I think many here owe jason leopold an apology

[Lerkfish]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1213077&mesg_id=1213077

(I think the name was jason leopold, if I've misspelled it I apologize)

[babylonsister]

1. Color me curious:

:popcorn: :popcorn:

[Catherine Vincent]

2. Explain please. Thanks.

[Lerkfish]

5. I may be fuzzy on the details, but

hopefully someone else will chime in with a better recollection.

a blogger, named (I think) Jason Leopold from truthout said that there were indictments coming for Rove.
the unredacted version at the link I provided show that Rove WAS a suspect, but his name redacted.
At the time, jason defended that he had good sources, and it turns out, he probably DID. He just didn't get an update when the documents were redacted.

HOWEVER, people here at DU practically called for him to be castrated, drawn and quartered, and his body parts dragged behind a horse. Not many were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

But perhaps someone else will explain it better than I.

[Catherine Vincent]

6. Oh I remember how Leopold was treated here by some.

I just wanted to know why you were changing your views on JL. Thanks.

[Lerkfish]

8. er...I wasn't changing MY views.

I was one of those defending him

:shrug:

[Catherine Vincent]

I'm sorry. I misread your OP the first time.

My apologies, hon. :hi:

[Lerkfish]

70. no problemo!

:wave:

[liberalnurse]

27. So do I.....

To cut to the chase if I may..................

The reply posters were behaving like a "FUCKING LYNCH MOB". They wanted his neck on a rope for posting a "breaking news" story that Rove was on the indictment documents regarding the Valerie Plame outing. ....Somehow, his name was not on the indictment. They attacked Jason....tried to cut off his air so to speak as a journalist.

[TheWraith]

52. That's not at all what happened. He did not say that Rove's name was on the indictment docs.

He said that Rove had been indicted, and been given 24 hours to wrap up his affairs. When that never happened, he kept maintaining that it was true, and that if it wasn't he would reveal his sources, and Truthout staked their entire credibility on that story. Leopold lied about revealing his sources, and he either lied about Rove being indicted, or got taken hook line and sinker by someone else.

Leopold isn't a journalist, he's a rumor monger, and Truthout isn't a news site.

[JuniperLea]

74. It could have very well happened

I don't put anything past BushCo.

[OzarkDem]

91. The evidence appears to indicate Leopold was correct

Rove was a suspect. Leopold had inside information that Rove was going to be indicted, all very plausible then and now.

So why the vitriol against Leopold? It doesn't add up.

[tammywammy]

95. No, Leopold said that Rove WAS indicted

not going to be, but was.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/60/19780

"During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning."

[OzarkDem]

108. And that may also be correct

also highly likely scenario, but one which Rove was able to turn in his favor.

[tammywammy]

123. So, show me where the proof is that Rove was indicted

when Leopold said he was, and that it got reversed in the 24 business hours Rove had to get his affairs together.

Otherwise, you're just speculating. Leopold never should have said he was indicted. He should have never said the 24 hours then 24 business hours and he never should have said he's give up his sources if he was wrong, if he didn't intend to.

Sorry, no matter how you spin this, Leopold was still wrong. I don't see how someone saying Rove was a suspect make Leopold right.

[BuyingThyme]

54. Actually, the reason he fell so hard is that he kept on lying and lying and lying

and lying and lying and lying and lying.

He even told us that if indictments didn't come down, he would tell us who his sources are. That was the lie that broke the DUer's back.

[TheWraith]

55. Delete, dupe.

Delete.

[Bluebear]

10. So far so good. And folks who were skeptical were called fuckwits, cretins and shitdogs

Quote unquote.

[EFerrari]

22. Too bad DU can be so indirect.

:rofl:

[Bluebear]

This is just what we need, to bring up this shit again!

:)

[grytpype]

23. Yes, you are fuzzy on the details.

Leopold wrote that Rove was actually indicted.

Not a suspect. Indicted.

And that Fitzgerald stuck the indictment under Rove's nose and told him he had 24 hours to get his affairs in order.

Which was all a made-up lie.

Leopold does not deserve a fucking apology from me or anyone else.

[JuniperLea]

45. Really? You think so? Here's the orig. article...

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/60/19768

[Euphen]

56. That is not the article. This is:

Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Saturday 13 May 2006

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

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

.....................................................

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/60/19780

[JuniperLea]

71. Well, mine was the original article...

And he would have been better off sticking to it!

Still... with the redacted memo... he could have very well been indicted and wormed his way out... not so publicly as BushCo is snubbing subpoenas, but still...

[Garbo 2004]

164. Not redacted memo. 2005 appeals court decision re: Miller & Cooper which had nothing to do with

a May 2006 TO report claiming that Rove had been indicted the day before.

[smoogatz]

31. Iirc, he said that the indictment for Rove had been issued, under seal.

That was incorrect, as far as I know. He may have been in the ballpark, but he still reported something as fact which wasn't.

[Recursion]

60. You're skipping an important point

The true call for drawing and quartering Leopold was when he pledged to out his sources if they were wrong, and then refused to, AND was so mysterious and slippery about what he was told (remember '24 business hours'?)

[Lerkfish]

73. thanks, well, like I said, I was hoping others would fill in the details

[Fading Captain]

104. Sorry, but if you expect people to apologize

You're going to need more than a "fuzzy" recollection of things.

A lot of people trusted Leopold. And he got duped. And he duped us.

[madokie]

121. yes to both, his only mistake was trying to help to keep us all informed

I thought at the time he was being unduly critized and that the truth would prevail, I think it has, the truth that is.

[Lerkfish]

130. I think I want people to apologize for HOW they treated him

which was monkeybuttugly.

I'm not holding my breath, though. I think monkeybuttugly is around to say, judging from this thread.

[KoKo]

149. Why do you want to bring this up now....?

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. I always believed Jason's story. KKKRove cut a last minute deal. n/t

[TheWraith]

59. That's been proven not the case.

There was never a deal, per Fitzgerald.

[JuniperLea]

76. Linky?

I don't recall his exact words, which is probably critical to the truth here.

[TheWraith]

157. Enclosed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-co/hotcontent/index.html?section=/politics/special/7

[tammywammy]

158. hum, that link's not working for me

it just pulls up links to 4 other current day articles.

Is it just me?

[malaise]

4. Yep

Looks like Rove came very close.

:hide:

[Lerkfish]

7. kicking my own thread wait, what's that i hear?

*chirp*

*crickets*

please recommend this thread only to make it available for people signing on later

[DemReadingDU]

13. When I read Jeralyn's thread (see op)

I immediately thought of that infamous Jason Leopold article. I figured there was more to that story, than what was known at that time.

[wakeme2008]

9. Sorry him and TO are only Drudge sites.

:shrug:

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. DRUDGE sites?? Tell that to Will Pitt.

:eyes:

[Truth2Tell]

26. Actually it was Trolls sent by Drudge

who killed the TruthOut Town Meeting message board after they published the Rove story (with a little help from fellow progressives from DU and elsewhere) The place became a non-stop 24/7 flame fest, and eventually had to be closed down. It was an unprecedented and unfortunate loss to the blogosphere.

[Gabi Hayes]

92. blogosphere, maybe, but not for chatboards. they killed

The American Prospect forum, and emasculated The Atlantic's

I used to post at both places

[Truth2Tell]

98. interesting

was that the result of attacking and linking by Drudge also? Or by others?

[OzarkDem]

112. Some of them ended up here, too

Its difficult to conceive of why DU progressives would have gone on attack against Leopold, taking sides with Drudge, no?

[OzarkDem]

96. Truthout is a Drudge site?

Hardly. Why do you have such hatred towards them? They do very good reporting and have broken some important stories.

[wakeme2008]

97. jason leopold is a lying coke head and they would not admit he made thngs

up

:shrug:

[OzarkDem]

107. That dog won't hunt

If Joe Wilson trusts him, why don't you? Or do you not trust Joe Wilson either?

[wakeme2008]

116. Wilson does not know him, he is just a blogger to Wilson

A lying blogger yes. Just as trustworthy as Drudge.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. Yes thank you for posting this

Truthout is always dead on accurate. I never doubted this story for a minute.

[Spazito]

12. Agree but have to say I am expecting to hear......

crickets, for the most part, and the odd "look over here" diversionary post instead. I, too, believed Jason had it right in substance and it seems more and more evident he was more right than wrong.

[Bluebear]

16. But spaz, it may have been right "in substance" but it was not right

More on the side of wrong or right, who knows. I was agnostic about it and patiently counted the "3 days, 3 business days" like everybody else in the midst of being called names for asking questions about the story, but in the end he was NOT indicted, so why on earth would the reporter be owed an apology?

[Spazito]

33. The substance of his report was not the "3 business days" part, imo,

it was the report of a sealed indictment. Here is an interesting tidbit from Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel) at firedoglake, a site that was not too friendly re Jason Leopold either:

What is most interesting, though is what remains redacted, Tatel's argument for why Rove was suspected of perjuring himself on the Cooper conversation. The passage directly follows the long Armitage passage above, consists of about two pages, and ends with the point that Cooper's testimony will provide key evidence as to whether or not Rove perjured himself. I'm going to come back to this redaction in a separate post.

http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/2007/06/wsj-and-theap-f.html

I need to go back to my timeline but I think Rove went back to the Grand Jury either during or after the Appeals Court hearing on the matter of Miller and Cooper.


Edited to add this info on the subject of sealed indictments, it relates to NY but, wrt appearing before Grand Juries, it is also a federal right:

But what if the defendant on his own, perhaps suspecting that a case is being introduced against him at grand jury, requests to testify? Does an as-yet-uncharged defendant have any statutory right to testify before the grand jury?

CPL 190.50(5)(a) addresses the issue. The right to testify at grand jury is not limited to defendants who have been charged below. A defendant who learns of an investigation against him or her and also provides written notice to the prosecutor of the intent to testify has the right to do so.

http://www.mcacp.org/issue5.html

[shadowknows69]

43. "More right than wrong" doesn't cut it if you call yourself a journalist

It might get you into heaven but my professors would have failed me.

[Spazito]

61. LOL, you know as well as I, journalists may mess up in small

details, even the best have done that, while the substance, the heart of the story, is accurate. Should those incorrect details be pointed out, surely, but not to the extent of trashing the whole report and working beyond the "call of duty" to trash the reporter and his/her place of employment. The trashing of the reporter and his report "beyond all reason" is what was sordid and remains so, again, imo.

Edited to add this historic tidbit:

During Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein reported that an individual had testified to the Grand Jury that Haldeman was one of five high-ranking presidential assistants authorized to make payments from a secret Nixon campaign cash fund. It turned out that Haldeman was NOT named by the witness because the witness was never asked if Haldeman was one of those authorized.


On Oct. 25, The Washington Post reported that Haldeman was one of five high-ranking presidential assistants authorized to make payments from a secret Nixon campaign cash fund. The fund, which at times contained as much as $700,000 financed a spying and sabotage campaign against Democratic presidential candidates, according to federal investigators.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2002/05/31/AR2005112200791_2.html

The famous reporters got the detail wrong but not the substance of the story. Haldeman WAS one of those authorized to make payments from a secret Nixon campaign cash fund but his name DID NOT come up in the Grand Jury testimony. The Washington Post stood by the story and the rest is history.

[Kagemusha]

14. Excuse me, but... why? Rove's name is in legal arguments as a suspect. So what?

He was named as a suspect, but not indicted.

Leopold's whole story was that Rove had been indicted. That is, he was the subject of a criminal charge. A sealed criminal charge, for that matter, but Leopold knew that Rove had been charged.

Now. In what way, shape or form is the above information proof that Leopold's story was correct, as Leopold actually wrote it?

[karlrschneider]

29. No proof at all. He claimed as a fact there was an indictment. There was not, so he was either

deluded or lying. Personally I think he just made it up wishing it would come true. No apology here.

[Cooley Hurd]

53. Karl, right after TO broke the story, David Shuster (who reported the exact same thing as JL)...

...reported about a meeting in which Alberto Gonzalez visited Fitz and all of a sudden, POOF! no indictment. Given how the DoJ has been behaving in regards to the US attorney firings, it's not a stretch that they leaned on Fitz to NOT indict Rove. I followed the whole thing pretty closely and I distinctly recall the Gonzo-Fitz meeting almost immediately after the TO story broke (I'd find a link but I'm down on my boat and the wireless signal sucks rocks down here - I'm lucky to be able to post at all).

I'm still willing to give TO & JL the benefit of the doubt because Larry Johnson backed up the Rove indictment story, as well as the editors at TO, not to mention the way AG has run the DoJ.:thumbsup:

[karlrschneider]

78. You make some interesting points...but, a couple things...

Scooter was arguably a bigger fish than Rove, at least and certainly from most people's perceptions, yet he was successfully indicted and convicted. I can't see them letting Libby hang out to dry if they had that much influence.
??

Also, surely the people on the GJ are still around and could easily confirm or deny there was an indictment - after all, they're the ones who actually create it; the prosecutor's staff just formalizes it. And when they do that, there isn't just one copy, there are many. For the recipient, his legal team, court and prosecutor's files, etc. There is no way these guys could -know- that one had been actually printed up unless they'd seen it but nobody claimed to as far as I know.
I think what Larry Johnson has confirmed is that Rove believed it and probably told more than one person. My criticism is that it was reported as a done deal as if it had been absolutely vetted and provable. Obviously it wasn't.
Anyway that's how I see it.

[Joe Chi Minh]

109. If you all accepted information as bon fide, with the obvious possibility that

it might not be, or as in this case, apparently incomplete, and consequently having a distorting effect, instead of getting hysterical and bitchy, you might be capable of learning. docile = teachable.

Suppose Leopold got it wrong! So what! Why is it such a federal case for you people? Was the course of your life irremediably changed for the worse? What on earth made you think Duers wanted to hear your hysterical, defamatory rantings? Why do you think people would have coveted your opinion on the matter, the ultimate authority? Did you really think DUers would admire Leopold less on the grounds of your binding authority. But then, as an aviation expert, you think the twin towers collapsed and burned as a result of the impact of the planes, don't you?

[Midlodemocrat]

15. I always believed him, because I believed Will.

Hate to tell you, you won't get the apologies.

The most vocal anti-Leopold-er has 'thankfully' been issued a granite cookie.

[shadowknows69]

18. Oh I guess I'd better pick up his slack then

You're still putting lipstick on a pig. Leopold printed an inaccurate story. End of story.

[Midlodemocrat]

40. I believed Will.

And I still do.

[shadowknows69]

49. I have immense respect for Will

and I think he'd respect my views on this. Lack of standards is what has brought the press to the sad state it is in today. We didn't need this infecting the credibility of what is an unprecedented boom of independent journalists in cyberspace. We must be held to equal or better standards than the mainstream to be taken seriously.

[JuniperLea]

25. Ahhhh yes...

I went 'round and 'round with that alleged "lawyer" on this issue myself. Smells much better in here now:)

[shadowknows69]

30. I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV

but I was a student of journalism and rule number one is: If you can't prove it, don't print it.

[Midlodemocrat]

41. No freaking kidding. The stench is finally gone.

Interesting how you knew to whom I was referring. :rofl:

[JuniperLea]

50. I have had many a creepy, disgusting...

And odiferous battle with that old lefty... ugh... in the end, what an idiot! LOL!!!


My only message to that asshole... I still have my fingers, biotch!


:rofl:

[tridim]

100. OLL was probably in actuallity a young Regent University trained lawyer.

She was suspect from the beginning, at least IMO.

[ReadTomPaine]

114. I grew to know OLL pretty well.

She was everything she claimed to be, I assure you. You may not like her style or viewpoints, she was quite opinionated here, but she told the truth about her background in every instance.

[Cameron27]

120. Thanks for that. I thought OLL was ok from the

time I met her as a new member here. I liked her.

[ReadTomPaine]

129. Likewise, tho I can understand why those who experienced her ire may feel differently..

[tammywammy]

124. I also liked her

She was very opinionated and not one to shy from giving her opinion. It's sad that she's no longer welcomed here.

[ReadTomPaine]

126. OLL could rub people the wrong way, no doubt, but her experience was unique...

and her passions lent her a force of personality that I enjoyed experiencing both here and in our personal correspondence. I miss her contributions as well, even if I didn't share all her views.

[tammywammy]

127. Oh I agree

I like that she had her opinions and wasn't afraid to post them, even if they were against the status quo.

And I definitely didn't always agree with her.

[Catherine Vincent]

141. It rubbed people the wrong way so bad that it got booted off DU.

S/he. Whatever it was.

[ReadTomPaine]

146. She came close to leaving a bunch of times on her own.

I understand your feelings, even if I don't share them. She was honest about herself, however. Of that have no doubt.

[Midlodemocrat]

159. She also wasn't shy about

being completely ugly to people. She was rude and obnoxious. There are ways to discuss opinions without being so hateful.

I, for one, am glad she's gone and I know I'm not alone.

[Truth2Tell]

19. Actually, Jason reported that Rove "was" indicted

not "about to be indicted", or "a key suspect".

I'm not prepared to say he was wrong. And I've always kept an open mind on this.

But I'm not prepared to say this proves him right either.

[Lerkfish]

24. fair enough.

[BlooInBloo]

20. Bullshit. The claim was that Rove HAD BEEN indicted....

... and then to make it worse they lied to our faces, making up shit about "24 business hours". Fuck *that*.

[Bluebear]

21. "Dewey beats Truman"

Well, the headline was ALMOST right! :crazy:

[JuniperLea]

28. Or, was it "will be indicted"?

I remember the flame wars... but not the particulars.

[karlrschneider]

34. Exactly. And when the indictment failed to materialize, dozens of DUers

ran out and bought every pack of tinfoil within miles. :eyes:

[high density]

48. Yeah that 24 business hours was the kicker

Looking back, that 24 business hours thing is hysterical. But he did have a good portion of this board accepting his bullshit as some sort of gospel.

[karlrschneider]

32. Bull. He said flat out there had been an indictment drawn up.

:grr:

[JuniperLea]

37. I thought his assertion was that...

Karl Rove has been the recipient of a "target letter". This would mean that Fitzgerald is considering indicting Rove.

[shadowknows69]

38. The target letter was public knowledge

even some MSM ran it for about a minute.

[JuniperLea]

42. Interesting...

Here's the original article, and it only says that Rove told Bush he was GOING to be indicted...

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/60/19768

[Individualist]

64. Wrong article

See http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/60/19780.

[JuniperLea]

69. bad link.... n/t

[H2O Man]

46. Really?

Can you provide an example?

[shadowknows69]

58. I guess I could be wrong H20

Thought that it was an AP story.

[JuniperLea]

79. As I recall...

There was much discussion of that letter right here... and many swore it didn't exist... I'm looking, but I'm finding nothing in any archive that states the letter was public knowlege.

[H2O Man]

89. Those letters

are not public. For example, you will not find any article identifying when Mr. Libby was given one, though I think we would all agree that Mr. Libby was indeed indicted.

Target letters are curious things. Without commenting on the JL/TO/Rove issue, I will say that even without any information on a target letter, many in the media believed that Mr. Rove was about to be indicted. DUers may recall that MSNBC's David Shuster was at the court, and that two MSNBC shows were prepared to cover the story.

[karlrschneider]

93. That's interesting. If they were never public, how did Leopold know about THOSE too?

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/59/19369

[karlrschneider]

44. No. He said an indictment had been issued. Said it flat out and plainly.

I'm sure it's archived but I don't feel like poring through all that stuff right now. Somebody will, though.

[Truth2Tell]

62. Here:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/60/19780

Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Saturday 13 May 2006

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

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

-snip-

It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators.

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

[JuniperLea]

68. Here's the original article...

And I'm seeing nothing close to what you are saying...


http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/60/19768

[karlrschneider]

81. Yes, that was the first reporting. The next day this one came out:

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/60/19780

[JuniperLea]

83. He should have stuck with the first one!

He would have had far less trouble...

[karlrschneider]

90. I think he just got so caught up in scoop-citement and a strong hope/belief that he

let his typing fingers outrun his brain. :-)

[H2O Man]

35. Impeach Dick Cheney... n/t

[ReadTomPaine]

117. Seconded. n/t

[Bunny]

36. So, Rove actually *was* indicted, as Leopold reported in May 2006?

That's what the apologies are for? Goody!!! When is his trial?

[Crabby Appleton]

65. In 24 business hours

[HereSince1628]

133. How many years in 24 business hours?

[Rosemary2205]

39. He LIED.

Lil ol' Jason claimed an indictment was all but delivered. That was never true. The guy was making shit up.

[JuniperLea]

75. He didn't make so much up...

Did you read the linked article in the OP?

Rove could very well have been indicted, and wormed his way out.

[Joe Chi Minh]

111. Silence came the stern reply.... mustn't complicate things.

[stellanoir]

47. 1 of 5 things happened. . .

1. Leopold was set up to discredit Truthout and by extension all progressive bloggers.

2. a plea was struck

3. Rove started. . .well. . .behaving like Rove

4. Anthrax alert !!!

5. Justice was again subverted a la "Gonzolaws"

We all mostly know Rove & "hogwash" are guilty of treason as shit.

So go figure. . .

[H2O Man]

51. Well!

Rational thought! I like it.

It's possible that more than one thing happened, too.

[shadowknows69]

57. That's what I was just thinking

maybe "All of the above"

I have no doubt that Jason probably thought he had the scoop of the century but that's the time you absoultely, positively, must check and re-check your facts and make sure your sources are 100% on the level. You only get one chance at the scoop of the century.

[stellanoir]

66. Yup

I sincerely doubt that Wilson would be talking to him if he didn't know the backstory.

He is an ace as is his wife.

These bozo's pale by comparison really.

It's obvious.

[KoKo]

151. agree....that was a hard time....here on DU.

I kind of came to the conclusion he jumped at a story he was fed that was a good part true but the lie was to ruin his career.


I could understand why Leopold might have jumped at wrong info...why he might have been fed wrong info...but he did overshoot at the time and he already had a little bit of a problem before in another circumstance which didn't help him.


I wish him well. Too much agonizing here on DU...because we all were so hyped expecting more than eventually came out of Fitz's investigation and we hung too much hope on Leopold with his revelations.

Still...wish him well in his new reporting.

[stellanoir]

63. thanks darlin'

I really always feel that things mostly happen due to at least five reasons.

It's more often than not a confluence of events.

Most don't get that though and are stuck in intractable dualism and shadow projection.

We can change that very soon perhaps. . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA1t-nyA0v4

www.firethegrid.com

[JuniperLea]

80. I agree completely.

These were my supositions at the time... and I had the holy crap beat out of me for saying so... verbally, natch;)

[stellanoir]

85. Sometimes it's all in the delivery. . .:)

I rarely get flamed. . . knock wood. . .but something was incrdibly odorous about this matter.

Bare in mind, treason is punishable by ahhh. . . hanging. . .don't tell me they haven't gone to enormous lengths to achieve damage control.

The truth will win out in the end. I swear.

[LoZoccolo]

67. And it happened within 24 business months! n/t

[Catherine Vincent]

72. Oh, that's so funny!

[tammywammy]

84. LOL

:rofl:

[tammywammy]

77. Nope

He said Rove was indicted, he's still wrong. Being a suspect and being indicted are not the same.

[lligrd]

82. I Never Doubted Jason

and I still want to know why Rove wasn't indicted.

[karlrschneider]

86. The reasons he wasn't have nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

But you could start one with that question, I'm sure it would prove to be lively.
:-)
Do you still not doubt Leopold?

[lligrd]

94. I Think Jason Had It Right And Rove

wormed his way out of it in the 3 day period. As I recall, Rove met with Fitz during that period.

[karlrschneider]

101. Nope. If indictments existed, all the grand jury members would know it.

They are the ones who decide, after all. No way would every one of them be complicit in a worming out. You will have to come up with a better conspiracy.

[Spazito]

122. Here is some interesting info re indictments....

Regular federal grand juries tend to spend their time hearing evidence and considering indictments submitted to them by a prosecutor. They spend the bulk of their time deciding, therefore, whether probable cause exists to return a set of proposed charges against the defendants names therein.

http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/fedj/fedj.htm

By this description, there could have been, indeed, been an indictment of Rove submitted to them by Fitzgerald and then withdrawn because Karl returned to "clear up" the matter in the indictment and therefore, the matter was moot.

They may also have decided not to "return a set of proposed charges" against him which doesn't mean Fitzgerald didn't submit an indictment.

[tammywammy]

125. But, Leopold said Fitzgerald served Rove's attorneys with the papers

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/60/19780

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

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning."



If Fitzgerald served Rove with an indictment, that meant the grand jury decided the case.

[Spazito]

128. No, not according to the material I posted the link....

According to the info posted above, Fitzgerald presents indictments to the Grand Jury before the Grand Jury makes their decisions to return a set of charges on the indictment. There is nothing to say Fitzgerald did not go to the offices of the Libby defense team, indictment in hand, before presenting it to the Grand Jury and, due to that visit, Rove decided to "clear up" the question of perjury that was, as we learned in the un-redacted documents today, was under discussion.

I wonder if it is the use and misuse of the word "indictment", and what it actually means, by the media and others that has caused such turmoil.

[tammywammy]

131. No

The grand jury investigates and hands down the indictment if it's warranted. Fitzgerald oversee the Grand Jury and leads them through the proceedings.

The grand jury would have decided to indict Rove on perjury and that would be on the books, before Fitzgerald could hand it to Rove's attorneys.

[Spazito]

134. Not according to the following...

from the University of Dayton, School of Law:

Regular federal grand juries tend to spend their time hearing evidence and considering indictments submitted to them by a prosecutor. They spend the bulk of their time deciding, therefore, whether probable cause exists to return a set of proposed charges against the defendants names therein.

http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/fedj/fedj.htm

Here is some more information directly from the Federal Handbook for Grand Jurors:

The grand jury is not completely free to compel a trial of anyone it chooses. The United
States Attorney must sign the indictment before one may be prosecuted. Thus, the government and
the grand jury act as checks upon each other. This assures that neither may arbitrarily wield the
awesome power to indict a person of a crime.

http://www.nynd.uscourts.gov/pdf/grandjur.pdf

Even here, there are two different uses of the word "indictment", one in the Dayton School of Law page and one in the Grand Jurors handbook.

Another interesting bit of info as to the question of whether the Grand Jurors can speak about their case even after, it seems the answer is no, not without the permission of the Court:'

PROTECTION OF GRAND JURORS
The secrecy imposed upon grand jurors is a major source of protection for them. In addition,
no inquiry may be made to learn what grand jurors said or how they voted, except upon order of the
court.
The law gives the members of a grand jury broad immunity for actions taken by them within
the scope of their authority as grand jurors.
Because of this immunity, all grand jurors must perform their duties with the highest sense
of responsibility.

[tammywammy]

138. Here's a better article that I think will explain things better to you

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4975837

"The federal grand jury hears evidence presented by a federal prosecutor. The grand jury has no investigative staff of its own, so it relies on the prosecutor's information and expertise. The prosecutor shapes the case before the grand jury, deciding which witnesses will be called and what evidence to present. The grand jury may ask to call additional witnesses if necessary."

And from the Federal Grand Jury Handbook
http://www.npr.org/documents/2005/oct/grand_jury/federal_handbook.pdf

pg. 4

"After it has received evidence against a person, the grand jury must decide whether the
evidence presented justifies an indictment, or "true bill," which is the formal criminal charge returned
by the grand jury. Upon the indictment's being filed in court, the person accused must either plead
guilty or nolo contendere or stand trial."

[Spazito]

140. Actually, in legal terms, it is not an indictment the Jury returns

it is a “true bill,” which relates back to what back to what is written on the Dayton School of Law site. This is found on page 2 of the Grand Jurors handbook.

As to NPR, it is merely a news site and, as such, is writing in laymens' terms, about Grand Juries. Again, it seems the word "indictment" is being used interchangedly connoting different meanings.

Here may be the reason for the confusion:

indictment (ĭndīt'mənt) , in criminal law, formal written accusation naming specific persons and crimes. Persons suspected of crime may be rendered liable to trial by indictment, by presentment, or by information. An indictment is issued by a grand jury when the jury's investigation is initiated by the public prosecutor's presentment of a bill of indictment.

and this:

An indictment is found and presented by a grand jury legally convened and sworn. IT ORIGINATES (capitalization is mine for emphasis) with a prosecutor and is issued by the grand jury against an individual who is charged with a crime. Before such individual may be convicted, the charge must be proved at trial beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.answers.com/topic/indictment?cat=biz-fin

The above information can be found under, first, the Columbia Encyclopedia and the second, under the Law Encylopedia

[aikoaiko]

87. It appears you back up Leopolds detractors by showing how he jumped the gun

Isn't calling someone a suspect and being indicted two very different things.

[tammywammy]

88. Yes, yes they are two different things

:)

[Lerkfish]

132. Actually, I said some people owed him an apology

not sure how that backs up the people that attacked him. I still think that, you may think differently of course.

[Annces]

99. Impeach the Vice Pirate n/t

[Canuckistanian]

102. The whole episode was a disgrace

So, a journalist got a story wrong. Then, he refused to name his sources. Big deal. Too bad Rove didn't leave, but so what. He'll see justice some day eventually.

But some people turned on Jason so viciously I thought this place had become a freeper site.

Now, it turns out he was NOT completely wrong.

I agree. Some people need to apologize for their behavior.

[Joe Chi Minh]

113. And it may be a freeper sight for some...

[rpannier]

165. I agree

And Jason should start.
He insulted anyone who questioned the validity of his discredited story.
He even insulted the owners of DU.
I had no idea who the hell this guy was until this story came out. I found his attacks on people who disagreed with him immature and unprofessional.

But...as someone else said...We're just all cretins.

on note: Not completely wrong is still not correct. He was NOT arrested in 3 business days, 24 business hours, or 3 business years.

[Coexist]

103. I think the fact that Ambassador Wilson sat down recently for

and interview with him speaks volumes.

[OzarkDem]

106. If Joe Wilson trusts him...

then that's enough for me. I always had the impression Leopold was working with inside information from a very reliable source who he couldn't compromise.

[OzarkDem]

105. Thanks for posting, Leopold was telling the truth

and I suspect some day we'll hear the rest of it.

It's interesting how some of those who still attack him are a somewhat familiar crowd, one that always insists on seeing imaginary flaws in anyone who challenges Bush or right wing ideology.

:shrug:

[Joe Chi Minh]

115. Bingo!

[laylah]

110. I apologized from the

beginning.

[madokie]

118. I remember this well and I agree with you

my first taste of the viciousness of this place
I'm not badmouthing DU mind you or the folks here, just stating some here are too soon to blame

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

119. No. Leopold claimed Rove was actually indicted and had to get the weekend to get his

things in order before being arrested. Being this close to being indicted and actually indicted are two different things.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

135. Hmmmm....

Is there any :popcorn: left in this thread?

[Catherine Vincent]

136. Jason Leopold kneepad brigade checking in!

Hey, I didn't give myself that name, a DUer did.

:o

[ruggerson]

137. I'll apologize to him in "FIVE BUSINESS DAYS"

n/t

[Cha]

139. Not me!

I know how shyte can get screwed up with this fascist takeover..Jason Leopold is out there tryin' his best and so what if something doesn't go according a certain schedule.

[DancingBear]

142. Please, buy my bridge!

It's in the Sahara.

Under water.

Hey, why not - you believe Leopold, you'll believe anything.

Explain to me again how "we're" so different than "them" because "we" don't believe everything "we" hear just because "our" side says it?

That should be good for a laugh...

[Lerkfish]

144. I don't respond well to personal attacks

heh.

I said people should apologize to him. I still feel that way, according to how he was swiftboated here on DU at the time.

You may feel differently, but to compound that by attacking me personally only reinforces the point I"m making.

It says a great deal more about your lack of character, than mine, btw.

[DancingBear]

147. No one is attacking you personally

The "you" is plural, as in the sycophants here on this board who will swallow anything wrapped in a donkey, no matter how implausible.

My apologies if it came across as a personal attack - I can see where it might have upon re-reading it.

[Lerkfish]

154. no problemo

the bear picture was meant to be a take on your name.

[KoKo]

152. Don't think....

Jason was "swiftboated" or that we should apologize. I post down below about this.

Your BEAR IS VERY SCARY!!!!!! But, I just wanted you to know that I think you are going to far in this...even though many of us who went through those threads wish him well these days.

Peace!

[LeftyMom]

143. I don't see anything about Rove being indicted last year or any other time on that thread

Leopold deserved even more shit than he took for that one.

[jpgray]

148. Exactly

[Lerkfish]

145. I should point out that asking people to apologize for how he was treated

is not the same as saying I have proof he was correct, but rather, that the ugly treatment he got was for something that was a lot closer to correct than people gave him credit for.

I still think its highly possible that he or his sources were correct, but that a backroom deal preempted that.

Its not like the DOJ has a history of shenanigans, or anything. :sarcasm:

[LeftyMom]

150. Two problems with that thinking

1. "Close to correct" isn't good enough when a very big story is involved

2. The claim "Karl Rove indicted" is binary. Leopold claimed that Rove was indicted, and he was not. There are two options there, 1 and 0. 0.5 is not an option because there's no such thing as half an indictment.

[jpgray]

153. Unsubstantiated might-have-beens are grounds for an owed apology?

I don't agree.

[fishwax]

155. i don't think anyone here owes jason leopold an apology

at least not based on that story--i don't see anything that proves his claim that rove was indicted ...

[Senator]

156. K&R

[Magrittes Pipe]

160. No.

He said Rove had been indicted. When this was proven false, it was that Rove will be indicted within three days. Then three "business" days.

Jason Leopold is a liar and a hack, and he always has been.

[WillyT]

161. An Apology ??? - From The Leopold Lynchmob ??? - Good Luck With That !!!

They got their hopes up, and when it didn't happen, they went spastic.

Most everybody got over it and moved on, but there are some holy rollers here who delight in excommunication. Among other joys... like pulling the wings off of flys apparently.

I posted about it here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1430703

:shrug:

[Feron]

162. I don't think so..

1. His report that Rove had been indicted was wrong.
2. He and his supporters kept insisting that the report was right even when it became painfully obvious to all that it was wrong.
3.The whole 24 business hours deal was absolutely absurd.
4. Much is made of the anti-Leopold crowd, but don't forget that Pitt, Leopold, and others are just as dirty in slinging the mud.

If Leopold was wrong and issued a retraction when the error became apparent, then I wouldn't have a problem. Shit happens. However to stubbornly insist you are right when all of the evidence proves otherwise is poor journalism and I won't be reading that person's work any longer. As far as I know, Leopold is probably still insisting that Rove was indicted.

But hey what do I know?! I'm just a fuckwitted cretin. :D

[Vidar]

163. The facts aren't all in, but I suspect you're right. Sorry, Jason.

[rpannier]

166. I'll start

I'm sorry his story was wrong. I'd have liked to have seen Rove arrested.

I'm sorry he acted like a pr*ck when anyone questioned the validity of his story.

I'm sorry he insulted Skinner.

I'm sorry he hasn't apologised for his obnoxious behavior over his story.

I'm sorry 24 business hours, 3 business days, etc does NOT translate into one, or more, calendar years.

I'm sorry he thinks everyone else (except his devoted fans) are cretins.

[brentspeak]

167. You're not another one of Leopold's sock puppets, are you?