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

People here are not interested in the truth. They are wishing and hoping that Rove gets indicted, wishin' and hopin'. That's all they can see.

Partisan politics. Shallow thinkers. People will grab onto any scrap of news that might further their cause. They truly do not care about our principles, innocent until proven guilty. They can't even wait that long - a man is guilty before being charged, for chrissakes.

And they call themselves "true patriots".

Will have a special CROW recipe for you, niteboy82...

Subject's Challenge Derails Reporter's Book Project

Truthout.org, Will Pitt, Jason Leopold, and Wayne Madsen have become the laughing stock of Daily Kos, DemocraticUnderground, and other Democrat and leftists sites. Apparently, some of you believers of the alleged May 12th Rove indictment are not getting the message or have received the memo yet?





seekerof

[edit on 18-5-2006 by Seekerof]

Seeker, I like how you responded to my previous post. That right there shows exactly how much you care for your self image. I am sure you wasted most of your evening searching for anything you possibly could to make you happy. Good luck to ya friend, I'm not eating the crow yet.

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

I care nothing for my "self-image," for in all actuality, what I do care about is the credible image of honesty, integrity, and accuracy of news media and internet news outlets. That image, courtesy of The New York Times, CBS, and now Truthout, among others is seriously stained and tarnished.

Do you not question the fact there currently is no indictment, thus making Leopold's story BOGUS, a falsehood, a inaccuracy, and Will Pitt of Truthout.org backing and printing it, all the more dubious? We are talking a site that proclaims to get the TRUTH OUT. Where, exactly, is the TRUTH here?

Do you not question the fact that the "24 Business Hours" has expired and the rinse and repeat methodolgy has taken over by simply proclaiming that MORE TIME is required?

Do you not question the fact that someone claiming to be a journalist (Jason Leopold), and a site proclaiming to get the TRUTH OUT, never did the necessary legwork to backtrack and authenticate their sources cited or quoted?

Yeah, of course, there is no credibility or humiliation to be lost here, for there was no credibility of humiliation to be lost or regained (in Jason Leopold's case) in the first place....

BTW, see any Rove indictment on this page? www.usdoj.gov...





seekerof

[edit on 18-5-2006 by Seekerof]

Seekerof

The earlier post you made regarding Daily Kos's opinion of Jason Leopold opened my eyes. I had no idea he was such a flake. Prior to that i thought he might warrant some consideration, given the support he has received here.

People here are not interested in the truth. Rove is already guilty; after all, he worked with Bush, right?

They have no solutions to problems; their only answer is to attack. When they win a small victory, they dance in the streets like children.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Partisan politics. Shallow thinkers. People will grab onto any scrap of news that might further their cause. They truly do not care about our principles, innocent until proven guilty. They can't even wait that long - a man is guilty before being charged, for chrissakes.

Amen....Bout time someone around here had the Wavo`s to say it........

Mod Edit: Quoting Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18-5-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally quoted by jsobecky
People here are not interested in the truth. They are wishing and hoping that Rove gets indicted, wishin' and hopin'. That's all they can see.

Partisan politics. Shallow thinkers. People will grab onto any scrap of news that might further their cause. They truly do not care about our principles, innocent until proven guilty. They can't even wait that long - a man is guilty before being charged, for chrissakes.

And they call themselves "true patriots".

jsobecky, are you listening to yourself? I just can't believe you said that--especially when we have debated over the fact of Cynthia McKinney's "altercation". Are you not being hypocritical when you say that you are "wishin' and hopin'" for Ms. McKinney's punishment even before the her grand jury convened? You flat out and out said that she was guilty of assault and battery. And you said that she deserved everything she got because she wasn't wearing "her pin"--even though proof came later that the rules of security around the halls of Congress are lax for the politicians that work there.

But you wanted to throw the book at her.

On another thread in the "Political Figures" Forum, I posted the example of L.A. City Council Member Janice Hahn. Prominent Woman. Assaulted a cop. And, there's video to prove it. And while there was eleven pages calling for Ms. McKinney's head for disrespecting the "police", not a peep of vitriol for Ms. Hahn. Do you wonder why that is?

And you called for people to consider a man innocent until proven guilty on this thread?

Are you not going to give the same consideration for Ms. McKinney? Or are you already convinced that she's guilty, unlike a group of posters who argued for her innocence and for a consideration of the evidence?

Ms. McKinney--compared to Mr. Rove--is an angel. All she did was involve herself with an "altercation" with a cop.

Mr. Rove--if you read his biography--actually got his hands dirty doing some of the most atrocious things.

But even with that, I will consider him innocent until Fitzmas happens.







[edit on 19-5-2006 by ceci2006]

I don't know where you come up with this bs, ceci, but let me give you some advice: don't attempt to falsely attribute your words to me. I don't appreciate it.

And I'm not going to go back and tear your post apart para by para. I don't have the time or the interest; I know where it will end up. Try singing another tune.

Wow. Well. I didn't know that was happening. I won't try to debate you anymore. But obviously something ticked you off and I don't know what it is.

At this point, I truly don't care. And I don't have the time to understand it nor to think about your anger right now. I rather just let it roll off my back and go on.

I just want you to know this:


I put up with your bs and tried to understand it. And now, your bs is just the same old thing. Hypocritical high mindedness full of crap.

But be lucky that I have the common decency after your post not to call you exactly what you are. Believe me. I have the balls to do it. But I respect this board, the mods and other posters far more than I respect you right now.



















[edit on 19-5-2006 by ceci2006]

Originally posted by ceci2006
But be lucky that I have the common decency after your post not to call you exactly what you are. Believe me. I have the balls to do it. But I respect this board, the mods and other posters far more than I respect you right now.

Go ahead. I'm calling you out. You don't go around here saying such crap without backing it up.





















[edit on 19-5-2006 by ceci2006]

[edit on 19-5-2006 by jsobecky]

To respect the others, I rather not.

So, you'll just have to wonder what I'd say. Because I'm not sinking to your level of hypocrisy.

I extend my most humble apologies to everyone in this thread for our little spat. I will respectfully refrain from this hissy fit from the poster above.

I await news about Rove's downfall whether it is today, tomorrow or next week.




[edit on 19-5-2006 by ceci2006]

How about everyone get back on topic and stop the bickerring at each other? When posts go sour like this, good info is ignored.

For my part, I'm extremely sorry. I do not want the thread to go sour because it is a good topic.

As for jsobecky? He's on his own.

This is a discussion board, and more importantly a news portal. The personal attacks, bickering, and off topic comments stop now.

If you can't contribute within Terms & Conditions Of Use, don't.




[edit on 19/5/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Originally posted by Harte
Capitol Hill Blue has run a retraction ....

Capitol Hill Blue is to the radical left what World Nut Daily is to the
radical right. To quote Capitol Hill Blue as a news source is ... well ...
comical at best. They are whacked. As far as CBS .. it's not called
SeeBS for nothing ..

Plame wasn't 'outted' by Rove. It was well known throughout
DC that she was CIA. She and her hubby blathered it all over
the town - at dinners and functions and parties. It wasn't a
secret. AND she wasn't an undercover agent and hadn't been
in a very long time.

Even though Plame and her hubby weren't secret about her
being CIA, it would still be WRONG for anyone in the power structure
in DC to discuss it or further out her (or any CIA personnel) to
the media. IF Rove (IF IF IF) he did this. Then he was wrong
to do so and should face the consequences. He protests his
innocence. I leave it to the courts to decide if he did anything wrong.

As far as Cynthia McKinney goes .... she has admitted publically,
and in the media, that she whacked a DC Cop while he was carrying
out his security duties. There were many witness' including members
of congress. The question in her case isn't whether or not
she did it. The question is her motive.


[edit on 5/19/2006 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Harte
Capitol Hill Blue has run a retraction ....

Capitol Hill Blue is to the radical left what World Nut Daily is to the
radical right. To quote Capitol Hill Blue as a news source is ... well ...
comical at best. They are whacked. As far as CBS .. it's not called
SeeBS for nothing ..

I certainly agree with you about Capitol Hill Blue. If you check back to my post, you'll see that I wasn't quoting Capitol Hill Blue as a news source at all. I was using it as an example of :
1) how Truthout recycles other people's stories, and
2) how this allows them to escape blame for falsehoods yet still enable them to spread their vile nonsense.

Originally posted by FlyersFan Plame wasn't 'outted' by Rove. It was well known throughout
DC that she was CIA. She and her hubby blathered it all over
the town - at dinners and functions and parties. It wasn't a
secret. AND she wasn't an undercover agent and hadn't been
in a very long time.

After quite a bit of research on my own conducted last October, I came to the conclusion then that no law had been broken in the leaking of Plame's name. Of course, I don't have Fitzgerald's expertise nor his resources. I also don't have his grave responsibilities in this matter, so it's easy for me to make that call. But I believe it is telling that the only indictment so far involves innapropriate conduct that happened during the investigative questioning of (potential) witnesses. Even for Rove, the only allegations I've heard so far involve him contradicting himself in this questioning process. In other words, like I said, an investigation set up to trap people that would misinform the investigators, similar to pretty much every Federal investigation. Including the case that nailed Clinton.

Originally posted by FlyersFanEven though Plame and her hubby weren't secret about her
being CIA, it would still be WRONG for anyone in the power structure
in DC to discuss it or further out her (or any CIA personnel) to
the media. IF Rove (IF IF IF) he did this. Then he was wrong
to do so and should face the consequences. He protests his
innocence. I leave it to the courts to decide if he did anything wrong.

If we are to discuss what is WRONG here, then ask yourself this, why did the CIA send Wilson to Niger in the first place?
The CIA was asked to find out if there was anything to the Niger-uranium-Iraq story. How much did they expect to actually find out, considering they openly sent a former ambassador into a country where everybody who would know anything at all about the uranium connection would certainly know who he was, why he was there, and exactly what to tell him?

Excuse me, but selling uranium to Saddam would have been in violation of international law at the time. Yet the CIA sends in a guy that might as well have a sign around his neck that reads "Tell me it ain't so, or face sanctions." The only plus I can see for the CIA in this scenario is that they can use this guy's report against the administration, when they needed it. And that is precisely what happened. Note that Wilson's report only became newsworthy afterward - the CIA sat on it until it could be used to the greatest effect. In fact, there are several quotes from specialist out there regarding Wilson's report that say it argued more for the Niger yellowcake than against, but these analyses took place when Wilson reported back. Only later was Wilson's report made into "big news."

The CIA even went as far as to let Wilson believe he was being sent to Niger as a result of a direct request made by Dick Cheney - an absolute falsehood. It is this tie-in with Cheney that caused the uproar in the White House in the first place, not the contents of Wilson's report - the implication that Cheney had ordered the Wilson trip. Plame's name was leaked as a result - it was Plame that "recommended" Wilson for the trip - an absolute fact that Wilson falsely denied (and on the record). The CIA knew the position the administration would be put in when they let Wilson believe he had been sent by Cheney. One telephone call, or even a little "pillow talk" with his wife, and Wilson wouldn't have made the comments he made - that not only did the White House know the yellowcake story was false, but that they had received his report several months before (they did not, and they had not!)

It all certainly seems a lot more contrived than the media usually spin it to be.

Harte

But I believe it is telling that the only indictment so far involves innapropriate conduct that happened during the investigative questioning of (potential) witnesses.

Very true. The irony here is that had there been no trial, there would have been no crime. Usually the crime comes before the trial.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Very true. The irony here is that had there been no trial, there would have been no crime. Usually the crime comes before the trial.

Crimes of perjury never happen before the trial.

Fitzgerald is a zealot, and I generally don't like zealots of any stripe.

I lean conservative but more importantly I believe in Democracy and I believe that the Bush administration was legitimately elected. I think impeachments (which is what many hope this will lead to), generally speaking, are bad for democracy unless the person being impeached is committing crimes against the nation.


All of that being said, Fitzgerald really isn't doing anything wrong. Put yourself in his shoes and take the government out of the picture for a moment.

You're investigating a suspicious death, but not necessarily a murder, yet. You're talking to everyone who has a motive and an alliby and every one of them is getting caught in blatant lies. Are you up against a probable murder conspiracy, and thus should lean on them with any charges you can to get the truth, or is there no murder and you're just using a suspicious death as a chance to get people on petty crimes?

Fitzgerald got into a case, and by no fault of his own, everyone in sight was lying their butt off to him. He's right to start leaning on them for the truth.

Nice post, AntiHero. Although I don't agree with absolutely everything you said, I do agree with most. And you said it so well.

On a sad (for me) note, even thought I haven't heard an explanation about it from Leopold, it looks like there will be no announcement regarding an indictment of Rove today.

I'll be interested to see what truthout says about this. I've already seen a few speculations, but it's purely guesses. I want to hear what Leopold himself has to say about it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
On a sad (for me) note, even thought I haven't heard an explanation about it from Leopold, it looks like there will be no announcement regarding an indictment of Rove today.

Ahhh, why so sad?
Based upon some of your past commentaries to me on this subject in a variety of related topic threads, it was understood that you did not entirely believe in Leopold's and Truthout's indictment story, that you were simply posting materials related to the story?

I'll be interested to see what truthout says about this.

Since Ash and Pitt are and have been scrambling over this Leopold story, since they obviously fervently backed it, yeah, I would be interested to hear what they have to say or give as an excuse. But hey, this is not the first time, nor will it be the last time, that Jason Leopold, Wayne Madsen, Marc Ash, William Rivers Pitt, and Truthout.org have been flatly and grossly wrong. Ironic they still see themselves as getting the TRUTH OUT...

I've already seen a few speculations, but it's purely guesses. I want to hear what Leopold himself has to say about it.

More rinse and repeat "speculations" and "guesses," huh?
Here's a thought: How about do not let your subjective 'blind' hate or dislike for a presidential administration, or officials therein, cause you to believe and swallow anything and everything that gets put to print by news media outlets, be they mainstream or internet based?
Here's a another thought: Accuracy, integrity, fairness, TRUTHFULNESS in media: DEMAND IT, EXPECT IT, you think?!

From the Democrat, Bush-hating, anti-Rove, etc., etc. Daily Kos: "Shenanigans" Formally Declared Upon Truthout.Org







seekerof

[edit on 19-5-2006 by Seekerof]