TruthOut - Town Meeting
 T O needs your help

The Rove Indictment Story as of Right Now

By Marc Ash

Fri May 19th, 2006 at 04:23:39 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation

On Saturday afternoon, May 13, 2006, TruthOut ran a story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." The story stated in part that top Bush aide Karl Rove had earlier that day been indicted on the charges set forth in the story's title.

The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.

As such, we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being. We will keep you posted.

Marc Ash, Executive Director - t r u t h o u t
mailto:director@truthout.org

Update [2006-5-21 12:2:48 by TruthOut]: This thread is now closed.


The Rove Indictment Story as of Right Now
------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for keeping us updated
This was a fine response. No apology needed. I am glad you took the risk and you confirmed my faith in you.
Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.
by lwelsch (LWelsch@gmail.com) on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 04:27:45 PM EDT http://home.comcast.net/~PoliticalThoughts/index.html
------------------------------------------------------------

That's not an update
In fact, I'd call it "TRUTHOUTINESS"

by Pundit Hater on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 05:11:31 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

truthoutiness
I have the patent on that word.
Stephen Colbert

by Lescoeurs on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 08:19:38 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Leopold
No, this was not fine.
TO's credibility has been hurt.
Leopold must explain his erroneous story, name his sources for his reporting, and TO needs to print it ASAP.

by mirth on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 10:35:00 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Not So Updated
Again, I'm disappointed to find more information about this story on another website's board than from TO itself. Now, I don't have a Salon subscription so I didn't follow the link to Tim Grieve's piece at Salon. I encourage someone with a subscription to verify the post below.
-SC

Found over on Talkleft's board:

Posted by w0551
May 20, 2006 03:44 PM

For those wondering what the partial apology is, Salon's Tim Grieve called Truthout's Marc Ash to ask:

    Ash told us this morning that Truthout "hoped and felt strongly" that Fitzgerald would announce Rove's indictment on Friday. That it didn't happen was a cause for concern, Ash said.

    In addition, Ash said that he's uncertain about some of the events leading up to and following the meeting that supposedly happened last Friday at Patton Boggs. Ash said he isn't sure now when the grand jury voted to indict Rove, although he said he remains confident that it did so before last Friday. He said that he isn't sure what's going on now to warrant keeping the alleged indictment under wraps, although he suggested that it must mean that Rove's team is cooperating with Fitzgerald somehow.

by Spectator Consumer on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 03:46:57 PM EDT http://www.spectatorconsumer.blogspot.com
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

See you Monday.
Operation Frog March the Turd Blossom goes on.

by MichaelSGeisler on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 04:36:14 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the update...
...but this just begs further questions:

  1. Exactly what kind of sources are you guys working with?

  2. Why are you "partially" apologizing. Do you expect to vindicated...or do you have no idea and will figure it out when everyone else does?


by edburke (trainersbythetonne@hotmail.com) on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 04:43:21 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------

edburke and who are you to ask questions?
do you support TO?  If the response is satisfactory to TO supporters who pay the bills then I think it should be ok with you, who feed off of others contributions.  Have you questioned George W. Bush about his sources that fed the WMD lies or 911 sources who warned this administration before 3,000 innocent people were killed?  What investigative credentials do you hold, that warrant you to ask such questions?
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 04:52:59 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

As TruthOut develops a better understanding
over time, perhaps weeks or months, I am certain they will give us their perspective. That is all I ask.

You are right that we should not ask for information they may not know.

Practice tolerance, kindness and charity.
by lwelsch (LWelsch@gmail.com) on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 04:55:59 PM EDT http://home.comcast.net/~PoliticalThoughts/index.html
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Free speech for contributing members?
I don't see anything wrong with edburke's questions.  Get up on the wrong side of the 1st Amendment today?
Thanks, Robrecht
by robrecht (robgilbert@patmedia.net) on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 05:06:50 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

hmmm...
robrecht...I noticed today that your email addy was suddenly displayed with your posts. interestingly mine was as well, although I had initially not enabled it to be displayed.

has truthout or a mod suddenly taken it upon themselves to "out" some members email addresses for defending others???

ATTN: moderator...can you explain why my email address would suddenly be displayed when I know for a fact I did not input it in the display?

by yourguide on Sun May 21st, 2006 at 10:47:27 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Edburke just started posting today.

"Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy
by SlowDown on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 07:31:08 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Nope....
...but I'm concerned about our movement performing due diligence and being the ones who don't overreact to rumors sprinkled about the blogosphere. We do ourselves more favours when we're careful about the leads we chase.

by edburke (trainersbythetonne@hotmail.com) on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 08:27:05 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Granted I'll give you that
however, we're living in a different time now one like we've never known before.  The desparation and anxiety that has been created by this administration has generated such a sense of expediency to rid ourselves of this evil possibly there were hasty decisions made.  We should use this as an unifying opportunity and turn it into an advantage.  
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 08:39:34 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with you, and sympathize....
...but we can't let desperation and anxiety get the better of us to the point that we just start firing off shots in the dark. Clearly, I'm not as familiar with truthout as some others here (though I had heard of them and even come to the site before this story) and my guess is that my experience with them, while not remarkable, is probably normal for the majority of folks out there. It's clear whose side their on, and I love that...but this Rove indictment thing is not the reason we want them to gain notoriety and be a more powerful force in the blogosphere. Wonkette has pretty much written them off as hacks, and that is a blog that (for some ungodly reason) has a fair amount of numbers behind it. I don't thnk that's what anyone wants for this place.

by edburke (trainersbythetonne@hotmail.com) on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 08:15:24 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Curious
It seems like some comments have been edited and deleted from this discussion.  Curious.
Thanks, Robrecht
by robrecht (robgilbert@patmedia.net) on Sun May 21st, 2006 at 05:14:53 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

TurthOut Comment Guidelines
"Posts containing profanity, personal attacks, threats of violence, or language deemed by the admins to be inflammatory will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be banned."
.
"Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy
by SlowDown on Sun May 21st, 2006 at 09:07:25 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, but ...
... that hardly explains why my request for clarification from emah1 should be deleted.  He made some sort of claim that I did not understand (something) and that somehow I was infringing upon the 1st amendment rights of those who disagreed with me (I was not).  While that post of his may have been deemed by someone as somewhat aggressive, surely my request for clarification from him was not.
Thanks, Robrecht
by robrecht (robgilbert@patmedia.net) on Sun May 21st, 2006 at 09:45:16 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

re: edburke and who are you to ask questions?
yes I do support truthout. and who are you to speak for all truthout supporters? there are many truthout supporters who are NOT satisfied with this response so perhaps you should speak for yourself.

and by the way, I would venture to guess that most of the folks posting on this board have indeed questioned whther george bush lied about WMD and was indeed warned about 9/11.

you are setting a dangerous tone here sir (or madam). to blindly accept on either side is dangerous, and for example got this country into this war in iraq. so yes, it is quite american to question things when the facts dont add up...and even when they do.

for now, in this case the facts do not add up. there are basic journalistic standards that reporters should follow. for now it appears that the story is false and it is my right and every readers right to question, ask, poke, and prod until we get some real answers.

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 04:29:52 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Then you should direct your questions
to info@TO.org and ask the one's who are best suited to answer them.  The apology was given, the story retracted and it was stated that there would be continued updates.  What more do want?  I'm not speaking for "everyone" at truthout, as everyone here is more than capable of speaking for themselves.  I asked edburke a question just like he asked questions of TO.  If he did not choose to answer that's his right.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 04:37:06 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

I shouldnt have to direct my questions anywhere...
This is a public forum first and foremost. This is a blog truthout posted with comments ENABLED. Again, readers have every right to now question the authenticity of this story considering a week has passed and the story has not come to fruition.

I wanted Rove indicted, badly, and still do but for you to dare suggest that we always take whatever we are fed by any media source is foolish and again dangerous.

Questions and discussion should be welcome on this topic. You certainly shouldnt be chastizing anyone who asks questions from an educated and professional point of view.

And as for ed burke answering your questions, he shouldnt have to. Your questions were ludicrous and myopic. Open your eyes, this situation is not good and for you to blast someone for asking questions is childish and irresponsible. I hope more ask questions, we deserve answers.


by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 04:46:04 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Thank goodness you're not my guide
I didn't interpret edburkes' questions as professional nor educated and which yielded my response to him.  I did however take them to be sarcastic and snearing, but maybe it was late and I had had a long day.  The rest of what you said is insignificant to me and counts as nothing.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 05:34:52 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

ah, I see
reread ed burkes questions...they were fair and valid.

I see then, freedom of speech provided you watch what you say huh?

so when we question the war, etc. suddenly we are no longer "patriots" which is jibberish. that mindset also holds true when ed burke questions the validity of this article suddenly he's a troll and warrants an attack?

really, what I've just stated has quite a bit a validity to it and you havent said anything to properly refute it. in fact you should think long and hard about what I just said.

I for one welcome ed burke and all members who are not blindly led solely by what we are told.

and may karl rove still be indicted...

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 05:42:33 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Why are getting all huffy?!?!?!
This is just a dialogue center. Everyone comes with their thoughts and interpretation of what is or/and is not truth.  I didn't say the man didn't have the RIGHT to ask but asked who was he, if he questioned George Bush, etc., etc., etc. and what were his investigative credentials?  Go back and read what I said.  Not once did I say he did not have the right to ask.  You're leaning to your own understanding or misunderstanding.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 06:29:33 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

no huff, just truth...
I did indeed read exactly what you said which is exactly why I responded the way I did.

Perhaps you should be the one to go back and re-read what you said. I wasnt the only one suggesting perhaps you went a bit overboard putting it mildly.

You owe ed burke and apology and a proper welcome.

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 06:32:51 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

First of all the discussion was between
edburke and I until you rudely interrupted with your setting hen attitude. Now if you would be so kind as to tend to your own affairs and back out of burkes' and my business, maybe we can get back on track and continue our discussion.  Is edburke, as an educated and professional, not capable of speaking for himself and thus in need of your defense?
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 06:53:08 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

this is an OPEN board
that "discussion" was between you, ed burke, and everyone else on this board. it's a public board.

and freedom of speech is everyone's business. and I have not at all been rude, you are the one who has been rude and completely out of check. perhaps that's where your signature truly came from.

and no, ed burke is not in need of my defense but I must say your response to him was completely out of order and since it was on a public board I had and have every right to respond. and will continue to do so.

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 06:57:59 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

It's obvious you just started posting here
since you wish to sychophant off of the other posters' comment about the sig. line which I recently changed because the morale was so low and posters were disenchanted over the conditions in this country. I've not asked you to relinguish your freedom of speech. You say I'm "out of check" for exercising my freedom of speech among the other little nasty comments that you've slung toward me.  You crucify me because I exercise my freedom of speech by standing firm with TO and leaving it up to the discretion of their Executive body relative to how they choose to handle this quagmire that they find themselves in.  Oh, but FOS only applies to certain folk here...like you and edburke, right?  You really shouldn't let get your ire up!!!!  
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 07:22:23 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

your post is not even readable
first, sycophant is a noun, not a verb. you cant (well, I guess you can as you just did but you shouldnt) use it the way you just did in a sentence)

second, your rude and bully-ish to that poster reeked of intimidation tactics. it was rude and out of check. you are out of check for being rude and intimidating towards someone asking a valid question, not for exercising your freedom of speech. I haven't levelled any nasty comments at you however if you'd like I can start now and we can take it off this board.

and no one is crucifying you for standing with TO, no one is crucifying you period. however, when valid questions are dismissed and chastized then it reeks of bush administration tactics and it does not belong on this board or anywhere else.

freedom of speech is just that, unless the response is initmidation.

finally, I have been a long time lurker on this board and have consistantly watched you bully people versus foster constructive debate. I will not allow you, and your sarcasm to bully me.

If you want we can take this outside but you still owe ed burke and many many others on this board an apology.

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 07:43:07 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Now you want to change
the rules of freedom of speech doesn't that have to be argued in a court of law.  Who determined that freedom of speech is just that unless the response is intimidation?  Who determines whether a question is valid or invalid in a forum of this nature.  That's a mere matter of opinion and everyone has one.  Why do you wish to get violent, go outside...where?  Your front yard or mine...maybe on the courthouse steps after our lawyers fight out our freedom of speech battle.  Where do you want to duke it out?  You are too hilarious.  Because I don't see things eye to eye with people on this board you say I bully them.  I stand firm on my convictions.  I call it a difference of opinion, views, backgrounds, perceptions and perspectives.  

So what is your freak out?  Lurrrrrrrrrking in the dark around this board waiting for the opportunity to challenge me.  Is that what gets you off?  Please, greater than you have tried and I still stand firm on what I perceive to be truth and recommend you do the same.  Of course you can always resort to getting your boxing gloves out and swinging in thin air.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 08:04:25 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

And, to make you feel better here's
the "ing" to hang on to sychophant's behind.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 08:08:05 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

dictionary.com
you cant add an ING to the end of this noun!

dictionary.com

syc·o·phant   Audio pronunciation of "sycophant" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (sk-fnt, sk-)
n.

    A servile self-seeker who attempts to win favor by flattering influential people.

[Latin scophanta, informer, slanderer, from Greek skophants, informer, from skon phainein, to show a fig (probably originally said of denouncers of theft or exportation of figs)  : skon, fig + phainein, to show; see bh-1 in Indo-European Roots.]syco·phantic (-fntk) or syco·phanti·cal (-t-kl) adj.
syco·phanti·cal·ly adv.

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 08:16:59 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!
yes yes yes, you got me...this is ALL about you. you really are out of your mind coupled with an enormous narcissistic streak.

no, and I feel you are a bully because of the way you speak and treat people on this board, not because of your opinion. again, this is about fostering constructive debate. not you standing upon your internet bully pulpit.

and you seem to be the one freaking out because someone has challenged YOU this time and you cant handle it.

and this wish is not a physical threat by any means, when I say take this off this board it means a private conversation via EMAIL.

to gain the respect of others you must treat them with the same respect. I have yet to see others with an opinion differing from yours be treated by respect by you.

reflect upon your actions and your statements. you are such a long time poster that you should have minions coming to your defense but you don't seem to...why is that???

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 08:11:45 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Minions coming to my defense..What?!?!?!
You must be tired.  I don't need an army nor seek the defense of anyone.  Respect, those who are important to me I bid their respect, those who are not, I know exactly what to say and do to keep them at bay.  Then I don't have to be bothered with them.  I have plenty of respect from members on this board, because I stand my grounds, you need to come into the light.  

Out my mind, I've been told that before by those who differ and they're entitled to their opinions.  My husband and children have said such things, so if it's no biggy with me to have such comments made by those whom I love and who love me, surely, it doesn't matter to me one iota what you think or say.  I'm not hear to make friends although I've made many on this forum, but rather to speak my mind and what I perceive as truth.  Agree or disagree, that's up to you.

Those who matter think I'm on point and they're the only ones I concern myself with, nobody else.  The semantics don't mean much to me either soon everybody in America will be speaking Spanish anyway.  English is a bastard language, grafted into existence from ancient tongues.  It's taken you all forever to get this far.  So, I don't trip on that.  Oh, you wish to fight with me, don't you have anything else better to do?  Do you really think I'd give you my email address?  That previlege is only for friends and kindred spirits.  You don't meet that criteria.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 09:15:13 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

you are a mess...
let's recap your "truth" and "respect" shall we???

a poster asked, because of the vague explaination TO gave it's readers...

   1. Exactly what kind of sources are you guys working with?

   2. Why are you "partially" apologizing. Do you expect to vindicated...or do you have no idea and will figure it out when everyone else does?

two very valid questions, both of which I would like to know the answer to.

you responded:

do you support TO?  If the response is satisfactory to TO supporters who pay the bills then I think it should be ok with you

first, you dont speak for all truth out supporters and second everyone should think for themselves.

you then asked:

Have you questioned George W. Bush about his sources that fed the WMD lies or 911 sources who warned this administration before 3,000 innocent people were killed?

again, reeks fully of bush administration tactics in the reverse.

you then threw out:

What investigative credentials do you hold, that warrant you to ask such questions?

insinuating the reader has no right to ask such questions.

your truth??? there is no truth in your thought, just lemming like behavior for acceptance on this board. seek the truth, dont just lap up what you are told.

and by the way, EVERYONE deserves to be respected, whether you deem them "important" to you or not. are waiters important to you, do you treat them with respect? what about gas station attendants? anyone who comes here unless spewing venom deserves respect, period. your attitude towards treating people with respect disgusts me.

and finally the "priviledge" of your email address?? see my last post regarding your narcissism.

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 09:28:32 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Do you feel better now that
you've come out of the closet.  Go take a cold shower to cool down your facial flush. Again, all of the above are simply what you perceive.  Servers, I give them the utmost respect, that is if they are hospitable and the service is good.  If not then I politely bring it to their attention because I understand the stress they're working under dealing with the public, who are generally very nasty.  

My daughter is working her way through college as a server.  My son, who is now a regional manager for a national resturant chain started out as a server and worked his way up through the ranks, I always tip above the going rate for gratuity.  There are no more gas station attendants what country are you living in?  You call it narcissism I say it's my choice to choose who I associate with.

You whine like the neocons because I don't view issues your way or according to what you dictate as correct.  Who are you to think that you have the right to dictate how I'm supposed to think or respond?  If you are any indication of what the Liberals have to offer, then you all are in trouble come 11/06 and 08.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 09:47:40 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

considering you find...
spelling and proper grammar merely "semantics" I think you may be the great problem for Liberals in 11/06 and 08.

check yourself emah1, welcome the debate, seek the truth, and don't bully people who dont agree with you. again, you owe ed an apology...

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 09:54:17 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

I'm atoning from
the upcoming elections in Nov. and future elections until there's diversity in party choices.  I think you have much more to be concerned about in this country than my proper use of grammar and spelling.  What's wrong with you Liberals is you're too damn petty and offer zero for an alternative.  I'm sure if edburke sticks around TO we'll have the opportunity to reconcile our differences but again, that's between him and me.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 10:06:29 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

well...
you've made him feel so so so welcome for asking valid questions that I'm sure he'd just LOVE to stick around...

which was my very point at the beginning of this.

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 10:09:00 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Only the strong survives
when the going gets tough...then what? The tough gets going.  I think edburke can about hold his own, Mother Theresa.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 10:16:06 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

LOL
I would imagine he can as well.

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 10:18:45 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, another thought
what we can do is stand in solidarity with TO and continue to support them through this crisis.  Now, I'm crashing.  Good night.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 10:43:49 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

oh and by the way...
there are still gas station attendants in NJ and oregon...

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 10:00:25 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I happy for NJ & Oregon
when I'm on travel to those states I'll be sure to fill up at a full service station especially to treat the attendants with respect.  Will that make you feel better?
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 10:11:15 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

LOL
just making the point...as a long time NYer I know of NJ and their notorious full serve.

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 10:14:52 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Oh you're ready to make peace now, uh?...hehehe
I am going to bed.  Good night, LOL it's been a pleasure.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 10:18:13 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

I'll call peace if you do...
give peace a chance?

let peace begin with me?

goodnight.

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 10:25:46 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Tiresome.
Boring. A waste of time. You and your posts.

by WonderWoman on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 09:39:41 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

with all due respect...
you can say it's a waste of time but the issue is very basic. this story currently appears to have not come through and we ALL have the right not only to ask questions, but be treated with respect.

Constructive debate should be welcomed not shunned.

The bottom line here is every visitor to this board has the right to ask these questions and has the right to the answer provided everyone is respectful of one another.

emah1 was disrespectful of that poster asking a question. it was wrong the way he was treated, she should apologize to him.

considering you guys have a lot of new people on this board you should welcome discussion, not treat people poorly who dont agree - especially in light of the circumstances...

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 09:50:35 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Debate has ALWAYS been welcome on TO.
Debate has NOT been present in the past few weeks. What passes for "debate" has been  vituperative pronouncements and castigation of Leopold and TO. THAT is tiresome and boring. TO offers much room for healthy and interesting and respectful dialogue on various issues. I avoid the word "constructive" debate because many interpret that term to mean, "Let's jump on them and straighten them all out."

As I have posted here before, you are welcome to your perspective on the reporting of the Rove potential indictment. I have my own. I do not appreciate people coming to this site condemning me for my perspective, calling me names, insinuating that I am stupid and uninformed, and labeling me as a "far left liberal." This is tiresome and boring.

If you have something concrete to offer, something beyond speculation and opinion, I am open. If you are here just to challenge the information of Leopold, give it a rest. The jury is out. If you are here to change my way of thinking, give it UP. That will not happen. If you are here to "perform" for the many viewers who are now checking TO out, good luck. I  hope they see you for the imposter you are.

by WonderWoman on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 10:17:51 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

before jumping to conclusions
read the original post from ed that started it all. it was pretty innocuous which is why I jumped in.

he didnt name call, pass judgement, come here to harsh on leopold, he simply asked 2 very valid questions.

and I'm not here to harsh on leopold or perform either. I desperately want leopold to be right but in light of the circumstances its more than fair that we should all be able to ask questions provided it in a respectful manner...

check the original few posts from the edburke thread and I think you'll understand why I stuck my neck out as a new poster to defend that guy.

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 10:24:43 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

accuracy
emah1, accuracy is the first responsibility of reporting. Everyone has an interest in that, and inaccuracy benefits no one, least of all inaccurate reporters.  If you don't have accuracy, or you make a mistake, a lame excuse like "getting too far out in front of the news-cycle" is insufficient and certainly not noble.  The apology should be "we went with a story that was not warranted by the facts". The reporter and the people who made the decision to go with the story are seriously lacking in judgement.

Oddly, the mistake and Marc Ash's excuse are a lot like the Bush adminstration's mistake and excuse for not finding WMDs.

And BTW, JFK is not the author of your sig line. An earlier appearance is in a 1942 journal entry by Galeazzo Ciano, Mussolini's foreign minister. However, I would not be surprised if he was just quoting an older folk saying.

Accuracy is important.

by demento fan (demento.fan@gmailSPAM.ISEVILcom) on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 06:15:43 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

oh yes...
accuracy is very important...

wow, someone who worked for Mussolini huh...man, I am not even going to touch that.

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 06:20:46 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

I understand clearly the importance of
accuracy in reporting and do not support the inaccuracies of JL's article.  However, it is not up to me to say to the editors of this news outlet how they should or should not handle their affairs.  As far as the quote I took it from a book of liberal quotes, just another inaccuracy, guess I should have stuck to my own, then I could validate it's authenticy.  Because the words were spoken by the foreign minister of Mussolini does it make them any less true if in deed they were spoken by Kennedy who had a different intent of their use?
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 06:40:44 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Leopold
I agree.
We are in a war...I am not referring to the US occupation of Iraq...and the information of a premier news site must be rock solid or explanation for errors provided.

by mirth on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 11:01:50 AM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

A NOBLE RESPONSE
and I have the highest respect for you and the entire TO organization.  Persevere, keep the faith and above all keep up the good work.  You can expect my contribution next week.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 04:45:41 PM EDT
------------------------------------------------------------

Apology? why?
Hey, we all have crosses to bear, its part of life. I still believe in TO and will continue to support by reading, contributing and linking.

by dusty1215 on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 05:33:26 PM EDT http://leftwingnutjob.blogspot.com
------------------------------------------------------------

TO rocks!
.
Thanks for the update.....I am proud to be a small part of this effort.

Much better than being part of FOX which doesn't even try to get it right or NY Times who will sit on a story for a year and fawn over Judith Miller.

Compared to the rest, you guys shine!
.
 
-9.00, -7.69 ... We may all put our pants on one leg at a time, but it's the ones that leave their zippers down ya gotta watch out for....
by brent (bonnyladd@hotmail.com) on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 05:40:48 PM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------

Not good enough
I was rejoicing at the prospect of Rove's indictment. But in your haste to be first, you broke a cardinal rule of journalism: get it right. This author seems to have a checkered track record in that regard.

Plus your "partial apology" is ... limp to say the least. A lot of people trumpted the news and you let us down.

A shame. Still, I keep my fingers crossed that it will come to pass.

by destonio (destonio6@yahoo.com) on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 05:57:01 PM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------

Nother One.
Or maybe it's the same one.
.
"Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy
by SlowDown on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 07:36:34 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

yep, they come in all flavors...wuz up SD?

"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 08:11:45 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Emah!
Just busy boppin' trolls.  :-)

This weekend I am doing a facilitator training with The Power of Hope.  Check it out http://powerofhope.org
.
"Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy
by SlowDown on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 10:08:59 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

SD, Power of Hope is an excellent
youth development program, I've read about the excellent outcomes and impact this program is having on the lives of youth and young adults.  Thanks for sharing. Hope your training goes well.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 05:38:31 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Nother One
And here's still 'nother one for you.  My first post here, though I've lurked occasionally.

I'm very active on another liberal board and am more than ready to dance with joy if/when Rove gets his frog-march.

That's irrelevant to this conversation, and I can only guess that you foiks with your "TO rocks!" pep talks have no idea of how much damage this rubbish has done.

On dozens/scores/hundreds of sites across the country and the world, this blogosphere scoop lit up the boards. On the site I frequent, several posters were dancing (typing) for joy.  Now they've been hammered....pounded by the Rushbots.  On an internet site, a person's credibility is very much dependent upon the reliability of his sources.

TO is now hanging hundreds of people out to twist in the wind.

Every time someone on a board mentions a FOX transgression, we get Dan Rather shoved down our throats.  And that was NOTHING compared to this.

The right has a propensity (or is it simply short memory?) to forgive the Matt Drudge's of their NOISE machine.  I would hope for, and expect, better from the left.

This fails every test of journalism, and a "had" journalist is under no obligation to protect the people who set him up.  This half-baked "apology" doesn't begin to explain or arm those who wish to defend TO.  

And the people here, acting like the sheeple of the right, aren't doing anything to help - except perhaps reinforcing the right's until-now faulty assertion that it's all a wash regarding the ethics and standards, journalistic or otherwise, of the right v. the left.

We are very fortunate that places like DailyKos didn't bite too hard on this one.


by Pundit Hater on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 08:15:18 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

PH: In this cruel world
only the strong survives.  If it's that way for you all how do you think it is for us.  We pride ourselves in factuality and we take our blows with great courage.  This is a test run and preview of that which is to come.  Toughen up and put on the whole armour and get ready to fight the good fight. Saving our country.  

This is not the place for whiners or naysayers because the TRUTH is raw, hurts and is a liberator.  If we've errored, we offer our humble apologies.   But know for a surety, come what may, we will take it, shake the dust off our feet and stand firm with and by TO.  We are FAMILY and we are loyal.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 08:32:42 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

What great courage is that?
Sorry, I must be missing it.  However noble your intentions, abdicating the standards of journalism makes you....a laughing stock.  Nothing more, nothing less.

"We are FAMILY and we are loyal" is lost on me.  I know a President who has taken that attitude, and with disastrous results for my country and most of the world.

I back a cause because it is just, not because it's got a "D" or an "R" or an "L" or a "C" in front of it.  

I just watched some good people get made into fools.  For the next months, everything they claim will be reputed with "got that from Leopold, did you?"  New people tuning in to the blogosphere will get hit in the face with this so many times, they'll have a hard time distinguishing between places like TO and the Drudge Report.  Is that what you want?  Because that is exactly what you'll have unless Mark Ash and Jason Leopold step up to the plate NOW.

I've been hearing the bloggers proclaiming themselves to be the new journalists.  Well guess what?  With that comes a solemn responsibility to either get it right, or fully explain why you got it wrong.  There is no middle ground.  You guys want to be the big boys, so act like it.

Step up, NOW.


by Pundit Hater on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 08:56:05 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Don't accuse me of abdicating
the standards of journalism.  You've not read one place where I've done the such.  First of all jounalist have abdicated their standards, do you watch MSM and read the thousands of blog out here?  They're all opinionated.  There is no news reported but rather opinions.  If you'll recall that's how this mess got started.  I'm not a journalist and I find TO to be one of the most credible sources for the news.  Yes, I proudly stand them, even if they've made a mistake.  So laugh all the hell you want, like I said, I can take.  Don't bother me sweetie.  All the mess is nothing but a crab basket of lies anyway.  Again, it is up to Marc and the board of directors of TO to make the appropriate decisions on this issue. Not you, me or anyone else.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 09:11:15 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Way to miss the point
This isn't about the MSM - I can't stand the present incarnation of the MSM.  Why the heck do you think I come to places like this?

And it's not about you.  I didn't accuse "you" of anything.  I don't even know a thing about you other than what you're posting here, and honestly, why would I care?

It's about TO.  It's about credibility and about accountability.  You remember those terms, right?

My advice is (and take it or leave it) quit being sycophantic; you're not doing anyone any favors - particularly TO.

Take a look down the thread at the many people who are calling for accountability.  Instead of dismissing them, or calling them "trolls," how about recognizing that this one thing can be the difference for Truthout to be taken seriously and widely read, or for it to become a parochial and provincial little site frequented only by "true believers."

That might be what you want; I don't think it's what Mark Ash would want.

by Pundit Hater on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 04:17:25 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Pundit Hater~~READ YOUR WORDS.
Sorry, I must be missing it.  However noble your intentions, abdicating the standards of journalism makes you....a laughing stock.  Nothing more, nothing less.

How much credibility do you demonstrate?  We are very much aware of the potential impact this error can and probably will have on TO.  If you were a regular here you would have known that it was lwelch, a long time blogger and supporter of TO, that first questioned the validity of Leopolds accountings and scrutinized it with a fine tooth comb.  He also called for an explanation of clarity by the editorial board.

If I've offended you do accept my apologies, however we were literally attacked by intruders who used this misfortune as an opportunity to slander and terrorize this community.  
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 04:24:59 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Like a mother hen....
I'm sorry if the collective "you" escapes YOU.

Good grief - if this was a Rove trick, he's got to be laughing his butt off at this nonsense.

TO messed up.  Their explanation is insufficient.  Not for ME, but for their own credibility. A sycophantic attitude only enhances that apparent unprofessionalism.

Seriously, would it be too much to ask for a more extended explanation?  

I've been following Leopold's reporting on this for months - I came to rely on him as a starting point to fish for consistencies/inconsistencies with the other reporting.  This gaff hurts the entire liberal online community (or even just those folks who are looking for some way to possibly get the truth anymore, liberal, centrist or conservative).  I'm not "abandoning" anyone - the things that I and many others here - yeah, first-time posters - are calling for, pleading for, aren't so much for us, they're for the credibility and the very existence of this important site.  And that survival won't mean a lick if TO becomes a closed community of a few or few hundred loyals.

The right wing NOISE machine gets away with errors like this with their fanatical base because, well, they're fanatical beyond reason.  A site dedicated to "truth," particularly one leaning left, will never get away with it.  Not with me, certainly, and not with several of the other posters who have come here looking for some reasonable answers.  if the folks here don't think they owe us that, then okay.  We're not the ones who will suffer the consequences.

And why you (personal and not collective) would take offense to the demands made by me and some others is rather curious.  Is this supposed to be a parochial little site where the "in-clique" rules the roost?  Or is TO trying to be something more important and global?  

I'm disappointed in Leopold's story, and disappointed that TO hasn't offered a better explanation, but to be honest I'm much more disappointed in the mother-hen attitude of several of the posters here.  

Quite honestly, your attitude lends less credibility to this place than a botched scoop.

Very disappointing.

by Pundit Hater on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 05:24:00 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Don't scapegoat the collective you with me
you directed your statement to me personally.  TO as an organization is a very open, not parochial in the least bit, on the other hand some of it's regular posters tend to be a tiny, tiny, tiny bit.  You've misconscrued me I don't take your questions offensively, however, the manner in which some the questions have been presented I take offensively.  Do I not have the right to perceive according to my ability to interpret?  When I scrutinize a question, I ask what is it's intent?  Then formulate my decision based upon the intent not the question itself.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 05:52:12 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

'intent"
considering that 'intent' tends to be unclear when in writing, which is why many emails are misconstrued, perhaps you should start giving others the benefit of the doubt and respond to the questions at face value???

by yourguide on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 06:08:57 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

I surrender
I did not direct it at you personally.  Why in the world would I give a flying fig whther or not you personally are adbdicating the standards of professional journalism?

Are you a journalist?  How would I even know that?

I suppose I could have said, "When one abdicates the standards....blah blah blah....one becomes a laughing stock," but I was never much for that Sister Mary Elephant archaic style.

This isn't about YOU at all, unless your real name is Jason Leopold, Mark Ash or William Rivers Pitt.

by Pundit Hater on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 06:28:12 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Now you're catching on
"I suppose I could have said, "When one abdicates the standards" "one becomes a laughing stock,"  Hale Mary!
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 07:48:34 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

I already surrendered
I enjoyed my time here.  Very enlightening to learn that the political spectrum is apparently a loop, regarding tactics.

Ciao.

by Pundit Hater on Sun May 21st, 2006 at 05:14:52 AM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Couldn't agree more
But I still say TO can redeem themselves if they admit their errors in a candid, thorough manner. This partial-apology is just another slap across my face.

I don't believe a word Bush says. He's a bag of S#$% in my eyes. More than anything else my opinion of him is due to his propensity to distort and not admit mistakes. (Of course the President has higher standards to uphold than a website, but the principle is identical.) I can go thousands of places for disreputable nonsense, I don't want TO to be just another one.

by Spectator Consumer on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 08:35:01 PM EDT http://www.spectatorconsumer.blogspot.com
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

SC: Will you allow
one incident to waver your faith in TO?  I think not.  This too shall pass. I have total confidence that in the event Marc discovers that their sources we completely untruthful he will do the moral thing and make a complete apology if it so warrants.  Go back and read his comments that has not happened as of yet.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 08:46:47 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

One Story But Many Critical Mistakes
I'll give you that this is one story. But the story is the biggest TO's ever broken (afaik.) Second, I haven't been only dissatisfied with the initial story, but the entire defense of the article. It all seems like it was a game of chicken or something. I don't know what it was, but by keeping the story up, standing behind it, claiming to have vetted it, TO has put their entire reputation on the line here.

Maybe that's the misunderstanding we're having here. Maybe it boils down to whether you see this as one story amongst many (that as we know have been good work.) I think this story is special because it was so important and how far TO stuck their neck out.

TO did stick their necks out, they deserve credit for that if they had reason to make the claims they made. If this stuff was just fabricated (past history would say this isn't likely) their only hope is to admit, explain and ask forgiveness.

Does TO have to do anything? No. Do they have to do something more to remain legitimate in my eyes, yes.

So long winded reply. The answer is yes, if you want to call this story and the editors remarks this past week as a single event, it is sufficient , barring explanation to lose my respect and readership.

by Spectator Consumer on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 09:12:46 PM EDT http://www.spectatorconsumer.blogspot.com
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

There have been many
unusual events that have taken place in this country over the past 5 years, but have I lost confidence in the country, no.  I hear where you are coming from and agree as well but I'm not going to allow this one event, regardless of it's magnitude to kill my confidence in TO.  Jason Leopold is only one reporter.  I look at the whole of the network of its contributions as a news outlet.  That is where my loyalty and support lies.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 09:23:15 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Won't be too great a loss
given that you've only been with us for less than one day, S.C.
.
"Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy
by SlowDown on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 10:13:10 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

One Day?
I think you should read more carefully. I've been a longtime reader of Truthout and have them linked on my blog. Perhaps you're on staff or something, but I would venture a guess I've been reading Truthout longer than you. But seriously, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Because TO misreports a story, you'd rather they lose devoted readers than explain how and why they botched the job?

I'm glad they've retracted the story, a good first step, now they need to explain what went wrong. I think even this retraction and apology business isn't being handled well. Perhaps a more thorough explanation will be forthcoming shortly.

by Spectator Consumer on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 08:33:45 AM EDT http://www.spectatorconsumer.blogspot.com
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

The story has been retracted
and explanation given that was found acceptable to TO's executive body, supporters and it's readership who are very broad minded individuals. Now, it's time to heal and move on.
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 04:30:25 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Very embarrassing
PH has a point. This "error" in reporting is really embarrassing, or at least it should be, to TO. The certainty and almost self-righteous assuredness with which the story of the "Rove Indictment" was reported and then restated, proclaimed and reinforced repeatedly had a lot of people convinced. It was a little like an April Fool's prank. Yet TO's "apology" appears to me to be rather casual and not at all in proportion to the blunder. Why this does not present a credibility problem in the eyes of many readers is surprising to me. I stumbled on TO by accident, and was quite drawn to it and found it fascinating, and while I may hence forth occasionally "tune in" to it out of idle interest, I will probably never consider it very trustworthy.

by blkluvla on Sat May 20th, 2006 at 08:50:59 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

No apology needed
You need not apologize. Journalism is, after all, the first draft of history and one is allowed  honest mistakes in a first draft. And indeed Mr. Leopold's version may have been perfectly correct but changed by subsequent events he was not privy to.

I saw Karl Rove's C-SPAN televised performance at AEI this week. His usual gleeful "what me worry" persona was not working. Karl Rove tripped over himself in statements involving numbers and statistics!! Now this just does not happen with Karl. He was finding it difficult to maintain focus on the subject at hand. And it wasn't like the newsies in the room were giving him a hard time. Only David Corn of the Nation had the balls to ask him a tough question.

It seems Fitzgerald has made it abundantly clear to Rove that there is an indictment in his future. Rove has been sniffing for the outlines of a deal while Fitzgerald has been silent. This in turn drives Rove crazy because it takes him completely out of the information and control loop. He is being worked by an expert prosecutor. Mr Fitzgerald is saying to Mr. Rove "I can convict you right now without giving you a deal. You will get a deal only if I get the deep dish dirt on this administration's criminality." And all of this said with nary a word.

by trublu on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 05:57:40 PM EDT

------------------------------------------------------------

What?
Is that it?

What about:

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

How about:

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

This week, written on a Saturday, would mean the same week, would it not? Even giving you slack on that, and saying it was the next week (which is this week), it still hasn't happened.

Or this, which directly contradicts Leopold's article from the day before:

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

The day before Leopold wrote: "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."

So was Fitzgerald meeting with the grand jury on Friday the 12th or not???

Or this that you have contradicted in your updates:

"The meeting was a closely guarded secret and seems to have taken place without the knowledge of the media."

It's also abundantly clear that Truthout has taken upon itself to ban everyone who says anything negative or who questions Truthout on this story. The long list of "you guys are swell!" comments here establish that pretty well.

Truthout should string up their sources for this story instead of hanging themselves out to dry.

by Seixon (blog@seixon.com) on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 05:58:22 PM EDT http://www.seixon.com

------------------------------------------------------------

OMG
They're SWARMING!
.
"Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing." Arundhati Roy
by SlowDown on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 07:40:41 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Blow Flies

"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 08:13:43 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Explanation
Can anyone explain why on Earth Fitzgerald would wait more than a week to announce an indictment? Has he ever done so before? It appears that the answer to that last question is NO.

Why would Fitzgerald wait so long?

by Seixon (blog@seixon.com) on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 06:30:38 PM EDT http://www.seixon.com

------------------------------------------------------------

Not Rocket Science...
Humor Me...

Baby Steps 101

Let's imagine for a moment - that I am a special prosecutor - have an evil doer (for these purposes we will refer to him as Official "A") - by the short ones - on charges of lying to investigators, perjury, and obstruction of justice - all very serious crimes - with someone going to jail - it is not me.

Naturally, Official "A" is an unhappy person - very unhappy - all the money in the world - his good looks - powerful friends - high priced defense lawyers - can't help him beat this rap.
Also imagine - there might be other evil doers on my radar - Official "A-" and Official "A+" - that this special prosecutor - is building cases against as well.

In exchange - for Official "A's" cooperation and testimony - in helping bring these other evil doers to justice - hypothetically - I just might cut Official "A" some slack - on one or more charges - at sentencing.

[More than 90 percent of federal defendants plead guilty. Some do so during the pretrial phase as part of a plea bargain, in exchange for the prosecutors' dropping some charges or recommending a more lenient sentence.]
Naturally - as a special prosecutor (remember, humor me) - I have presented evidence - before a grand jury - on more than one occasion - finding of probable cause for grand juries - necessary to issue an indictment - is a relatively low standard of proof.

Finally - imagine - 12 of the 23 jurors - have already voted to indict Official "A" - consider the proposition - that I might want to keep that information secret (e.g. "sealed") - use it as leverage - to negotiate with Official "A" - and his lawyer - for unconditional cooperation - to bring all the evil doers to justice.
In a perfect world - this would be - swell.

Happy now? - have a great weekend. :D

PS: Jason has been factually correct and in every article he said indictments are "expected." I apologize justice is not meeting your readers impatience to see Rove indicted at the expense of catching the bigger fish.

I will bring Dick Cheney to his knees.

Just say "No, thank you!" to graft.
by PJF (fitzmas@gmail.com) on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 06:45:22 PM EDT http://patrickjfitzgerald.blogspot.com
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

OK
So enlighten us fitz about which facts Jason was correct on in last week's article. And remember it was you that said he has been factually correct in every article.

I mean - look at it this way. I am Reporter A and I have just written an article that says that earthquakes are a fact of life in CA. Geologists close to the investigation have told me that within days a specific city in CA - say - well - Encinitas - will have an earthquake and it will cause major damage. Then I follow with the predicition that experts say that CA will experience the "BIG ONE" sometime in the next 20 years.

Now - the base of the article states things as facts - that something will happen withing a specific time frame. But the the qualifier is that it will happen some time. Does the fact I put the qualifier in mean the base facts don't have to be true? That somehow I did not present them as facts? Even if they proved not to be true?

That's the problem here. But since I have not predicted that CA - and I will even be more specific - Ecinitas - will have an earthquake sometime in the next 20 years it means that I have broken the story and if it happens I get credit for it right? Sheesh...common logic rather than blind trust is what is needed.

by NLoews on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 06:54:41 PM EDT
[ Parent ]

------------------------------------------------------------

Well,
phantom special proscetor I hope you're going for the big "C" since the ousting plot was obviously a CONSPIRACY.  Yes, 97% of federal cases are plea bargins and deals are made in "C" cases to get bait out the bigger fish, then I suspect we'll be seeing a whale reeled in in the end.  That, my friend is worth the wait and humiliation.  Humility proceeds honor.  TO is the BOMB!!!!
"We must take back our nation from all the people who think that anything that offends them should be removed." - Unknown American
by emah1 on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 08:23:00 PM EDT
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Uh huh...
So, in meeting with Rove on Saturday for 15 hours, did Fitzgerald get Rove to cooperate? If not, then why would he continue to hold the indictment sealed? Makes no sense.

by Seixon (blog@seixon.com) on Fri May 19th, 2006 at 09:02:31 PM EDT http://www.seixon.com
[ Parent ]
------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I guess that's something