Rove indicted in Plame leak case (truthout.org rumor)

Its the government trying to throw the scent off by "leaking" fake news the other day- and have it not be true.

Never tempt fate. I'm still waiting.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Its the government trying to throw the scent off by "leaking" fake news the other day- and have it not be true.

Never tempt fate. I'm still waiting.

I'm waiting as well, dg, don't eat that crow just yet though, let's give this a bit of a chance. After all, we only have time!

Originally posted by niteboy82
I'm waiting as well, dg, don't eat that crow just yet though, let's give this a bit of a chance. After all, we only have time!

Umm, the time ran out today, and no indictment, thus it is pretty much safe to conclude that it is time to go ahead and be a man or woman and start eating that whatever flavored crow one may desire, niteboy82.

Leftist media and journalism has again been found inaccurate and wanting, along with Truthout.org, Will Pitt and Jason Leopold. Some of the Leftist media is already busting the above mentioned compromised entities.







seekerof

seekerof, we'll prolly not ever see eye to eye on this issue. That's ok.

There's always impeachment, and I will always support it. Gets rid of people faster that way. I don't know if you support it, I don't want to hijack the thread with those legalities, but I don't think the crow is necessarily ready to fry up yet. Fried will be my preferable method of cooking, but I don't think it is going to be necessary.

Originally posted by niteboy82
There's always impeachment, and I will always support it. Gets rid of people faster that way.

Umm, no. Clinton was impeached and still finished out his term.

But what does impeachment have to do with Truthout.org, Will Pitt, and Jason Leopold and the past and current inaccurate biased reporting of media sources and journalistic outlets? Nothing.

I don't know if you support it, I don't want to hijack the thread with those legalities, but I don't think the crow is necessarily ready to fry up yet. Fried will be my preferable method of cooking, but I don't think it is going to be necessary.

Already cooked and fried, especially in the case of honesty, accuracy, and intergrity of Truthout.org, Will Pitt, and Jason Leopold.







seekerof

Well, so much for the truthout story. It bears mentioning at this point that quoting mysterious "sources" (or even specific sources) is not a defense against a libel suit, unless reasonable efforts to verify have seemed to affirm the claim in question.

I doubt that Rove would, but it would serve truthout if he did sue. In journalism you simply cannot conduct yourself the way truthout just did.

Btw Seekerof, Clinton was impeached, yes. But he was also acquitted. And then, served out his term.

Just making a little clarification.

The more I question. I'm actually leaning toward believing Leopold's story more and more. I certainly can't explain the delay in revealing the indictment to the public, except that we're being lied to (Big Surprise) but it wouldn't be the first time Rove's people lied.

www.pressaction.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Truthout Takes on the White House

Most who have already passed judgment on Jason’s lonely story think he’s a) lying, b) gullible, or c) absolutely correct. Truthout, for its part, is standing behind his story, saying it’s even been “contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media—network level organizations—who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support.”

When I think of how impactful a Rove indictment might be to this administration, I understand why they might wish to hold off telling the public if they at all could.

I wonder why Fitzgerald won't comment... Seems he could set it all straight by saying, "No, I didn't serve Rove's lawyers." Easy, right?

Is it a technicality? Did Fitzgerald serve Rove's lawyers and then within 3 days the lawyers have to serve Rove? Is that why the full week delay? Surely we've seen legal loopholes like that before.

Still waiting...

[edit on 18-5-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

How does the fact that Bush or Cheney could hypothetically be impeached (and acquitted since there aren't enough senate seats realistically in play this year for the Democrats to gain the votes for conviction) in any way change the fact that those of us who gave truthout the benefit of the doubt made fools of ourselves?
The crow is on the table and it's getting cold.

I for one underestimated truthout's lack of concern for its own credibility and potential libel suits, so I'll have a small taste of crow myself. When I saw the "according to sources" in complete absence of verifiable ones I probably should have realized that it looked like it the fake stories the school paper gets sent sometimes. (and as I said, it's still libel, even if "sources" really did say it. Afterall, I could be "sources" but who am I to say anything qualified and newsworthy?

Truthout said ROVE was going to be indicted (not Bush/Cheney) and he wasn't. Impeachment can be possible all live long day and that doesn't change anything regarding the story being false.

Eat your crow; there are wrong children in Ethiopia who don't get any.

If I have paid attention the focus has been on whether what occurred was right or wrong. Circumstantial evidence would seem to lead one to believe there was punishment involved; that Presidential power was used to declassify documents so that punishment could be exacted. Maybe I missed it. But has anyone considered the further reaching ramifications of Plame's outing? Once she was publicly identified as a CIA operative that opened the door for others to also be outed. Consider this. Plame was listed as being employed by a certain business. That business was a CIA front. Therefore, anyone listed as an employee of that business would become suspect; essentially outed. So it was not just Plame being outed. The Presidential action of declassifying those documents endangered the lives of many people. Given that line of reasoning the actions taken in the Executive Branch were amoral and criminal. I would like to think the people making such decisions took the time to consider the ramifications. It would seem that did not occur.

Well, the way I see this whole stupid eating of the crow business is... Eating crow means to suffer humiliation. I have no reason to be humiliated. (Do I?) I don't see how anyone here has any call to be humiliated. Now, if I had written a false article or made an emphatic statement claiming that something was true and was proved wrong, I would think some crow might be on the menu.

And since I still don't feel that I know the truth of the Leopold matter, I will hold off until I am convinced that I know the truth, or what passes for the truth in dealing with this government. And if it turns out Rove wasn't indicted, I will be disappointed, I will agree that Leopold must have been lying, but I will not be humiliated... What do I have to be humiliated about?

I don't understand the eagerness some have to stuff the crow down others' throats. Is it my desire for Rove to be indicted that I should be humiliated about? Is it the fact that I am still open to the story being true? I don't get it...

Eat Crow

To eat crow means 'to suffer humiliation', and specifically 'to be forced to admit to having made an error, as by retracting an emphatic statement'.

Originally posted by Seekerof


Already cooked and fried, especially in the case of honesty, accuracy, and intergrity of Truthout.org, Will Pitt, and Jason Leopold.


seekerof

Why are you operating on this unknown timetable? It's too late? No, why is it too late? I am waiting a bit more, there is still time. Oh that's right, I should say, "Oh my God, the White House is saying its untrue! They are such high holders and believers in the truth, how dare I question them?!?"

Mm Hmm... There isn't a pile large enough to equal up to that mess. I'm biding my time. Don't worry, I'll be more than happy to say I am wrong when and if the time comes.

Plame (vanity fair cover)outed herself Fitz has no case............

IF this actually happens you better get the Depends every left wing Liberal will wet themselves with glee

Originally posted by Truth_Hunter_1976
IF this actually happens you better get the Depends every left wing Liberal will wet themselves with glee

I will be happy if justice is served, but I will not wet my pants with glee. If this comes to be, it is in fact very sad. That would officially help put it out there that this is really going on. I think most of us would rather think that we're crazy and the world is a happy shiny place.

Wayne Madsen Report

WMR can confirm that the appearance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Grand Jury at the US Federal Courthouse in Washington was a formality in which the jury informed the Attorney General of their decision to indict Karl Rove.
...
According to sources within the Patton and Boggs law firm, Karl Rove was present at the law firm's building on M Street. WMR was told by a credible source that a Patton and Boggs attorney confirmed that Fitzgerald paid a visit to the law firm to inform Rove attorney Robert Luskin and Rove that an indictment would be returned by the Grand Jury against Rove.
...
In the Scooter Libby case last October, after the Grand Jury decided to indict Libby on Friday, October 21 and the Attorney General personally heard the decision the same day at a meeting with the jury, the actual indictment was issued the following Friday, October 28. Several sources have told WMR that an announcement concerning the indictment of Rove will be made on Friday, May 19

Oh... I hope y'all have plenty of Depends! I know I do!

How can Truthout's reports be mostly recycled? They have their own journalist staff, complete with sources inside the WH. And so what if Jason Leopold is actually a recovering coc aine addict? So is George Bush!!! People usually make drastic changes for the better when they enter recovery. Truthout has good journalistic practices; Mr. Leopold had no fewer than FIVE inside sources tell him that Rove had been indicted. It has also been confirmed by Wayne Madsen, a journalist with impeccable reputation and writing and also a man with numerous reliable sources, he's been in D.C. a long time. And there are your two reliable sources, sources that don't lie or sensationalize.

When it comes to believing anything from this WH, I don't trust them to tell the truth about anything.

It is one thing to disagree or not want to believe certain news sources, and another thing to call them biased and dishonest just because you don't like the truth that the reporter is reporting. Dont shoot the messenger.

This WH is famous for sitting on stories while they give themselves a chance to spin a story to cover themselves (see the story about Cheney's shooting his friend, they sat on it for several days.)

A-men, forestlady. And also remember they asked the major news outlets, namely the New York Times to sit on the wiretapping program until after the November 2004 elections.

So, the WH has been trying to use their right wing propaganda machine to make sure that this has not gone public.

I'm sure Rove is going to be indicted because he has done so many criminal things that one of his dirty deeds is bound to catch up with him some time. He actually should have been in jail a long time ago, imho.

(look at Skippy....)

Just because Rove looked calm at the AEI speech earlier this week does not mean that he's not sweating bullets. But if it's true that he's actually a sociopath in disguise, of course he would look content and full of himself. After all, with ruthlessness and a lack of empathy, he wouldn't be scared. Actually, he wouldn't feel a thing.

Btw, did anyone notice that Judith Miller is actually working again? She's now doing op/ed pieces in the Wall Street Journal. She's puts a new face on media whoredom, imho.



[edit on 18-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Wayne Madsen Report

WMR can confirm that the appearance of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales before the Grand Jury at the US Federal Courthouse in Washington was a formality in which the jury informed the Attorney General of their decision to indict Karl Rove.
...
According to sources within the Patton and Boggs law firm, Karl Rove was present at the law firm's building on M Street. WMR was told by a credible source that a Patton and Boggs attorney confirmed that Fitzgerald paid a visit to the law firm to inform Rove attorney Robert Luskin and Rove that an indictment would be returned by the Grand Jury against Rove.
...
In the Scooter Libby case last October, after the Grand Jury decided to indict Libby on Friday, October 21 and the Attorney General personally heard the decision the same day at a meeting with the jury, the actual indictment was issued the following Friday, October 28. Several sources have told WMR that an announcement concerning the indictment of Rove will be made on Friday, May 19

Oh... I hope y'all have plenty of Depends!

I know I do!

I am certainly hoping you have plenty of them, along with humiliation.
You, as with others, continue to link up sources that are seriously lacking in their predictive abilities, prime example, your linking Wayne Madsen!

Try this for one of his best works, but certainly keep linking and hoping, k?
Wayne Madsen's best work to date

Come 5pm EST tomorrow, I will be posting up some CROW recipes so as to make eating that crow more palitable.
Oops, thats right, you, as with others, will simply link up more garbage sources to give further excuse as to why the indictment did not take place. Simply more rinse and repeat, huh?






seekerof

[edit on 18-5-2006 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
I am certainly hoping you have plenty of them, along with humiliation.
You, as with others, continue to link up sources that are seriously lacking in their predictive abilities, prime example, your linking Wayne Madsen!

I am still confused. What is this humilation you speak of? I am not humiliated if I am wrong, I am just wrong. Plain and simple. What is this with you wanting to humiliate people across the spectrum of threads? I really don't get it. When I first started on here, I saw the fact that you had the WATS medal, so I never would have thought you would have been so into humiliating other people.

So what gives, Seekerof? I really don't get it. Why are you so intent on other people being humiliated. It's just someone being wrong, it is not the same.

I think (and this is just my opinion) that if dgtempe would have realized what she was bringing on with stating that "she would eat crow", she wouldn't have done it. I don't think she would have realized how you would have turned this into some sort of game for yourself. You are bringing this to a very unfair level. I am sorry, and I will not debate with you, I feel it is fruitless. I wish you well.