Jason Leopold heads up.

[gumby]

"..Peter Donalds talks with journalist Jason Leopold, who set off a firestorm in the blogosphere last week when he reported that Karl Rove was to be indicted in the Valerie Plame case... both sides deny the story and the indictment never materialized."

5:00 pm CST Wisconsin Public Radio (Ideas Network)
http://www.wpr.org/index.cfm

That's what's posted. Whatever.

[stop the bleeding]

1. could someone please supply updates if possible

thank you in advance.

[movonne]

2. Yes I would like that too...

[gumby]

3. The programs are archived an hour or two later.

http://www.wpr.org/ideas/programnotes.cfm

I have no idea if Leopold will actually be on or if the program will have any value; but I know it's been a hot topic lately.

[kpete]

14. my notes (excuse typos, etc. typing while listening.

What Happened - Start with basics of story

Leopold:
On May 13, I received phone calls from 3 or 4 of my sources that Rove had informed WH he had been indicted.
My sources said the action was at Patton Boggs.
My sources told me (in extensive detail) the events that took place.
Marathon session.
At the end - Rove informed he had 24 business hours. I should have left that phrase out because I did not know what that phrase meant. I was reporting what was said.

Leopold:
Indictment came on friday or before.
We are still standing by the story.
Unless Fitz says different.

Leopold:
Rove's side is denying.
Fitz not saying anything - not surprising.

were you duped?

Leopold:
I have a checkered past.
I understand a healthy dose of skepticism.
My editor is amazing, putting job on the line.
He KNOWS who ALL of my sources are.
When I became the story - we received several phone calls from major news people - they knew about this story.

Leopold:
Sources are people I have worked with for 2 years.
Attorneys, people in government - a list of 10.
36 WH officials who have testified - I went through the list of people, some of those people have numbers listed.
It is NOT that difficult to find out what went on

caller
You are in legal jeopardy and you will be sued
Rove will not be indicted.
Armitage will.

Leopold:
They haven’t asked for a retraction – they don’t want a retraction.



Leopold:
When you get people this angry, you are on to something.
What is interesting is the MSM. They immediately went to Rove’s Lawyers.
They have their own sources. It is a story they would get a lot of heat for.

Leopold:
I have baggage, but I have admitted that.
I broke my own story, I wrote the book.

caller
His inherent preexisting bias leads to mistake.
There may be no story at all. The whole outing of Plame is a NON-issue.

Why do you think its been over a week

Leopold:
I think and know there is an indictment.
I believe there has been serious plea agreements.
Additional charges.
One of the things that was actually rumored is that Rove supplied info on Cheney’s notes, but I do not know.

BREAK

Do you feel like you have been swift boated?

Leopold:
In hindsight, I still would have reported the story. I would have spent more time getting confirmation. I am aware that I bring baggage.
The allegations of me fabricating – makes no sense. The folks on the right – I expect that response.
What I am so taking aback by is the liberal blogosphere. The people who claim that I have set it back years.

You are the reason I check out Truthout everyday. I am very embarrassed that people on the left are attacking you. I do not have any doubt that your story is valid and true. The NYT held a story for over a year. We are concerned about getting the Truth out.

Leopold:
Thank you so much
I really do appreciate that call.


have you talked to your sources recently?
Leopold:
They got spooked – having to lay low.
They told me that an announcement was EXPECTED last week.
They said – you should not have put in When it was supposed to happen.
I should not have put in a time element.
Fitz could change his mind.

A lot of speculation that Rove planted this story?

Leopold:
Can’t imagine that happening.

Does their have to be a public record. Were Jason’s sources at a high enough level?

Leopold:
It can be filed under seal, because investigation could still be going.
It is possible, but not likely.

Do you think your reporting influenced events. Should you have sat on it.
Leopold:
When I got this story, I was sure it was going to break that evening. I treated it as a scoop. It was a big part of my motivation.

I was like – OMG – This is a HUGE story.

No Regrets.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

17. Caller: "The whole outing of Plame is a NON-issue."

"There may be no story at all."

Ah, poor silly caller, if wishes were horses...

[WiseButAngrySara]

37. I thought he was being used to spread disinformation precisely

because of his checkered past, much the way Rove used Rather and Hatfield. But he still sounds convinced of his sources, or he doesn't consider the possibility that he was used or lied to, or he is just lying out the wazoo (sp.?) like most DUers seem to have concluded.


"were you duped?

Leopold:
I have a checkered past.
I understand a healthy dose of skepticism.
My editor is amazing, putting job on the line.
He KNOWS who ALL of my sources are.
When I became the story - we received several phone calls from major news people - they knew about this story."

[Spazito]

68. When asked if he was duped, Leopold said "No, not at all."

and he did say it with conviction.

[Spazito]

66. Great job, kpete, thanks! n/t

[jbnow]

74. Thank you for your notes (no text)

[DB1]

114. I have more faith in Leopold than the MSM

Give me one good reason not to be patient and let the truth rise to the surface.

[Catrina]

161. Welcome to DU DBI, I can't think of a reason not to be patient either ~

And as far as who I would bet on if it was between Jason Leopold and the MSM, I would bet on him anytime. :hi:

[WiseButAngrySara]

24. I would like to know how Will is holding up! Has anyone heard anything?

I've been ignoring the threads that are allowed on this subject lately, because there is no useful information posted, and the threads are not only inflammatory, but way too long!

[LeftNYC]

32. JL said Pitt has 24 hours to get his affairs in order

before he shows up on DU again:beer: LOL!

[WiseButAngrySara]

40. Oh, groan!!!! LOL! ....n/t

[LeftNYC]

42. Ha Ha!

:toast: too easy, had to be done...

[Critters2]

67. Business hours?

:beer:

[titoresque]

4. I'm listening to school budget issues

did I miss it? Am I listening to the wrong stream?

[gumby]

5. Scheduled for 5:00 CST

[LeftNYC]

6. the post says 5 CST...nt

[LeftNYC]

7. Leopold on now...nt

[Coexist]

8. thanks - "lets start with the basics"

"on May 13th, Saturday, I received phone calls from 3 or 4 of my sources ... about his report that Karl Rove informed the WH that he was to be indicted."

Sources: "the action was not at the Court House, the action was at Patton Boggs."

They then went into extensive detail about the 'marathon session' at Patton Boggs.

[Coexist]

10. on the "24 business hours."

"I could have left that phrase out. I do not know exactly what that meant. I was just reporting what was said."

[Taxloss]

96. What, he couldn't ask what it meant?

He put it in even though he didn't have a clue what he was saying? He's either lying or a terrible journalist. Don't write anything you don't understand! It's part of the rules!

[LeftNYC]

11. JL-"sorry he put the 24 hour time frame in there

takes full responsibility for the wording..."could have left it out"..

[Taxloss]

94. Yeah, making the story vaguer would make it easier to distort later.

This guy's wheels aren't really in contact with the road, are they?

[demobabe]

73. Squishy

"received phone calls from 3 or 4 of my sources"

...and 8 sources were reported in the original story.

"Karl Rove informed the WH that he was to be indicted"

Leopold wrote the story that his sources said Rove was to be indicted on the 12th. On the 13th, he reported Rove HAD BEEN indicted.

So squishy. Story keeps changing every day...

[ShaneGR]

180. "I received a call from 3 or 4 sources"

Was it 3, or was it 4? Where do these sources work? You'd think he'd be talking in specifics, but it's just more generality.

[grytpype]

194. That we WAS TO BE??? No, Jason, that's not what you wrote!!!!

Jason wrote Karl WAS indicted! WAS! ACTUALLY WAS!

Who can believe this lying cokehead!

[grytpype]

195. "Rove informed he had 24 business hours." THAT'S NOT WHAT JASON WROTE!

Jason wrote "24 hours to get his affairs in order."

The "business hours" thing was concocted AFTER THE FACT by Jason defenders, when NOTHING HAPPENED in 24 REAL hours!

Jason is lying about WHAT HE WROTE!

You still believe him?

[Spazito]

9. Listening now, thanks for the link! n/t

[LeftNYC]

12. JL-still sticking by the story...

fitz side wont comment, rove has of course, denied...this is JL's words abbreviated.

[Coexist]

13. he said that Ash spoke to all his sources and checked them out

and that he is sticking with the story.

[Coexist]

15. JL: "I had a total of 5 independent sources"

"who came forward of their own volition."

[Coexist]

16. "why do you think that its been over a week and we've heard nothing"

"I know there is an indictment... I believe there has been some serious plea negotiation (hence the delay) ... Fitz may be going back to the GJ to add additional charges... clearly something has been going on."

"I can't tell you how confident we feel in our report."

[LeftNYC]

22. claims Ash has 3 additional...

with my 1st grade math skills that equals 8. Either this is a huge scam by truthout or something is up.

[Garbo 2004]

202. Ash spoke to Leopold's sources and checked them out? So if Leopold

just lied and fabricated the story, as some assert, then is Ash lying and fabricating too? Ash has cited the original sourcing as well as additional sources subsequent to the May 13 article. It doesn't appear all the info is just being funneled to TO through Leopold, which one imagines would have to be the case if as some assert, Leopold has simply lied and duped TO.

So, is TO itself (not just Leopold) conspiring to maintain a fabrication? Or, as improbable and confusing as the story appears, it is as TO asserts, TO (not just Leopold) is being told this stuff by several sources?

[Catherine Vincent]

26. Of course, have you ever seen anyone more tight-lipped than Fitz?

:)

[Coexist]

28. I love how you always find a way to post a photo of that doll.

;-)

[peacetheonlyway]

128. he's cute enough to make a gay girl go straight..

wow, that man's a cutie / what a damn good looking man...
he gets cuter everyday in my book!

we all love you fitz.... and truthout for reporting regardless of the firestorm.. keep it up.....

[Missy Vixen]

147. "Okay. Who drank the last of the Guinness?"

"I had to go on national live TV today, with very little sleep, and all I wanted was a beer. That's right. Just a lousy beer. You guys drank it ALL? How could you do this to me? I've been working 100 hour weeks since God was a boy, and now I can't even get a BEER?"

(This temper tantrum brought to you by the fertile imagination of the president for life of the PFEB. After all, our favorite guy would NEVER do anything so immature as to have a tizcake because someone drank the last beer in the office refrigerator...)

Julie

[lonestarnot]

152. Guinness? Did someone say Guinness?

:beer:

[Catherine Vincent]

157. LOL!

Good one, president for life of the PFEB!! :thumbsup: :hi:

[Maddy McCall]

83. He has nothing to lose if he's wrong.

I mean, how much lower can he sink when he's already on the bottom rung of his professional ladder.

Like I said before, I guess he may end up writing obits in Pelahatchie, Mississippi. But I'll say now that even the publisher of a 2,000 circulation newspaper wouldn't hire him now.

[DancingBear]

112. He's taking my job?

Bastard.

[Orsino]

237. He's *changing* the story, again...

...if he's claiming his sources told him Rove "was to be indicted." he wrote that it had already happened, and we were assured that we could take it to the bank.

[Spazito]

18. He said...

I can't tell you how confident we are about this story and we are not going to let Karl Rove's people...( I don't have the correct words but, in essence, they aren't going to let them kill the story)

[Coexist]

19. I will get flamed... but after that interview - I feel a lot more

confident in this than I have been for the past few days.

I wish Mark Ash would give an interview.

[Spazito]

21. Well, there certainly is no question about their confidence in

the substance of their article and it stands them in good stead, imo. Jason, and by extention TO, Mark Ash, are not apologizing or retracting the substance of their article at all.

I suspect there will be the 'snark attacks' soon, I hope I am wrong, but I just ignore them and keep my eye on the issue, it works well for me anyhow.

[DancingBear]

31. Please don't use that terminology

If you mean there are folks that still want to see some actual evidence, then that is one thing.

"Snark attack" has no value, unless you think we should name call, in which case us pro-evidence folks can whip out 2 or 3 dozen without breaking a sweat. Having opposite viewpoints is just that.

That said, this is an important thread, for we have been asking TO to come forward since the 12th. While Leopold has added nothing to the conversation with this interview, I do commend him for speaking.

Has anyone asked him why it has been 12 days now, and no indictment? Or why TruthOut claimed an exclusive, but then Ash stated there were two other news crews at Patton-Boggs on the 12th? Wouldn't they have reported something, if they were there?

(Apologies if this has been answered "down-thread")

[Spazito]

36. It is how I define the attacks that have occurred, they were simply

snark competitions whose content offered no illuminating information. I am entitled to describe something the way I see it.

I agree with you,this thread is important, much too important for any snark, from me or anyone else.

I hope you are listening to Jason as well.

Edited to add a missing word.

[DancingBear]

43. Not listening, but listening here via others

Nothing convincing so far.

At some point, I'd like to ask you what lack of "illuminating information" you have heard from the pro-evidence side, but now ain't the time for thread hijacking.

We'll have plenty of time for that discussion later on.

Again, kudos to folks here for relaying the info to the rest of us.

[Spazito]

53. Agreed, there will be plenty of time for a number of 'after-action

report' free-for-alls once Fitzgerald has done whatever it is he will do.

[Coexist]

38. already answered - choppy, but here it is:

"I know there is an indictment... I believe there has been some serious plea negotiation (hence the delay) ... Fitz may be going back to the GJ to add additional charges... clearly something has been going on."

"I can't tell you how confident we feel in our report."

[Coexist]

41. Also - not meant at those taking a wait-and-see

but those smearing and mocking and invading all civil discourse on this matter.

[Catrina]

132. Yes, he was asked that question ~ check FLDem's post #16 ~ above.

[OzarkDem]

187. Good

I didn't hear it, but the transcript sound very positive.

These guys should win a Pulitzer after this.

[LeftNYC]

20. the callers on this show are hysterical...nt

[Spazito]

27. They are interesting to be sure....

I am glad this is being done, those who are listening can make up their own mind after hearing him and that is better, imo, than going only by posters speculating, including me, without having heard his side.

[Scoody Boo]

23. Bush may be the biggest liar in Washinton...

but Jason Leopold is trying hard to unseat him.

Nothing short of Fitz coming out and announcing a Rove indictment and stating that it had been handed down on the 12th of May will get me to believe on word of Jason Leopold's.

All of this "Sealed vs Sealed," "OMG! They got to Fitz!" or "No one wants to make the announcement" bullshit is just fudging. It is nothing less than clicking the heels together on our Ruby Red Shoes and saying, "I wish! I wish!" Yeah, I wish. I wish Jason Leopld would peddle his shit somewhere else.

This story did not happen. Rove was not indicted on the 12th. Jason Leopold was supposed to reveal his sources (sources that made him look like an ass if they exist), why has he not done that?

[Spazito]

25. Neither Leopold nor TO said anything about "They got to Fitz"

you are wrong in intimating they did. As to the rest, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it as are those who have other opinions.

[Scoody Boo]

34. I did not mean to attribute that to Leopold...

I was mostly trying to illustrate how many will try to spin anything enough times until if fits into their version of reality. I have seen, "OMG! They got to Fitz!" across this different threads. It may pop up in this one. Their version being that Rove got indicted on May 12th instead of the true version of reality which is, it never happened.

Funny thing the truth, it exists all on it's own and never has to be spun into something else.

How long are people going to allow their chain to be pulled with this story? The first mention of "24 Business Hours" was enough to make me bail on it.

[Spazito]

44. May I ask if you are listening to Jason right now? n/t

[Scoody Boo]

50. Why?

Does he have a copy of the indictment? Has a Rove indictment been announced? I listen to FOX radio for my daily ration of untruths. Don't need an extra helping of it from Jason Leopold.

[Spazito]

60. Ahh, I take that as a no then, thanks, was just wondering n/t

[Scoody Boo]

65. No reason to...

not anymore.

[Catrina]

163. Maybe you should turn off Fox radio, even monitoring it for untruths can

seriously destroy brain cells. I tried it for a while, fully intending to just list the lies they tell, but it's not possible to document that many lies without risking possible irreversible brain damage. For proof, try Freeperville if you haven't already. It's a virtual laboratory of the results of being subjected to Fox, Rush et al. Very sad to see! :rofl:

[Catrina]

137. I left you some posts in the other thread you were in today as did

others, with links, explaining some things that you didn't seem to understand about this whole case. Why do you not read the information that is made available to you in these forums? You have repeated and repeated the same thing over and over, despite the additional info provided that might have enlightened you to some aspects of Leopold's story.

You don't seem much interested in obtaining any new information, just repeating the same old talking points ~ I'm just wondering why you bother with a thread that causes you to repeat yourself so much??

Btw, are you listening to JL right now? That's what this thread is about and your are off topic!

[Scoody Boo]

150. Let me ask you this...

Why do you believe Leopold when he has offered nothing in the way of proof of anything? I am not asking for much. Just an announcement that Rove was indeed indicted. I even afforded him the courtesy of waiting "24 Business Hours" before saying anything.

He said Rove HAD BEEN INDICTED on May 12. All I ask for is some kind of proof on this. I think an announcement would be proof. I did not set the standard. Leopold did by saying that IT HAD ALREADY HAPPENED! Everything else he has said since sounds like excuses to me.

If you are talking about the thread where I was not to thrilled that about there being only perjury indictments, I was wrong and said so once it was pointed out to me that I was IN FACT wrong. Something that Jason Leopold is too good to do.

[Catrina]

160. But Jason Leopold never said you would be told in 24 hours, or even

24 business hours. Did you read the article? How many of JL's articles have you read in the past? If you've read any of them, you'd know that his track record has been pretty good, way, way better than the MSM.

And, btw, I haven't said I 'believed' JL. I said there is a good probability that on the main elements of the story, he could be right. There's also the possibility that things changed and that a deal was made, or is still being negotiated.

There is no proof that no indictment was filed on Friday, and there is some evidence that a sealed indictment WAS filed that day. Until we find out that he was wrong, I am not going to make a fool of myself, as others have, and declare that 'there is no indictment'. That would be foolish at this point. I'll wait and see.

Just so you know why even Keith Olbermann credited JL with some really good reporting tonight, here's just one example. And notice, that it took two months before the rest of the media caught up with his reporting on this important story, from the Libby case: Credit for the research goes to DUer Patsy Stone:

....

March 18, 2006: Jason L. reports on Fitz's filings; names from filing in article: Grenier and Schmall.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/031906Z.shtml


May 23, 2006: NY Daily News reports the exact same story and, now it's news. Two months later!
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/420152p-354720c.html

He was right about those two CIA agents because he did his homework ~ the MSM didn't catch up for two months, iow, he has some credibility with anyone who is familiar with his work.

It takes time for stories to develop sometimes, as it did in the above case, to get out in the MSM. That's why, especially based on his past work and the credibility he has earned over the past year of reporting, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and if he is wrong, I think he will say so himself ~

If that turns out to be the case he won't be the first reporter to get a story wrong. So why are a few people here acting like this would be the end of the world?? I find it very, very strange ....

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Catherine Vincent]

98. I am quite sure others have figured it out.

And not just this one. This poster shouldn't have done what your screen name says. :hi:

[hang a left]

106. I got deleted.

I am going to say it another way.

[hang a left]

110. backatcha cat_girl

:hi:

[Catrina]

139. We have ~ *lol* ~ n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

87. Thank you

Nice to read words of a clear-thinking individual, simply and honestly expressed.

There was no indictment, the story was bogus from start to finish, and the festering sore it's become is nothing but sad.

What respectable journalist ever reveals sources, by the way? Regardless of how the story pans out, it's not done. For Leopold to claim that he would do that - and I'll bet any amount of money that he never will - is just another example of what a stone loser this joker is, and how he should have his pencils taken away and given a nice job stocking the shelves in WalMart - if they'll have him.

Thanks again.

[hang a left]

88. Ah..... there is Scoody Boo's friend.

Did he email you or give you a call and ask you to pile on???

[Taxloss]

92. Have you ever considered having an original thought?

You know, thinking about something honestly and not simply resorting to lock-step tribal prejudice?

Your loyalty to this dead story and its flawed creator are, I suppose, commendable.

[hang a left]

104. How do you know if I am loyal to this story or it's author??

Some people around here just piss me off. I pay 20 bucks a month to say so. I am on the wait and see program.

[sheelz]

111. Oh, the "wait and see program"

then it's the...

[hang a left]

113. .....

on edit

[stepnw1f]

176. Don't Let Them Hassle You

I'm on the wait and see program as well. I don't trust anybody, and will make up my own mind. If certain people here don't like that, they can eat shit, preferrably their own.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

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

[LeftNYC]

29. JL-mad at liberal blogospere

expects it from the right-"taken aback" by the lib blogs who claim he has "set lib blogs" back years. Laughs at people who make claims about his "mental stability"

Repeating story of Rove at Heritage, no reporter asked about the story, except for the one Corn question about the case.

[demobabe]

77. Sociopaths never think anything is wrong with them

It's always someone else's fault. They're always the victim, no matter the situation. And they always appear very reasonable and the nicest people in the world. They're also some of the most effective liars.

They're next to impossible to treat by psychiatrists because they believe everybody else is the problem, so there is no basis for personal responsibility.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

91. Without a conscience,

they never do anything wrong. It's always someone else's fault, and facts are things that can be moved around, changed, ignored, or simply fabricated.

They're impossible to treat, and a lot of them end up in prison, for a variety of reasons, which is probably the safest place for them.

Leopold's history suggests he's quite comfortable with this rubric.

What I don't understand is why anone would hire him.

[johnnie]

95. So now mental disease is funny on DU?

I have to try to keep up with the DU fads I guess.

[Taxloss]

97. I don't think demobabe was trying to be funny.

Leopold has a documented history of mental illness.

[johnnie]

99. Yes, I know he has

I have heard about it over and over and over and over buy the same four or five people. And they seem to get a kick out of saying he has a history of mental illness. I think that using that as a way to attack someone is disgusting if not disturbing.

[Taxloss]

100. That's a fair point to make.

But I don't think anyone has attacked him solely on the grounds of his illness - he has been attacked for running a false story, and his past profile does have a bearing on his credibility.

I don't think anyone gets a kick out of it, but that's just my opinion. As someone with a touch of mental illness myself, I think it's very bad that reality should crash in on Leopold in this manner, but it is his own fault - or, really, the fault of his editor for allowing the story to run.

[Mr_Spock]

149. I agree - these counterattack posts are vicious & mean-spirited

I've never seen people act so hateful and narrow minded since I've been on DU - I'd love to know what is motivating these personal vendettas.

I can deal with a bad story - even one of this proportion, I CANNOT stand the hateful bile being spewed by some people here.

This type of overreaction is just not required IMHO.

:(

[dogday]

169. To ask them

it is the other way around... The people who take the wait and see approach are the vilians...

[Mr_Spock]

171. Yep, all of us reading this and not saying anything are guilty.

Yeah - I'm feeling the love as I read these posts thinking to myself "this investigation has been years in the making - I've learned not to get too excited about it". Let's tar & feather the mental dude - then we can "hug the tar baby" :eyes:

[Kostafarian]

207. you need to get out more

These "attacks" aren't limited to DU. In fact this "wait and see" approach is a unique DU phenomenon.

The ridicule comes when people see others believing a drug addicted, criminal, mental case with a history of making shit up.

Seriously, anything other than merciless ridicule is being kind.

[dogday]

209. So people who don't believe as others believe

get ridiculed? Wait where have I heard that? On yeah on freereupublic.com... Step in line everyone or we will ridicule you...

[Kostafarian]

215. No not at all

It is not about disagreement at all.

It is about believing things that aren't true.

It's about people taking a wait and see attitude on whether a leopard will change its spots.

The only lock step demands I've seen are those asking that we all deal in reality and not the land of beliefs, loyalties, and imagination.

What you are doing is confusing rational thought with disloyalty and trying to insinuate that people disloyal must be from freerepublic.

I suggest you read about this issue where there is no loyalty quotient and see how statements like the one you just made will go over.

Maybe then you will appreciate the tone I've taken in this reply.

[dogday]

233. Agains says you

and btw, who are you???

[Mr_Spock]

214. "drug addicted, criminal, mental case"

"anything other than merciless ridicule is being kind"

I have no words to describe the love I feel when reading comments such as these. :(

[Kostafarian]

217. I am sorry for you

It must be a real burden having to emotionally invest yourself in issues the way you seem to.

Believing things that are not real is what got us into the mess we are in.

One must never encourage that behavior in adults.

[Mr_Spock]

222. You misunderstand.

It is not important for me to unmercifully bash the ever loving christ out of Jason Leopold.

You don't actually know what I believe in this instance - only that I have waited for years for this Plame case to play out and that I can wait longer - those comments go beyond this particular story.

I am sorry for you - you are so filled with anger and bitterness that you feel you must even insult people who are simply not hitting a man while he's down. Please hand the bat to someone else - I feel like you are ready to turn it on me.




I just heard now that Cheney will be testifying in the Plame case - that is an interesting turn of events.

[Kostafarian]

226. No I understand

You are under the impression I mean ridicule Leopoldo, I pity him.

I am saying those that hold out hope that his story will be vindicated that are worthy of the merciless ridicule. That they are only receiving a gentle chiding from the "pro-evidence" group says a lot for their patience, and progressive values.

The people responding with anger over the Pitt performance are just hurt friends looking for an apology.

The two are separate yet equal, and those like yourself that try and emotionally blackmail them are not doing this site or yourselves any good.

[Mr_Spock]

227. Now you accusing me of using emotional blackmail?

Can you possibly post a reply to one of my posts without slipping a shiv in my back?

What the FUCK is your problem anyway?

[Name removed]

229. Deleted message

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

[Mr_Spock]

230. You're just being a liar now

Putting lies in my mouth doesn't make you look any better.

I haven't defended JL, you are simply lying now.

[Kostafarian]

232. No, you haven't.

You have attacked his critics.

I'm not a liar.

Mr_Spock Donating Member
171. Yep, all of us reading this and not saying anything are guilty.

Yeah - I'm feeling the love as I read these posts thinking to myself "this investigation has been years in the making - I've learned not to get too excited about it". Let's tar & feather the mental dude - then we can "hug the tar baby" :eyes:

So pointing out that Leopold is a convicted felon, drug addict, has admitted to having mental problems, and is well known in the news business for making up stories and sources, you equate to "Tar & feather the mental dude", and if that isn't enough you throw in the racist republican insinuation with the tar baby remark.

I guess because I'm new, and don't have much invested here to worry about being banned, I have no problem calling people like you out on such blatantly manipulative bullshit.

I dare you to venture outside DU (where friendship and personality seem to have replaced common sense and rational thought for some), and post this kind of nonsense. I think you might find that merciless ridicule that fills you with indescribable love.

However, I'm sure if you were to engage in genuine discourse based of facts and educated speculation you would be received warmly.

[stepnw1f]

179. I Agree with You Mr. Spock

In fact, it makes me suspicious too.

[Mr_Spock]

213. I'm not sure what's going on...

but the "criminal mental-case drug-addict" language is way over the top for DU.

I wish I knew what was up here - sometimes I feel like Rove supporters are trying to make this story go away. The author (JL) may be all wet - who knows - but this isn't the only issue I care about and it's not the only story that's been deceptively pedaled here - not by a long shot. I wonder why this got under the craw of so many?

[Catrina]

142. I found that very offensive also. I have a relative who is mentally ill

but he is a wonderfully, caring, thoughtful and extremely intelligent person. He did not want this illness ~ through him I have met many others who are mentally disabled, some are doing wonderful things and many are quite brilliant. DU is the last place I thought I would find that kind of comment. :cry:

[sheelz]

151. Did you listen to the program?

Leopold attacked his critics stating THEY suffer from mental illness.

[dogday]

193. Yes I did listen

and Leopold said he wonders about the mental stability of the posts of some of his critics which is not the same thing... He never said his critics suffer from mental illness...

Here is the archive to listen

http://clipcast.wpr.org:8080/ramgen/wpr/bme/bme060523k.rm

[sheelz]

200. Yes, he's implying they have it.

Obviously they don't. He made a blanket statement as a defense mechanism. Instead of wondering about a large group of individuals, it would serve him better to wonder about his own. Cognitive therapy would be helpful in coming to terms with his own illness. That's up to him to decide along with a good doctor. Bi-polar is an recurrent illness. When left untreated, among other things, it can lead to projection.

[dogday]

205. No he said the statements of the posters

not the posters themselves... Listen to the archive....

[sheelz]

216. Sigh...

He didn't even say the word posters. Since when do statements have mental stability?

Your link to the archive is wrong. The link you provided was another segment about education. Anyhow, here is the correct link to the archive:

http://www.wpr.org/ideas/programnotes.cfm.

Change the date to the 23rd. It's the 5:00 PM program with Peter Donalds in for Ben Merens. The statement is is about 25 minutes into the program.


And I quote, "It's funny because (you know) I look at these statements and I wonder about their own mental stability, because certainly nobody who is (you know), in my own opinion--mentally stable, would write such things."

[dogday]

235. I heard it first thing yesterday morning

and I stand by my statement. Of course I am only siting fact....

[sheelz]

238. You're citing nothing but

your own errors...

Allow me to "site" this:


:rofl:

[dogday]

239. Insulting a person

doesn't make you right... sorry for you for stooping that low....

on edit: I refer to you post #191

[sheelz]

243. Again

Here is Leopold's direct quote:

"It's funny because (you know) I look at these statements and I wonder about their own mental stability, because certainly nobody who is (you know), in my own opinion--mentally stable, would write such things."


It's not funny--at all.

[dogday]

246. I am talking about his quote from his radio

show, that is what this was about... Why do you not address my statement about ridiculing other posters? See #238

Again, I stand by my op that said he did not insult the posters, he said the sanity of the posts of some of his critics.. You have said it wrong all along and now you just add more ridicule of someone else... Don't you know anything else but how to ridicule and insult????

[JuniperLea]

250. Feeding frenzy

Will Pitt, Leopold and TO are chum. I don't get it. :shrug: The way "some people" talk around here, there should be an ever-growing list of articles that have been debunked as proof of TO's unreliability. Yet no one I've asked has been able to produce one single link. And this particular article has yet to be debunked. Not by a long shot.

[demobabe]

158. Nobody wants mental illness

And everybody suffers from mental illness during thier life - even if it's mild depression - it's part of life.

And plenty of people with chronic mental illnesses are caring, thoughtful, and extremely intelligent.

I know a guy, really nice. Bipolar. Decided one night to kill his whole family, kids and all. Fortunately, his other family members managed to intercede and got his family out of the house and got him some help years ago.

He's still a nice guy, father, very empathic - and he still has his battles.

Mental illness is with us - and we need to face it square on. I'm sorry you feel personally offended by any comment I made, but it is apparent you misinterpreted my directness.

I send thoughts and prayers for your relative, and courage to you to give him your valuable support.

[Catrina]

174. Thank you demobabe ~ it was not so much your post but an

accumulation of posts over several threads that, rather than dealing with the substance of what Leopold wrote, attacked him personally on the basis of his, imo, courageous admission of his battle with mental illness, which I believe he said was a bi-polar disorder. That would explain the alcoholism and drug addiction in an attempt to self medicate.

While his article may prove to be wrong, he is not the first reporter to either be used by sources or be mistaken on an important story. When that happens the reporter usually apologizes, which I expect he will, if he finds out he was wrong. Regardless of what anyone thinks of him, he is a human being struggling to put his past behind him and to make a living. I can definitely understand attacking the facts in his story, but not him, or any other reporter, based on an illness.

Thank you for your thoughts and prayers ~ while he is currently doing alright, my family member is not as functional as Jason Leopold despite being very intelligent. I am sorry to hear about your friend ~ the worry and concern of relapse never really goes away ~ how awful for his family.

[Iowa]

155. Antisocial Personality Disorder (aka Sociopath) is not a "mental disease".

The "personality disorder" lexicon is nothing more than a clumsy attempt to categorize people based upon their behavior... their way of operating in the world.

For your future reference, other terms that might describe a sociopath are: "liar", "crook", "criminal", "flimflam man", "con-artist", "convict"... you get the picture. It's a way of saying "person with no conscience". It is not a "disease", and sociopaths are generally not sympathetic characters. They are responsible for their actions, and prisons are full of them.

Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia, Major Depression... those are mental diseases.

As one who spent years in the metal health field, I do find that there are some comments that can be offensive when it comes to mental illness. The post you're upset about isn't one of them. Lumping sociopaths in with people who have bona fide mental illness is.

[johnnie]

168. Thanks for the lesson

But I know what a sociopath is. Sociopaths typically have chemical imbalances and that is considered a mental disease. Maybe I should have said "illness" instead of "disease"

In the last few weeks Leopold has been attacked here and his admitted mental illness has been brought up numerous times and it doesn't take a genius to figure out where the OP's motivation for posting that comment came from.

[Iowa]

196. No, you don't know what a sociopath is...

"Sociopaths typically have chemical imbalances and that is considered a mental disease."

No, that is false. Some look to excuse bad behavior in sociopaths by classifying it as a "disease"... in other words, "they can't help it". Such thinking has been thoroughly discredited in the mental health community. The truth is, some people choose to take advantage of others, ignore the rules of a civilized society, and leave a path of destruction in their wake - all for their own benefit. It is likely that some who are in high positions in our government today are sociopaths. I've got news for you: "chemicals" didn't make them do it.

Furthermore, when you excuse anti-social behavior by classifying it as a "disease", you inadvertently place at risk those with bona fide mental illness. (1) It makes mockery of the criminal insanity defense, and we end up with "Dirty Harry" type movies and jaded juries who imprison those who did truly have a moment of criminal insanity. (2) It tends to stigmatize, as potential criminals who cannot control their actions, anyone who just happens to have mental illness. (3) And finally, it provides a convenient excuse for sociopaths to excuse their behavior. Ask an ex-con if he has a disability and many will look you right in the eye and say, "I was in prison!! Translation: "Feel sorry for me because I'm the victim and it wasn't my fault".

I worked in the mental health field for a very long time and I don't expect you to know what I know. But when you come back into this thread claiming to have expertise in the mental health field, when you clearly do not, I can't just let it pass. You appear to be making a genuine effort to protect and defend people with mental illness against those who would harm them. But in your effort to do good, you unnecessarily maligned a DUer up-thread while simultaneously spreading misinformation about mental illness. You appear to be genuinely trying to stamp out prejudice, and while you missed the mark in this specific exchange, your motivation and intentions appear to be good. I'd suggest you extend the same benefit of the doubt to the OP.

[johnnie]

197. So what you are telling me is..

A person who is considered a sociopath has nothing whatsoever wrong with how his or her brain is functioning? It is a physical disorder and not a mental disorder?

[Iowa]

204. No, it is NOT a physical disorder...

And yes, the brain of the sociopath functions quite well - in a predatory sort of way. Many average people would be no match for a bright, hard-core sociopath. I've seen many a do-gooder taken advantage of by sociopaths, and the ending is never pretty. It's generally best to reserve compassion for their victims.

When one is tagged with an anti-social personality disorder it is a way of saying that the person's behavior is extreme in any number of ways that typically include such things as lying, stealing, reckless disregard for others, lack of remorse, gross irresponsibility, assaultive behavior, conning others, and so on. The personality disorder vernacular is just a way of grouping various personality types - and labeling them when they become problematic. There is no presumption to know "why" they do what they do - only educated guesses. There is no medical treatment - no magic pill. Some decide to improve their behavior (perhaps due to a religious conversion) and some never change. Some change for awhile and then revert to their old ways. They can change, if they elect to change.

Sociopaths do bad things, they know what they are doing, yet they do it anyway. They tend to be predators who use their (sometimes superior) intelligence to further their own interests at the expense of others. They operate in all walks of life - from the mugger to the corporate boardroom; from the common thief to the highest offices of government. The poor, uneducated sociopaths often end up in prison. The wealthy, connected, educated ones end up lying about WMDs and invading other countries to serve their personal interests. It is not a disease - it is a description of behavior.

[Swamp Rat]

206. You said it brother!

:applause:

[sheelz]

218. Thanks for posting this.

Well said! I'll add that they can change although it's very difficult to treat. It usually happens after consequences, over time and with age. That's why it's important to hold them accountable! I've worked with teens in several residential treatment programs, and they are tough!

[demobabe]

164. Mental disease and psychological disorders are never funny.

And I don't think anybody here would find them so.

[dogday]

170. Nor should they be used against any

person in any kind of personal attack..

[demobabe]

173. Agreed

That's why Leopold should apologize to his critics for saying he thought they were mentally unstable.

[dogday]

177. He said he wonders about the mental stability

of the statements of some of his critics... If you are going to post, please post correct information... I am listening to the archive right now...

[demobabe]

182. You're splitting hairs

It's a broad brush designed to discredit his critics - the very same you're saying critics are using to discredit him.

[dogday]

183. As are you

about the statement....

[demobabe]

185. "I know you are"

"...but what am I?"

We're down to Pee Wee Herman arguments now. Come on.

[dogday]

186. No, it is about fact

and I just posted the exact words said and you did not... That is all

[Catherine Vincent]

191. I just heard him say that too.

He said he wonders about the mental stability of others to write such crap about him. That is not calling someone mentally unstable.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

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

[lala_rawraw]

153. since when is bi-polar = sociopath???

[demobabe]

159. I didn't say that at all

You may find post #163 an interesting read.

[Iowa]

165. You were maligned in this sub-thread and the criticism aimed at you...

...appears to be based upon misinformation about mental illness. Nothing you said was offensive in the least, IMO.

Ironically, some of the comments here that chastise you, in a purported effort to defend people with mental illness, actually come across as condescending and demeaning toward them in a broad brush sort of way that tends to stigmatize.

Your post did not deserve the hostility it encountered.

[sheelz]

162. That would be a

Bi-polar with anti-social features.

[OzarkDem]

188. He should be

Its pretty shocking at how many so-called liberals are defending Rove's talking points.

[Coexist]

30. "3 dozen journalists called him and were SO upset that they

had to follow up on this"

"since when is it crazy to follow up on a man who CLEARLY has played a role"

[Coexist]

33. this caller has been following the 'Plame matter' on TO

and likes Leopold's stories.

[sheelz]

86. and she thinks he's a hero

:rofl:

[WI_DEM]

35. well isn't it possible that KKKarl could still be indicted?

[liberalhistorian]

39. YAWN.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........

Same old, same old, from that liar who's set us back god knows how badly now.

[LeftNYC]

45. set who back? liberals? journalists? liberal journalists? nt

[sheelz]

47. Leopold did!

[LeftNYC]

48. did what? I am not waiting to get into a battle...I am just trying to

understand who was "set back" by Leopold.

[sheelz]

71. I'd have to listen to it again

but it seem to me he was trying to shift blame to liberal bloggers.

[DancingBear]

52. He does gets consistency points for repitition

It is getting to be a rather deep hole, however.

hhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooo down there..................

[Coexist]

56. "did your reporting affect events, should you have sat on it"

"I was sure this story was going to break in NYTimes, WaPo that evening. I created it as a scoop."

Host: "Was getting the scoop a big motiviation for you?"

JL: "Yes. I felt that I had the power of the internet to get a story together and get it out there."

Host: "Were you jonesing for a story, like you say in your book?"

JL: "No - I felt this was a HUGE story."

Host: "Any regrets?"

JL: "No."

[LeftNYC]

58. man, your quick...

nice job...

[Spazito]

72. Ahh, well, could you point out the illuminating information you

are sharing with us in this post? Given you felt this thread was too important for snark, to use my word.

[DancingBear]

82. Was I responding to you?

No.

Although, should you care to use the glorious device known as the DU search engine you'll find all kinds of illuminating evidence, none of which starts with the phrase "we'll wait forever, Jason!"

Ah, but then you'd have to do stuff like come to grips with the fact that there's no May 12th indictment (you know, the main thrust of the article), or the ever-changing source list, or the Case Of The Vanishing News Crews.

Reminds me of a very old joke.

"Say, why do you keep hitting yourself on the head with that hammer?"

"Because it feels so good when I stop"

[Spazito]

85. Ahhhh, illuminating n/t

[DancingBear]

116. Ahhhhh, typical

How's that May 12th date working out for you?

The 15 hour meeting?

The Secret Service locking the 4th floor?

The beginnings of the Easter bunny?

Please feel free to chime in with illuminating actual factual answers as to when these events occured.

Start with the bunny - it's the easiest of them all.

(Bonus question - have any idea where Fitzgerald was on the 12th?)

[Spazito]

131. I don't have any answers for you, I am one of those of the wait and

see crowd. I don't, however, recall Leopold's article mentioning the Easter Bunny, I will go back to the article to see if I can find the reference.

An aside, are you the DancingBear that wrote this? This is what I classify as illuminating, heartwarming and the writings of someone who goes to the mat for someone he believes in:

DancingBear (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-20-03 09:11 AM
Original message
Just back from a week in New Hampshire
Edited on Sat Dec-20-03 09:16 AM by DancingBear
I just spent the better part of a week in southern NH, working as they say "on the ground" for General Clark. Here are my thoughts:

1) Clark will surprise in NH. Dean will win, due to the fact that he has been in NH campaigning for 18 months. He has been able to saturate the state with coverage, but I strongly believe that his support is a mile wide and an inch deep (more on this in a bit). However, the good general is making a name for himself here, after only being here for three months. I was helping out in Keene (southern NH), and during my brief time we had a nice stream of both in-state and out-of-state people coming in to help man the phones, do voter outreach, etc. Old, young, male, female, military and civilian were all represented, and all are/were politically savvy enough to know that a certain New England ex-governor has no chance in November. Polls are all over the place (note: NO ONE believes the WMUR-TV Dean 42% poll - more on that later), but most feel a second place finish is within reach.

2) Converting Dean supporters is easy! Day one - went off on "signage" duties (ie. placing signs in businesses, etc.). Since I needed to buy a new set of fireplace tools, I went to a local eatablishment to do so. The proprietor, seeing my Clark button, asked how things were going. I told him, and he replied (without any prompting from me) - "well, I'm for Dean, but I'm not sure he can win the general election." We talked for a good bit of time, focusing on how important it is to field the candidate who can BEAT BUSH. I left with him not totally committing to the general, but leaning really really hard in that direction.

The next day I met with a realtor friend, who with her husband were Dean supporters. Her reasoning - "well, he's all we have seen around here for the last 18 months. But I'm not sure he can beat Bush." I framed my arguments around national security/war on terror (and my friend the gorilla), and brought two more folks around.

The following morning I had breakfast with two old friends - both Dean supporters. They asked why I would come all the way to NH from VA to work for Clark, and I told them. Result - they are very concerned about Dean's ability to win, and will definitely go to see Clark when he returns to their part of NH in January.

A lot of the Dean support here is due to the "saturation effect" - he got 'em early when there were no other viable options. It is (in many places) very thin, and they all want to beat Bush more than anything. Do not think there is a Dean tidal wave up here - there isn't. Recent events in Libya and Iraq are causing many people to take a second look, and they do not like what they see.

3) General Clark spoke in Claremont (central NH) on Thursday, and I was there for that event (note to hands and feet - I apologize for making you stay out for so long in the cold, but crowd building is part and parcel of how you win an election). The crowd was good sized, and we were all shocked to see George Stephanopoulos and a camera crew from "This Week' come through the door! They are doing a story on Clark, and I believe were going to interview him after the town hall meeting. I didn't get to ask George what he thought..

I did speak a little bit to the local TV folks covering the event, and while everyone believes Dean will win most see him in the low 30's or so percentage wise. I am not sure of their degree of political acumen but I thought it was an interesting bit of info so I'm passing it along.

Clark got a standing ovation from the crowd, and was his usual self - in command of the facts, straightforward, and connecting with the audience. I manged to talk with a young couple who didn't get to ask Clark a question after the meeting ended (they wanted to ask if he would support a Department of Peace). Due to the large number of people who always surround Clark after he finishes, they couldn't get near him. They said that they were very surprised at his grasp of environmental issues (his talk was centered around them), and were "thinking things over."

I drank about 12 cups of hot apple cider to get my extremities working again (unlike Dean meet-ups, there was no kool-aid to be found ), thanked everyone connected with the campaign who I met during my stay, and promised to come back up again.

Hang on, kids, it's just getting interesting...

If this is, indeed, you, I had always admired your writing skills, loved some of the threads you started, I always learned something from them and felt you were ever bit as skilled a writer as Will Pitt or many other writers. As you can see, we have at least one thing in common, we both admire General Wesley Clark, as you can see by my sig line.

[Coexist]

46. "they told me You shouldn't have put in "expected",

you shouldn't have put in a time element (re: Fitz announcing) because he could change his mind."

He speaks with his sources regularly for updates.

[northamericancitizen]

49. Thanks for the updates FLDem5. nt

[Coexist]

51. happy to help!

[DancingBear]

55. WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?

The most IMPORTANT goddamn part of the whole story and this clown says someone told him not to put in "expected."

Sorry, I was really trying to listen without reservation, but this just takes it.

How can ANYONE believe this guy, or TO???

Fitz could change his mind.

Unbelieveable.

[LeftNYC]

57. I think he meant "expected to make an announcement this week"

not that Rover was expected to be indicted...

[DancingBear]

61. I think he meant he shouldn't have put May 12th in there

That's how it came across to me.

[sheelz]

75. Was this from the week before?

http://h2oman.blogspot.com/2006/05/slam-dunk-scooter.html

edit to add--scroll down:

"Would you be so kind as to remind the individuals who have said that I reported that an annoucement would be made this week that I said no such thing. I reported that the grand jury IS EXPECTED to vote this week. That's much different than saying that they would make an annoucment this week. My sources indicated that the GJ would vote and it's up to Fitzgerald and his office to determine when to hold a press conference. It seems as though people have mischaracterized my report, as usual."

Kind regards,
Jason

[Coexist]

70. calm down there! He meant in retrospect

his sources said if he had avoided that word - there wouldn't have been such a backlash.

[Coexist]

54. Caller: "how does an indictment work"

"they can be filed under seal."

"a judge has to approve it being sealed."

[Spazito]

64. Thanks, FLDem5, for doing a great job of reporting what Jason

Leopold was saying for those who couldn't listen. It was very helpful, imo.

[Semblance]

59. Sorry

I just don't believe that there are all these sources out there and the only person they talk to is Jason Leopold. I'm not buying it. Yes, I know the MSM is awful, but they would all want to scoop this story to get the ratings they crave.

[LeftNYC]

62. According to Ash, the MSM has spoken to him, and

said they have sources, but they are not going public because of their superiors, whatever that means. Maybe they are waiting for Fitz to signal a press conference. Who knows? Only Fitz.

[johnnie]

69. It could be that the MSM is playing along

It's just an opinion, but maybe they are running with it. The MSM is being attacked from the right and the left, if they caught it early on and decided to sit around and watch online news get toasted, it would only be better for them.
I'm not talking about a huge conspiracy here, just that maybe they are kicking back watching how the whole blog thing is getting made fun of and losing some of their reputation and when the story is to become "official" (if there is a story) then they will all report it like they normally would.

[onenote]

78. If the MSM had confirmation of JL's story, of course they'd run it

Otherwise they're going to look foolish. Notwithstanding what JL claims,I don't buy the assertion that the MSM has confirmed his story.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

90. They got confirmation,

and they're laughing their collective heads off about it.

Who isn't?

[LeftNYC]

63. LETS GO METS!!!!!!! nt

[gumby]

76. Dang!

Couldn't get online for the last 90+ minutes.

Three things: Scoody Boo caused me to delete my flag. Second: Anyone can listen when archived at http://www.wpr.org/ideas/programnotes.cfm Third: Those first 2 callers sound like 'plants.'

[brentspeak]

79. Why is anyone giving this loser the time of day?

The only reason a genuine source would ever talk to Jason Leopold is if they want to discredit the sucker who's employing him: Leopold has zero credibility, and if a source denies ever speaking to Leopold, the newspaper/blog/other will not be able to mount a defense of the story that could be taken seriously.

[bettyellen]

119. as KO pointed out, he's reported correctly on this waaay before others.

so, it wouldn't be the first time it took a while to see he was right.
unlike others, i'm not willing to pretend i know everything.
;P

[lala_rawraw]

154. right, remember plame/iran? same thing happened to me

and I had to wait 3 months for someone else to confirm it:(

[Patsy Stone]

156. That's ridiculous.

In this case, it was all right there for them to report on since the initial filing. Not quite sure why they're all foaming over this now. Keep fighting the good fight.

[Kostafarian]

231. lala

You weren't the first about Iran.

It was being speculated all over the net. I also remember threads here about Plame that nailed what you wrote about 6 weeks after she was outed.

On the Leopold story, I read an interview of you that you linked to and in it you accuse the leopold detractors of being paid "whores". Do you stand by that statement? Also, why didn't RawStory link to the leopold piece especially if you are so adamant that people not knock the serial liar, drug addict, convicted felon leopold?

Do you think it was paid trolls on Kos, and the Next Hurrah that posted about Leopold's past and picked apart his story or just here on DU?

[Rex]

80. Rextradamusus predicts - 300 posts by tomorrow.

And none of them helpful. :popcorn:

Including this post!

[Maddy McCall]

84. In other words, nothing's changed.

This guy surely likes having his face in the news--even if the only reason his face is in the news is because he's a stooge.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

89. Soon it will be June 12th

At that point, I think a small celebration for the indictment's one-month birthday should be held.

I'll spring for Carvel ice cream cakes for everyone.

[Taxloss]

93. I'm pleased to say that I will be on my honeymoon by then.

After Mrs T and I fill out a piece of paper that somehow makes our 8-year relationship more meaningful than it already is. Still, at least gays can't do it, eh?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

101. And thank the Lord for that, amen, and all that,

but don't be surprised if you suddenly discover that you're gay. On your honeymoon. That might be your punishment for making fun.

Just be aware.

I'll save you some cake, what?

I always get so sentimental when love joins in a contract with the government. It just chokes me up.

Ultimately, of course, you're taking the most dangerous and wonderful of journeys, and you know how much wonderfulness I wish you and the future Mrs. T.

Who, by the way, makes a mean Polish down-home food right in Pennsylvania on this side of the pond: http://www.pierogies.com/

[gumby]

134. cranked up the printer on that one.

"I always get so sentimental when love joins in a contract with the government. It just chokes me up."

Too good not to save on metal with a magnet.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

141. My wedding gift to you

How's THAT for cheap?

Cheers, kid .............

[gumby]

143. Thanks

Maybe I should go shopping for an appropriate dress... just in case...

[DancingBear]

102. Can we get them in the shape of Maddy's frog?

That only seems fair.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

103. No

Not until the one-year anniversary, when we'll get the whole frog. Carvel has assured me it can be done.

For the one-month party, we'll have cakes in the shape of a lockdown. With film crews. Two of them.

I think this is what a lockdown in downtown DC looks like, since no one's ever actually SEEN one:

[DancingBear]

105. Hot damn!

Will we all pray in the dark beforehand?

You know, kind of like a secret service????

[OldLeftieLawyer]

107. :::::::::::::: GROAN :::::::::::::::

You are SO on double secret IGNORE.

[bettyellen]

117. wow, you must hold the record on ignored, huh?

oh yeah, you can't read this.
oh boo hoo, poor me.

[DancingBear]

118. Does the phrase "tongue-in-cheek" do anything for ya?

Calm down.

Relax.

Have an onion.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sydnie]

120. bwahahahahahahaha

[bettyellen]

123. hello neighbor!

how's South Ignoreland? East Ignoreland is lovely today.
:hi:

[Sydnie]

125. It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood

It is crowded here... I hadn't seen you over there. Come sit by me ... we'll have drinks!

[bettyellen]

136. Yes Sydnie! I've infused some citrus with grated ginger.....

you want some rum or vodka in yours?
:beer:

[Catherine Vincent]

122. The DBear is on his side, so he won't ignore that one.

He was being funny.

[bettyellen]

124. funny ha ha, or funny like his shorts are on backward and it's ruined his

day?
:hi:

[DancingBear]

127. Funny, like...

believing Leopold.

No, check that - that's sad.

Waiter, give my shorts to the gal with the blue cat, please.

And another onion.

On me.

[bettyellen]

135. sopunds like you're looking for Old Onionville, a cold, nay bitter vale...

where everyone is self righteous, feeling betrayed and has bad breath.
i've passed in on the turnpike. looks sucky.
;P

[Catherine Vincent]

108. Does anyone know if the show repeats later tonight?

I missed the last half.

[Patsy Stone]

129. Midnight Eastern

And tomorrow at 9 a.m. Eastern

:hi:

[Viking12]

130. It's archived -- can listen anytime via RealPlayer

http://www.wpr.org

Look under Ben Merens' shows.

[gumby]

138. The programs are available on the website.

However, the Leopold interview has not been archived. Odd?
http://www.wpr.org/ideas/programnotes.cfm

[LSK]

189. its listed here (Ben Merens show)

http://www.wpr.org/webcasting/ideas_audioarchives.cfm?Code=bme

[brettdale]

115. was it a plant???

Was the story on truthout, a setup, to split the left???

[sheelz]

126. What do you mean by split the left?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

144. What the hell are you talking about?

Are you suggesting Leopold is a Republican operative? :rofl:

[pitohui]

166. leopold had a book to sell, he was promoting himself

his v. autobiography is abt his sad, sad story abt his life of drug addiction and petty crime, well, there are a lot of lives like that, most not worth reading abt, so the book is a pretty hard sell this time of century! but here's a way to get some cheap media attention by making up crap and promoting himself

how many of us ever heard of the guy before all this? ANY of us?

i don't believe pitt deliberatedly placed the story on truthout to hurt the left, i believe he was a dupe who is too easily taken advantage of and who used poor judgment in running the story

[Beelzebud]

133. Jason who?

May he rot in obscurity where he belongs.

I don't want Drudge For Liberals.

[meisje]

140. Liepold

[SeveneightyWhoa]

145. Lie?

I don't think being wrong on a story makes one a liar, does it?

[pitohui]

167. he admits to being a liar and a criminal

by his own admission he is a "recovered" drug addict who led a life of petty crime

not an honest person

never been, apparently never will be at least not when there's an autobiography to promote!

[Jersey Devil]

146. At this point it is only

Fitz!!

Screw listening to anyone else.

[dogday]

172. One "awe shit" wipes out 1,000 attaboys

I know this is a true statement because I have seen this first hand on this board....

[demobabe]

175. This is what is called credibility

You're right on about this. All it takes is one screwup, and then you may be considered unreliable and untrusted. Problem here for Leopold is that it isn't just one "oh shit." He has three consecutive stories that have factual errors and cannot be confirmed with Truthout. He left Raw Story in January, and has three stories that can't be confirmed there, too. And if you look at the rest of his journalism history, you'll see more of the same.

It would be different if were an isolated incident and he just screwed up somebody's name or got a time or a place wrong. The entire foundation of his latest article is in question, and that's why so many folks are in an uproar.

[dogday]

178. Not so much one's credibility

as people's ability to get so mad at one mistake, that they overlook the 1,000 other good deeds done...

[demobabe]

181. That IS credibility

And in journalism, it's all you have.

One big screwup, and perhaps thousands of correct stories are down the drain.

After such a credibility blow, how do you know which story is factual going forward?

You don't.

And then that reporter is no longer trusted.

It's a sad and harsh reality, unfortunately. Even frustrating.

[dogday]

184. No, that is the

nature of the beast....

[Balbus]

198. That's why they call it journalism.

[OzarkDem]

190. He has a lot of sources

I would trust him over Rove any day.

[Maddy McCall]

199. And this is being cast as a battle between Leopold and Rove WHY?

Is it possible to find that neither are to be trusted? This isn't a popularity contest between Leopold and Rove.

It's more like this: A sleazy reporter got a story about sleazy politician wrong.

[Coexist]

192. Can you please list the 6 stories you are referring to?

Thanks.

[sheelz]

201. Here's one from "The Nation"

I was wondering why Leopold doesn't write for "The Nation" anymore, my favorite magazine. His last writings were in 2002. http://www.thenation.com/search/search.mhtml

Then, I found this.

NOT AN ON-THE-RECORD SOURCE

Jason Leopold's "White Should Go--Now" is built upon lies and unethical reporting. Not only did Leopold unethically list me as an on-the-record source, he attributed comments to me that were never discussed and are absolutely not true.

<more at>
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020624/letter
Along with Leopold's reply

I don't know enough about the details of the Enron case--it's very complex. What I do know is "The Nation" no longer publishes his work.

[Coexist]

242. those are subscriber only - can you post snips?

What about the other 5?

[sheelz]

244. What I posted was an additional source.

NOT AN ON-THE-RECORD SOURCE

Jason Leopold's "White Should Go--Now" is built upon lies and unethical reporting. Not only did Leopold unethically list me as an on-the-record source, he attributed comments to me that were never discussed and are absolutely not true.

In reference to energy contracts signed with major California customers in 1998, the article incorrectly states, "Jestings said he told White that EES would actually lose money this way, but White said Enron would make up the difference by selling electricity on the spot market...which Enron had bet would skyrocket in 2000." The article continues the lies by stating that "Jestings said he continued to complain to White that the profits declared by the retail unit were not real." These statements were never made to Leopold and are absolutely false. I had significant responsibility for these 1998 contracts and believed that they would be profitable, and therefore I would never have made such statements. Furthermore, if Enron believed the spot market would skyrocket in 2000, it would never have signed long-term, fixed-rate contracts with these California customers in 1998!

Leopold then states that "Jestings said he resigned from EES in 2000 because he did not agree with the way EES reported profits." Again, this is not true. I resigned in early 1999 for personal reasons and not because of the way EES reported profits. In fact, EES was not making profits when I left.

It is clear that Leopold is trying to build a picture of cover-up and manipulation by White using statements falsely attributed to me. This is irresponsible reporting at its worst. In my short tenure at EES, I developed great respect for White. He is an honest and ethical man and deserves fair reporting.

LEE JESTINGS

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020624/letter

As far as the other six, she stated that three of them are on truthout. As far as the others, I suggest google and some reading. There is plenty out there.

[Capn Sunshine]

203. I wish all of you would back off with this crap

No one looks good, and I'm disappointed at many of the posters who I thought I knew better. Piling on someone who is/was a responsible journalist that is on our side of the barricades serves no one and does no good.

That many of you fail to recognize you're being egged on by the various moles in attendance at DU is also quite irksome.

I just wish they would indict the clown already, and I don't care that Jason got the timetable wrong or that he was set up by someone who wanted to se where the leaks were.

But a lot of you are into killing messengers, and that's why DU ultimately fails to serve in the real world.

There's a reason only 1 in 10 at a Democratic Party function have even heard of DU, and you guys are it.

[JuniperLea]

208. I'm with you, Capn

I was neck deep yesterday and ran out of hot water showering it off last night.

Too much joy at the expense of others is freakishly ugly. Throwing Will Pitt and TO under the bus is equally ugly. To expect perfection of any human being is egotistical and illogical.

I still think anything is possible given that BushCo has never played by the rules. That being said, I would love to see TO come out on top of this for many reasons, including: Rove deserves it, and I'd love to see the crow buffet around here.

[dogday]

210. I stand with both of you

I am tired of it too..

[JuniperLea]

211. As if you don't have bigger fish to fry, eh dogday?

It's an interesting study in human behavior, but like in college, I'm about saturated with study at the moment.

Kudos to you for keeping your calm and always, without fail, backing up what you say.

[David Zephyr]

212. Helpful words, Capn Sunshine

:thumbsup:

[catzies]

219. Thank you for the reality check...you speak the truth

:patriot:

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

223. "a responsible journalist that is on our side of the barricades"

While one might have once thought he was on "our side of the barricades", it appears that he is:

- huddling in a bunker,
- by himself,
- with a few sock-puppets,
- beside boxes of his new book,
- practising the phrase "I love you long time" in two languages -- depend on which uniform walks through the door with nylons and chocolate.

By the way: Moles don't lay eggs.
Obviously you won't kill me, because I'm just a messenger and you are against that (or does it depend on the message?).

[liberalnurse]

224. Bravo Capn!!!!!

You sized it up perfectly.......You even identified a real life problem with DU because of these drive-by posters......Most Democrats never heard of DU. I have given up trying to explain it to folks. The ones who have signed up due to my encouragement have long since moved on due to the road rage. :hi:

[Kostafarian]

228. My gosh

Get over yourself.

Jason leopold was NEVER a responsible journalist. EVER.

Have you seen the quotes from his OWN book?

He punkd Will Pitt, TruthOut, And all its readers. RawStory seems to have handed a hot potato to their competition and stood by "egging" them on to back up a story they wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole.

It is the height of arrogance to say that "trolls" are encouraging others to pursue a path YOU disagree with.

Have you read how other progressive sites are reacting to Leopold and this story? Kos, The Next Hurrah, FireDogLake, Talk left, HuffPo, etc etc...

Are you saying it is trolls responsible for all the ridicule on these sites too?

I think if you were honest with yourself you might see it is your kind of attitude that marginalizes DU.

In one sentence you say trolls have infiltrated DU and in the next you ask if it's a mystery why nobody has ever heard of DU.

The title of this site is Democratic Underground. Not Democratic Disney.

Go to Kos, or FireDog and post your suspicions of trolls "egging" on the dissenters and watch the snark fly.

[Name removed]

234. Deleted message

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

[Strong Atheist]

236. Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

241. the newbie is mostly right. nothing wrong with calling a story that

looks wrong "wrong." That's what separates us from wingnuts.
Welcome to DU, Kostafarian.

[dogday]

247. The newbie is mostly

wrong... Ridicule is not the truth....

[Orsino]

240. Uh-uh. Demand high standards.

Constructive criticism doesn't kill the messenger; it's the way to police the messenger, and to ensure that bogus stories don't distract us from our important work, or diffuse our efforts.

If we don't demand discipline from our media outlets, we are no better than that other site.

[JuniperLea]

249. All this for one article that some disagree with?

How about demanding discipline for oneself?

If you can't find a string of glaring errors that you can post links to in order to prove that TO is not trustworthy, perhaps a little self examination is in order.

This article has not been proved wrong. As I said from day one, there is always the possibility that there is a lot of plea bargaining going on in the background.

Until the fat lady sings on this, it would be nice to be served a little cheese with all the whine.

[Jigarotta]

220. he may be working with the Aztec business calendar...

gives him till 2012. or so.
I really do hate to put myself on the line with that date...

[Garbo 2004]

221. Interesting bit on a Fed indictment sealed due to ongoing investigation

from Jeralyn Merritt at Talk Left:

Posted by TalkLeft
May 24, 2006 04:43 PM

Re: DiSalvo, Case is US v. DiSalvo, 34 F.3d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1994) It's a very long opinion, but the sealing stuff starts in headnote 10 (lexis version)

Basically, two were indicted in mob case, one of them, Simone was a lawyer. Both get convicted. The codefendant, DiSalvo appeals and says the indictment was improperly sealed as to him.

The indictment had been sealed not because they were flight risks, but to avoid publicity and because the investigation was ongoing. Simone had been in another trial when the indictment came down and they didn't want to announce it until his trial was over, which was expected to last four months. Simeone was told of the indictment and agreed with the decision to seal it.

I'm not saying this case is similar to Rove's just that if the Government wanted the indictment sealed the court can grant the motion for any number of reasons, including the high media interest in the case and an ongoing investigation. And even though sealed, the government can request an exception to tell the defendant.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014930.html#comment-220247

[dogday]

248. I think this shows

that anything is possible... Great Article.. thanks

[mmonk]

225. Obviously

these threads haven't changed since I've been away a couple of days. Lot's of venom. Some are seeking the gallows without evidence the story isn't or wasn't real.

[idgiehkt]

245. yeah, should the republicans be scared, or what?

because, I mean, if this is how we treat our own, they daren't ponder what we'll do to them, lol.