t r u t h o u t: The Continued Interest in the Rove Indictment Story

[Coexist]

truthout has a (sort of) update on their Rove indictment story.

I am posting this for those who would like to read it - if you are interested in mocking and name calling, please visit THIS thread.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1314291&mesg_id=1314291

I do not want to see anyone else banned or ridiculed. Enough is enough.

Thank you for your decency and cooperation on this.

The Continued Interest in the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Tue May 30th, 2006 at 03:58:17 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation
(39 comments)

We are still getting a high volume of email inquiries on our Rove indictment story from May 13, 2006. We greatly appreciate your interest, and are well aware of the right of all Americans to know what is happening here.

So again, for the record: We stand by the story. TO's staff is treating this story as our highest priority and will be following up with additional information as it becomes available.

Clearly the question is: "If Karl Rove has been indicted, why has there been no official announcement?" Right now we have only general indicators as to why an announcement might not be made when an indictment has been returned. And even though these indicators do exist, we need to more clearly understand exactly what is happening in this case before we can report on them.

This a unique situation, and frankly a stressful one. We would like to thank all of those who have offered their support during the course of this ordeal. We fully intend to press on.

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
[e-mail]

[demdiva]

1. interesting...

I have to say I don't know what to think about this whole thing, but thanks for posting and update. It's certainly on my mind everyday.

[durrrty libby]

2. The fat lady hasn't sung yet, so I'm staying tuned in n/t

[ismnotwasm]

3. Thank you

I don't pretend to know what's going on, but I appreciate courtesy when I see it.

[Coexist]

4. I found this there too re: Plame/Wilson - great read:

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/?op=displaystory;sid=2006/5/31/04731/7941

For 18 years Plame had kept her occupation a secret. She worked under the cover of a CIA front company created and maintained at the taxpayer's expense, and all of that was destroyed by Bush administration officials at the highest levels when they leaked her identity.

In hindsight, its obvious that the leaks by Rove and Libby were the beginning of a White House scheme to pin the blame on the CIA for providing faulty intelligence and to take the focus off the forged documents used to insert the Iraq-uranium claim into the mix in the first place.
It is now known that Plame was monitoring Iran's nuclear activities. According to Raw Story investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna, former intelligence officials, have said that Plame "worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran."

Alexandrovna wrote, "The revelation that Iran was the focal point of Plame's work raises new questions as to possible other motivating factors in the White House's decision to reveal the identity of a CIA officer working on tracking a WMD supply network to Iran, particularly when the very topic of Iran's possible WMD capability is of such concern to the administration."
On May 1,2006 Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball confirmed what Alexandrovna reported in February: that Plame was working on Iran's WMD network at the time she was outed.

<snip>
In holding off on charging Rove, it may just be that Fitzgerald is looking at much bigger fish to fry. On October 23, 2005, UPI editor Martin Walker cited "NATO intelligence sources" as saying, "Fitzgerald's team of investigators has sought and obtained documentation on the forgeries from the Italian government."

The special prosecutor's team is said to have been provided with the full report on the Italian parliamentary inquiry into the forgeries.
"This opens the door to what has always been the most serious implication of the CIA leak case," UPI reported, "that the Bush administration could face a brutally damaging and public inquiry into the case for war against Iraq being false or artificially exaggerated."

[grasswire]

7. I disagree with their conclusion:

"In hindsight, its obvious that the leaks by Rove and Libby were the beginning of a White House scheme to pin the blame on the CIA for providing faulty intelligence and to take the focus off the forged documents used to insert the Iraq-uranium claim into the mix in the first place."

I believe the Plame leak had less to do with Iraq and more to do with Iran, in that the destruction of Plame's work and her network allowed obfuscation of Iran's nuclear capabilities and thus will facilitate the coming attack on Iran.

With the Bushies, you have to think several steps ahead and envision a greater evil than the one already apparent.

[librechik]

13. I believe it had less to do with Iran than Cheney's role in nuke prolif

eration. He was a major partner with AQ Khan, behind the scenes, before he was president. We can't have people investigating THAT

Even now, they are backing away from the Iran attack plan. At this moment Condi's on TV talking about the new diplomacy efforts. That will also take heat off Cheney. H eis the true Ass of Evil.

[Coexist]

27. interesting theory.

Lala was investigating this angle, somewhat. Thanks for sharing.

[troubleinwinter]

62. Treason

Traitors trashing our intelligence capability and cooperation of informants:

"Whenever a spy's cover is revealed, a chain of setbacks ensues. Foreign intelligence services then review everything they know about the undercover officer who was operating in their country. Such a review can lead not only to the discovery of informants who may have been recruited by the outed CIA officer but also to an understanding of the practices and techniques used by an undercover figure such as Plame, who posed as a businesswoman abroad.

"After one undercover CIA officer is exposed, others inevitably have a harder time persuading potential sources to pass secrets about their government's -- or their terrorist network's -- plans and capabilities."

Novak names Brewster Jennings and exposes it as a CIA front:

"There is no such firm, I'm convinced," Novak added.
Upon the public exposure of this information, former CIA agents report that intelligence agencies all over the world would have started searching the data bases for any mention of Plame or the firm and that over the years, hundreds of agents have worked under the cover of Brewster Jennings.

three intelligence officials speaking on the condition of anonymity to Larisa Alexandrovna of Raw Story said that while undercover, Plame was involved in identifying and tracking WMD technology to and from Iran and that her outing compromised the identities of other covert operatives as well.
As a result, the officials said that CIA work on WMD had been set back "10 years."

Libby & his lawyers don't give a shit about national security. Fitzgerald DOES:

In a January 9 letter to Libby's legal team, Fitzgerald responded to a request for documents that assess the damage caused by the outing, and wrote: "A formal assessment has not been done of the damage caused by the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, and thus we possess no such document."

"Moreover," Fitzgerald said in a brief filed in the case, "the publication of any informal assessment of actual damage caused by the leak could compound the damage by disclosing intelligence sources and methods."

The WH does not care about national security:

When the Libby indictment was handed down and it became known that Rove had definitely participated in blowing Plame's cover, 16 former CIA and military intelligence officials petitioned Bush to suspend Rove's security clearance and Bush refused to grant their request.

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/?op=displaystory;sid=2006/5/31/04731/7941 (the space before semicolon must be removed after pasting for correct URL)

TREASONOUS BASTARDS.

[chat_noir]

88. related???

Khan Nuclear Trafficking Probe Being Hampered by US...A Swiss investigation into an international nuclear smuggling network is being hampered by a lack of cooperation from the United States.

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/US_frustrates_Swiss_nuclear_probe.html?siteSect=105&sid=6760904&cKey=1148932805000


DU threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1313469

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1313736

[AndyA]

5. I'm waiting and watching.

If Rove has indeed been indicted, the pressure from the White House must be immense. There is no doubt a lot of legal maneuvering happening, lots of arm twisting, favors being called in, etc. I can see where there might be a delay in making an official public announcement.

:popcorn:

[Kota]

11. If he has been indicted and they are waiting, the big

question should be why no resignation.He should have resigned immediately.

[Beetwasher]

45. Says Who?

You would think, but then again, these are criminals who use extra-legal, unconstitutional methods any chance they get.

There's no rule or law that says Rove HAS to resign, and if the indictment is not public, why should he? Bad news? Delay, delay, delay. A time honored political strategy.

[cascadiance]

106. I'm sure they want to delay at least past next week...

So that a slew of the big primaries will be over before he gets "exposed". They don't want that sabotaging Brian Bilbray here against Francine Busby.

[Goblinmonger]

6. Doesn't it often feel like this

Sorry, was that mocking? I don't think so.

It just seems like a "hurry up and wait" mentality. I guess I understand that they wouldn't want to say something too soon again.

[symbolman]

10. Funny, but YOU of course are "beating a dead horse"

But Marc ASH is NOT, even tho we get a weekly bizarro "apology" or "thank you for being our support group at this time of our great sorrow, that our poor story didn't work out.. OOPS! THAT was NOT a Retraction, I repeat NOT a Retraction!"

Of course he doesn't address those complaining, read all about it..

[Goblinmonger]

12. "beating a dead horse" is in the eye of the beholder

or, for a nice turn of a phrase, I offer

[OldLeftieLawyer]

109. There was no indictment

There was no "lockdown" of Patton Boggs.

There is no such thing as 'get your affairs together in 24 business hours.'

The story was bogus.

There was no indictment.

Karl Rove has not been indicted.

It's that simple.

This latest "update" is inexplicable, and, of course, says nothing. Hardly "responsible journalism."

There is no indictment.

The story was bogus.

That's all, folks.

[Ladyhawk]

177. Also, notice how the cluster of usual suspects has shown up

and spoiled everything by pointing out a few facts. You guys have an agenda! Shame on you for pointing out the truth!!!! I want to put my head in the sand and believe what I want to believe, so there!

:sarcasm:

[symbolman]

181. Yumm...

Sandy Goodness.. nice air wafting across bottom.. no problems here, no sirree.. :)

[Ladyhawk]

176. I'm going to try not to mock or name-call anymore,

but I'm laughing at your picture. :) A lot of people are forgetting that the story is ALREADY bogus. Even if Rove was indicted on May 12 (99% sure he wasn't), he seems to be stretching out that 24 "business" hours quite a bit. Whoops, was I just mocking? Or was I just pointing out facts?

I can't help but once again point out the serial unprofessionalism of a certain unnamed truthout journalist. How many times must this pattern repeat? Whoops, did I just engage in name-calling or simply state the truth?

Jesus, I need to stay out of these threads. I'm really quite worked up about this.

[Patsy Stone]

8. Thanks for posting this update.

And the link for the thread to avoid. :)

[AngryAmish]

9. They will do anything to save Rove

Quashing the indictment is only the first step. If I were Fitz I would not be getting on any airplanes because that is the favorite method of the rethugs.

[katty]

167. concur-they will do ANYTHING-if Rove goes..so does their Empire

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Beetwasher]

15. What I Don't Understand Is Why Some People Find It So Hard To Believe

That Rove and Chimpy would and may have used any sort of extraordinary means to quash a Rove indictment, or that it may be sealed.

I've seen very specious arguments that amount to: since no indictment has been reported, that that means there wasn't an indictment. Yet I've seen no comprehensive explanation as to why it can't be sealed. I've seen references to sealed indictments that explain that in fact, it may be sealed, Rove would know about it, but it can't be reported or publicized by either party. Sealed indictments, to my understanding are not necessarily ONLY because of flight risk, there may be other reasons, including, cooperation by the indicted party, further, forthcoming indictments of OTHER parties that may be affected if the indictment is publicized, etc. All of which seem plausible to me.

Not to mention the possibilitiy of extraordinary (extralegal?) measures that may have been taken by Bush to quash and indictment as soon as it was issued. Is it so hard to believe they would do something unique and extraordinary to protect Rove?

There are numerous, plausible explanations as to how an indictment may have been issued and yet not reported yet or publicized.

Of course there is also the possibility that TO and Leopold are wrong, I don't deny that, but I certainly don't claim to have enough information to make a determination either way. I don't see how anyone else does either.

[redqueen]

18. Agreed on all points n/t

[tridim]

28. Perfect summary beetwasher

We're not dealing with OJ here. Rove is at least tied for most powerful person in the world. Extraordinary/extralegal circumstances and executive privilege are the norm with this crowd. If Bush loses Rove, he loses his brain.. Which means Bush can NOT lose Rove, no matter what.

[BurtWorm]

35. Says you.

Now that Bush can't have another election and Rove is doing shit for his ratings, it's more likely that even Rove is expendable.

[tridim]

36. I think you seriously underestimate Rove's influence

Bush has two more years left with at least one more illegal war and lots of taxpayer money to steal. You think Bush can make that happen by himself?

[BurtWorm]

46. If you admit you're speculating, I'll admit I might be underestimating.

And we'll both have to agree that neither you nor I can get any closer to the truth about Rove's value to this administration than our computer keyboards and monitor screens will allow.

It's possible that these guys would protect Rove as you argue they would, but you have no concrete reason to think so. What has Rove done for them lately?

[Beetwasher]

49. Of Course I'm Speculating!

That's essentially all we've got.

Rove is running the mid-term elections AND knows where all the bodies are buried (do you deny this?), it makes for great leverage when asking for "favors", such as, oh, I don't know, perhaps asking your pal the President, who is known for circumventing any law or constitutional requirement any time he feels like it, to quash your indictment via executive order in the name of national security (just one possibility).

[BurtWorm]

53. I suppose that could be.

But I would need more than speculation and the Truthout story to convince me that that's what's going on.

[Beetwasher]

56. As Would I, I'm Convinced Of Nothing EXCEPT

I don't have enough data to determine anything either way.

[gkhouston]

38. "it's more likely that even Rove is expendable"

and yet he's still there, so apparently Bush is still standing by his turdblossom. Surely the politically expedient time to jettison Rove was months ago, but Bush has dug his heels in on this one. I find myself wondering what it will take to change his mind.

[Coexist]

41. One thing that Bush is, consistently, is loyal.

I am not saying that is what is in his head, I am just making an observation. He surrounds himself with those he trusts, and they ALL come along for the ride. He really seems to stick by his loyalists.

Maybe having them fall off one by one is a terrifying prospect for him. They have been at his side since Texas. He does not seem like the type of person who takes major changes well.

[BurtWorm]

48. But if Rove is indicted, he's indicted.

He's going to leave Bush's side.

[Coexist]

51. that is correct - my observation was more to suggest the

idea (speculation though it may be - I am just letting my mind go off on its own) that he would be willing to put off accepting or demanding a resignation off until a public announcement made it impossible not to.

We have already seen his backtracking on "fire suspected leakers" to "fire those convicted of leaking" or whatever nonsense he was spouting that day, in order to keep his "guys" by his side a little longer.

[BurtWorm]

54. But if Fitzgerald has an indictment in his hands,

and we're not living in a totally lawless, last days of Rome type of world in which a little murder will quickly and efficiently take of the Fitzgerald problem, then Rove's days are numbered. Period. No futher speculation needed.

[Beetwasher]

60. Except We ARE Living In Lawless Days

As far as Chimpy and Co. are concerned. The law, the constitution, propriety means NOTHING to them. That's really all you need to know in order to speculate as to what is POSSIBLE in this case.

[BurtWorm]

69. True enough.

I just don't buy that Rove is all that valuable anymore. I think we clearly disagree on that. All Rove is good for is getting Bush elected. Whether it's his talent or the Democrats' lack of talent that succeeded or failed in 2002 is debatable.

[Beetwasher]

73. Yeah, We Definitely Disagree On That

Rove has created an aura about himself that, regardless of what I personally believe and think, he HAS been effective and HAS made himself indispensible to Republicans. He's running the mid-terms, and while I may not be convinced of his genius and I think he's merely a ruthless thug, he certainly has Chimpy AND the Repubs convinced he's the dark lord himself. They would go through many, many lengths to protect him. Not to mention, again, he knows where ALL the bodies are buried, so if he had any indication they were going to toss him to the wolves, think of the leverage he could pull to stop that from happening. Think of the threats he could make. Think of what he could expose.

[gkhouston]

78. wouldn't that be an argument for

a conveniently timed fatal accident?

[Beetwasher]

81. There Are Defenses Against That

Well hidden troves of incriminating files to be released upon death, etc. It doesn't just happen in spy stories.

[gkhouston]

83. Democrat forgeries, all of 'em. Check the font. ;-) n/t

[Beetwasher]

85. Ha!

;-)

[BurtWorm]

80. But we definitely agree that these are lawless days.

And I'll add that this administration is the most lawless in my lifetime. They've shown themselves capable of pushing the limits of what they can get away with over and over and over again. But they're usually not very good at hiding the piles of shit they leave all over the place, which is how they got in trouble with Fitzgerald in the first place.

[Coexist]

61. yes, but my point is that I see Bush as the type of person

to keep Rove in his staff until if/when the indictment announced by Fitz in another press conference. I am not close to Bush, Fitz or Rove, so I can only assume from what I observe and read.

[dogday]

68. Because he has known from the beginning

who the leakers were, and let them stay... He is a liar, leaker, and thief himself....

[Beetwasher]

55. Maybe

Is that a law that he HAS to as soon as he's indicted? And, since when do they follow the law anyway?

Look, the fact is, we don't know what's going on. Rove may have been indicted and it's sealed, and they decided, fuck it, there's not PROOF yet that most people know about and we NEED Rove for the elections, so we'll keep him around until we absolutely HAVE to let him go when the indictment becomes public. Or, he may have been indicted and Chimpy decided to issue a pardon, immediately and kept it secret and ordered it sealed for nat'l security reasons. Hell, why not? There's a myriad of possibilities when you're the President and have absolutely no compunction about doing whatever the fuck you want regardless of the law.

[BurtWorm]

59. As you say, maybe.

I'm too much of an atheist to take speculation on faith. ;)

But I will say that at least your speculation is plausible. :toast:

[Beetwasher]

63. Honestly, I Don't Know What To Believe Myself

Quite frankly, I think the MOST likely possibility is that TO and Leopold may in fact be wrong or have been duped, but I just don't have enough data to make any determination either way.

[Beetwasher]

42. Heh? Bush Is More Expendable Than Rove

Mid-Term Elections and all that. Sorry Burt, but what you said makes no sense, really. They would do just about anything to protect Rove, regardless of Chimpy not having to run for re-election. Rove knows where all the bodies are buried.

[BurtWorm]

50. Who would. Name names.

You mean Cheney? Why isn't Rove working for Cheney, then? And why did Cheney let Libby go to the dogs?

I need to be convinced. After all, didn't you say a few years ago that Rove's genius was overestimated even by DUers? Have you changed your opinion? I tend to think of Rove as a one-trick pony, and the one trick he knows isn't working so hot anymore.

[Beetwasher]

57. I Still Think That

But that doesn't mean he's not ruthless. He's a ruthless thug w/ no regard for the law.

I need to be convinced to, I don't know anything, except that there are not enough data to determine much of anything AND anything is possible when you have lot's of power and no regard for the law.

Why let Libby go? I dunno, there's speculation that the Rove/Cheney camps are in competition and perhaps squealing on eachother. We don't have enough data to determine much of anything, either way.

[BurtWorm]

64. No doubt about it: Rove is a thug.

He would have fit in in Rome (except he'd probably wind up castrated and dangling from pike).

[Beetwasher]

65. Now THAT Is A Nice Image!

While I'm eating lunch! ;-)

[BurtWorm]

72. I hope you're not eating a ham sandwich.

Or falafel balls. ;)

[Beetwasher]

75. Now You've Done It!

My shoes! The carpet! :puke:

[tridim]

66. Rove's genius might be overestimated by us,

but it's certainly not overestimated by the rest of BushCo. He's THE guy that makes things happen (stealing 3 elections in a row for example), and he'll be protected until the bitter end.

[gkhouston]

71. yes, but I suspect the bitter end may have arrived.

Question is, does Rove realize that his days as an asset are numbered? I suspect there was a time when Libby thought his boss would cover for him, too. Hasn't exactly played out that way.

[tridim]

74. Except Rove is Bush's boss.

Do you really think Rove would have it any other way?

[gkhouston]

82. neither Rove nor Bush control all of the pieces on the chessboard.

If they did, Fitzgerald would never have gotten this far. The only way this can be shut down now, IMHO, is with some suspicious pardons or some suspicious deaths. I wouldn't be surprised if both options have been discussed. Then again, Bush may be so isolated that he thinks he can still ride the tiger.

[Beetwasher]

84. Indeed, That Is My Hope

That, and that they (Bushco.) are as incompetent as Fitz is competent.

[BurtWorm]

34. Why would they try to hide a Rove indictment?

They're more likely to cut him loose or leave him dangling. Everythingthey do is about protecting Bush, not Rove.

[Beetwasher]

43. See My Post Above, Chimpy is More Expendable Than Rove

Mid-term elections. Rove knows where all the bodies are buried, he is NOT expendable, not at all. Rove is more of a main player than Chimpy, that's for sure.

Also, who says "they" are hiding the indictment. The indictment may be sealed, and if so, they would not be allowed to talk about it.

Rove being indicted would be an unmitigated disaster for Chimpy AND the Repubs in general as he is running the mid-term election strategy. News of his indictment would be put off for as long as possible. It only makes sense. Bad news? Delay, delay, delay. A time honored political tactic.

[ginnyinWI]

Fitz would announce if he were done with Rove,

but if not, this is a way to get his cooperation, right? Rove's people certaingly don't want to announce it and are quite willing to lie and deny. We all just need to wait--the truth will "out".

[Laurab]

79. Agreed on all points here, too

in fact, the possibility of "extraordinary", possibly not-quite-legal measures is high on my list of possibilities, since that IS the way they do business in this administration. Just business-as-usual.

The other things you mentioned are all possibilities, too. With the track record of this administration, I give TO the benefit of the doubt here.

We can speculate all we want, but I don't have enough information to make a determination either way, either. I DO have enough information about the current administration to put nothing past them. I THINK I know enough about Patrick Fitzgerald to believe he will prevail, so I'm hopeful.

[garybeck]

105. "sealed vs. sealed"

assuming you heard the speculatoin that "sealed vs. sealed" involves an attempt by Gonzales to use his authority un-indict Rove.

many people speculated that this was an outrageous hypothesis.

personally I think it's perfectly logical, if not expected. they would try anything and everything, legal and illegal to prevent the indictment.

there's guesswork going on everywhere. we don't know what's really happening. but one thing I can assure you, they will do everything they can to prevent the indictment from happening.

[foo_bar]

126. except that he's recused from the investigation

And again, Madsen states he has no confirmation actually placing Gonzales at the courthouse and meeting with/observing the Plame grand jury and yet goes on to report as if it was factually confirmed. Maybe he was at the courthouse, maybe he wasn't, but that he was there and if so why is still just speculation on Madsen's part.

And the idea that Gonzales would be allowed to pose questions to a grand jury in a case from which he not only recused himself but reportedly previously provided testimony is a tad outlandish IMO.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1182943#1188017

From the Wayne Madsen article that started this meme:

WMR can confirm that the appearance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Grand Jury at the US Federal Courthouse in Washington was a formality in which the jury informed the Attorney General of their decision to indict Karl Rove.
...
Contrary to other reports, some of which may have emanated from the Rove camp in order to create diversions and smokescreens, the meetings at Patton and Boggs did not last 15 hours nor was a 24-hour notice of intent to indict delivered to Rove. <...> Several sources have told WMR that an announcement concerning the indictment of Rove will be made on Friday, May 19 generally following the same scenario from October 28, 2005 -- the posting of the indictment on the Special Prosecutor's web site followed by a press conference at Main Justice.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/5/18/102829/607

So we have a May 12th indictment pending "24 (sometimes business) hours" on the one hand, and a May 19 indictment by the guy who thought he saw Gonzales. Occam's razor time:

We were increasingly concerned that the process was becoming drawn out, but felt we needed to review the phone records. By early Monday afternoon we had not received them, and found that Leopold was not returning our calls or e-mails. Later that afternoon we received a call not from Leopold but from a relative of his who was also apparently serving as his attorney and intermediary.

First, this intermediary had a phone company representative in a conference call read off phone numbers and dates of calls to us -- but they were calls to a different source in the story than to the one Leopold had told us was his source for the e-mail. Furthermore, all the calls took place after the story had been published. Next, the intermediary explained that the delay in getting the cell phone bill was because the phone belonged to Leopold's wife, not to Leopold himself, and that the bill had been at Leopold's home all along, and that he would fax it to us shortly.

When we reviewed this phone bill early Tuesday it contained numerous calls to the "other source" phone number (the same one the phone-service rep had cited the previous evening), but only one call to the number of the source Leopold originally named as the supplier of the White e-mail. The call was only one minute long, indicating that it was possibly unanswered, and in any case hardly long enough to conduct any sort of interview or obtain a fax of a sensitive e-mail. In any case, the call had taken place five days after Leopold had filed an early draft of the story that already quoted the e-mail.

At this point we concluded that we were never going to get the supporting evidence Leopold kept promising, and decided to remove the story.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00084.htm

[garybeck]

136. then he could "un-recuse" himself

these people would stop and nothing and no kind of law will stop them from asserting their power.

i'm not saying I believe the sealed vs. sealed story, but at the same time I wouldn't discount it as impossible or even unlikely, if Rove was in fact indicted..

[foo_bar]

137. it's implausible, not impossible

They could all whip out red light sabers too, but a pardon makes more political sense than a combination saturday night massacre/de-recusal/gag order on Fitzgerald on account of a factoid in a Madsen piece.

[JuniperLea]

142. Well said.... agree on all points

I've yet to see anything but circumstantial evidence produced by the "the story was bogus" crowd.

No one... repeat... no one knows enough to make a call in either direction.

I prefer to keep an open mind, free of the clutter of blind belief.

[dogday]

16. Thanks for the update nt

[deaniac21]

17. Good Information!

[Buzz Clik]

19. So we breathe into a paper sack ...

... trying to keep from hyperventilating while waiting for Rove to be led away in chains. If it ever happens, it will be worth the wait.

[Semblance]

20. That "update" is completely content free

[Strong Atheist]

23. Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

[tridim]

29. The accusations I've seen are content free as well n/t

[Coexist]

32. hence the "sort of" disclaimer in the OP n/t

[symbolman]

21. Speaking of Journalistic standards

How many of these practices did Leopold fracture in the last three stories on Rove? THIS is how the Left needs to be, THIS CLEAN in order to hold the Right Wing Media's Feet to the FIRE.. We cannot fight them with half apologies..


Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice.

Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
Always question sources' motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.
Never plagiarize.
Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
Balance a criminal suspect's fair trial rights with the public's right to be informed.
Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:
Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.
Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

[Strong Atheist]

24. This needs its own thread, so it can be recommended! Excellent!

WE need to be seen as the party that holds to standards and truth in the media. Gain the trust of the public at large, and the votes will follow...

[Marie26]

157. Thanks for posting

Those are good rules for us all to live by, I think. And it really shows how many guidelines the Truthout story broke. If we want to stop the Republicans, we need to have truth on our side.

[MelissaB]

22. Thanks for the update. n/t

[robbedvoter]

25. Thanks for the update.

[Coexist]

26. I sort of had to post and run - I had an appointment

thanks to those of you who tried to keep this civil.

I see a deleted sub-thread - dammit. What is wrong with people. Some of y'all need a hobby. Sorry for those who had to sift through any crap and typical responses to anything relating to this matter. I tried.

[Me.]

33. Stand Your Ground FLD5

Civility would be a nice accomplishment

*shadow government*

[Goblinmonger]

67. With due respect, it seems to me

that you are saying that dissent is a bad thing. That we shouldn't question you or Truthout. The OP even makes it seem like all dissenters can just go to this special little corner so that we don't disrupt the real conversation going on elsewhere.

Is that what DU and the Democratic party are really about?

[Coexist]

77. You couldn't be more wrong.

I was just hoping for civil discourse on this matter - dissent, agreement, or speculating.

In many threads on this matter, people post the same rude comments they have posted on this matter 15 other times in past threads. It gets old.

Questioning truthout is fine, I am still taking a wait-and-see approach. I hope they are right. The mocking and belittling is what I was hoping would stay on other threads.

I am not a Mod or Admin, and I have no control of what people post, but no middle ground can be found, no ideas taken into consideration, if posters are constantly on attack/defensive mode. Why would I encourage another thread full of vitriol. I was very hesitant to share this "Update" at DU. Then I thought - "screw that - I will not let a few bullies cause me to censor myself, I will post it, ask for REAL discussion and hope for the best." That is what I did. I have no power to take away any comments that people care to post. I can only request civility.

[gkhouston]

86. it's nice to see a thread with some actual discussion in it, for a change

:thumbsup:

[Goblinmonger]

89. OK. My misinterpretation

I thought it was a call/request for no dissenting voices.

[stop the bleeding]

99. sorry

that deleted sub-thread is me and cat_girl25. I commented that there were several deleted messages on the other thread from the OP and CG replied that some of them were her. I guess this is in violation of something.

Hell at this point I wouldn't be surprised to come back and see this post deleted. This kind of happenings makes me want to stay out of GD and DU for a while, frankly this whole escapade is starting to bore the hell out of me.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

111. Attempting to control the responses to something

you post is hardly in the spirit of DU, I would think.

If you're afraid of what people are thinking about something, you might not want to post whatever it is that's so scary to you. Because there are opinions out there, your pre-emptively labelling them "beating a dead horse" is a true George W. Bush attempt to make sure no one dissents with whatever it is you're trying to project.

This nonsense from Ash is worthless. He says nothing, and you don't want anyone to comment on the fact that the whole story was bogus, there was no indictment, Leopold most likely fabricated the whole thing, and truthout has squandered whatever good reputation it once had.

Trying to control dissent is not the American way. Witness the past six years.

[King Coal]

138. Sometimes people mistake their opinions for facts.

You are entitled to your opinions, Lefty, but not your own facts. You can't claim that it is a fact that there was no indictment. You may express that opinion, but you can't claim it as a fact because you have no proof. However, it is a fact that you hold a strong opinion that there was no indictment. You are just as much in error as you claim to be the case with TO, in my opinion.

[JuniperLea]

143. I share your opinion

:toast:

[bettyellen]

168. afarid? LOL, don't flatter yourself. boring hostile repetitive "opinions"

are just that. say your peace and move on already, otherwise you are beating a dead horse- on 24 threads no less.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Thanks. I'm Glad They Are Still Standing Behind It 100%.

It shows we still have no idea one way or the other what is really going on. Something's definitely awry with all this, since even regardless of the T.O. story the entire media world expected news on Rove by now. The fact that the buzz about him reached such a fever pitch and then ever since the day he was allegedly indicted has dropped off almost completely, is interesting in and of itself. Something has to be going on that no one knows about but Fitz and a select few. As I said, even outside of T.O. altogether, the media were all expecting more by now. The fact it has been so silent is perplexing, and T.O. standing behind their story just gives me all the more reason to believe that we do not yet have the facts and this whole thing is still up in the air.

[gkhouston]

31. true. Once the media started talking about Cheney, almost no one

was saying anything about Rove.

Anybody know if Fitz is going to be in DC this week?

[Catherine Vincent]

39. I don't know about the rest of the week but he was in Brooklyn today

http://www.stfranciscollege.edu/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=7256&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

ST. FRANCIS COLLEGE ANNOUNCES COMMENCEMENT SPEAKER AND HONORARY DEGREE RECIPIENTS

St. Francis College (Brooklyn Heights) welcomes Brooklyn native Patrick J. Fitzgerald, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, to deliver the 2006 commencement address. Mr. Fitzgerald will receive on honorary doctor of laws degree from the College.

[gkhouston]

40. thanks for the info. Knowing you, there will be

pictures to follow. ;-)

[Coexist]

44. ... I always hope catgirl has some Fitz photos handy!

They are a nice addition to any thread.

[Catherine Vincent]

47. Well, you know me! :)

But I've toned it down a bit since there are 'some' here that don't like it. ;-)

[foreverdem]

98. "Some" here love it!

Don't let the others discourage you! :hi:

[Beausoir]

124. "Some" here depend on it! Don't let the killjoys stop you from the fun!

Some people just like to be the skunk at the picnic.

Fitz pics! Keep 'em coming!

[Catherine Vincent]

127. Well I didn't say I would stop them completely. :)

:hi:

[Marie26]

178. I like it

More Fitz pics! :)

[Catherine Vincent]

129. This will have to do for now...

:)

[Sugar Smack]

150. Thank you for the fix, cat girl!!

:D

[suffragette]

37. Thanks for posting this, FLDem5

Appreciate your posts.

:hug:

[Nothing Without Hope]

52. The mystery and frustration continue. Question: Leopold also wrote

that Rove had received a "target letter" from the Fitz group, implying the strong possibility of future indictment. This was BEFORE the indictment story. For example:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1030979
thread title (4-26-06): REPORT: ROVE RECEIVED TARGET LETTER...UPDATED - (Jason Leopold)

About 2 weeks later there was another Jason Leopold story saying that Rove informed the White House that he would be indicted:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1172571
thread title (5-12-06): ROVE INFORMS WHITE HOUSE HE WILL BE INDICTED

The Jason Leopold report of Rove's indictment came soon after that:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1179819
thread title (5-13-06): KARL ROVE HAS BEEN INDICTED.

My question: Is ALL of this sequence of jason Leopold reports, including the target letter story, now up in the air?

Lots of reasons and methods for the Bushies quashing Rove indictment news. The truth WILL come out, eventually. I just hope that "eventually" is soon, and not only from some whistleblower years from now.

[Coexist]

58. According to the what I read in the Ash update

they are standing by what was written in the 5/13 story. The rest of your question would be better emailed to Mr. Ash himself. I really can't help you there. Sorry.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

115. No, not "up in the air"

They're all false.

None of what Leopold has reported ever happened.

That's the truth.

[King Coal]

139. In your opinion?

[JuniperLea]

144. Thanks for the opinion

That is all it is... opinion.

[Triana]

70. K & R in the interest of info...

...I should have preceded my post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=170x6991

With a statement like yours!

[wordpix]

76. Rover was in the * meeting with military experts yesterday, according to

Barry McCaffery on Tweety/MSNBC. So much for leaving Rover to politics, not policy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/ Video link: "War Council Looks at Afghanistan."

[gkhouston]

87. *Everything* is politics, for this crew. n/t

[Generator]

90. I realized either way it's F'd up

And I can't DU anymore. I'm hoping Leopold is wrong because then it means maybe justice isn't dead. But that means Rove isn't indicted and wont' be. (IF he was going to be indicted I really do believe it would be by NOW-if Fitz gets around to it in 2007I think it's a little too late) This is the last thing that seems to have a chance-because it's outside the control of Congress. I have no hope or faith left in the Democrats. This seems to be the only thing that will get justice.

And either way-either Leopold is WRONG, and was duped (which is bad enough) or is just a nutcase(which means all my hope is insane literally) -or Rove has been indicted and the ultimate lawless America has triumphed-Bush, Gonzalez, Cheney-the Trilateral commission, the Illuminati (HA!)whoever the fuck really rules this country -and our belief in a "rule of law" and the "greatest gift of our forefathers-the American Constitution" is now offically a fantasy. This means the coup is complete.

As Hendrix would say, "there must be some way outta this place". I wish I knew.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

117. Fitzgerald's not finished

The investigation goes on, and I would remind you that the wheels of justice turn exceedingly slowly, but they turn exceedingly fine (that's an old, old saying, and it's true).

Leopold is a headcase, truthout published a bogus, nonsense story with absolutely no authenticity, and everything in it was false.

There has been no Rove indictment, and there may well never be. The investigation is ongoing, and only Patrick Fitzgerald will announce if and when anything develops.

It's a tough law to enforce, the outing of Ms. Plame, that Fitzgerald is charged with. Hence, only the Libby indictment, on tangential charges, so far.

But, don't think for a moment that this is over.

Far from it.

Just keep in mind that the Leopold story and the truthout nonsense are just that: nonsense.

[Marnieworld]

91. Who got banned?

I missed that but I certainly didn't miss the ridicule. Jeesh. Thanks for the update.

[Coexist]

92. I don't know who they are- they only have a "Tombstone"

for their profile.

The thread I linked to in the OP has one 'Name Removed'. Other threads have had similar tombstonings.

[Marnieworld]

93. wow. Talk about eating your own

I imagine some were just disruptors that just capitalized on the debate. I wonder how many were DU vets and this event made them get tombstoned.

I have a bit of sympathy for Truthout personally. It remains to be seen exactly what is truly happening behind the scenes and perhaps, if only partly, they will still be vindicated. Worse case scenario they published something that by appearances and standard practices seemed true. They took a risk, perhaps got burned for it but is it any worse than any of the so-called "real" journalists do? The amount of venom directed towards them, the impossible standard placed on them, I really think has been unfair. JMHO of course. :hi:

[stepnw1f]

94. Thank You FLDem5

And thank you for the message. I promise to behave in this thread as well as others.

[Poiuyt]

95. When an indictment is sealed, under what circumstances does it become

unsealed?

[Marie26]

96. Usually, once the

defendant is arrested. Because sealed indictments are usually only used when a def. poses a flight risk. The indictment is sealed so that the target doesn't find out about the indictment & flee the country/jurisdiction. The Truthout article asks us to believe that Rove knows that he is indicted, but the public does not. That's not what sealed indictments are for, & I'm not sure that's ever been done. So, I guess the answer is never - because no sealed indicment was issued.

[Garbo 2004]

100. Merritt at Talk Left cited US v. DiSalvo, 34 F.3d 1204 (3rd Cir. 1994):

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

[Beetwasher]

102. Thank, It Seem There Are A Few Posters Who Delight in Misinformation

Indeed, indictments can be sealed for NUMEROUS reasons.

[Marie26]

108. You're proving my point

From that case: "In conjunction with this argument, DiSalvo separately contends that the indictment, as to him, was improperly sealed... On October 2, 1991, when the grand jury returned the indictment naming both DiSalvo and Simone, the government immediately moved to seal it in order to avoid compromising the Chicago trial. A magistrate judge granted the motion. Although Simone knew of the return and agreed to the sealing, DiSalvo was not notified and did not learn of his indictment until its unsealing on March 10, 1992. "

Briefly, in order to seal an indictment, the magistrate needs to articulate a legitimate law enforcement reason - usually, that the def. is a flight risk. In this case, the indictment was sealed to avoid pre-trial publicity & prevent tainting another criminal trial in which one indictee was serving as Defense attorney. DiSalvo disputed the sealing of the indictment because the time of the unsealing would change the statute of limitations on the charges against him. He contended that the reasons given were not a legitimate law enf. reason, but because the standard is so high for reviewing judges' decisions, the magistrate's decision was allowed to stand.

Notice that in that case, the Defendant himself was NOT NOTIFIED of the sealed indictment. Targeted defendants aren't notified of sealed indictments - preventing the Def. from knowing is the whole reason it's usually sealed from the public. And a defendant isn't notified, for any reason, of a sealed indictment until it's unsealed (usually after the Def. is in custody). The Talkout article was completely wrong because it insisted that Rove (the defendant) knew about his own sealed indictment, but the public did not. That's not how indictments work. Plus, in order to justify a sealed indictment, the magisterate needs to articulate a legit. law enforcement reason, usually flight risk, but there can be other extraordinary circumstances. But I can't think of one that could apply here. Plus, even if the indictment was sealed, ROVE HIMSELF would not know about it. Fitz wouldn't seal it, then show the indictment to the Defendant anyway (for fun?), then let Rove leave, then refuse to show the public the indictment after showing it to the Defendant. The whole thing is illogical & it was obviously written by someone who isn't familiar w/the legal system. That's why DU lawyers have been all over this story. It's just wrong.

[Beetwasher]

110. Key Word: "Usually..."

"...preventing the Def. from knowing is the whole reason it's usually sealed from the public."

IOW, there ARE other reasons and other scenarios where it may be sealed AND the defendent knows about it?

There is NOTHING "usual" about this case and we don't have enough data to make any determinations.

Can an indictment be sealed for nat'l security reasons, for example? Could, for example, Gonzales ask for the indictment to be sealed for nat'l security reasons AFTER it's been issued and Rove already knows about it? Yes, I'm speculating, but my point is, if it's sealed (and I'm not saying it is, for all I know, Truthout IS totally wrong) we wouldn't know about it or WHY it was sealed, and there are a myriad of reasons why it may have been sealed.

The law is not so cut and dry as you try to make it. That is, afer all, why there are lawyers. And powerful people have ways of manipulation that are not available to everyone, especially when the have the President on a string.

"That's why DU lawyers have been all over this story. It's just wrong."

Heh. Appeal to authority, huh? How about the caveat: "Self proclaimed DU lawyers". I can make any claim about myself I feel like while posting anonymously on the internet, doesn't make it true, and doesn't necessarily mean I know everything about everything, especially when the law is concerned. The law ain't science and it's quite mainpulable, especially when extremely powerful people are involved.

[Marie26]

119. Not likely

I don't know of a scenario where an indictment is sealed, yet the defendant knows about it, yet the public does not. That's not how sealed indictments are usually issued. So, the contention that Rove knows about the sealed indictment for 3 weeks is almost certainly wrong. In general, to seal an indictment, the judge needs a legitimate law enforcement purpose (not just to "get affairs in order" or whatever). I guess, it's possible there's some stunning national security issue we're unaware of that would require the sealing of this indictment, but that seems dubious to me, because Libby was indicted in the same case, on the same types of charges, w/o it being sealed. Of course, law isn't cut & dry, but there are rules & procedures that must be followed. So, here that's like saying that maybe someone indicted on murder charges was actually indicted on shoplifting, cause the law isn't cut & dry. It's a red herring & a dodge from the fact that this claim is illogical & contrary to how the system works.

Yes, there are powerful forces here, but that didn't protect Libby, did it? Do you think Fitzgerald is manipulating the justice system to protect Rove (while indicting him?) That doesn't seem in line w/Fitz's character, or the facts here. Anyone can be anyone, but I bet you'd be accepting my statements w/o question if I said that this indictment is real. You questioned my credentials cause I'm not telling you what you want to hear. I don't mention lawyers as an "appeal to authority", but because they're in the best position here to see the errors in this legal story. Like how scientists can see the error in a science story, etc. So, if the experts in a field are saying that a story is incorrect, they'd be in a position to know. I'm not saying that I'm an expert, but I do know enough to know that this story is wrong. And that's what I'm trying to explain here.

[Beetwasher]

123. The Whole Case Is About Nat'l Security

And Rove knowing about the idictment is NOT clearly wrong. As Garbo pointed out, there was at least THAT case in which the defendent WAS notified of the sealed indictment. And I'm sure, if I had the time to research, I could find others.

"I guess, it's possible there's some stunning national security issue we're unaware of that would require the sealing of this indictment..."

Indeed, it's possible.

We don't have enough data to make ANY determinations about this case or what may or may not have happened. We know we're dealing w/ ruthless thugs with essentially unchecked power who care not a whit for the law, or proper procedure or using nat'l security as shield and club to further their personal agenda and protect their lying criminal asses. These men steal elections, they shred the constitution and torture people at whim and lie w/ impugnity. They refuse to comply w/ court orders when they don't feel like and ignore congressional laws via executive fiat.

"So, if the experts in a field are saying that a story is incorrect, they'd be in a position to know.."

Heh. What experts? The only people I see saying this are the self proclaimed experts here on DU. I've seen no other "experts" make these claims about sealed indictments. Sorry, I won't take someone's word on this issue just because they put "lawyer" in their name on an internet discussion board.

I've spoken to people who I know ARE lawyers who have worked in the DOJ, and they have said that, in fact, there ARE some instances when an indictment is sealed and the defendent knows about it. Take it for what it's worth, which is nothing, coming from an anonymous source on an internet discussion board.

[Marie26]

145. But the grand jury is already secret

Anything the GJ hears is secret & not made public. And this GJ is entirely leak-free. So, let's say there's some national security secrets involved in this case - it's already protected & not made public. The only thing a sealed indictment hides is that Rove himself has been indicted. Why would that be such a national security secret that it'd need to be hidden for 3 weeks? And once there's a trial, the indictment needs to be unsealed anyway. It needs to be unsealed anyway for the process to even get started. So, it doesn't make sense that Rove's indictment, alone, needs to be kept secret for 3 weeks, in order to be unveiled publically anyway once the trial process begins. The most likely, logical, and realistic answer is that there is no indictment. :banghead:

[Beetwasher]

149. Huh? You Have No Idea Whatsoever

What the indictment (if there is one) might contain, and there may be material that's NEVER made public. That's totally irrelevant. The point is that there could possibly be any number of plausible reasons how and why it might be sealed. The point is YOU DON'T KNOW and NIETHER DO I and NONE OF US HAVE NEARLY ENOUGH DATA TO DETERMINE ANYTHING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

Yes, the most likely explanation is there is no indictment, but it's certainly possible (but perhaps unlikely) that there is a sealed indictment OR something else happened, such as there WAS an indictment, but Rove used his connections to have it immediately (and perhaps extralegally) quashed and/or sealed. WE DON'T KNOW AND DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION. Why is it so hard to believe that Rove would do something like that? How likely is it? I don't know. How often have they ignored the law and the constitution and cited Nat'l Security as the reason? Do you need a list? You think they wouldn't try it again in to stop Rove (Bush's brain) from being indicted?

What's amazing to me is how ANYONE can speak with such certainty about something they are utterly clueless about. You don't have enough data to make any determination about this case and about what may or may not have happened, and when you're dealing w/ criminals who have almost unlimited power and no qualms about using it to break any law they feel like and have the President on a string, well, you SHOULD get the picture about what might be possible in this case...

[Marie26]

152. We know the story was wrong

That's clear & indisputable at this point. Why are people continuing to try to argue that the story was right? It's just mystifying to me. I've said there's no plausible reason for sealing this indictment. You can come up w/some implausible ones if you like. It's not possible to "quash" an indictment (legally). It's either issued publically or sealed. I've given the usual reasons for sealing an indictment, & none apply here. If they really wanted to subvert the judicial process, they would just stop any indictment at all. We DO know that the story itself never mentioned a sealed indictment, so by arguing it was sealed now, you're basically admitting the written story was wrong. Leopold himself said that "it wouldn't make sense" for the indictment to be sealed.

In the interview -
"Leopold mentioned sealed indictments and the interviewer asked Leopold whether it was possible that there was an indictment sitting there sealed. Leopold answered that there is a possibility that it's sitting there sealed but that "it would not make sense that it's sitting there sealed and Karl Rove's been told about it, and that's exactly what I said in my story. I said that he was indicted, that the grand jury returned the indictment."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1314291#1319353

So, Leopold isn't even claiming the indictment is sealed, it makes no sense for the indictment to be sealed, there's no evidence the indictment is sealed, but people will make that up anyway in order to try to justify this patently false story. I guess I give up.

[Beetwasher]

154. If It WERE Sealed There WOULD BE NO EVIDENCE

That's the point. You WOULDN'T know about it. And there ARE plausible reasons, and I've stated them. You merely saying there implausible does not make them so.

I'm not arguing the story was right, but it IS disputable that it is CERTAINLY wrong. You can't POSSIBLY know WITH CERTAINTY it is wrong because YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION. That's the point. You can't discuss this case with any degree of certainty, you just don't have enough information. And yet you think you can because some self proclaimed experts here on DU have stated their opinion as indisputable fact. Feel free to continue to insist that you know something that you can't possibly know, but I will continue to call bullshit on it.

[Marie26]

155. YES I CAN.

So there. :P Why didn't you address the fact that Leopold himself said the indictment wasn't sealed?

[Beetwasher]

160. You Can DO Anything You Want, Of Course, But Why Misrepresent Stuff?

Leopold didn't say it WASN'T sealed, he said from your own quote, that it IS possible, but he thought it wouldn't make any sense. Why do you insist on misrepresenting things? "Leopold answered that there is a possibility that it's sitting there sealed but that "it would not make sense that it's sitting there sealed and Karl Rove's been told about it, and that's exactly what I said in my story."

There HAVE been sealed indictments issued in the past where the defenent DID know about it, so there IS precedent for something like that happening, and in the legal system, if there's precedent, it's possible it could happen again. And in a case like this that included some of the most powerful people on the planet, anything can happen, and probably will.

I'm not here to defend Leopold, personally I think it's likely he was wrong and/or duped, but I also think it's within the realm of possibility that there are very unusual things going on w/ this case, including things that Rove may have pulled that are not necessarily legal or constitutional in order to delay or quash any indictment. Likely? I don't know. Possible? Yes.

Why do you continually misrepresent things, like that Leopold quote above and like you did when you claimed the TO article made claims about sealed indictments (which you later acknowledged and retracted). If your arguments are so solid, why do you consistently misrepresent and distort things?

[Marie26]

161. The only one misrepresenting is Leopold

As he has done before, and Truthout, for failing to retract the story after it's falsity became obvious. I feel like I'm talking to the Flat Earth Society, or Creationists, or something. You will take whatever I say & twist it & hair-split it, while accepting what Truthout has said in spite of the fact that it goes against all common sense & reason. Leopold himself said that "it doesn't make sense" for this indictment to be sealed, & I agree. Apparantly, his own sources never mentioned a sealed indictment, though they had the inside scoop on the indictment process, & w/all the updates, Truthout has never mentioned any sealed indictment since. The reasonable conclusion is that no sealed indictment was issued, indeed, that no indictment was issued at all. I can know, for myself, that the story was wrong. I can't know it for you, or anyone else. The best I can do is explain some of the reasons for my position, as I've attempted to do here. You can ignore it, or dispute it, or accept it, or whatever.

[Beetwasher]

166. LOL! Uh, I'm Not Dismissing Your Position I'm Calling You On Bullshit

And misrepresentation. And calling you on how definitive and certain you are about it. You don't know squat and yet you pretend you do and you continually misrepresent things in order to claim your position is indisputable. You can only make that claim by misrepresenting things.

I also find it pretty ironic how you trash Leopold and now your depending on HIM and what he thinks to make your case. :rofl:

[Marie26]

170. Right

If you're defending Leopold, it's pretty ironic that your argument depends on him being wrong about the sealed indictment, doesn't it? :rofl: Like I said, I'm presenting my own perspective, based on what I know & what I believe; you're free to dismiss it & I'm free to say it. That's the whole free country thing. I'm pretty definitive on this story being bullshit, as should anyone with half a brain. But, you'd rather attack me than direct your attention to the actual news site that ran a false story for 3 weeks, & still won't issue an apology. Whatever floats your boat, I guess. But I just don't understand it.

[Beetwasher]

172. At Least You're Finally Admitting It's An OPINION

That's a step in getting the OTHER half of your brain in order.

Too bad I'm not, nor was I ever defending Leopold. I have my OWN opinions on the matter and always have.

From my original post: "Of course there is also the possibility that TO and Leopold are wrong, I don't deny that, but I certainly don't claim to have enough information to make a determination either way. I don't see how anyone else does either."

[Garbo 2004]

113. Simone, also a defendant, was notified and agreed to keeping it sealed.

I really don't see how that proves your point. It seems to contradict your point.

DiSalvo was not notified of the sealed indictment and appealed the case on the grounds that the case was improperly sealed in regards to him. That doesn't erase the fact that the other defendant, Simone, was informed of the indictment and agreed with the government's decision to keep the indictment sealed.

[Marie26]

189. Maybe

But that's a very different scenario than exists here. DiSalvo himself wasn't notified, and that's typical of criminal defendants. This seems to be an odd case where two defendants were charged together, w/one notified & another not notified because of publicity reasons. That's really atypical & the way the indictment was sealed there was properly objected to. Magisterates' decisions are difficult to averturn given the standard, & it was eventually upheld. People have been looking far & wide, and that seems to be the only case anyone has found where an indictment was issued in that fashion. Usually, indictments are sealed simply until the defendant can be detained. So, it'll be sealed from the defendant, as well as the public, for a short period of time until it's served to the defendant. It's highly unusual for an indictment to be issued for any reason besides flight risk, and it's even more atypical for a defendant to be shown his own sealed indictment. That makes a claim of a sealed indictment here pretty dubious, especially cause it wasn't in the original story. Leopold himself said it "didn't make sense" for Karl Rove to be shown a sealed indictment here. The "sealed indictment" isn't organic to the story itself, but seems to be a concept that was floated to explain the lack of an indictment at the expected time.

[Beetwasher]

101. Not True At All

Please stop spreading disinformation. The target fleeing is only ONE reason for a sealed indictment, there are others, such as nat'l security reasons, further target cooperation as well as OTHER forthcoming possible indictments or an ongoing investigation that might be affected by the first indictment. To stop a target from fleeing is only ONE possible reason for it being sealed, but it's definitely NOT the only one.

"The Truthout article asks us to believe that Rove knows that he is indicted, but the public does not...."

No, that's not what the article asks us to believe unless you're referring to another arrticle. Show me where it asks us to belive that. As a matter of fact, sealed indictments are not even mentioned in the Truthout article and no one that I've seen has ever made that claim as such.

"... That's not what sealed indictments are for, & I'm not sure that's ever been done. So, I guess the answer is never - because no sealed indicment was issued."

Nice strawman. No one ever said that THAT is the reason why a sealed indictment MAY have issued. Not a single person. There are OTHER reasons it MAY have been issued sealed (as I mention above), but no one has ever made the claim you are suggesting.

Admit it, IF a sealed indictment was issued, Rove could know about it, but you wouldn't, and we wouldn't know the reason WHY it was issued sealed. Just admit you know nothing and you are speculating like the rest of us.

The fact is, there may be sealed indictment. I don't know if there is, for all I know Truthout IS wrong, but neither you nor I have enough data to make any determination, so stop pretending you do and stop peddling misinformation.

[troubleinwinter]

107. Thank you, thank you.... I have been wondering this for some time

And you answered it! Thank you!

"IF a sealed indictment was issued, Rove could know about it, but you wouldn't, and we wouldn't know the reason WHY it was issued sealed."

[Marie26]

112. It is true, sorry

- Flight risk is the MAIN reason for a sealed indictment. There can be other extraordinary circumstances, but none really occur to me here. ESPECIALLY since it's now 3 weeks since the alleged indictment was issued & Rove's still strutting around the White House. Libby had high security clearances, revealed classified material, etc. & Fitz revealed that indictment the moment it happened. There's really no reason this indict. should be sealed for 3 weeks, & if it was, I'd have to question Fitz's motives. Fitz has always acted honorably in this case - he wouldn't be sealing an indictment for 3 weeks just to allow Rove to "get his affairs in order." And wasn't it supposed to only be 24 business hours until the indictment was revealed, originally?

- Right, sealed indictments aren't mentioned in the Truthout article. The "sealed indictment" idea only came up after an indictment failed to materialize at the promised time. It was a back-pedal, to try to justify the erroneous initial story.

- PLENTY of people are saying that the indictment was sealed. If you want to believe the indictment wasn't sealed, then you'd have to explain why it was never made public. Unsealed indictments are made public - so either this indictment was sealed (unlikely), or.. this indictment should be all over the news & Rove should be frog-marching right about now. I'd say, if you're trying to justify this story, you've got to argue that the indictment was sealed, cause otherwise it's just obviously false.

- I'm saying, if a sealed indictment was issued, Rove WOULDN'T know about it. That's my point. Defendants don't know about a sealed indictment until it's unsealed. There's no way Rove would know about his own sealed ind., while the public does not. It just doesn't work that way. Where's OLL when you need her?

- The fact is, there's no sealed indictment, and the story was incorrect. I'm sort of astonished that people could still argue that this story was right, in spite of all we know now. This isn't even mentioning the other obvious errors, the 24 business hours, the added details to explain away earlier claims, etc. etc. etc. I do have enough data to make a determination that this story is false, & I determined that a long time ago. We all do - it's just a question of what we want to see.

[Beetwasher]

116. Yes, You Are Wrong

Totally wrong. Sealed indictments can be sealed AND the defendent CAN know about them (see Garbo 2004 post above).

"so either this indictment was sealed (unlikely)..."

Maybe unlikely, but STILL possible.

As I've said, time and time again, I don't know all the facts, and neither do you. I think it's pretty likely that Truthout was wrong, but there is not enough data to determine that.

[Marie26]

156. Don't take my word for it

You're not going to believe me on this, & you don't have to w/o having some real proof. So, here's a few links on how sealed indictments are generally issued. Wouldn't it be nice if people demanded the same accountability from their news sources?

"But how to explain the absence of an indictment? The indictment was, it turns out, a secret. “We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed,” wrote Ash. “Rove may be turning state’s evidence.” Indeed, some other anti-Rove commentators have also suggested that the indictment was sealed. Wayne Madsen, another Internet writer who has claimed that Rove was indicted, wrote on Saturday that, “With a sealed indictment in hand, the special prosecutor could have been negotiating a plea agreement with the Rove camp during the last week.”

But like other parts of the indictment scenario, the claim that charges against Rove were sealed—a claim needed to keep the indictment story alive once time had passed without confirmation—appears to be without foundation. The decision to seal an indictment is based on several factors, and it appears none of them are present in the Rove case. “The usual and most common circumstance is the fear that the defendant, or one of the defendants if there are multiple defendants, will flee if he learns that he is wanted before he is placed in custody,” says National Review Online’s Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor. “The government will ask the court to seal the indictment and issue arrest warrants.”

It seems safe to say that there is no such element of surprise in the CIA-leak probe. Rove has known for two years that he is under investigation. So do his colleagues in the administration. He holds a high-profile job and can be easily and quickly located. There is no reason to believe he is a flight risk. There is, in short, no apparent reason for an indictment against him to be sealed. Under such circumstances, McCarthy says, a sealed indictment would be “highly unlikely.”

And a sealed indictment is sealed to everyone, including — especially — the person who is indicted. But under the Truthout scenario, Fitzgerald handed Rove an indictment and, apparently, told Rove to keep it hush-hush. That would be, to say the least, a highly unusual way of doing things. If Rove were actually indicted, he, like anyone else, would be free to speak in public about it — to claim, for example, that he is innocent and that he will fight the charges.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjYwZWJmNDkwZTJhODhjNWZjYWM4ZmY4YTM2MmY3MTM=

"A sealed indictment might be used where the prosecutor, for whatever reason, does not wish to alert the prospective defendant to the fact that criminal charges are being investigated."
http://www.mcacp.org/issue5.html

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 6:

"(4) Sealed Indictment.

The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment's existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule6.htm

In reference to the Duke case (sealed indictments were unsealed one day later) -

"JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Jason Carroll was reporting that there are apparently two sealed indictments. It's pretty unusual to proceed by sealed indictment in a case where all the suspects are known to the public and they are not flight risks... The usual reason for a sealed indictment is the police and prosecutors want to arrest someone before they know they are indicted. If they know they are indicted they might flee the area."

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:kkleO-DkxrMJ:transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/17/sitroom.01.html+flight+risk+%22sealed+indictment%22+-rove&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=21

I can come up w/some more links if needed. My basic point is that indictments are usually only sealed if there is some risk of flight. They can also be sealed for reasons of publicity, but that's uncommon & wouldn't seem to apply here anyway. The whole world knows Rove's being investigated & may be indicted. What would be the point of sealing the indictment when the case is already publicized?

To believe this, you've got to believe 1.) the indictment was sealed, though the story does not mention a sealed indictment, & Leopold himself said it was not sealed (improbable). 2.) The indictment was sealed, even though Rove does not pose a flight risk & there's already publicity of the case (very improbable & uncommon). 3.) Fitz asked to seal this indictment, for some unusual reason not involving flight risk; yet he then decided to show the sealed indictment to the defendant anyway, but still keep it concealed from the public. He does this, even though sealed indictments are normally kept secret from the defendant himself. (BIG departure from how sealed ind. are normally issued & in contrast to how Libby's indictment was done.) 4.) Fitz decided to keep this issued indictment secret for THREE WEEKS, while Rove continues making speeches, working at the White House, etc. He's waiting for some unspecified reason that involves Rove "getting his affairs in order", though the defendant is present & able to stand trial. The sealed ind. makes it impossible for Fitz to proceed on the case against Rove during this time. (This completely strains belief, & it doesn't make any sense for the Pros. to do this). So, we've got at least 4 highly-improbable, illogical events, that all must have occured one after the other in order for this story to be true. I think that tips this story over the line from improbable, to impossible.

[Beetwasher]

165. Oh My, How Dishonestly Selective Of You

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/LegalCenter/story?id=1851817

"A sealed indictment does not mean an arrest must be made though it does provide the prosecutor leverage with potential defendants who believe once their names are public their reputations will be destroyed.

The sealed indictments put the attorneys for the accused in a touchy position because they will be told their client has been indicted but not what the charge is and how many counts, making it difficult to defend."

A sealed indictment can be issued and the defendent can have knowledge of it. There are numerous reasons why this may have happened w/ Rove, flight risk being only one of them. They are also used when there is an ongoing investigation and public knowledge of the indictment and the charges it contains and evidence it contains may tip off others higher up the chain of the criminal organization.

Gee, yet another dishonest misrepresentation from you. Yeah, it's easy to make your case when you merely cherry pick things that support you and don't give the whole picture.

[Marie26]

169. Oh, just cut it out.

Would you quit accusing me of being dishonest? I'm sorry my opinion doesn't agree w/your own. I'm very sorry that it doesn't agree w/Truthout's (though their opinion on this is a bit murky, in spite of the updates.) Sealed indictments are generally issued only because of flight risk, and the defendants are generally not informed of them. They don't inform defendants of a sealed indictment, because preventing the defendant from knowing is usually the whole reason it's sealed until the Def. is arrested/served (as the links show, & as the legal process shows). I noticed you ignored all the points I made in that post. I'm frustrated, so I'll tell you why this story annoys me so much. It makes fools of us. It makes us look like a mob that just gloms onto anything w/o thinking. It makes us look gullible, naive, & stupid. By refusing to retract it, it makes Truthout look like cowards, or like they have no respect for their readers. And it makes it look like people will believe anything that's what they want to hear. When this first came out, I thought people would admit it was wrong eventually & get mad at Truthout, if anyone. Instead, people are still defending Truthout, past the point of reason, still attacking people who were skeptical, still coming up w/nonsensical reasons that it could, maybe, be true. And that scares me, because I can see how people can be led to do horrible things, & I can see how leaders exercise such power over people. If you can't think for yourself, you're nothing more than a pawn in someone else's game. That's a game I don't want to play.

[Beetwasher]

171. Actually, Our Opinions Are Probably Similar

The whole point is, until now, you've never said it was an OPINION. Finally. As I've said, over and over, my position is TO and Leopold are probably wrong, but neither I nor you nor anyone on this board has enough information to determine what is true and that there are many possibilities (however likely or unlikely) in a case as murky and high level as this one is.

Yeah, blah blah blah, how silly and foolish we look. :eyes: Whatever. People who think their opinions are fact and stubbornly cling to them as such and deride those who disagree are more dangerous than people who leave open the possibility that they may be wrong but are merely waiting for more evidence before making a determination.

[Marie26]

173. Yadda, yadda

Yeah, it's an opinion. Everything we post here is just an opinion. I'm expressing my opinion that the indictment wasn't issued, & anyone can agree or disagree w/it. There's no way to know w/absolute fact anything that's happened, cause we're not Leopold; so, we can just form our own opinions based on the facts here. I think I can form a reasonable opinion, at this point, that the story isn't true. And I agree w/the danger of stating opinions as facts - Truthout is stubbornly clinging to an opinion (stated as fact) that was long ago disproven, & supporters have derided those that disagreed for not showing adequate support. But, that's just my perspective on the issue. Based on what you're saying, we could never even dispute Bush's WMD claims, cause there's still a slim possibility that one could exist buried somewhere, & we don't know because we're not Iraqi, etc. etc. At a certain point, doubt is removed. For me, that doubt was removed awhile ago, but I understand that others will still want to wait before forming a conclusion here. We can all make up our own minds, & anyone can express the position they've reached. That's the nature of a discussion board.

[Beetwasher]

174. LOL!

"Based on what you're saying, we could never even dispute Bush's WMD claims..."

Now that's funny! How ludicrous. There's a serious difference between the two scenarios. If you don't see it, it's because you don't want to. What is it about the FACT that Fitz is STILL WORKING on the case and until he's done we won't have all the answers, that you don't get? As opposed to, we're in Iraq, on the ground and all the investigators have come up empty handed and issued reports that there were no WMD's.

When Fitz is done, and if there's no Rove indictment, I'll know pretty definitively what the truth is. Seriously, you really undermine yourself w/ ludicrous stuff like this.

[Marie26]

175. I don't think so.

I think the contention that Fitz had indicted Rove is pretty ludicrous given the evidence. You're implying that Fitz might indict Rove someday & we don't have all the answers - that's true, but an indictment in the future won't make this story right. The story is that Rove was already indicted on May 12, 2006. At what point can we just admit it isn't true? It doesn't seem like there'll be a retraction from Truthout. Five years from now, can we still claim that maybe there's a sealed indictment lying around somewhere? There's still Freepers claiming that there are WMD's lying around somewhere, & we can't say, w/absolute truth, that there aren't. It's just highly, highly, unlikely. But, because we don't KNOW this, does that mean that Freepers can still reasonably say that they're still waiting to find out about the WMD's? It might be a silly comparison, but I'm trying to draw a parallel to illustrate the absurdity of endlessly waiting on a negative.

Even sillier - I can say that Bush is secretly a robot, & you can provide me w/lots of circumstantial evidence he's not, but you can't ever prove it directly (not being Bush), so I could still cling to that belief no matter what. At what point is it still reasonable to maintatin a position in spite of the evidence? Cognitive dissonance means that we'll change the facts to conform w/our prior opinion, instead of letting the facts change our opinions. To what extent do our preconceptions shape our perception of the facts? Are we all a little deluded? It's interesting to me, cause it's a silly story, but it really goes to the way we filter & perceive reality.
(/long philosophical rambling).

[Beetwasher]

182. Evidence?

"At what point is it still reasonable to maintatin a position in spite of the evidence?"

What evidence? You don't have ANY evidence, all YOU have is conjecture and your opinion. And you're missing a huge key part, the most crucial evidence there is, and that's what FITZ, the GJ and the JUDGE (among others) has to say about the matter, and we won't know that until they're good and ready. It's not waiting on a negative, it's waiting to understand CRUCIAL data that are intimately relevant to the matter. You're quick to jump to definitive conclusions and are incredibly (obsessively) stuck to your opinion even though you don't know a damn thing about this case and what is going on w/ the investigation. None of us do, and until then I, personally, withhold judgment on a myriad of issues involved until there's more information; particulary I'm interested in what Mr. Fitzgerald will say on the matter. You're entitled to your opinion and you're entitled to jump to it with all the zeal you can muster. Have fun w/ that!

The problem w/ your ludicrous analogy is, among other things, I'm not making any claim, I'm not claiming "Bush is a robot" or that there are WMD's, or that TO is accurate or otherwise. You however are making the very strident, persistent, Supposedly-definitive-bordering-on-obsessive claim that TO is bullshit and have yet to back it up adequately, certainly not to a definitive level, especially since you are missing so many key data.

[Marie26]

183. Like I said,

it's interesting how people can filter & twist reality. The evidence is that there's no indictment at the federal courthouse, or Fitz's website, or any public announcement of an indictment. If you want to prove there WAS an indictment, you'd need to show some substantial proof that it has occured. Right now, all we've got is an error-riddled article by Leopold on Truthout. Rove is still working, still has security clearances, still acting normal. Fitz is still filing documents in the Libby case w/o any sign he's now filed charges against Rove. I don't like being lied to - and I don't like being told to believe a certain entity, just because. You're rather obsessively saying we DON'T KNOW anything (w/zeal & muster), when we do know that the story is almost certainly untrue.

I could go into ALL the errors in that story, but it's almost too much to bother - it's not just the sealed/unsealed indictment issue, it's the fact that Rove doesn't have a Secret Service detail, Patton Boggs wouldn't close down for this, "24 hours" in the initial announcement was changed to "24 business hours" that have long since expired, etc. These errors aren't "conjecture", they're fact. Truthout quietly edited the story after the initial version was wrong, & issued endless non-apologies & non-updates w/o explaining any of these apparant errors. And where is Pitt, anyway? Right now, looking at the public record of Fitz, the judge, and the grand jury, they've spoken - there is no indictment on the record. It requires some pretty big contortions to insist that an indictment exists, anyway, & besides this story, I haven't seen any other news source saying such an indictment was ever issued. I could say Fitz secretly indicted Chelsea Clinton - go prove me wrong. Just saying it doesn't make it so. You need some actual evidence that's been totally lacking here.

I'm just kind of astounded at the lengths people will go to deny reality, that's all. I've been semi-paying attention to this story since the beginning, and it was kind of interesting at first, then it was amusing, then I got bored, then I got kind of scared at how far people are willing to go to justify a story that they want to believe. Probably, six months from now, there'll still be people arguing that Truthout was right, and that's their perogative. I'm not going to change my mind here, & obviously you're not either, so why not leave it there?

[Beetwasher]

184. I Understand You Are Obsessive About Your Opinion

But that does not make it fact. All you have is conjecture, no more. You don't have near enough data to make any kind of definitive statement about this case. Yet you do. That is your problem. And I mean that sincerely.

It is not I that is denying reality, it is you trying to create it, despite being less than fully informed. Sound familiar?

[Marie26]

185. I understand you are, as well

Who's been arguing w/me, and others, across this whole thread? I do have enough data to form an informed opinion, it just doesn't conform w/your own. That's OK. I said we can agree to disagree, but you're not going to leave it there. Why is that? Why did you have to keep constantly going on about how ill-informed, arrogant, stubbornly clinging to opinions as facts, etc. I am? Does that description sound familiar? To me, it describes Truthout's actions perfectly. Consistently, this has been the pattern - someone says the Truthout article is bogus, & is instantly attacked by a chorus of defenders. It's toned down some, but skeptics were called facists, Freepers, etc. That's why I don't get the admonition against "mocking." Criticizing a news outlet is not personal, calling someone names is. What I've seen is that people who criticized Truthout as a news outlet were subject to personal attacks from the outlet's defenders, & I don't think that's fair.

Here's my perspective on the illogicalness of this position - For some Freepers, the fact that Iraq has no WMD's is nothing more than conjecture. We have no definitive statement from anyone, there's still a possibility some are buried somewhere, & some people can still delude themselves into believing it they might actually exist. I don't care what people believe. But it does bother me if that same person turns around & attacks anyone who tries to tell them the truth, that there are no WMD's, & calls them ill-informed, conjecturing, obsessive about that opinion, trying to create reality, etc. etc. That's how I see this. I don't care what you believe, but please stop going after people because their view of this doesn't happen to coincide w/your own. And you yourself have said this article is probably wrong, so I don't get the eagerness to leap to its defense. Agree to disagree. Peace.

[Name removed]

186. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Garbo 2004]

121. Leopold's May 12 story: sources say if Rove indicted, it would be sealed:

"Late Thursday afternoon and early Friday morning, several White House officials were bracing for the possibility that Fitzgerald would call a news conference and announce a Rove indictment today following the prosecutor's meeting with the grand jury this morning. However, sources close to the probe said that is unlikely to happen, despite the fact that Fitzgerald has already presented the grand jury with a list of charges against Rove. If an indictment is returned by the grand jury, it will be filed under seal." http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051206Y.shtml

So your assertion that "The "sealed indictment" idea only came up after an indictment failed to materialize at the promised time. It was a back-pedal, to try to justify the erroneous initial story." does not appear to be accurate.

In the article published May 12, Leopold cited sources who claimed that that the indictment would be sealed. The "Rove indicted" article was published May 13.

[Marie26]

122. So, why didn't Leopold say

the indictment was sealed in his story about the indictment? Why did that only come up later? If the indictment wasn't sealed, why isn't it being made public? If, as initially claimed, Fitz gave Rove "24 hours" before revealing the indictment, how has that stretched to over 3 weeks? Why can't people just say that the story was wrong when it clearly was?

[high density]

131. It makes no sense to me.

To be honest I was just forgetting about this sad joke until I saw this thread.

[Garbo 2004]

134. Claims of a sealed indictment didn't exactly "only come up later."

The May 12 article noted that sources claimed that if Rove was indicted the indictment would be sealed. And on May 13 Pitt posted a "sealed indictment" thread as if that were sufficient to explain why there was no public revelation of the indictment announced in the article published earlier that same day.

And the May 13 article doesn't state that Fitz would reveal the indictment after 24 hours or the later revised "business hours," although clearly some have assumed that. It does state that "An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown." Obviously, that did not happen. And hasn't happened.

I'm not a TO editor so I don't know why the "Rove indicted" article, no matter how much the editors vetted their sources as they say, wasn't clearer and better prepared on a number of critical points before they went public with it. I speculate that TO was in haste to rush the story out to get "the scoop" only to find that they were out on a limb all by themselves. And remain there. While they are being trashed by Howie Kurtz and even Connie Chung of all people. There are a number of apparently bizarre things about this story, not the least perhaps being the higher profile given this story and Truthout by such as Kurtz of the WaPo, the WSJ, the NY Sun and Byron York.

[dogday]

147. Don't forget Connie Chung,

although she doesn't count as a news source in my book.. She and hubby had a discussion about it and all blogs being unreliable...

Like the M$M that cheer-leaded us all to war has any credibility in my book, yet they still remain an accepted source????

[Coexist]

148. Leopold and TO have already stated that the "24 hour thing"

was misunderstood, and regretted printing it.

Why can't you move beyond the "24 hour thing". It has been addressed to death on many threads. It also seems to bring out the worst in people when mocking/explaining it.

If I say "Yes, that part was wrong and they admitted it", will you let it drop and not mention it again? Just curious.

[Marie26]

153. Yes

If they said that was wrong & admit it, that's a good thing. But is that what they said? How was the 24 hours "misunderstood" - is that saying it was incorrect, or just that it was "misunderstood" by readers? That seems weasely to me, like the apology for "getting out too far in front of the news cycle" (whatever that meant). Now, there's another update, w/no new information. How about the rest of the story? The indictment, shutting down Patton Boggs, Rove's Secret Service detail (impossible), the plea negotiations, etc. etc. If they want people to move on, all they have to do is retract the story. And they should have done that a LONG time ago. I have to think, at this point, that it's sheer arrogance & hubris that's preventing them from admitting they made a mistake here. Mistakes happen, but the best way to move on is for them to just admit it - not string people along w/"updates" & changes & partial non-apologies & new details to try to explain the discrepencies. It's just unprofessional.

[Coexist]

158. they are not retracting the story,

because they believe it contains facts that are correct. I cannot prove any of the aspects you point out right or wrong. That they are still standing by it, and Larry Johnson is applauding them for standing by it, which is enough to make me still wait to see. If you read the OP, I inserted a "sort of" update -because it was merely a reiteration of the fact that they were still convinced of the veracity of the article. My personal opinion on the update is that they were receiving so many inquiries, they felt the responsibility of publishing one as a service to their readers, even if only to say "we still stand behind it, thanks for your support".

On the 24 hours - Jason said that it was a mistake, he published the quote from his source without knowing exactly what it meant. That was the one aspect of the article that he regretted. I heard him say this (of course I am paraphrasing) in a
radio interview>

Ed Schultz has another interview. If you go to the Ed site, it is podcasted and you can listen to it yourself.

You are welcome to believe it is hubris that is preventing them from retracting, I cannot wrap my mind around that. Sooner or later they will have to admit it - they have to be smart enough to understand that sooner would be better for their reputation - but I think it is that their sources are close enough to the story (much closer than any of us) that they continue to trust them.

[Coexist]

97. I do not know. I have been trying to find that out myself.

http://mathewgross.com/community/node/550

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indictment#Sealed_Indictment

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/Rule6.htm
(4) Sealed Indictment.

The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment's existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.

Good luck!

[Beetwasher]

103. I Believe It's Dependant Upon The Judges Discretion

And I believe not before, at the very least, the defendent is in custody.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

118. When it's served,

and the matter of "sealing" is a very temporary thing. The service takes place very quickly.

The idea of a May 12 indictment still sitting around somewhere, waiting for Karl Rove to "put his affairs in order" (a phrase only heard at a criminal sentencing, uttered by a judge), is patently absurd.

There was no indictment, sealed or unsealed.

[blogslut]

104. Thnx 4 the Update

I gotta say, the folks at truthout are on one hell of a high, lonely limb. It doesn't make sense for them to take such a chance unless they were sure of Leopold's story.

I got a queasy feeling in my stomach the first time I read this in Jason's May 12 story: Rove Informs White House He Will Be Indicted

"If an indictment is returned by the grand jury, it will be filed under seal."

I am no lawyer but from what I understand, a sealed indictment means that we may never know. If Fitzgerald (Patrick!) is using the indictment as a cooperation tool and Rove cooperates, that indictment could stay sealed forever.

It's all a mystery :)

[theboss]

125. I find the idea of Rove cooperating laughable

Rove is pretty darned high up in the food chain to be cooperating. If he is, Fitzgerald is either about to indict 2/3 of the White House staff or Cheney. And I don't see either scenario as likely.

Moreover, Rove - to cooperate - would have to have an awful lot to lose. If he is indicted, I imagine it will be - like Libby - on a perjury or obstruction charge. And, frankly, I think Fitzgerald is going to have a heck of time getting a conviction. And if he does, the punishment probably won't include much (if any) jail time.

So, Rove's choices are fight a fairly weak case on a charge that will probably result in a minor punishment if convicted. Or sell out the entire Adminsitration and face a John Dean-like shunning from the people who have made you rich and powerful?

If Rove is facing indictment, he has much much much more to gain by becoming a martyr than by cooperating. I would do a short stint in a minimum security prison for a lifetime of six figure speaking engagements.

[blogslut]

132. Really?

Have you ever heard the phrase: You can beat the rap but can you beat the ride?

I've never been under Federal indictment but I can guess it ain't no disco. Can you imagine the man's legal fees at this moment, indictment or no indictment? Can you honestly tell me you think the he would choose a trial or face public indictment as if it were nothing?

In addition, how is Karl Rove being indicted in any way good for Dubya, Cheney or the GOP? Wouldn't they rather handle this behind closed doors if they could?

[theboss]

140. The indictment won't go away

This is what those conocting ridiculous theories to back up TO's story don't seem to get. An indictment once handed down does not disappear. If Rove was told he was indicted three weeks ago, the indictment exists and will always exist. Nothing Bush or Gonzales can do can make it disappear. Or to be it another way, if they can make it disappear then we no longer live in a republic and should all just move to Australia or something.

[JuniperLea]

187. I have the number of a good mover

Toto, we aren't in Kansas anymore. What once was, is no more.

Bush can make anything he wants disappear... like SEC regulations... accountability and oversight... do I really need to list the things he's made disappear?

[lonestarnot]

114. Still waiting and watching!

[BlooInBloo]

120. 'morning all! Has truthout been 100% vindicated yet?

Have 24 hours passed?

[Jigarotta]

130. if you're a really lazy businessperson that works

a few minutes a day...
clock still tick tocking, I guess.

anyways, I'm sure I read an interview with Leopold where he himself said the indictment was not likely sealed.

[Bluebear]

128. Well of COURSE there is continued interest after their 'scoop'!

The headline is a bit odd, did they think people would lose interest>

[theboss]

141. Hoping maybe

I am curious how long they can keep up this charade? Until 2008? 2009?

[BlooInBloo]

133. Curious: has this Leopold guy had another article up since the debacle?

Just wonderin'

[Catherine Vincent]

135. www.truthout.org

knock yourself out :)

[Marie26]

179. Doesn't look like it

But the Rove story is still up, w/o change or correction.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml

[ShaneGR]

146. FUTURE UPDATE: July 1, 2006

From Mark Ash:

We thank you for the continued interest in our Karl Rove indictment story. We continue to try to track down why a public announcement of the May 12 indictment hasn't been publicly announced. We have some leads, we're looking into it. In the meantime, thanks once again for visiting the site often, helping us to increase our ad revenue.

Suckers.

[yodermon]

159. truthout has no advertising that I can see. n/t.

[rodeodance]

151. just waiting.

[Beelzebud]

162. Man lands on Mars!

Scoop of the century! Don't forget where you heard this exclusive news!

[Marie26]

163. And if it ever happens,

your scoop will be completely vindicated.

[Beelzebud]

164. Exactly!

I'm a gurnalist!!!!11

[Sequoia]

180. Maybe they're waiting until after June 6

when:

1) The Omen comes out

2) Annethrax Coulter's book comes out

3) The Elections

4) Tom Cruise comes out

5) All of the above

[lonestarnot]

188. And we assist in bombing Iran?