be familar with his connection to Wilson. It's a stretch to think that Johnson would back TO just on their word when he is so well connected himself, isn't it?


edited to change and to OR

[Karmakaze]

54. OK...

TalkLeft - I don't know them from a bar of soap. For all I know THEY made up the confirmation from Johnosn. All I know is Johnson says NOTHING about this on HIS site.

Johnson & Wilson - which is why anyone faking the story might use Johnson's name to post "supporting evidence" from Wilson. Until either of those two men confirms in an unimpeachable way that they said what is being claimed, then there is doubt that they even said it.

As for Johnson backing TO - once again the only backing Johnson gave is what was posted here on DU, and there is no indication it really was him.

Now think this through for a moment.

Why would Johnson sign up on DU JUST to support Will Pitt and TO etc HERE? Why not simply post the support on his own blog, knowing that would spread further and faster than any post on DU would? Can't you see that it just doesn't make sense from Johnson's perspective?

The final question is - if he did indeed post it here, but not on his blog, why not? Did he not trust the info he supposedly got from Wilson enough to put his OWN reputation on the line? He wouldnt have been taking away TO's thunder, in fact he would have been adding to it. So, why?

[Catrina]

61. Jeralyn Merrit on Talkleft is VERY credible. She is a defense attorney

so if she says she called Larry Johnson, I think we can accept that. That's why people dismissed the notion that it wasn't Johnson on Du, because of her credibility. Hope that helps.

[Sydnie]

62. Go back to the original thread

before I cut and paste his first message. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1183131&mesg_id=1183131

You can see that Johnson was being discussed, as was TalkLeft. It appears that someone tipped Johnson off to the fact that he was being discussed at DU. It's not as if DU doesn't have an established presence on the net, it does. Many more people read DU than post to it. It appears by the circumstances, that he had been tipped off (or he might have been reading DU himself for all I know) and responded when he heard his name and his site mentioned.

Perhaps, he thought less was more in this case, as to why he didn't comment on his own blog. He posted the link to the article, I think, because he heard similar things from Wilson himself and believed that it should get some attention.

Perhaps you could leave a message on Johnson's blog and ask him to address why he did that? Surely not every left leaning blogger would be in on the conspiracy to spread disinformation concerning this story. TalkLeft went a step further and got scolded from Luskin for doing it too. She rarely "becomes" the story, she just reports them and gives her perspective. She is a lawyer, so she knows the ins and outs of law suits as well. No one on DU has challenged her reporting or her positions. She has been very vigilant in reporting on the Plame case as well.

[Karmakaze]

79. Ok, lets just say I am sceptical about...

the Johnson - TalkLeft connection. I see nothing anywhere that says Johnson confirmed the story independently.

[Sydnie]

88. Another note from TalkLeft from her communication with Johnson

One last note on former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson's comment on Democratic Underground that Joseph Wilson received the same information as Jason: Some have questioned whether Larry really wrote the comment, or whether it was an imposter. I e-mailed Larry, and he responded, indeed it was him. He added,

Joe heard the same things but not from Jason. If these multiple sources are lying then I certainly hope Jason outs their a*s.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014842.html

That seems to be confirmation to her of what he posted here, doesn't it?

[dogday]

109. Now there you go again posting facts

The same ones who are posting about Truthout not getting their facts right, are also not getting their facts right... What does it all mean?????

[Karmakaze]

207. Who isnt getting their facts right?

Did I at any stage get proved wrong on something I said was a fact? If so point it out. If not, then perhaps YOU should get your "facts" right.

Johnson has not posted anything on his blog about this story since that first post pointing to the article - fact.
TalkLeft claims that Johnson confirmed he posted to DU - fact.
Neither TalkLeft nor Johnson said that Wilson directly told Johnson that he had other sources - fact.
Johnosn's post on DU claimed Wilson said he had confirmed the article and Leopold had several sources - fact.

TruthOut told Johnson that Wilson confirmed the article with his sources - speculation.
Johnson posted about this on DU and talked about it with TalkLeft in email - fact/speculation.
Johnson subsequently tried to confrim this directly with Wilson and was told it is not true - speculation.
Johnson then decided to keep out of it and has remained silent on this matter since then - fact/speculation.

These are the things I have said and done. I have labelled them with how I treated them in my posts, fact for of course facts, speculation for speculation and fact/speculation for events that definately occured but I am speculating as to why.

Nothing Sydnie has posted contradicts this line of speculation. It also doesn't explain why Johnson has been completely silent on this issue since early in the piece. Why has he not posted on HIS BLOG that Wilson told him he had his own sources that confirmed the Leopold article? Why would he not support in public an article he knows to be true? Unless he has his own doubts...

[dogday]

230. I was posting to Sydnie's post

there were many who said Larry Johnson did not post to this board.. It was someone else trying to give credibility to TO's story.. We now know he did... I don't think I mentioned your name though...

[Karmakaze]

259. Now see...

this is what happens when two people are talking and someone else joins in late. Sydnie was talking to me, and then you came in apparently agreeing with and supporting Sydnie's last post to me, so I of course assumed you were talking about Sydnies CURRENT conversation (the one you replied to) rather than some past conversation you may have had with someone else. Seems reasonable to me.

As for Larry Johnson posting to this board, that is still assuming that TalkLeft's claim is actually true. Many people here seem to think TalkLeft is an unimpeachable source, but I wouldnt know. All I know is when Johnson was asked ON HIS BLOG whether he posted to DU, he did not respond. So for all I know TalkLeft is mistaken as well.

See, I never liked that high school game of "soandso told someoneorother that whosamacallit saw whatshisface..." I prefer to hear it straight from the horse's mouth, and in this case the horse is not talking.

And I would like to know why...

[brentspeak]

123. I doubt this TalkLeft confirmation story big time

She e-mailed "Larry Johnson" -- which email address did she use, the one the alleged "Larry Johnson" has been posting on DU? That's not exactly what I would call confirmation that she corresponded with the real Larry Johnson.

As for the "she's a defense attorney..." -- that's some kind of guarantee of TalkLeft's credibility??

:crazy:

[evermind]

202. It seems fairly straightforward to me. Why don't you just email

Johnson yourself, if you're so skeptical of talk left?

[MADem]

149. Joe Wilson likely also had a chat with Tweety

Remember, Tweety was the guy who CALLED Joe Wilson and said "Karl Rove told me YOUR WIFE was FAIR GAME." Tweety put Wilson on to the whole Plame thing, and helped to light his fire of outrage that has brought us to where we are today vis a vis Plamegate.

But clearly, whatever Wilson MAY have told Tweety was plainly couched as RUMOR, because Tweety hedged when he discussed it on Imus a week ago Friday:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/12/matthews-on-rove-indictment-it-could-be-today/

I certainly wouldn't give Tweety the Journalist of the Year award, but I will say that he was careful enough not to claim something as a fait accompli when it clearly was not. Of course, "some would say" that he wasn't "brave enough"...but in actual fact, though not the brightest bulb, he was clearly "smart enough" not to hang his ass out there too far: he still has his job, and no one's beating him up for making a hideous error or telling an outright lie with regard to this non-story.

He made sure not to "get ahead of the news cycle" I guess!

[Sydnie]

152. But Thursday they ran promos all day talking about how

his Friday show was going to be all Plame and Rove. That changed with very little explanation when the Friday show aired. I don't know if Wilson tipped him off or if some of Tweety's "contacts" tipped him off. In any event, it does appear that Tweety thought some movement was happening, and in advance of the "news cycle" too, wouldn't you say?

[MADem]

155. I watched that interview on Imus, the whole thing, not just the excerpts

cited in the link. It was clear to me that Tweety had heard something JUICY. He was spitting and flailing, as though he REALLY wanted to say more, but knew he couldn't, or shouldn't (he clearly has good self-preservation instincts). He said he was ready to work all night and into the weekend "IF something broke" and was prepared to retool his weekend show IF events warranted.

But he hedged. He was chomping at the bit, Imus was goading him, as Imus does, Tweety was like a spooked horse, but he hedged. Obviously, he HAD heard something, but it didn't pass the smell test, or it needed a solid confirmation, and he didn't have that, so he held his fire. Bet he's glad he did, too.

[Moloch]

6. Kicked & Recommended!

n/t

[symbolman]

8. Love to hear from any Lawyers about this episode.

On the Night of the Long Beers when Pitt was posting an attack on Skinner and others my wife showed it to me, and we saw that it had been edited, and saved it - then she showed me the post, by a Scamdy guy no less. on DailyKos who had the Original post. We saw right away that this could potentially be a major problem for Pitt, Skinner and most of all Joe Wilson himself.

The edited version which was self deleted fairly quickly after that did not show what the Original had, that Pitt was basically PUBLICLY OUTING Joe Wilson as His Source or Leopold's for the "ROVE INDICTED TODAY" article.

I realised that this was viral and contacted Skinner (by posting an EMERGENCY Title in General Discussion for a MOD to contact Skinner STAT), through the Mod and directly to Skinner's PM box.

I was scared shitless that Pitt had just place Wilson in all kinds of potential Legal Jeopardy, as well as handing something over to the Right wing Media machine, and was worried that Wilson would suffer for it. I figured that if Skinner contacted KOS he might have been able to make the Post outing Wilson as TO's SOURCE dissappear by talking to folks there. Not only to keep Skinner from being dragged through the mud all over the Web, but to make sure that Joe Wilson was not being screwed by this.

I realise that Larry Johnson (and it was verified it was him) posted that he and Joe Wilson had "heard" that.. and hadn't read that post, but to me that was entirely different from Wilson being exposed as a SOURCE of an Indictment UNANNOUNCED by Fitz and IN PUBLIC by someone who was not in control.

This is a Federal case, and it's about LEAKS. Not being a lawyer I didn't know if Wilson could now possibly be dragged into a pissed off Grand Jury, maybe charged with something himself if it could be shown that he appeared to have given out information BEFORE Fitz or the Grand Jury. And think about how it could have affected Libby's Defense, part of which is that they claim Wilson was talking about his wife (in effect by their standards, "outing her" himself) to many people before anyone else could have given out her identity and profession.

I simply did not know how potentially dangerous this posting was, not being a lawyer. I'd heard that Joe and Valerie were thinking of sueing Rove in a Civil suit later, and what would be the impact on that?

I worried that if Luskin saw that post running around the web he might actually get ROVE OFF. I thought "Oh Boy, the Right Wing Media could have a field day with THIS post - hammering it all over the web, that Wilson "leaked" GJ information, so how could he be trusted, etc.

So I also contacted Mr Wilson, sent him all copies and explained that I was concerned that he might get hit by a ton of bricks by this post out of nowhere, whether it was true or NOT, the appearance of unseemliness on his part as portrayed by an out of control OP of the article Written by Leopold was probably something he didn't need. Or could be dangerous to him, his wife, etc.

At no time did I on either contact write anything negative about Pitt, tho I did mention to Skinner that I thought Pitt was under a lot of stress, might be sweating "bullets AND beer", and that maybe Will Pitt could use a few AA meetings or something.

So, to any Lawyers out there, was that over reacting, or did those posts potentially put Wilson in legal danger? I'm damned sure the Right could make a lot of hay with it, innuendoes that Wilson "leaks" info, and before Fitz does.. Couldn't he be held accountable in some fashion, "Interferring with a Federal Prosecution" or some such thing?

I hope to god not. But I decided not to take any chances, especially when I saw how fishy this whole thing was. Never trusted Leopold from the start, and had read that he OUTED sources, and was NOT going to let that happen to one of my American heroes and a Patriot, Joe Wilson..

[Sydnie]

11. Can't see how it could pose any problem for Joe or DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1183853&mesg_id=1187186

Wilson might have talked to them AFTER the story appeared, but I don't believe he was used as an INITIAL source for the story at all.

[symbolman]

17. If he wasn't then he was outed that night

If he was, then he "heard" about it.. Pitt's drunk screed against Skinner appeared to me to be OUTING a Source, that hadn't been mentioned before, to convince Skinner that he had gravitas, and it was edited to Take Joe Wilson OUT while ON the DU. WHY?

Any lawyers here? OLL? The Boss?

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jjmalonejr]

25. Will Pitt has been generally credible in the past, hasn't he?

He didn't write the story, Leopold did.

Granted, Will shouldn't have vouched for the story (unless he had a good reason to that we don't know about), and the rant against Skinner was certainly a mistake, but isn't it really Leopold with the credibility problem?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

28. They both have credibility problems

If you do something, and you're working for me, and I vouch for whatever you did, I am then just as liable as you are if you fuck it up.

Note that no one's heard anything from Leopold, so Pitt stepped into his shoes and did the defending (a gentle phrase) of the story. At that point, he got into it even deeper. He should have been going after the story's author, demanding verification, proof of triangulation, all the things he should have done before the story was ever put up where people could read it.

They both failed, and they both abused their positions of trust.

I didn't know anything about either man before this whole mess started last week. Now I know some about them. I think they both skated out on ice far too thin to support them, and, frankly, their handling of this situation would have had them on their asses in any reputable real life publishing venture - newspaper, magazine, TV. They just fucked it up from the beginning, with a story that was unbelievable on its face.

They both were betting on the gullibility of their readers, most of whom aren't familiar with how the law works or how Washington works.

Their bad luck was that DU is home to some people who are experienced in both areas.

Now, given how it's ended with a whimper, I'd say that whole outfit - truthout - has shot itself in the foot, and in the fragile and hard-fought credibility of the blogosphere, they've done harm to the concept, which makes me sad. Liberal or not, the site really needs either all new leadership or to go away and let people deal with the betrayal that's been visited upon them.

Long answer, I know, but it's hard to see how people believed and trusted and were treated like bad meat.

[Karmakaze]

31. Will Pitt has been trusted here at DU for a long time

and as far as I have seen this is the first time that trust turned out to be unfounded. I seriously don't think Will lied. BUT I do think, actually make that know, he is tenacious when it comes to defending a friend or ally, and that might have got him into trouble here.

[The Onyx Key]

36. and if the whole thing falls through, as it seems it will...

...I think Mr. Pitt will regretfully announce his disappearance from DU forevermore.

Than reappear within a week!

:P

P.S. Then, someday...not too far in the future...he'll start a thread with "I just got off the phone with ______" and we'll all get a hot 'n bothered once again!

It does add a certain zest to one's life, though. Really...how can this circle of jerks get way with this shit forever (shrubco, I'm talkin')?

[jjmalonejr]

39. I'm still just bewildered

Why would they both go so far out on a limb and get behind a story that they knew would be demonstrably false?

Isn't it possible that they got burned?

I don't know, I'm just speculating here.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

40. Never underestimate

the need for attention that drives some people - people who aren't very firmly planted on solid ground in the first place.

Ego. Just think "ego."

They burned themselves. They underestimated their readership, and that's a cardinal sin of professional journalism.

[DS1]

184. You sure do enjoy pissing all over this

and everything else in sight.

[Cooley Hurd]

249. You know it, my friend!

:thumbsup:

[Karmakaze]

43. Of course its possible

its also possible that one knew it was false and the other just believed him. Or its possible they both knew and didnt care. Who knows (well except for them of course) - but it is up to them to prove it now.

[dogday]

98. What exactly are Will's credibilty problems??

please state examples of past problems....

[foo_bar]

132. here's one example

May 17:

But the 400 people who will come into this thread with "Andy doesn't need this stress" can hold your water. Andy is apparently a hell of a lot less ill than I and others were led to believe, and I need some answers. I put my reputation, the reputation of truthout, the reputation of PDA, and the reputations of all the people who work for those organizations on the line not once, not twice, but every day for weeks on this. I have a huge, huge responsibility here, and I am not going to just let that drop.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3672828

July 7:

Stephenson passed away on Thursday, July 7, at Seattle's Virginia Mason Medical Center.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0528/050713_news_andy.php

July 8:

The cork is out of the bottle, and I am putting a few people on notice. You know who you are, you know what you did, and a good man has gone down in no small part because of you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4049596

[dogday]

138. If I remember correctly

he was not the only one.. In order to hold him to that account, you must hold everyone else on DU who doubted, and there were many, to account....

I am asking what are his journalistic credibility problems??? Isn't that what this is about or are we just wanting to throw as many stones as possible????

[foo_bar]

142. citing the author in his own words isn't casting stones

Either Andy was terminally ill or he wasn't. WPitt oscillated between defending Andy and publicly accusing him of fraud, on the pretense of conserving his sponsor's "reputation". Well, that won't be an issue now.

[dogday]

144. Many fell into the trap that was set

Many did the same thing.. Why single him out? Why not the other DU members.. I just asked for his journalistic credibility past problems which I posted in response to, which is at stake...

Since I have been here I have either seen you love Will or you hate him posts... I don't care about any of that. He credibility as a journalist is at stake here and when others say his credibly in the past, I am applying it to his journalistic abilities not his personal ones....

Has he ever been accused of writing a false story or endorsing one before is what I asked???

[foo_bar]

148. post #98: "What exactly are Will's credibilty problems??"

I am applying it to his journalistic abilities not his personal ones....

You didn't mention "journalistic" credibility until post #138, after I provided for your first (rhetorical?) question. Since Mr. Pitt is a journalist in the internet sense, his blog postings might be considered germane to his journalistic credibility, especially the ones citing truthout's reputation to advance a provably false accusation.

[dogday]

153. This is the post I initially replied to

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=364&topic_id=1241554&mesg_id=1241948


I am still waiting on the answers to my question,

[foo_bar]

156. I tried to answer your question, but the goalposts keep moving

Not unlike changing "24 hours" to "24 business hours" without touching the dateline or issuing a correction (except in a blog post, curiously).

[dogday]

157. I am just asking has he

ever given wrong information or endorsed an incorrect story as a journalist... If you have fact, much appreciated, if not, that's cool too...


I don't need post to see his character, I have seen it a dozen times in DU...

[foo_bar]

158. you'll have to provide us with your definition of "fact"

Since it doesn't seem to include quoting the author in his own words.

[dogday]

159. My definition? Doesn't the word

speak for itself? I asked for articles that he has endorsed or written that were incorrect...I guess that would be fact... I know Leopold has been questioned on his news credibility, but has Will???

[foo_bar]

160. it would, but the original question changed to deny new facts

I can't speak for or against Mr. P's "journalistic credibility", unless leaking the name of Joe Wilson in an inebriated state counts as a fact.

[dogday]

161. It might

If he did it as a journalist, it just might affect his credibility problem..

I admit my first post was not asking about his journalist credibility, but all subsequent posts have asked that question...

I am curious as to why he put his credibility on the line for this... Aren't you???

[foo_bar]

163. there's no denying it's a mystery

It's incumbent on TO to publish something non-mysterious, unless they're legally/morally restrained, in which case they should say so. Given that Leopold's credibility is as questionable as Pitt's judgment, the editor won't mollify skeptics with "getting ahead of the news cycle" in a 24-hour news cycle, or a "partial" anything.

[MADem]

162. Responsibility and authority do go hand-in-hand

And while, when you are the boss, the shit rolls downhill, if ya screw up, ya gotta take the heat for your subordinate's actions, because it all comes back on you in the end.

I knew nothing about the author of the piece, either, and little about the website, having looked at it only a time or two, but once this thing hit the fan, I started looking around and what I found about the author did NOT inspire confidence.

The window of opportunity is rapidly closing for Truthout. They needed to come clean, explain what happened, and not fart around with phrases like "partial apology" for "getting ahead of the news cycle." I mean, please--"That statement is no longer operative" a la Ron Zeigler would have stunk up the room far less.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sydnie]

187. Thank You n/t

[lala_rawraw]

188. i love that hand:D

I want a new icon... a flapper with hand?:D

thank you!

[H2O Man]

203. Thank you

for an informed, insightful answer.

[demobabe]

228. Why are you - of all people

Thanking lala for a nasty smear on Symbolman? That is unlike you.

[Coexist]

232. I don't believe he is addressing the last paragraph,

but the ones above. That is what I was referring to.

Symbolman, someone I do like, was speculating about how WP's post may have been damaged Wilson or Johnson. The first part of the post helps set that straight - which is very good because other posts on this thread ignore the "facts" they are so proud of owning and just speculate.

The 'attack' part. Well - there has been enough shit thrown around, that I ignore any insults now. There's plenty of ugliness being passed around on all sides of this issue. I am not bothering to track who smeared who.

[H2O Man]

238. Right.

It would be unlike me to thank anyone for a nasty smear on Symbolman. If it appears I did so, than the fault lies with how I expressed what I meant to say - which was simply that the discussions on DU do not impact the Plame scandal inside the courtrooms -- only spectator's perception on DU and other forums that follow DU discussions.

[demobabe]

243. Thank you for the clarification

And I hope both you and Lala are correct about Wilson being unaffected by anything said here. A lawyer on another thread said that Wilson couldn't get in trouble, but he could be asked who leaked the information to him, which could put them in legal jeopardy.

[Coexist]

205. lala -

this has gotten way beyond reason.

People are reacting to people's reactions to what they heard someone else read.
It is unreal. I am glad it is confined to a thread or two and not polluting the rest of GD like it was.

Peace.

[lala_rawraw]

215. i wish i could find that post i wrote yesterday

it was really long and it was in one of the "designated" threads. darn, i should have saved it. it pretty much addresses the very thing you bring up

[Emit]

219. This one from thread 17?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1238704#1239241

Tx, lala, for your insight.

[Coexist]

233. Yes, that is it, thanks - it bears repeating:

"I think TO Has provided years of value and existed long before Jason, regardless of your feelings about him. This attacking of TO is ruthless and ugly and frankly is the saddest thing I have had to watch.

caution - rant starting -

On one end there was celebrations without emotional restraint at all, despite caution to see what happens, because while no one else could yet confirm it, it did not make the story wrong, nor by virtue of it being a story somewhere did it make the story true. On the other side there was immediate take down. Byron York was ready within hours as was the right wing blogs - with a lot of help from the left - to take down Leopold, TO, Pitt, Ash and everyone in a 50 mile radius. Again they were told to wait and see, because despite no one else having been able to confirm this story, did not make it false, nor it being a story somewhere did not make it true. In other words, it was an extreme reaction on all sides.

Then whatever the fixed time was - that an announcement would come this week, the celebratory side began to turn its hysteria into bile and the other end began to dig their claws in even deeper in celebration or in disappointment of TOs failure.

I have not seen such ugliness since Gary Webb's take down, despite him being proved right later. The assumptions now coming in are either TO/Leopold/Ash/Pitt lied on one end or pure glee that they have failed on the other, regardless of whatever the reason is for that failure. I see no joy or have the heart to find even satire funny in any of this. TO has been around for years and has served the liberal community well and in the end, no matter what happens, they were failed on all sides in my humble opinion.

We don't know what happened and I agree that IF someone is wrong, they should retract or correct. God knows we at RS have corrected much from spelling errors to wrong names, and dates, to a few bigger issues. But we have never put out a cooked story and i don't think anyone would willfully do so (despite the straw men over and over to stories we never wrote being attributed to us as proof of our bad reporting at RS - 22 indictments sound familiar?). In order for Leopold to have created this as a hoax, one would have to believe that Ash and Pitt were in on it. Somehow, I just don't buy that. The irony is that every MSM journo I have talked to in the last week - many - have all hoped for it to pan out because everyone agreed that this was going out on a limb and was a deal-breaker if wrong. But no one was determined to attack TO. They were all working in the background quietly trying to confirm the story and no one that I have talked to today is laughing or rejoicing or even commenting publicly on what we all see as either a tragedy or whatever it turns out to be in the end. It has been the so called grassroots that has done the damage and even if the story is proved right, the blows delivered are fatal."

[demobabe]

229. What is WRONG with you?

Why are you always attacking Symbolman?

You launch this pathetic attack on him and then you await his "army of sockepuppets and wife to come over and start an attack" on you?

You frequently talk about SMEAR, SMEAR, SMEAR, and that is exactly what you do, and it really is uncivil and abusive.

NEVER have either Symbolman or I called you a name, yet you come and nuke us for simply taking a position that isn't yours.

You're the one who repeatedly called me a five year-old who types like a monkey.

You owe both Symbolman and myself BIG apologies.

[demobabe]

237. Additionally

It would put both of them in really bad positions if they were and so they have remained uninvolved. Neither of them wants to put the case in jeopardy. And this does not put Wilson in legal danger because while someone else may have claimed certain things, does not make it true. So Wilson is fine.

I suspect you have not been through the legal system as I have. You might have noticed that the FBI did a raid on a Congressional Office tonight - the first time in history - and it was on a Democrat's office. In case you haven't noticed, the courts have been packed by right-wing judges, ruling based on what they want the outcome to be, rather than on facts and objectivity.

Will Pitt came out and offered up Joe Wilson as a source to substantiate Leopold's article. He knew this was a bad thing, because he went back and edited the posting, but not before AnonymousArmy - or Scamdy - grabbed it and posted it on Kos.

You can say "Wilson is fine," but you are neither a lawyer, nor do you know for a fact that Pitt's post isn't going to land Wilson in trouble. You can read what actual lawyers posted in another thread about this.

For your information, both Symbolman and I did everything possible to try to get Pitt's ill-advised posting OFF Kos, to protect both Pitt and Wilson. This is AFTER Will Pitt said some choice things against Symbolman, BTW. Will Pitt has been a friend for years, and I'm really sorry that Pitt has seen our questioning of Leopold as not having faith in Will. It would be NUTS NOT to question Leopold's articles, when he has a history of exactly the kind of problems he's having with the current article. It is interesting that Leopold is no longer writing for Raw Story - supposedly for "personal reasons" although three of his his stories he wrote for RS remain unsubstantiated.

To hand Leopold off to a competing website, and then sing the praises for the other website and Leopold suits you well: you can be oh-so-nice while you watch a known timebomb take down one of your main competitors. Yes, it is that transparent. You yourself criticize Leopold when it suits you.

[Beausoir]

14. OK, now I understand what you were posting about that night.

What a fucking monumentally stupid thing to do to Wilson.

Then again, I believe NOTHING about this whole story at this point.

Joe Wilson, for all we know, has probably never heard of Jason Leopold or TruthOut.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

26. I'd bet money on it

A lot of money.

My guess is that there never were any "sources."

[symbolman]

33. I didn't want to tell anyone, and many people PM'd me

thinking I was in some kind of trouble, thanks to those who did, I wanted to make sure that Wilson wasn't getting thrown to the wolves after Beer=Thirty in the morning..

I've been thrown in the can before where there was NO evidence, with a Judge ADMITTING that they had "no evidence, Just a Feeling.." as they made their Decision. And that was with 6 lawyers helping me out. I KNOW what they can do if they want to..

Like the old saying goes, "A good Prosecutor can Indict a ham sandwich.." :)

[Seabiscuit]

16. If what Pitt wrote about Wilson is false, Wilson's in no danger.

If Wilson himself began spreading rumors, which I hugely doubt, Fitz might want to tell him to cut it out, but beyond that...

I think this is nothing more than a case of Pitt being a name dropper, and when Pitt drops his pants like that exposing his arse to the world, his tendency is to drop the biggest name he can think of, Joe Wilson. I can't imagine Wilson's too pleased about that, if he's even heard about it.

DU's in no trouble either.

I practiced tort law for many years. The only one exposed is Pitt, for spreading the rumor about Wilson in the first place.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

19. Agreed

And, seriously, the drunken ramblings of a disgraced "journalist" are not really to be taken seriously. Joe Wilson is as remote from all of this as he can be, so he doesn't even enter into it. DU is just the vehicle, with no liability.

It's just more meltdown, not even approaching anything actionable, in my opinion.

Seabiscuit's your go-to guy on this one, and I do believe he nailed it.

This one gets better and better, doesn't it, SB?

Kudos to you, Symbolman, though, for taking the cautious route. It's scary, isn't it, the power of this medium? Then, you sit back, let some time go by, and you suddenly realize you're dealing with an impotent headcase, and it ends up being kind of funny.

I hope you can laugh at it all - maybe not now, but someday.

[Seabiscuit]

30. Yes, the continuing saga of Bungalo Will just gets weirder and

weirder.

Thank you, OLL. :)

[The Onyx Key]

37. Indeed....what did you kill, Bungalow Will? n/t

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

64. This has been a ride. My heartfelt thanks go to the following...

OldLeftieLawyer for keeping the fires of critical thinking and skepticism alive -- despite many challenges -- while providing legal insight and bizarre chicken recipies.

symbolman for continuing to post criticism on this topic while withstanding nasty personal attacks. Tip your proctologist well.

benburch for acknowledging that this story might not be as solid as he once believed. That took guts, man.

seabiscuit for backing up OLL's points, despite being late to the party.

DU Modmins for the deft choices they made regarding discussions on this topic, even though many of us were still formulating "that really good reply" when the thread was locked and moved to another one.

The Academy for the amount of (melo)drama that this topic generated.

All other skeptics that withstood being labelled as "freepers", "plants", "haters", "the other side", "GOP shills", "you know...", "some people", "cretins", etc. It takes some guts to stand up to demands for blind faith, purity tests and loyalty pledges.

I'd also like to partially offer a partial apology for any partial insults I may have partially written. Just partially wait-and-see.

Edited to add the shout-out to other skeptics. My apoilogies to any individuals or groups that I didn't acknowledge for maintaining healthy skepticism.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

124. LOL, my skepticism was weak and unhealthy and easily over run

by the production demand of ever increasing antibodies of hope.

However, my sketicism regained its full health and without too adversely impacting the antibody titer of hope that initially overran it.

Homeostasis has prevailed! :hi: MKJ

[OldLeftieLawyer]

176. Wow.........

That's awfully kind of you, Wrinkle, and all I can say is "thank you" for your generosity of spirit.

I must, though, point out that Seabiscuit has been on this matter from the beginning, although perhaps his posts didn't generate the agitation that mine did. He has been diligent and consistent and knowledgeable, and his input has been invaluable and relentlessly correct. I just wanted to make sure that he gets what he is due, because he put his heart and soul into this pursuit of truth. I'm proud to call him my brother in the profession.

A lot of good people did a lot of good things in this whole adventure, and now it's ended.

Thanks again, Wrinkle_In_Time.

And since you mentioned chicken ...........

[1932]

21. I'm barely following this whole saga, but if I had to guess, I'd say

that the only logical original source for this story was probably some lawyer working at Rove's attorney's office who would have seen Fitzgeral enter the office, and made a total guess about the purpose of the visit (maybe even relying on second or third-hand water-cooler gossip). So the game of telephone ended up at Joe Wilson's ear (or whomever) and then made its way to Leopold or Pitt (or whomever). If that was the route the gossip took, then the only problem this would create, in my uninformed, amature, non-legal opinion, would be the lawyer who violated implied or explicit promises to his or her employer to keep confidential information they learn in the course of employment about firm clients.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

23. You should know one basic fact of criminal law,

and that is that no prosecutor ever goes to defense counsel's office. Ever. Tradition holds that defense counsel goes to the government's office. That's just how it is.

So, forget the notion of Fitzgerald ever showing up at Luskin's office and some employee calling in a scoop. It never happened, and to think that is to pull a story out of thin air, because it's utterly without foundation.

Joe Wilson has - my best bet - no role in this. He's not a stupid man, and to think he'd even talk to anyone about some sort of rumor is absurd. He has his own position to protect, and he's done a damn fine job of it so far. Any attempt to invoke his name in this whole sorry saga was, I would bet, nothing but name-dropping by people who have nothing.

So, your story, while creative, never could have happened. No session ever took place between Luskin and Fitzgerald, and it sure as hell didn't take place at Patton and Boggs. Without an indictment, no pleas are discussed.

And, as we all know, there is no indictment.

I just thought you might want to know how it works. Knowing is better than guessing.

[Jersey Devil]

34. Never saw that myself in 30+ years of practicing law

and there probably is good reason for it. A prosecutor might be accused of wrongdoing if seen going to a private law office and later some deal is made that looks too cushy. He would avoid any slight appearance of impropriety like the plague.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

42. You know,

I always thought it was a brilliant tradition in simple terms of territoriality. It's just smart positioning, like when we're shooting pool or playing billiards. Positioning is all.

But, the appearance of impropriety is right there, as well. Absolutely.

When I read that part - a fifteen-hour "plea bargain session" at defense counsel's office - I knew it was all a fairy tale. A very bad one, at that.

Good call, JD.

[Jersey Devil]

48. You would think that any outfit touting itself as a news org

would have a lawyer or two they would talk to when they are not familiar with these things themselves, wouldn't you? I can't imagine that during Watergate Woodward & Bernstein (and Wapo editors) didn't trot every story before a battery of lawyers to see if anything didn't sound Kosher.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

60. Ah, read Katharine Graham's wonderful autobiography,

and how they vetted everything before it hit print. (The book is a GREAT read, seriously)

With the White House breathing down their necks - remember John Mitchell's famous threat that "Katy Graham's gonna get her tit caught in a wringer" just before he got busted and sent to the slammer? - you bet they had lawyers looking at everything.

And then there was the Pentagon Papers.

Not that this tempest in a teapot is anything like those matters, but I believe the arrogance of a couple of pathologies just caused them to go ahead without any compunction because of the arrogance of the unbalanced.

They just weren't betting on finding any lawyers here.

Now, THAT's funny, don't you think?

[Beausoir]

38. You made that point very early on. It sold me that the story was bogus.

Once I read what you wrote, the blinders came off.

[deansyawp]

45. Can't figure out then

why TalkLeft gave the story credence (one of the few bloggers outside DU to report it).

Isn't she a criminal defense attorney?

[Sydnie]

49. So did Larry Johnson

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/05/rove_indictedfr.html

[Jersey Devil]

53. Dunno - you can be anything you want on the internet

I have heard many an attorney bragging at cocktail parties about being trial lawyers who wouldn't know which side of the counsel table to sit at if they ever really got into a court room.

[Garbo 2004]

70. Presumably the Timothy McVeigh trial was not conducted on the Internet.

http://extras.denverpost.com/bomb/bombv13.htm

[H2O Man]

122. !

[sheelz]

66. Seems to me she was investigating the story...

that doesn't give the story credence. Did you see something that you felt was giving the story credence? All I see is her reporting the information she found.

Welcome to DU! :hi:

[deansyawp]

74. Thanks ...

... for the welcome. Well, she was one of the first to post without caveat the Leopold story on Saturday, and she did not bring up the apparently damning details that OldLeftieLawyer has mentioned here -- especially the fact that Fitzgerald would not have gone to Patton Boggs.

Yes, she quickly drew back and showed both a great deal of even-handedness and some solid reporting of her own, but one would think that the fact that she is an experienced defense attorney would have caused her to have the sort of suspicions lawyers here have expressed viz. Fitzgerald's supposed visit to the other guy's home turf ...

[deansyawp]

75. But I suppose

I should learn to read down the threads further, since folks below have reminded us that Fitz apparently has done precisely this.

I go sleep now.

[yodermon]

67. Yeah, except Patrick Fitzgerald.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9865842/site/newsweek/

Nov. 7, 2005 issue - Special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's decision not to indict deputy White House chief of staff Karl Rove in the CIA leak case followed a flurry of last-minute negotiations between the prosecutor and Rove's defense lawyer, Robert Luskin. On Tuesday afternoon, Fitzgerald and the chief FBI agent on the case, Jack Eckenrode, visited the offices of the D.C. law firm where Luskin works to meet with the defense lawyer.
...
In any case, Fitzgerald made another visit early Friday morning—shortly before the grand jury voted to indict Dick Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby—to the office of James Sharp, President George W. Bush's own lawyer in the case, to tell him the president's closest aide would not be charged.

Just sayin.

[Sydnie]

68. Wow!

I had forgotten that tidbit. Glad you found that. Thanks for sharing it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

69. Show me the proof

It's just simple sentences, stating conclusions, without any attribution, so I'm skeptical.

[yodermon]

71. hmm well

it is an Isikoff piece, after all, so ya have a point.

to be fair, the NYT was the original source on the visit to Sharp's office
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/29/politics/29leak.html (now pay/archived i see),
here's the TPM link to a direct quote: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006889.php

[dogday]

104. Well that settled that... eh? nt

[TwilightZone]

113. *crickets chirping*

:evilgrin:

[sheelz]

172. Perhaps, this treasonous administration has him

working out of a broom closet.

[Catrina]

72. Thank you. I remembered that when OLL said it never happens. I

was about to look for a link, but you saved me the trouble ~ that's why I don't like statements like 'this will never happen' without some proof to back it up. Anything is possible.

Fitzgerald DID go to Rove's attorney's office. It was a big story at the time, as it was thought that Luskin was desperately trying to avoid an indictment that day. We know now that what he probably told Fitzgerald that day was that Viveca Novak had spoken to HIM, Luskin, not Rove which would mean Rove had not lied when he said he had not talked to 'reporters' about Valerie Plame.

As for lawyers, it's very, very possible that Luskin himself was blabbing to someone last week, or planting stories, as he's done so often in the past and then denying later something that was said before. He's done so much blabbing and contradicting of himself, that there has been speculation that he himself may end up being in legal trouble. In fact the word 'Luskinisms' has become as prevalent as 'Bushisms'.

I am appalled at some of the comments, especially the accusations that Will Pitt and Jason Leopold deliberately lied. I would ask those who have made those statements to PROVE them, as they are demanding of WP and JL. It's ironic to say that people ought to be careful if they claim to be professionals before they make statements, and then engage in exactly the same behavior themselves.

For the record, I read Jason Leopold's article but decided to wait and see what would happen. I don't know either Will Pitt or Jason Leopold other than reading what they have written.

Smearing people's reputations, especially when it involves their livlihood is not acceptable, imo. I know that the way WP handled this got some people upset, but if they were upset by his attitude, why adapt the same or worse attitude? Anyway, we're all grown-up and anyone who has been online for any length of time, should have developed a pretty thick skin by now. What's important about the story is whether or not it was true, not the personalities of the writers.

We now know, thanks to your link, that what OLL said, and many accepted as gospel, was not true. That at least THIS prosecutor, the one Jason Leopold was talking about, DID go to Luskin's office before, and therefore COULD have done so again. So, that element of his story, which was discredited by OLL, has now been proven to be possible. That should cause people to slow down and not to be so willing to smear someone based on nothing but someone else's assurance.

[Sydnie]

73. Very well said

thank you for saying it.

[dogday]

87. Yep

I agree 100%

[WillyT]

146. Bravo Catrina, Bravo !!!

Very well said.

:yourock:

This whole episode is depressing the hell out of me.

:argh:

[kma3346]

197. Yeah!

I agree as well!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[King Coal]

77. LOL! Good catch, Yoderman.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[H2O Man]

115. On a few

of the political forums, there is a pattern of cartoon characters that I find interesting. One was a fellow who claimed to be from an intelligence agency, and who claimed to be "on the run." A virtual Dr. Kimble, he! And, by coincidence, virtually everything he said about Mr. Fitzgerald turned out to be exactly what Team Libby wrote in their motion to have the court dismiss the charges, due to issues involving Mr. Fitzgerald's authority. Small world.

There was also a cartoon character who claimed to be an attorney involved in some significant cases from the 1960s and '70s. Many people saw through him. I was familiar with some of the cases he pretended he played a role in, and knew he was full of shit.

This species of cartoon character is still in production.

[dogday]

145. I think I know what you mean

And new ones are coming out every day.....

[Me.]

133. !

*shadow government*

[TwilightZone]

86. Gee, perhaps we should demand an apology and retraction...

from the people claiming it "never" happens. Obviously, they must have been intentionally lying.

While I'm mostly kidding, this shows the danger in dealing with absolutes.

Never say never. And not everyone who claims to be an expert necessarily is one.

[TwilightZone]

93. Now, now...let's not bring any facts into this discussion.

;)

[Sydnie]

96. LOL

[corbett]

199. Indeed! Thanks For That Important Reminder

This unprecedented act of treason merit an unprecedented response from the prosecutor.

[Missy Vixen]

112. OLL, I don't mean to contradict

>and that is that no prosecutor ever goes to defense counsel's office. Ever.<

I bow to your knowledge, because God knows I don't have a law degree.

Patrick Fitzgerald, surprisingly enough, was going to defense attorney's offices earlier this year. It was reported on in the mainstream press. (This brought an explanation on the phrase "the eagle doesn't fly".) I wondered to myself later if he was concerned about bugs or wiretapping in his office, and that was the reason he decided to do so.

Julie

[dogday]

125. Now why do you want to spoil

the argument with facts? :sarcasm:

I can also remembering a certain poster saying there were no such things as sealed indictments, and I proved that wrong.


Oh well.. I think we can all take these posts with a grain of salt, cause who knows who or what the other poster actually is?

[H2O Man]

126. I think

you do. (grin)

[dogday]

128. Oh My

my slip is showing....:hi:

[H2O Man]

130. Perhaps

it is someone else's slip that has shown!

[Sydnie]

134. but, but but ...

they never do it that way on my TEEVEE. If Jack doesn't do it on Law and order, it is never done, right? ;)

Hey H2O Man... I think we could use a bit of your insight and wisdom on or around post # 123 above about now. What say you, fine gentleman? Care to put in a cent or too there, please?

[H2O Man]

141. I read that post.

There are a number of people who are confused on DU. And there are a number of causes for the confusion. Quite a few of the people who are confused on one issue or another are right to ask questions, and to demand "proof" when people make claims one way or the other. They aren't a problem.

But notice how people question Larry Johnson -- is he who he claims to be? -- but fail to apply the same question to a cartoon character? My concern isn't those who ask honest questions to try to clarify the issues being discussed. Rather, it's with those who speak a tongue of lies and deceit, and who are attempting to create confusion.

[Sydnie]

143. Thank you for looking

I was thinking something along those same lines. :hi:

[Cameron27]

169. There are a lot of people who are confused on DU

But honestly, I thought you would lend your name to an analysis of the TruthOut article, where the confusion ultimately began. If you feel someone is telling lies, give us an open anaysis of why you believe they're lying.

You give an amen to what someone posted regarding the special prosecutor going to Rove's lawyer's office. But the person who I believe you refer to as "a clown character,"is standing by her position and providing an outline of her reasoning. If she isn't the "clown character" that you referred to, then that is a problem. In a previous post on this on this thread, you attempt to discredit someone, possibly the same "clown character," by pulling out stories of people who have duped DU in the past. Damning by association is very weak.

Im disappointed that you let references to such nonsense as a "shadow government," go unchallenged, even if it supports your position. There's been a hell of a lot of that occuring on these threads and it's reprehensible.

I've read your analysis of many topics and have come away impressed. That's what I thought I'd be reading today. In fact I've been looking forward to reading it.



edited for spelling

[zippy890]

182. cartoon character is what he said

not clown.

know the difference? a cartoon is a made up character, an artificiality like Superman or Dick Tracy.

A clown is a buffoon.

H2O man was not 'attempting' to discredit some 'clown character',
and your professed disappointment at unchallenged references to a "shadow government"
indicates to me a degree of artificiality in you own post.

Hey, now I'm not knocking cartoons here, after all my screen name is from Zippy the Pinhead.
But I'm upfront with that - know'm sayin?

[Cameron27]

193. Yes, sorry I incorrectly wrote clown

I should have written "cartoon character." Actually, I'd prefer that someone be called a "bufoon" rather than have their identities or "loyalties" questioned. I'd prefer it for myself. Name calling eh, just baby bullshit.

If you find a degree of artificialty in my post, fine, you have an opinion of me. I will nonetheless find the use of "shadow government" (no matter how coyly it's used}to be reprehensible. That's just me, and on reflection I shouldn't have expected so much from H2O man. From now on he's just your average DU poster to me.

References to a "shadow government" were made at #133 and #137.

[dogday]

186. Read This Post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1234857&mesg_id=1234969

[Cameron27]

194. Yes, that's what I was looking for

I was wrong. H2O man did write an analysis of the article. Thank you for the link. I'm sorry that I said or implied that he didn't.

[Me.]

195. As To *shadow government"

It is a phrase I have in all my posts, referencing a government structure which was intially set up for a few days but remains to this day. "Only the executive branch is represented in the full-time shadow administration. The other branches of constitutional government, Congress and the judiciary, have separate continuity plans but do not maintain a 24-hour presence in fortified facilities."

washingtonpost.com
Shadow Government Is at Work in Secret
After Attacks, Bush Ordered 100 Officials to Bunkers Away From Capital to Ensure Federal Survival

By Barton Gellman and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 1, 2002; Page A01

“President Bush has dispatched a shadow government of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work secretly outside Washington, activating for the first time long-standing plans to ensure survival of federal rule after catastrophic attack on the nation's capital.

Execution of the classified "Continuity of Operations Plan" resulted not from the Cold War threat of intercontinental missiles, the scenario rehearsed for decades, but from heightened fears that the al Qaeda terrorist network might somehow obtain a portable nuclear weapon, according to three officials with firsthand knowledge. U.S. intelligence has no specific knowledge of such a weapon, they said, but the risk is thought great enough to justify the shadow government's disruption and expense.

Deployed "on the fly" in the first hours of turmoil on Sept. 11, one participant said, the shadow government has evolved into an indefinite precaution. For that reason, the high-ranking officials representing their departments have begun rotating in and out of the assignment at one of two fortified locations along the East Coast. Rotation is among several changes made in late October or early November, sources said, to the standing directive Bush inherited from a line of presidents reaching back to Dwight D. Eisenhower.”cont…

“Known internally as the COG, for "continuity of government," the administration-in-waiting is an unannounced complement to the acknowledged absence of Vice President Cheney from Washington for much of the pastfive months. Cheney's survival ensures constitutional succession, one official said, but "he can't run the country by himself." With a core group of federal managers alongside him, Cheney -- or President Bush, if available -- has the means to give effect to his orders.”cont…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20584-2002Feb28?language=printer

[Cameron27]

211. From me to me

It was a curious juxtaposition of words that I responded to about you, me. I and so do you, me, know about the "shadow government." But I don't know you, me, hence the confusion. No hard feelings between me and me, I hope.

[Me.]

218. Between Thee & Me.

There are no hard feelings.

*shadow government*

[dogday]

196. And as to the slip remark

my slip really was showing :rofl: Welcome to DU :hi:

[Cameron27]

212. I never noticed that your slip was showing

It's very embarrassing when your slip shows. Hope you had time to adjust it. Thanks for the welcome












edited for spelling

[Me.]

137. Slip?

I wonder...

*shadow government*

[kma3346]

220. I think a lot of us do....

:argh:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

139. Oh, contradict away, honey - that's what we're here for, no?

If it's reported that Fitzgerald went to an office, that's a report that Fitzgerald went to an office.

Probative value? None. It's unsourced, and it means nothing.

As we've noted here at DU these past days, anyone can report anything, and it doesn't necessarily have to be true. I wouldn't trust the NY Times, I wouldn't trust the Washington Post, and I sure as hell don't trust anything I read on a blog. That's my version of a healthy skepticism. There are lots of other ways to find information, and, sometimes, just waiting and watching - witness DU this week - turns out to show the truth for exactly what it is.

The simple fact - ask any attorney with criminal experience, either prosecutorial or defense, and they'll tell you how it works. There's no need to defend an absolute fact, but if that report made you skeptical of what I (and others - check with Jersey Devil, who's about as old a leftie lawyer as I am, and who's had the same experience) posted here, that's good, because it means you're paying attention, and not taking anything at face value.

That's good. That's what I hope comes out of this whole sorry Leopold/Pitt episode - that people keep their minds open, their skepticism intact, and that they do some of the checking out themselves, if at all possible, in order to find out what's what. America - well, not us - chose to believe George W. Bush, and look what we got.

As for the notion of bugs or tapped phones (which are no longer physically placed anywhere - we've gone so high-tech), consider this scenario:

You're a prosecutor involved in a large, complicated case that you're working to make.

You are told that your office might be bugged (I know, I know, it's just a hypothetical).

What do you do?

You leave the office while they sweep it, right?

Where do you go?

To the office of a lawyer who's representing one of the individuals you're hoping to charge in this large, complicate case?

Really?

See how silly it sounds when you take it apart and look at it?

Prosecutors are visited by defense counsel; not the other way around. That's just how the dance is done. Anyhone who doesn't know this doesn't know this, and that's all. That's why that "15-hours at defense counsel's office, working out a plea deal" was such a silly assertion right from the start in that unfortunate piece of fiction. Talk about red flags.

It's hard for people to give up their faith when it's been badly betrayed, and, most often, they get upset with the people who knew that the emperor was naked and weren't hesitant to say so. Those people aren't concerned with facts or truth; they're caught up in the matter of personality and blame, and, for them, there will never be any healthy skepticism or curiosity such as you showed here.

That is unfortunate, because that means they learned nothing, that the experience was wasted on them, and they'll walk right into again and again, blaming someone else next time, never understanding that the fault lies within themselves for lacking the courage to explore beyond their narrow vision, for daring to challenge their own belief systems, and for having the good grace to be able to forgive the one who betrayed them and grow from it.

Thanks for that great question. Never stop doubting. Anyone.

[dsc]

170. I am pretty sure that similar things happened with Clinton's

case. Clinton gave his testimony via video from the WH and Lewinski was offered deals in a hotel room. I admit the 15 hours sounds very fishy but simply going to another location actually didn't sound that fishy. Especially as Fitzgerald wouldn't have an office in DC since he is Chicago's federal attorney.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

173. Are you kidding?

He has a huge office here in DC. Right now, he's wearing two hats in his two jobs.

No, this is not about video testimony or deals in hotel rooms. This was about a Federal prosecutor going to defense counsel's office when there aren't even any charges pending.

It doesn't happen.

[dsc]

174. Is it his office

or shared? I presumed he was using the regular DC people's office and could see why he wouldn't use them for meetings that he wanted to remain discrete. I wouldn't trust Bush appointees not to leak.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

177. Oh, no

He's got equivalent digs to what he has in Chicago, right here in the Federal Courthouse. State of the art, first-rate offices.

Don't forget who he is. Fitzgerald is a VIP, regardless of how down-home he may appear. He's top-drawer.

It's not a DC matter - it's a Federal matter, and Fitzpatrick's a Fed. I have no idea what you mean, though, by "DC people's office." I've never heard of that office.

He's quite independent, as you know, and he's run a perfectly leakproof investigation, as is his wont. You know his reputation, I trust, and you know that he's beyond reproach. He's hardly political, but he sure is a brilliant lawyer, and it's been a pleasure working in this city and watching the first - in thirty years of practicing law here - investigation that has sprung absolutely NO leaks.

[dsc]

180. By DC people

I meant the DC federal attorney and his staff appointed by Bush. I am glad he has his own office.

[MADem]

154. Unless, of course, Fitzgerald is dating someone in Luskin's office

"Hey, hon, I'll pick you up after work, and we can go catch the DaVinci Code and have a late supper at Nora, whatcha say??"

[hang a left]

166. Didn't Fitz go to the WH to question **??

Did not Fitz go to Sharp's office on the morning of the Libby indictment??

[Jersey Devil]

29. No legal problem for Wilson or DU

Only those who are sworn to uphold the secrecy of the grand jury are subject to punishment for leaks, such as the prosecutor, grand jurors and all supporting court personnel. A witness who testifies before the GJ can talk about his own testimony all he wants. If a 3rd party hears about what happened in a GJ room from someone who IS required to keep secrecy, the 3rd party would not be in trouble.

The only jeopardy for Wilson would be to tell Fitz who he heard it from so Fitz in turn could track down any leak from the GJ to the ultimate source, who certainly WOULD be in legal jeopardy.

I saw your post the other night re "EMERGENCY" and now understand what was going on.

[Moloch]

51. oops he already answered it...

n/t

[Catrina]

59. I read the post on D.Kos and did NOT think Will Pitt said that Wilson

was a source. My reading of the post was that Will Pitt was saying what Johnson said, that both he and Wilson had heard talk of an indictment also. I'm not sure why you thought he was saying Wilson was a source. He couldn't be, number one. He doesn't work around the courts, or the GJ nor would have access to Rove's attorneys or aids or anyone else.

As I said, I wouldn't worry about it. Someone on Daily Kos made that claim. I thought they were wrong and had to read the post several times to see why they thought that ~ I thought that person was a trouble-maker, to be honest. Trying to make something out of something that wasn't there.

I do appreciate your concern though, I feel the same way about Joe Wilson, but Will Pitt was not saying that imo ~

[MADem]

150. Symbolman, see my theory at post 149, just a bit above yours n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

10. Fitz !!

So what happens when this thread gets too large?

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

24. I'm sure the modmins will cater for any growth in this one thread...

... they've done an impressively deft job with the multiple threads so far.

I'm not sucking up: I think that the recent decision to restrict this topic to one multi-part thread was tactically brilliant. Gauging that this is the right time to open up the discussion is fascinating.

GJ modmins.

[Beausoir]

32. I agree. Very deft modding.

I mod at a couple of discussion boards and I constantly marvel at how DU manages this gigantic board with such agility and "flow".

The sheer number of members..and the very nature of this board...is enough to have me running for the hills.

These folks do a wonderful job. It's a high-wire act, to moderate and admin something like this. I commend them all.

[annabanana]

181. New on TruthOut's update page:

"TruthOut will post a far more comprehensive update on the Rove indictment tomorrow, Sunday, at noon pacific time."

[Garbo 2004]

213. Link? I can't seem to find that at TO's main pg or town meeting pg. n/t

[annabanana]

222. I get email updates when they update.

(this was a line in that email)

[Garbo 2004]

240. Ah. I wondered if that was it. Thanks for the info. n/t

[many a good man]

44. Intent to deceive has not been proven.

Right now its just an allegation. There's no evidence, prima facia or circumstantial, to show this misreporting was intentional. Heck, for all we know Fitz could have set up a sting to catch leakers by intentionally giving false information to selected individuals.

[Karmakaze]

47. Too true..

but that just means it is up to TruthOut to prove they are innocent in this case. And yes I know that is backwards from law, but this is not a court. We don't have to prove they lied to get their trust back, they have to prove they didn't to get our trust back.

[many a good man]

55. Its one thing to accuse of sloppy and unprofessional journalism

And quite another to accuse of outright deception. As you say the Court of Public Opinion has higher standards and we all have to judge for ourselves. In the interests of fairness we should note that at present all we have is partial evidence, and a pathetic "partial apology."

[Karmakaze]

58. True - the ball is in TO's court

It should not be up to DUer's to defend them - Will Pitt culd drop in right now and defend himself. They can put up a whole article on their site explaining what went on.

But they chose to "ride out the storm" - that doesn't earn much sympathy from me.

[survivor999]

57. Good point...

That's what I would do... Give different bits to different people... Then see which bit gets leaked, and voila... Interesting...

[yourguide]

56. Here's the Ian Masters - Jason Leopold interview

Leftie, especially interested in your thoughts on this...I am listening to it now:

http://ianmasters.org/ian_masters_051406_80.mp3

[garybeck]

76. he sure sounds confident, but he was wrong.

he said, "by the end of this week"

the week is over

[yourguide]

78. agreed

I am hoping a lawyer can debunk some of this though...

[Catherine Vincent]

63. Last post before bed....

I re-read the partial apology on TO and I think they still believe their sources. They are partially apologizing for basically jumping the gun before the msm. Who knows? Maybe we'll hear something next week. As always, I will continue to wait and hear from the Patrick Fitzgerald.

Btw, is there a reason why this thread isn't numbered like the others? :)

Night y'all!

<click>

[yodermon]

65. 22 indictments!!! That's what this reminds me of.

Remember that one?
This was the source: http://www.radarmagazine.com/the-wire/2005/10/05/index.php#wire_003399

Breaking! Plame Indictments Imminent
EXCLUSIVE: The D.C. rumor mill is thrumming with whispers that 22 indictments are about to be handed down on the outed-CIA agent Valerie Plame case. The last time the wires buzzed this loud — that Tom DeLay would be indicted and would step down from his leadership post in the House — the scuttlebutters got it right.

Can it be a coincidence that the White House appears to be distancing President Bush from embattled aide Karl Rove? “He’s been missing in action at more than one major presidential event,” a member of the White House press corps tells us.

If the word on the street is right a second time, we have a bit of advice for Rove: Go with vertical stripes, they’re way more slimming.

This one got propogated to every lefty blog in the universe.
But at least everyone knew it was a rumor in the first place.
Ah well.

[ScreamingMeemie]

94. Unfortunately, It reminds me of Dan Rather and the disgrace of what

happened to him. This world makes me sick.

[lala_rawraw]

189. everyone but the psychotic

bunch who think that I wrote it, lol. in fact, if you want to ID the psychos, just search DU:D

[yodermon]

200. I know

In fact, you guys were one "lefty blog" that did NOT propogate the article, despite the verbose assertions to the contrary in them thar hills. ;)

[symbolman]

81. Here's the problem with the half assed "apology"

and the "wait and see" meme..

The "Wait and SEE" attitude is EXACTLY what a real publisher does if he doesn't HAVE ALL THE FACTS, When where who how, etc.

Cart before the horse.

We've already Waited, a full WEEK, and I've seen plenty to convince me that this was manipulation and hanging their asses out there in the breeze hoping like hell Fitz would Indict before they had to "apologise"..

Let the downplaying begin. It's really very simple. SHOW ME the Target Letter Delivered on or before April 26th that was stated as FACT (Not "wait and see" THEN), that it was delivered to ROve and Luskin, and then PROVE that Rove was Indicted on the Very day it was stated as FACT by you more than a WEEK ago.

I bet Will Pitt a 1000 dollar donation for the DU that the Target Letter mentioned above does not exist, and that if it DID exist then I'd send a 1000 bucks to the DU. But if he can't Produce what he and Leopold called BULLETPROOF, and CONCRETE, then HE, or Truthout can donate the 1000 to the DU.

Instead of taking what should be a Sucker Bet since he and Leopold are so sure of, he told me to shove it up my ass, even said he'd pay someone Else 1000 dollars to do it (oh, I cried for days over that one - as a trained Vietnam Era Veteran, only too ready to defend himself from these abuses, I would invite him to say that to my face)..

The proof is that they cannot Produce legitimate facts, documentation that they claim exists, and instead hold everyone HOSTAGE with their Garbage reporting for more than a week, all the while moving the goal posts, 24 hours, then 24 Business hours (whatever the hell that means outside of a Blockbuster Video Store), and then tell everyone to sit back and enjoy the experience SOME MORE.

Do we look like we are retarded gentlemen? The Past is the Prologue to the Future. and from what I've seen, Pitt's abuses of EVERYONE on the DU (ranting about being a magic man, we're all Cretins, etc), and the fact that their PRONOUNCEMENTS are MEANINGLESS, then I hope and pray that people wake the hell up and kick their asses to the curb. I'm not saying that TO hasn't done some fine work in the past, but this looks like GRIFT to me, and I ain't the only one.

Ooops. We got the "scoop" wrong.. gee, no big deal, only led THOUSANDS of people on a wild goose chase, those who believed the horse pucky, while the shit got stirred and Fellow Democrats attacked each other over Leopold's Faith Based Media "reporting".

Thank god for the voices of reason here, instead of the Primal attacks from the Lizard layer of the brain, you people started a CIVIL WAR on this site, on the basis of and the seeking of a "scoop", and who would have received the accolades had that "premonition" come true?

Not YOU DU'RS.. THEM.

Or was Leopold brought to TO to destroy your Google and Yahoo NEWS capabilities? They aren't broadcasting for you any more, and THAT in and of itself should be enough for anyone.

[LiberteToujours]

82. Perfectly said

You worded this better than I could have.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

84. Symbolman, another thank you.

Peace,
Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

89. Thanks for the post. Sadly, I was in the "wait and see" crowd,

finding it very difficult to believe that this story was not going to materialize.

Well, life is series of lessons. I've learned quite a bit, and that's always a good thing.

Will had a lot of credibility with me. I met him briefly, in Crawford, and I admired his writing on that first night he, and others, spent in the ditch with Cindy.

If you want to read some really well written, harrowing articles, read his live blogging from that first night.

Credibility can be so easily diminished, though. It's always about, "what have you done for me, lately"

That's my question to Will, TO and Jason...what have you done for us, lately? See Symbolman's post for the answer. MKJ

[jarab]

91. I cannot - will not - argue with your conclusions, in all honesty.

Seems as though you have the facts on your side. Isn't that refreshing for us all! The truth prevailed. We win!
Half-truths and half-apologies have only temporarily sidetracked us.

...O...

edit: clarity

[mmonk]

83. Having fun?

Burning bridges?

[ScreamingMeemie]

92. Why has anyone let this become the cornerstone of their life this week???

The posts speaking of a "need for an apology", the ulitmate feeling of being duped...and on and on. The jealous cheering of the masses who feel they have been proven right. The same names posting the same stuff over and over again. For golly's sakes people. Soldiers are still dying out there... Innocent Iraqi's as well... Homelessness is at an all time high...jobs are being lost....Candidates are running for office... In fact, MI's Dem governor is in the fight of her life. Hello? Anyone listening? Let's get productive here. Or are we all still feeling personally affronted over this? When you eat your own the clean up afterward is rarely worth the binge.

[Orsino]

95. Journalists are key in the fight...

...against all the ills you mentioned, and help protect the civil liberties that enable us to continue fighting. We should take their failings serously if we care about those things.

When they get stuff wrong, badly, we feel duped and betrayed because we have been. They owe us corrections and apologies. If they are badly wrong and they don't do this, journalism itself is endangered.

[ScreamingMeemie]

97. So then...we should feel personally affronted for days on end and

cheer. Yes, that's productive. Sorry. This is nothing about Journalism and everything about nasty personal feelings for the most part when I read these threads. I don't get apologies from 99% of DUers when we are at odds. Time to move along to what really matters. Let's not speak out of both sides of our mouths. Let's realize what we've all said many a time, the media isn't necessarily helping. We need to stand together and get it done on our own.


There is no one here taking failings seriously. There are a bunch of people schooled and skilled at kicking a dead horse...on both sides of the argument.

[Orsino]

99. For years on end.

When journalism fails to protect us, it is as much a threat to our freedom as, say, the military's or Congress'.

Demand high standards from journalists. Not perfection, though. Journalists who fail should apologize, issue corrections and proceed more carefully. "Moving along" without fixing fundamental problems guarantees further failures.

The horse isn't dead--not until journalists abandon the idea of fixing their mistakes.

[ScreamingMeemie]

101. I'm more for forgetting the media which isn't working for us, and

demanding action from my government. It's "We the People" not "Them the Media"... If you expect the media to get things done for you, you'll be disappointed time and again. Dead Horse.

[Orsino]

114. It's We, the Media...

...since, as we agree, the media aren't working for us so much.

I say, though, that the horse dies when we fail to hold accountable this particular pillar of our society.

[dogday]

105. I don't see anyone holding account the M$M

for their participation in the cheerleading of the Iraq war and I can't even compare the two stories.. If you can, I certainly would like to know???

The M$M story is getting people killed... The truthout story is disappointing people

I can't even compare the two...

[Sydnie]

106. and further we have those same MSM now saying that

they knew about 9/11 before it happened and didn't deem it important enough to report on it.

Imagine if this story were that story ... and TO knew, and didn't report it. Then, we could have a legitimate gripe with the administration of TO. Where is anyone holding Miller's feet, or her editor's feet for that matter, to the fire over that admission?

edited to add ... maybe they didn't report it because it would have been "ahead of the news cycle" ... but why didn't they report it after the fact ... until 56 months later?

[dogday]

107. I demand an apology and want everyone

involved to lose their credibility and jobs.... NOT...

If anyone has a reason to be angry, I do and I still don't wish the kind of crap on this media that some posters are wishing on Truthout, Jason, and Will....


On another note: Was Dan Rather treated this badly on this forum????? Just wondering???

[Sydnie]

108. I don't believe that he was

I think they pointed it where it really belonged. Good point.

[dogday]

140. Where is the outrage at Judy Miller

her shitty reporting or lack of it cost lives.. She could of said something, could she of not??? I don't see the outrage at her???

[Karmakaze]

210. Then you havent been reading DU very long...

or properly - becuse Judy Miller is not even considered a journalist here. No one ever gave Miller a pass on anything she wrote. In fact it was here at DU that here bullshit was first being exposed before the war.

The fact is Miller has such low credibility here than no one expects her to do anything but lie - which may appear as her being given a pass, but is in fact her being passed over. That is what people didn't want to see happen to TO, and they have been saying that from the beginning.

[dogday]

231. I am talking about her recent statement

a couple days ago about 9-11? Are you aware of that???

[Karmakaze]

254. Nope sorry..

Im not really interested in anything she has to say, so I don;t normally view threads about here reporting. Why, what did she say? And why should I care?

[Sydnie]

262. You just lost the plot ... jumped the shark ... cashed in your

"outrage chips" at the media ... any media ... not getting the story "completely" right.

Google it and see what you should really be outraged about.

[Orsino]

117. The stories may be very comparable...

...if we find that both stemmed, even in part, from failed journalism. If the story is so very wrong, I'm not going to forget about it immediately just because it's not another Holocaust.

[dogday]

120. But the content of the stories

is completly different.. One story is getting people killed, the other is not.....

[Orsino]

131. The *results* are very different, sure...

...and the contents, as with any other pairs of stories we compare, are unique. I'm just sparing some outrage for the shoddy journalism they both may contain.

[dogday]

135. Yes, but to show as much

outrage at this truthout story as you would one that lead us into a false war, and has costs the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people, it just does not compare at all...

I mean I am disappointed that Rove is not indicted, but I just don't seem to be able to gather the meanness or anger approach at Truthout....


I now know one "ah shit" wipes out "1000 attaboys" rings true cause I have seen it firsthand on this forum...

[Orsino]

147. Well, it's early days yet.

We've been outraged over the war for years now. It'll be a long time before this particular flap rises to that level.

[symbolman]

221. I'm still pissed that they Killed JESUS

but have learned to live with it..

And that's OLD NEWS to some people..

You seem very intent on subjective responses and the measuring of them. How can you measure and compare with such a broad brush the outrage people are feeling on any given subject?

I'm really amazed that you seem to find your process rational, tho you appear to be a nice enough person.

But you have staying power and I admire that. You might convince someone to "wait and see" by negating the importance of Truthfullness on the Big Truth O Meter you seem to have built :)

Btw, I am joking here, in case the mods or anyone thinks I'm on the prowl, but I do disagree with your premise, and you've repeated it many times, as is your right, which I fought and died for in Nam.

(Kidding, I did SIGN UP during Nam, and did my time in the USAIRFORCE. And I'm not dead.. that was a lie..)

God, I hate liars.

[Name removed]

227. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IsIt1984Yet]

242. huh. Interesting read.

[Moloch]

206. No....

Nobody has EVER complained about the mainstream media OR the war in Iraq on DU.

:eyes:

It is, perhaps, because of the lies in the mainstream media that so many leftwing sites such as truthout started. We trusted Truthout and considered them to be above the fray. They let everybody down in a big way, by writing what we wanted to hear just as the sheeple who watch foxnews desperately wanted to believe there were weapons of mass destruction so they could justify their bloodlust against iraq.

Of course the Leopold article does not have the same repercussions as the wmd stories but it does have a far-reaching negative effect on independent media. As long as charlatans like Leopold continue to write absolute lies, the "blogosphere" will never have the power to represent a true alternative to the mainstream media to the average American.

[dogday]

100. Absolutely

sounds like more going on here than just a disappointing story...

[ScreamingMeemie]

102. It is the same people fighting the same battle under different guise

time and again. :( There is so much we could be doing right now instead of either participating or watching this from the sidelines.

[dogday]

103. My Son fights in Iraq

and these people are pissed off about this... When your loved one faces death on a daily basis, you realize what is really important in this world and this is not important in the grand scheme of things...

[Inland]

127. But what you say is true before, or without, Leopold's fuckup.

Fact is, all the article could POSSIBLE have accomplished was stealing two days' march on an official announcement. The dumb speculation and the focus on the trivial...knowing about it two days before everyone else....started with Leopold.

So if you are going to smack people around for focusing on the wrong thing, make sure you do it right. You have to criticize the speculation over secret grand jury proceedings which are either going to happen or not and no amount of fretting is going to change.

That's been my attitude all along. Having said so in response to another speculation piece last April, I got a sarcastic rejoinder from one William Pitt himself. But in all fairness, he's in the scoop game, and we aren't. T

[rodeodance]

110. Fitz May 19 filing:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/fitzmay19.pdf

[BurtWorm]

111. 178. WTF??? THIS ARTICLE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE

Now here's an example of a heroic post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1179819&mesg_id=1180412


demobabe Donating Member (691 posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sat May-13-06 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
178. WTF??? THIS ARTICLE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE

I know you guys are all going to flame me, but please please hear me out on this:

"Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove."

"Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove"

"The grand jury hearing evidence in the Plame Wilson case met Friday on other matters while Fitzgerald spent the entire day at Luskin's office."


Something is just wrong here.

Which was it?

Half a day? An entire day? Fifteen hours?

When did Fitz get time to file these papers here? http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12774143/site/newsweek

Why the HELL would Fitz spend fifteen hours "going over the charges" against Rove? Hullo???

This isn't how Fitz works. Review how he handled Libby.

You mean NO OTHER MEDIA would have noticed this? Fitz has been followed everywhere in recent months.

"instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order"


Assuming this is true, THIS sounds like a target letter (or the equivalent). Which would mean the previous target letter Leopold reported as being fact several times over does not exist.

"Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators."

"An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown."


Perjury and lying to the investigators are the same things.

Fitz isn't the one who indicts. The Grand Jury is. It was reported they met on other things Friday, so they didn't indict Rove unless they did it previously, in which case, we would have HEARD ABOUT IT!

So we have no sources that will go on record, no comments from anybody directly involved, and conflicting info throughout the article.

This is horrible. We have REAL NEWS TODAY ON THE CIA LEAK CASE, and it is here:

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2006/0...
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12774143/site/newsweek /

An actual document. Court filings. Actual news backed up by proof. Where is your proof, Truthout? Why aren't you reporting the real news of the documents in the Libby case?

[greatauntoftriplets]

116. I hope that demobabe is patting herself on the shoulder.

Jeez, did she call it right or what?

Thanks for posting it, Burt Worm.

[BurtWorm]

118. Did you see some of the shit she got for it?

:eyes:

I wonder if some of them are patting themselves on their backs this week.

[greatauntoftriplets]

121. No, I was out last Saturday evening....

Now I hope that she is feeling vindicated.

:evilfrown:

[brentspeak]

129. Half the people who bashed Demobabe

were probably Jason Leopold's sockpuppets. There was a lot of phony, manufactured PR behind truthout's "scoop".

[BurtWorm]

136. It's funny how the emphasis on the "pro-Leopold" side has suddenly

changed to covering one's own ass, to explaining why any rational person would believe such a crock of shit.

Well, I don't blame them.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

165. Are there anti-Leopold and pro-Leopold factions here? I guess I missed

that polarity.

I supported the brash move Truthout made. I'm sad that it hasn't played out the way we were lead to believe.

I certainly didn't see it as pro-Truthout vs. anti-Truthout. That's like the RW "with us or against us", inflexible positioning.

Enjoy your gloating. :hi:

MKJ

[BurtWorm]

241. There was a pro-Leopold/Truthout/Pitt faction.

Then there were skeptics who were told they were no better than freepers.

Sorry you missed it.

:hi:

[demobabe]

185. Hey! I got a scoop!

I think I went through about ten flamesuits this week.

But this is no congratulatory thing. The blogosphere and especially Truthout have suffered a credibilty blow.

The indictment story should have never been released, and I'm sad to see Will Pitt put all his eggs in the Jason Leopold basket. Leopold had recently written an article that Rove's lawyer received a target letter on or before April 26, and both Symbolman and I had been questioning the validity of that article. I don't understand why Will Pitt would promote yet another unsubstantiated article from Leopold when the last one hadn't yet panned out (and won't).

Symbolman even bet Pitt $1000 that the target letter didn't exist, and Pitt told him to shove it up his butt. He wouldn't take the bet. And then he came and promoted the indictment story. It was like watching a train wreck in progress.

All these stories really accomplished was a polarization of the DU, causing fallouts between former friends here, loss of credibility of the left blogosphere, and a diversion away from the real news that went on this last week. We have lost a lot this week, purely due to egos.

All this adrenaline, trust, and time burned on an unprofessional hack (Leopold) who should see a psychologist about his desperate need for validation as a human being. Why the Truthout editors chose to run this story doesn't bode well for their professional judgment, either, as a high school editor would know better than to run that story.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

226. Thank you Demobabe! The Scoop..... Just think about this? All of the

divisiveness went on about a Scoop. If it realized itself, and Leopold was right, what would that have meant? That he was the first one to get the story that an indictment was handed down. This would eventually have been released into MSM, no one caring who broke the news first. It would have been fait a complit.

We are not talking about Bernstein and Woodward here uncovering the Watergate scandal. It was not uncovering the definitive proof that Rove was indeed the leaker. We are not talking about an article that will help us get out of the fine mess we're in that would root the crazies out of the White House. Now that would have been really something..........

[Inland]

119. Anyone else notice the change in the title over the twenty threads?

Thanks for that much, anyway.

[Jigarotta]

151. yes, noticed...

OFFICIAL TRUTHOUT/LEOPOLD/ROVE/INDICTMENT

OFFICIAL TRUTHOUT/LEOPOLD/ROVE

OFFICIAL TRUTHOUT/LEOPOLD

I think Garp is at work here. :)

Lets hope it ends up as:

OFFICAL 'A'.

[uppityperson]

164. I'm predicting "OFF"

remember, you heard it here, first!

[HereSince1628]

167. .

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

168. My thoughts on this: (long and ponderous)

Whether the JL story on the indictment of Rove turns out to be true or false is of some importance, in that truthout.org wishes to assume the role of a purveyor not only of excellent editorial content, but also of news, and JL purports to fill the role of a journalist, finding and providing that news.

I think for those who say they don't care whether JL/truthout got the story right or not, because they are soldiers on the side of good or whatever, I can not understand or agree with this position. If you say you are a provider of news and information, then it's important that such information be correct, it's just common sense, if you get stories wrong, especially big important ones, no one will pay attention in the future. Why would they or should they? I don't think perfection is a realistic expectation of any news source, but the amount of care exercised should be proportional to the size and importance of the story. If someone wrote a story listing the wrong street where a minor traffic accident happened, not good, but not a huge deal. Not getting it right whether the most important adviser to the president is indicted? Bigger deal. And I agree with the posters who say that the threshold of accuracy should be EVEN HIGHER for web publications like to.org than MSM. I think there is a common sense element to this. The world of web news, for all its potential importance and power, has not established itself yet with most of America or the world as a credible news source yet (except for the web appendages of broadcast and print giants). Therefore, in the process of establishing its credibility and importance, it not only can't be worse, or even just as good as MSM in accuracy, it must be BETTER, like any other new entity. We laugh at organizations like talonnews.com (RIP) or Drudge or townhall, pajama media or whatever, and rightly so, but why shouldn't the non "lefty blog faithful" do the same if big scoop stories on this side of the aisle get it spectacularly wrong, without a thorough explanation of what happened?

The function of MSM news, or how it's supposed to work, seems clear enough, even though we see how it fails or is corrupted. Stories published, money comes in through advertisers from ratings, subscription fees and newsstand sales. If the stories have no credibility, the money from these sources dries up and the network or paper ceases to be a viable entity. With the entities that have identified themselves as "traditional journalism" there are supposed standards in terms of indepently verified sources etc., even if we understand how these standards are often violated. With the blogosphere, it's not at all clear in many instances. Do advertisers pay the revenue? Subscription fees? User contributions? Richard Mellon Scaife slush fund money? Do web news entities even make the claim to follow journalistic standards, or is it some do, and others don't?

Here's a litmus test question: How many of you email links to truthout news stories (not editorial pieces) to others to spread information? If you do, and if this story turns out to be wrong (I'm not sure it's 100% played out yet, and I still hope it might be right but it doesn't look very good), would you be more reluctant to send links to their news stories in the future? If not, why not? My feeling is, when you email or post links and articles, particularly if they are from sources that your target audience typically does not read or trust, your own credibility is at stake too. If they learn information from those sources that they do not get from other media that turns out to be solid, then your credibility and trust with your audience goes way up. If the stuff you send them turns out to be bunk any significant amount of the time (and I don't even count the capitolhillblue type stuff that can't be verified by any objective reality), then you and the sources of your links have lost credibility. It's that simple, and fair.

For those who say "I'd like to see the MSM apologize for getting WMD etc. wrong", the various sins of the mainstream media and others is not, in my mind, relevant to the current situation, as they do not impact upon the merits of JL's story and whether it is correct. They might provide some context to the JL/truthout situation, but they do not change its objective reality. Two wrongs really don't make right.

As far as issues specific to DU, I find it a bit hard to fathom that some posters don't understand why this has been such a big deal here. One of the main answers is that it was MADE to be a big deal here, by one of the main actors in this tale so vigorously defended by the same posters. Will Pitt posted the link and story here to promote it here and get buzz and momentum, and he was wildly successful in doing so. It would have gotten a lot of buzz here anyway just due to the nature of the story, and the fact that truthout has good familiarity with most DUers, but Will's involvement, both in starting the first thread, and defending the story and all the subsequent activity here and elsewhere, was very important with many DUers.

There is an identity issue with Will's involvement. Most DUers, whether prolific, trusted posters or not, are anonymous and most of us don't really know who they are in the public domain. I think that for many, Will IS DU, in a way. I think most DUers, like me, identify well with most or all of his politics. He's a young, energetic, smart guy who actually writes, articles and books, that are published, and he is a public name and face of which DU can be proud. So for this article to be "brought here", promoted, and defended by Will has an importance that really can't be overstated. Many people like me identify, to some degree, DU with Will and Will with DU.

I often see a complaint on the TO/Leopold threads, from both sides, complaining that the perceived attack or defense of TO/Leopold is "personal". I think it has been "personalized" because of the reasons mentioned above.

Anyway, to summarize my take on the stiuation: I'd love it if he story were true. However total silence from anyone but TO after this long time makes me skeptical that it is true. If it turns out to be true (that Rove WAS indicted, past tense, on May 12), then kudos to JL, and TO and Marc and Will for supporting him, but I won't feel bad or guilty for having been skeptical, and am not sure why I should. If it turns out to be wrong either entirely, or in substantial part, I won't have any bad feeling towards Will Pitt and still look forward to reading what he has to say, here, at TO, or elsewhere, as I have some "track record" of reading his stuff. As for JL, I have no "track record" with him prior to this and would have little interest in anything he'd have to say afterwards, and would be surprised if TO or anyone else would continue to employ him as journalist. I'd continue to enjoy the fine editorial content at TO but be very wary of news stories, especially big ones or "scoops" coming out of there until a much better track record had been established.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

191. Not ponderous at all. Well worth pondering. Nicely written.

I identify with your position and only differ on one small point: regarding future work by Will Pitt.

While I was introduced to Will Pitt's work through DU, I do not equate him with DU as you postulated many DUers might. I have enjoyed much of his work in the past and even submitted "thank you" posts on DU for some that I found exemplary. I hadn't clashed with him in any significant way until recently, during the Raw Story Anti-Atheist Op-Ed brouhaha and now this TruthOut Leopold "scoop".

Given what he posted recently about his opinions of DU, its members and his self-importance, I can't read or support his work anymore. But that's just me. Yeah, he was drunk... but I think that just lowered his filters rather than creating "Mr. Hyde".

I will be looking forward to reading your posts, though. Thanks for posting this one.

[NNadir]

201. That is a very fine and thoughtful post. Well done.

[Harper_is_Bush]

171. Hey btw everyone, did you hear? Iran is going to make jews wear yellow

arm bands.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1244731&mesg_id=1244731

[Maddy McCall]

175. Did you hear that NOLA's mayoral elections are today?!

The city hit worst by Katrina is deciding between two mayoral contenders--Nagin, who led NOLA during and after Katrina; and Landrieu, who wants to take the job from Nagin.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1243023

[CTyankee]

179. Well, in CT it's Ned Lamont's garnering more than enough town Dem votes

to at least get on the primary ballot against Joementum.

However, I just flew back from a trip to LA and while I was there I checked in, but didn't register and post, at DU. I was so amazed at this brouhaha that I mentioned it to my VERY liberal dtr and son in law. The whole Will Pitt, 3 am shitfaced posting thing was considered hilarious. My 2 year old grandson was having a major melt down the next day and the comparison was not lost on any of us!

Lest I get horribly skewered here, I rush to say I do not know Jason or Will and am not predisposed one way or another. I had hoped, like so many of us, that he was right. I am disappointed, but not terribly surprised at what happened. Jason and Will will live to fight another day but I am certain they have learned some of life's hard lessons.

There's a reason that the Greeks wrote about hubris in their plays...

[Semblance]

183. .

I can't believe that it is Saturday, 6:00 PM and we haven't heard anything from Pitt or Leopold. They should at least comment on it.

[DisgustedTX]

190. We've written it off to "Meglomaniacs GONE WILD!"

:)

[Joe Chi Minh]

192. You people are like the bean-counters in a corporation.

When given the reins of profit-making corporations, they have a marked tendency to drive them into bankruptcy; it's the salesmen who build companies. You just don't seem able to grasp the larger picture.

The idea of speaking of journalism and credibility in the same breath, as some of you do, would be laughable were it not so tragic. Virtually, the only thing true in a newspaper is the date. I tell a lie. There's also the sports results, though I've heard of sports writers being too drunk to attend boxing matches and writing "ringside reports", as recounted to them by friends.

If a left-leaning blog got 25% of its coverage wrong, it would still be a massive improvement on the corporatist media - even over the former, pre-Reagan and Thatcher, only 90% corporatist, media. Why? Because the fact of the matter is that, as the purveyors of political truths to the nation at large, the blogs of the left are a pristine, revolutionary, almost totally new, phenomenon. After WWII, in the UK, the Daily Mirror was in tune with the Socialist government, which the people had voted for in record numbers. And the Guardian, formerly, the Manchester Guardian has continued to be the next best thing to an honest newspaper: a sometimes honest newspaper, often at odds with the political establishment during its better periods. But that's the long and the short of it. They barely register in comparison with the leftie* blogs.

And yet, here are you, arguing on the basis that professional journalists are some sort of paragons, which left-wing bloggers should aspire to emulate! And you do Rove's work for him admirably. He must know he can count on you to do the heavy lifting, after the swift-boat nonsense, and turn this other little mole into another mountain. Hunter S must be turning in his grave.

I don't believe there is a country in Europe, another country in the world that would not have laughed aloud at the idea of the Republicans, with their eminently martial cvs, seeking to denounce and mock a twice-decorated war hero. Yet you fell for it hook line and sinker. How ofter have we read on these threads how Kerry lost (yes, lost!) the last election, because he didn't respond quickly enough to the Swift-boat detractors. I'd assumed they were operatives, but I'm not at all sure now that they all were, by any means.

People are turning to the left-wing blogosphere because they know that any mistaken or prematurely-issued report that they get from it is rare, and it is virtually the only source of political and social truth they can very substantially rely on. Forget perfection. That's ivory-tower stuff. This is war, and as Barbara Tuchman once observed, "War is the unfolding of miscalculations." So we should be grateful for the very substantial mercies Truthout and its stalwarts afford us.

*term used by all rational people as a compliment.

[robcon]

198. Super-cynic

KCabotDullesMarxIII wrote: "The idea of speaking of journalism and credibility in the same breath, as some of you do, would be laughable were it not so tragic."

Wow. More cynical than thou seems to be the poster's M.O. Dreadful post.

[Joe Chi Minh]

251. Realism is not cynicism. Politics is about power; newspapers

are about politics because their owners are about power - as are the Governments with whom they need to establish a modus vivendi. The first thing that the new leader and his people do, during a successful coup d'etat, is take over the TV stations. I'm less sure to what extent they feel the need to take over the press; in most cases much less, I suspect. But the newspapers would need to tread very carefully for a while at least.

I can scarcely believe that Hugo Chavez hasn't taken over the TV channels. It just goes to show what enormous support he has from the vast mass of the people; and incidentally, how anathema a reconciliation with a recognizable form of democracy is to the political establishments of most countries of the West. Were it otherwise, they would be enthusiastic supporters of Chavez and the emerging ethos of democracy in South America.

I'm a little conflicted myself in this matter, as the last thing I would want to see is the Blairite-type, new-money, beggar-on-horseback characters replacing the old-money patricians, who have a larger proportion of principled people in their ranks. And I fear what happened in the UK could happen again, and not just in the UK. Without a spiritual regeneration and underpinning of the new order, an atavistic regression, promoted and funded by big business, would take place with an even worse form of tyrranical exploitation than has been superseded by the welfare state. On reflection, I think it's happened in the US too, after Roosevelt's New Deal. Though it was obviously hastened by the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers, Martin Luther King, etc.

It's regrettable to use a term like "beggars on horseback", since genuinely indigent people would be more likely to sell a horse given to them and share the money with their friends; but "Put a beggar on horseback and he'll ride it straight to hell" is an old English saying, in the form of a metaphor which ruthlessly cynical renegades from my kind of humble background will not appreciate - the less so the more closely it applies. Thank goodness we also have our Edwardses, Livingstones, Castros, Chavez's, etc. to keep everyone on all sides half-honest.

[johnnie]

209. The thing is

It's quite obvious that this isn't about a left wing blog getting their facts wrong, it is an all out attempt to try to destroy certain individuals reputations.

[symbolman]

223. If someone was to think of it from that angle

they could also say that certain Individuals are doing a pretty good job at destroying their own reputations..

Which is a funny statement, in answering it, it looks like I've opened myself up for someone to come in and say, "Maybe YOU are destroying YOUR reputation! Maybe YOU are THAT certain person!"

But I wouldn't get mad, two reasons really, one, I believe in free speech, and Two: because one thing I try to remember is that the MEDIOCRE are DOING their VERY BEST. :)

See what happens when someone makes a "blanket statement"?

Certain people get sucked into them.

Do these certain people have Names?

Actually, I've been looking for a Band Name and I think that's a good one for my group, "Certain people" because it can be taken so many ways!

THANKS!

[robcon]

225. It IS about ruining reputations

johnnie wrote: "It's quite obvious that this isn't about a left wing blog getting their facts wrong, it is an all out attempt to try to destroy certain individuals reputations."

But it's not about actively ruining their reputations. That statement should be in the passive voice. The reputations of Leopold, Pitt and Ash have been ruined. Most would say - by their own actions and words.

[Joe Chi Minh]

247. I think you've got it. Perhaps I wasn't so wrong.

[Joe Chi Minh]

258. I was referring to Johnnie's post, of course.

Interesting to see some of the names on here. The usual suspects.

[evermind]

204. To all the Leopold / Fitzgerald experts herein:

Presumably you're familiar with the "Fitzgerald blog" at http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com/ (I use the scare quotes because I'm pretty certain it's not the real Fitzgerald's blog ;)

But who writes it?

It seems the same person also posts comments at Steve Clemons' http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/ as "Patrick J. Fitzgerald".

Could it be Leopold?

[Left Coast Lynn]

208. I'd like to hear from Will Pitt

Has he spoken here or elsewhere? Thanks.

[Catherine Vincent]

217. Whoever writes it is a spammer.

And you're right, it's not the real PJF.

[cascadiance]

214. Careful folks... The right is eyeballing these threads for quotes...

... for all of us to get us all to look like whackos.

I've not been following the threads daily like many of you have here. I tried to express some support in one thread to wait and see what happened, and my concern that one "possible" reason being a Rovian plot to undermine sources. I just don't want it to get to the point that courageous journalists like many here aren't having to look over their shoulder too much before publishing a story that they feel they've got enough sources to go with. The level of disinformation out there, duplicity, and downright criminal mafia mindsets is so overwhelming...

Check out my one post in this DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1217985#1224267

and now this RW site's quoting of me to "out" me (on their home page for May 20th). And I'm not even a journalist here.

http://rovianconspiracy.blogspot.com/

[Catherine Vincent]

216. They need to be quoting those cretins and fuckwits over at freerpubic.

Those are perfect names for those folks over there.

[Jigarotta]

245. sorry, no RW or anyone else is the boss of me

in what I think or decide to say.

That excuse has always been weak with me - ooooo, what will They Think?
doesn't fly.

[WiseButAngrySara]

246. Shitola! They mentioned ME TOO! And OldtimeDFLer and TwoSparkles....

I can't believe this. I was responding to Pitt's May 17th post "On a Personal Note..." and was speculating about his good reasons, and the potential of Leopold being used by Rove et. al. precisely because of his dubious journalistic past.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1217985&mesg_id=1218748

I was curious about your post, and even though it takes me forever to download this long thread, I decided to check out the above linked RW blogspot. Imagine my complete shock when I found my linked name! How did you find out that your name and post had been linked to this site? Surely this is not a site you frequent, or is it? Did someone you know tell you about it? Very curious! I almost didn't even check this lengthy thread but wanted to see if there was an update on the e-mail that TruthOut sent yesterday...

[cascadiance]

256. Sometimes I just google my handle periodically...

Just to see if other sites point to me. Just happened to catch a fresh link this time. I certainly don't eyeball these. Since it was fresh, I thought it would be worth mentioning here.

I certainly don't advocate "cowtowing" to these bums... I just think it helps to be aware of what the other side is saying. It certainly could help when sniffing out what someone like the Rovester is doing, since he's one sneaky SOB!

[symbolman]

224. Yes I did bet Pitt in Public here a 1000 dollar DU donation

That there was NO Target letter received by Rove or Luskin on or before April 26th of this year, as Reported by Leopold and PR'd by Pitt.(I was told here, in Public to shove it up my ass by the very same gentleman, and I cried for weeks, very manly tears, but tears still.. 1000 dollars would Hurt a LOT..)

In short he refused the bet. BUT, NOW I know why he got so mad about it. Looking at one of the posts at TO and Demobabe's post made me think about it some more.

He was shortly to promote the "Rove INDICTED TODAY" tale and guess what? IF there HAD BEEN a Target Letter on or before April 26th, the the "ROVE INDICTED TODAY" scoop, would simply have NO TEETH at all.

It would have been disproven BY THEMSELVES.

That would make me mad too.. but I gave up booze, it makes me WAAAAY TOO HONEST.. Like I said, I want TRUTH in the Media, but too much HONESTY can be a bad thing. Especially since I am an actual "fuckwit" and the rest of you are Posers.. there is only One True Fuckwit and YOU are looking at HIM.

And anyone who says I'm NOT.. is STILL Not a fuckwit, got it? :)

BTW, Skinner I WILL be giving money to the DU, not a thousand, as I can't afford it, honestly, but I will DONATE absolutely because FOLKS, it don't get NO BETTER THAN THIS.

Has any one THANKED SKINNER lately? He's been pretty great about all this, even when I complained that the series of 100 postits threads reminded me of being stuck at the Kiddie Table during Thanksgiving.. but only a fuckwit would say something like that :)

I'll GLADLY GIVE to the DU and I urge other to do so as well, look at how hard the MODS have been working this WEEK ALONE! Besides, they put up with fuckwits, like me..

[symbolman]

275. I wouldn't mind the mods deleting my last post

I'm afraid I've been to harsh and getting personal, and arrogant about some of this, and that's just not cool...

I need to take a higher ground on this, and in many ways I haven't. I had started to a week or so ago, then fell into being a jackal - I've spent many nights up all night over the course of this story since it was broken, and being human I've made mistakes as well.

Consider this an apology for crowing about some things which have been inappropriate.

I'll take those lumps now, but please don't use the tire iron :)

[Coexist]

234. This lovely thread made Capitol Hill Blue again:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/content/2006/05/eating_t...
Eating their own

May 20, 2006 07:59 AM / Media .
Didn't take long for the jackals to turn on left-wing news site Truthout.org and writer Jason Leopold after a week went by and their "scoop" of an indictment of Bush political guru Karl Rove turned out to be little more than wishful thinking.

The faithful on Democratic Underground went into a full feeding frenzy on Ash, Leopold and Truthout honcho William Rivers Pitt.

A few examples:

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Everything published by you will be met with skepticism by a great many people from many people. Perhaps not everyone, but enough that you've now lost a great deal of stature, and will take Much accuracy in the future to ever hope to rebuild it."

"The non-apologetic apology with the non-explanatory explanation bothers me almost more than the story being wrong. I'd still support truthout if they would just level with their readers and do it quickly."

"What does "getting too far out in front of the news cycle" mean? They had double, triple sources here. For days, they were standing vehemently behind this story. What the heck happened? Sorry guys, I'm not joining the 'that's okay, we forgive you' club.

"I'm not sure an apology from Mr. Pitt would be enough after the abuse he dished out. He has a history of melting down, then offering apologies after saying terribly hurtful things that cannot be unsaid. I admit it. I was waiting to see if the pattern would be repeated and was upset and disturbed when it was. Damn."

On both sites, Truthout still has its die-hard supporters but -- like Conservative Republicans who feel betrayed by George W. Bush -- they now question their earlier strident defense of the Leopold story.

[Coexist]

235. "Calling off the Firing Squad" from Capitol Hill Blue

May 21, 2006 10:10 AM / Media .

It's time, I think, to call off the dogs and wait to see how things play out in the Truthout-Jason Leopold-Karl Rove indictment debate.

Over the past week, some 1800 emails have come in over the electronic transom urging me to take advantage of Truthout's possible jumping of the gun on a story that Karl Rove has been indicted. Because one of Truthout's founders, William Rivers Pitt, and I have had differences in the past they felt this was a time to gloat that chickens had come home to roost at his web site.

I'm sorry but I take no pleasure or joy at Truthout's problems nor do I wish to join in the feeding frenzy at their expense. We still don't know, for sure, if Karl Rove was indicted nine or ten days ago. All we know for sure is that Truthout ran a story by Jason Leopold that said he was indicted, had 24 hours to get his affairs in order, and that Rove would resign from his position at the White House. Nobody in the traditional media picked up on the story. Neither did the liberal media sources. Raw Story, where Leopold once worked, stayed away from it. So did Salon, although War Room blogger Tim Grieve devoted several skeptical posts to it.

The credibility that any journalistic endeavor - print, broadcast or 'Net - enjoys with its readers is fragile at best. We are all just one mistake away from oblivion. None of us are perfect and we will make mistakes. The key is how we handle those mistakes.

more sanity here

[dogday]

236. Very nice article

I am impressed with those words...

[Coexist]

239. FYI - there may be another update today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1249698#1249717

Speaking of usual sources --->>>
"TruthOut will post a far more comprehensive update on the Rove indictment tomorrow, Sunday, at noon pacific standard time."

This is from a TO email yesterday.
"I am the master of low expectations." -- George W. Bush

[Semblance]

244. I hope we get a new thread for that

This one is kind of BLOATED.

[WiseButAngrySara]

248. ATTENTION Moderators, pinto!! A new thread, PLEASE!!!! ....n/t

[annabanana]

250. NEW THREAD HERE!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1250341

[HereSince1628]

255. Are we every gonna get a DU casualty report on these threads?

I wonder just how many locks, alerts, tombstones, etc. these generated.

[Sydnie]

257. Very good question

I would be interested in the answer to that as well.

[annabanana]

260. I was only locked.... (People have

been TOMBSTONED for this?..... . . naw.)

[yodermon]

263. yep

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=131175

[Puglover]

268. Media_Lies_Daily

was tombstoned? :wow: Good God, the guy was abit over the top but what lead up to that? He's been around here forever.

[jazzjunkysue]

252. I emailed TO and got this response from Ash:

My subject to Ash:

Please try a better explanation: We really want to know what's going on. What's the delay?

(my email)
Dear Truthout,

I think we deserve a better explanation than "we caused more confusion
than clarity."
And you think this statement does something to improve the clarity and
diminish the confusion? Think again.
What happened to the "We've been pelted with abuse" statement?
If you're going to be taken seriously, ever again, you'll have to do
better than that.
1. Who are your sources?
2. What did they tell you, and what was it based on?
3. Why didn't the plan pan out? Is Rove closer or further from
indictment than before this "confusion?"
If you want to be a serious news source, don't complain when we're as
critical of you as a network boss would be. Expect criticism.
Sue

Ash's response:

This is actually a reasonable complaint. I think my next update will
share a bit more. m

[annabanana]

253. Well, I tried...

no dice...
(I wonder how long this thread will get before they relent...)

[Gregorian]

261. Salon's interview with Truthout

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

[Sydnie]

264. truthout story up now

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/

[Cooley Hurd]

267. I missed it by a minute - drats!

;) :hi:

[Sydnie]

270. You didn't think I was going to be late to that party did you?

:rofl: :hi:

I am *notoriously* never on time for anything. Imagine my own surprise at being there first.

[Garbo 2004]

265. Ash's latest update just posted:

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/21/115826/135

[Cooley Hurd]

266. Statement from Truthout: Sun May 21st, 2006 at 11:58:26 AM EDT

Sorry if this has been posted - I didn't see it.

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/21/115826/135

<snip>
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.

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.

We know that this story is of vital interest to the community, and that providing as much information as we can is very important to our readers. We want you to know that this is challenging territory and that we are proceeding with as much speed as the terrain will allow.

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
</snip>

[bleever]

269. In poker terms, Truthout calls, and raises.

Not backing down on issues aside from the timing of the announcement, and foreshadowing even bigger developments to come.

[Sydnie]

271. All I can say is

I'll take another helping please. :hi:

[yodermon]

272. "Rove may be turning state's evidence"

this had occurred to me too, but I didn't have the guts to post it.

It COULD explain the silence - Fitz gets a GJ indictment in hand, waves it in Roves piggy face, and this finally gets him to flip.
If he flipped, then Fitz of course needs more time to get more indictments up the ladder, even if he does evenutally indict Rove as well.
Capisci?

[annabanana]

276. thanks for the excerpt. . . truthout's blog has crashed.... . n/t

[yodermon]

273. MODS, CAN WE GET A NEW THREAD PLEASE?

esp. in light of Truthout's latest, http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2006/5/21/115826/135

:hi:

[Sydnie]

274. I second that

It's getting hard to load.

[pinto]

277. Locking due to length.

A Truthout Update thread is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1250919&mesg_id=1250919