larisa: truthout had many meetings with leopold's sources.

i transcribed larisa on the radio:


http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/06/larisa-interview-iran-leopold-and.html

she also talks about election fraud, and iran - including a military exercise:

re election theft - larisa says:

"Versions of the story about how the election was stolen might be different - but did it happen? Absolutely!"

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

What a waste of time.

But what a propagandistic characterization.

I'm simply charmed.

perpetrator was none other than a kkkarl rove. TO had to be silenced as was Dan Rather as will in the near future Lou Dobbs. imo

and I don't doubt you're exactly right, including the mastermind behind it (it's his M.O. after all).

still free to do such things. Here our representatives are spending time on what the hell is happening trying to figure out an honest way out and here this bastard is spending his time destroying lives.

There's no stopping him; there's no reason he can't have his plans implemented through a surrogate, even if he's put in prison (unless we can put him in solitary confinement with no access to newspapers, tv, telephones or any other access to the outside, including guards and visitors)! Actually, such punishment would be fitting.

Now imagine him as a fluffy blue bunny.

or How to Plant an Information Bomb to Destroy Your Political Enemies...
or How to Cause Your Opponent to Utterly Discredit Themselves (And Make Them Look Pathetic)
(While Providing Real Ammunition Against Them)
or How to Manipulate Journalists to Create Shitstorms That Buries Their Cause
(While Coming Out Smelling Like a Rose (turd blossom))
or simply, How to Use a Journalists Skills Against Them... (Yes, Grasshopper, Use Their Own Force to Defeat Them)...

Turd Blossom lives. Alas, we're just not in a position to pull the same tricks on the other side, and there's precious little defense against cleverly placed mis-information.

It is just as likely that a known story faker simply heard the same rumors everyone else did and FAKED his story on the chance it would turn out to be true.

have been taken into consideration by Leopold, Pitt and Ash. That no one else had this story- or anything close, should have been a clue.

That's the dream situation for journalists; apparently they were confident in their source--which means nothing, since even the best source can him/herself be fed false info by someone as well placed as Minister of Mis-Information Rove.

There were all kinds of commentators talking about an imminent action regarding Rove on that weekend?

Wilson also said he heard the same thing.

I can't believe that Republican News Directors would have their employees and guest experts talking about something Leopold wrote.

If they did, this country is more crazy than I thought.

There are plenty of other (mostly print) outlets that did not have any information indicating that Rove had been indicted. Look, it's obligatory on journalists to be cautious about sources. TO was too eager.

then DIDN'T run with it.

Unlike Leopold.

they were sying. Some of it I heard myself.

Without going in to a long thread of the difference between reporting, referring discussing, speculating, joking - they most certainly did use words and time to 'refer' to the imminent indictment.

I believe he was on Imus that morning. Then they ran a number of promos that day about the Rove news that Mathews would be covering. Then MSNBC switched gears and Chris didn't touch the story that night.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/6/prweb399978.htm

Additionally, Rove answered the attacks from the Left-wing blogosphere ...

"the Internet for the Left of the Democratic Party has served as a way to mobilize hate and anger — hate and anger, first and foremost, at this President and Conservatives, but then also at people within their own party whom they consider to be less than completely loyal to this very narrow, very out-of-the-mainstream, very far Left-wing ideology that they tend to represent."

Shouldn't the left - and the American people, in total, for that matter - be angry at the way this administration has run up the deficit, killed 2500 of our men and women in uniform for a lie and trampled all over civil liberties?

Every American, with the exception of the handful making tons of money off this sham of an administration, should hate what the neo-cons are doing and be angered that they're getting away with it.

What's so wrong with that?

we are all angry... the problem is, i think some people lose site of the target of that anger and that is a bit unsettling:(

Remember how angry the right was at Clinton? The attacks were vicious and constant. They spent millions investigating everything from hair cuts to blow jobs. Now days, you can't get a right wing politician to oversee Bush for any amount of illegal activity.

Yep we are angry.

The MSM is turning another meme into "fact." (Like "everyone thought there were WMD's in Iraq.")

Most of the blogs and news sites I usually check out either didn't mention the "Rove indicted" story at all, or mentioned it briefly and let it go, and some said they were only mentioning it because people kept emailing about it but didn't give it much play or credence. And when the story was mentioned, it was generally at arms length and they were not uncritically supportive. In fact, rather than embracing the story I'd say the responses of the "lefty" blogosphere of note generally ranged from cautious to dubious to witheringly scathing. As we know, the TO story and Leopold have been raked over the coals on the "lefty" blogs and sites and the dissenters cannot all be categorized simply as RW'ers or freepers.

RawStory didn't touch the "Rove indicted" story, didn't even link to it as I recall. HuffPo had as I recall one person's blog article going does anyone else have anything on this and that was it. FDL didn't touch it until people kept bringing it up and then said they were dubious about the story. Next Hurrah apparently didn't have a great relationship with Leopold dating to a previous exchange months before and apparently it didn't get better after the Rove story. Needlenose/Swopa had been dubious about Leopold's reporting for months at least. Kos was a bit of a battleground and last I saw my understanding was that Leopold was relegated to the status of a not credible source. Just to name a few spots I saw. Also TPM, Steve Clemons and some others.

Maybe I just normally only look at the more cautious lib blogs, but I had to search to find places that were covering the Plame case and find mention of the TO story. And what I did find was not particularly overwhelmingly supportive of Leopold's reports. Yet, if one were to believe the Rovian spin, one would assume Leopold's stories received nothing but adulatory uncritical belief from the "left." And that was not the case. And certainly not the case at DU (which is not a blog but a discussion board, just to be picky).

The TO/Leopold story "broke" into the MSM because it was FED to the MSM. Look at where it started appearing, the authors and their sources, the NRO, NY Sun, WaPo's Kurtz, WSJ: traditional outlets for the Rove/Libby talking points. Now why and how would that happen? Or do we think Howie Kurtz stumbled on the nonexistent "blogosphere firestorm" all by himself and then thought, hey maybe I'll give a call to Rove's spokesman's guy, that uh Mark? fella, maybe I can get some copy out of this? (As it was, Kurtz had an article as I recall that seemed to copy portions of a Talk Left article word for word without direct attribution. Sheer coincidence? Or was he directed to the blog aticle or sent a copy and then didn't even bother to hide a cut and paste job.)

Please don't just accept and repeat the meme the corporate media has been fed by the Rove team and in turn perpetuates to the masses. The "Rove indicted" story wasn't that BIG in the lib blogosphere; to the extent it was mentioned it generally was regarded with skepticism when it wasn't actually attacked. Which is why it's interesting that the Rovian spin want to suggest/claim that it was BIG.

As we've seen the nonmonolithic Left doesn't take second place to anyone in criticism of itself. For those who are credulous and apparently would believe anything they read on the net if it confirms their views, there are many others who will critically examine, take it apart and declare it BS if it appears dubious, not credible, unsubstantiated or actual disinformation.

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

This was was nothing more than a smokescreen for the "Rove was indicted" article and was quickly blown away by some DUers who demonstrate better investigative skills than Jason Leopold.

Link to the article's announcement on DU and the subsequent dubunking of Leopold's claims. <-- Please read that thread before answering.

He invented that claim.

DU by many. It's an unfortunate declaration, imo, because I have found it difficult to learn WHY the anti position exists in the first place. It seems to be Leopold's destiny here. DUers who don't understand the pre-existing anti-Leopold position are mostly lost (in half).

By half, I mean:
There is the issue of what he reported.
There is the issue of him.

They get horribly mixed.

lukery - could you start a separate thread about the Shield?

higherlink - will do.

i follow these things quite closely - but i'd never heard about Valiant Shield! I was most surprised.

new post about Valiant Shield here
as per request

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1453834

but that is just bull.

Leopold is renowned for having FAKED stories before. He even ADMITS it. So then a story comes out that would have propelled him to the top of the investigative reporting table, it turns out to be false, and you wonder why people are anti-Leopold?

The guy has a history of doing it, and it appears he did it again. All the "maybe things changed" bullshit can't erase the truth.

He said "Rove HAS been indicted" not "WILL be", not "MAY be", but "HAS been". You can't just make an indictment disappear. It can be quashed, but it can't just disappear.

So where is this quashed indictment? It doesn't exist.

People referring to the mainstream media talking about the possibility don't seem to realise that that is the best evidence that Leopold faked the story. I bet that Leopold got the same info they did. But they checked it, waited a bit to see if it panned out, then did not run with it when they couldn't confirm it.

Leopold on the other hand embellished it and ran with it. Forcing TO to try and confirm AFTER the fact. That left them finding the same lack of confirmation that the mainstream media outlets had, but what to do? Their "best" reporter had made either a monumental mistake or had conned even them. So they went into CYA mode, where they remain till this day, making up possibilities as a way for covering the fact they were flat out wrong.

TO were stupid, but, I believe, Leopold lied, even to them. He took TO and us for a ride ont he hope that the rumors would turn out to be true and he would have the scoop of the decade, because as he admits, "the scoop" is like a drug for him, and he will do anything to get it.

Karmakaze is the funniest handle ever

Leopold diatribe on DU. You say he fakes and admits.

If you would, could you please provide the details? The last thing I want to do is believe a general claim without the back-up.

I have to admit that I did not read or participate in the unending thread about the pronouncement by Leopold in the days following his column. Perhaps the reasons for the anti-Leopold stand were revealed there. I am not going to do it now on the possibility that it would educate me. If the attacks keep up as they look like they are doing, it means that some people on DU are at a disadvantage and in an uncomfortable situation.

I don't feel I am the only one who does not know the details about what Leopold did prior to this to get this kind of angry reaction. I don't feel I am the only one who is confused.

At the same time, I would understand if you don't want to provide the details because of its sensitivity because going from vagueness to preciseness can be dangerous.

If no one provides the details so that someone like myself can decide for myself, I would understand for the same reason.

But, if no one provide the details, then the anti-Leopold advocates should practice some kind of restraint on DU so that confusion about it doesn't continue.

The tactics on DU are like bombs going off rather than educative and we are continually prevented from discussing the issue. We're are consumed with the source and all within a fog.

his admitted plagerism. He was fired from Salon for exactly this conduct do a search. I posted the back story twice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18624-2005Mar8.html

Much more can be found easily if you google Liepold, I mean Leopold.

when they said they knew and vetted the sources themselves, that they were contacted by others including mainstream media people who confirmed some elements of the story, etc. It wasn't all simply funneled through Leopold.

That's the problem for me, the simple "Leopold made it all up" doesn't cover it or explain it. And somehow I find it difficult to believe that TO's editors deliberately and repeatedly lied in attempts just to CYA.

Their judgment in the manner in which they ran the story and then subsequently responded I do question. When they got into sealed vs. sealed last week they stepped off into Madsen territory, IMO. When they cited "legal experts" who apparently would not speak for attribution and cited their opinions which could be countered with evidence to the contrary, it seemed to me they dimply didn't do their homework very well. The sealed case they claim was filed around May 10 was, according to Jeralyn Merritt, filed on May 17. Apparently the filing date can be confirmed by anyone with access to PACER.

But the assertion some have made that "Leopold made it all up" doesn't sufficiently explain the story and aftermath as represented by TO. Unless one believes TO itself is deliberately lying and misrepresenting also.

Ash and Pitt couldn't have lied?
Not even a little one trying to fudge a few facts?

I've been reading Will Pitt's posts and articles since 2004, and he has NEVER lied. He is one of the most honorable and honest writers I have ever read. As well as one of the most insightful and eloquent.

Well that settles it.

years, you would say the same thing.

They can be wrong, but neither of them are dishonest.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

... i am curious to see your stawman theory.

despite claiming up thread he had never heard of me b4... odd, no?

Pitt never flies off the handle and writes half-cocked, poorly-thought out pieces.

Don't just single out one, if you remember, many people were asking questions.. That was a right wing smear to discredit Andy.. Funny, another smear reminds me of it as well....

again and his scamdy crap. what kind of person would smear a cancer patient is beyond me and should indicate the type of moral bankruptcy we are dealing with... oh, did I mention that AA also went after Brad Friedman? He seems to really dislike Pitt, Friedman, me, Andy, TO, RS, and well... many on the left. he must really get paid well at his day job to make selling his humanity worth it - that is worth it for people who have very little humanity to begin with.

No, Pitt didn't screw up the Andy situation. The trolls from Scamdy.com did.

And just like everyone else here he has posted on DU some posts he regretted later, but his published stories and editorials have always been top quality and completely honest.

He was merely looking for some clarification. They were great friends. I don't think it is fair to malign Will about Andy's situation. The freepers did enough damage to Andy. If Will were responsible for 'screwing up the situation', do you really think Termite would have allowed Will to do the eulogy? I don't. Andy's death was a terrible blow to Will and to say anything less is flat out wrong.

Will is a passionate journalist. I have enjoyed his writings for years. I don't think Will is any more liable to 'fly off the handle and write half-cocked, poorly-though out pieces' than any other poster at DU. When he posts here, that's all he is. If you are referring to his writings at TO, I have yet to see a half-cocked one.

I know nothing more about Jason Leopold than what has been written here and other places on the net, but I DO know this about Will. He is not a liar. He is a tireless worker for the democratic cause and I think constructive criticism of him is fine, impugning him isn't.

JMHO. YMMV.

to single out one member about something, many members questioned....

I was stating an opinion on a message board?

:shrug:

What was originally posted about Pitt.... Sorry :hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You have a lot of GALL insinuating that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Is not whether he lied, or his past, etc. It's about how he and TO handled the whole thing (and still are).

It would not have been hard to simply say 'apparently our sources were mistaken, or things changed last minute, we apologize for any uproar this may have caused, etc and so on'

that is the situation in a nutshell

Was he part of a well-funded conspiracy to bring down TO? How did he manage to get these sources all to lie with the same story? I'm sure you've figured out all the details since everything has been so well "debunked" so could you fill me in?

There's nothing so interesting as a well-coordinated plan of attack. You know, like locusts.

SHUSTER outed his sources, after months of "reporting" that the indictment would happen. These were DEFENSE ATTORNEYS WITH WITNESSES IN FRONT OF THIS GRAND JURY.

You know what THOSE are?----------PUNDITS, blathering about their OPINIONS. Yes, they might have experience, yes they might have contact with the grand jury -----ABOUT THEIR OWN CLIENTS--but -----------------NOT------specifically about the KKKarl situation. They were yakking just like Nancy GRACE or any other PUNDIT out in the open on the air.

Under the cover of "confidentiality of sources," we have no way to evaluate the quality of the information. A "source" for solid reporting needs to be somebody who is PRIMARY, who has ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE of DOCUMENTS, PERSONS, EVENTS.

What's also bullshit is all these celebrity witnesses, like GIULIANI and 9-11 families testifying at the loco-grande's trial, MOUSSAWI (sp)---------WHY? The ONLY witnesses in a trial ought to be persons with DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of the SPECIFIC DEFENDANT's words and deeds.

Congrats to DUers OldLeftieLawyer and others who kept telling us throughout the "indictment" watch: NOBODY KNOWS, anybody who says they know about the g.j. ARE JUST GUESSING.

doing the "reporting" would have been HEROES under the concealment/confidentiality, never having to reveal they were relaying PUNDITRY.

there were some other cool heads around but i remember oldleftlawyer as being one of the more logical on the topic

I suspect I won't be congratulating OLL in this lifetime, but that's just me.

As opposed to sources/witnesses who are spouting non-primary knowledge of the events they are testifying to.

Can't find ANY facts that prove they just made the story up?

I mean, really, how does she expect us to conduct our crusade against Jason and TO for their lack of journalistic ethics with just conjecture and innuendo? Sheesh!

Get with the program Larissa.

That's what I've been saying all along. And we won't know for sure until the case, and probably the trial, are over. Until then all Fitz will say is "no comment". That is the only fact there is, except that many have a hardon to hold TO above the journalistic standards that are accepted for the alphabet news agencies.

My one question, which to date remains unanswered, is why the need for a letter clearing Rove if indeed there was not a letter targeting him to begin with. His lawyer said there was no target letter, but that there is a letter clearing him. That leads me to believe that at least one of these statements is a lie.

We won't know until this is over. And it will be a very long time before it is over.

you really have to listen to her saying that (rather than seeing it in print) - to fully understand her point
(even though you seem to have fully understood it!)

I think Rove IS under a sealed indictment. Fitz got Rove to do something, and that's what changed. But if there are any unexpected developments, I have no doubt that Fitz WILL unseal that indictment against Rove and bring criminal charges.

Fact 1. We will never see the letter from Fitz "clearing" Rove. Why? Because it does not clear Rove at all. What it says is that Fitz does not intend to indict Rove at this time. But that depends on Rove's continued cooperation, and the letter undoubtedly lays this out in detail.

Fact 2. Something was definitely going on that weekend in May. Leopold, Shuster and others were all reporting it.

Fact 3. Cheney has replaced Rove as Fitz' prime target. Cheney's scrawled notes on the Wison OpEd are proof of that.

Fact 4. Some legal type commented on Fitz having a problem prosecuting both Libby and Rove, because Fitz needs Rove's testimony to nail Libby.

There may be a few other facts that support this theory, but the above are more than enough for me.

with all the threads around lately about paid trolls, i beg du to use these leopold threads to update their ignore lists. somehow, someway, we have got to learn to spot these trolls, and spit out the bait. leopold is being rathered, and we ought to be able to see it.

I think the problem also relates to static thinking: the idea that nothing changes (see: flip-flopper).
This is a corallary to B/W thinking (see: with us or against us).
Both are refuge for the complexities of reality.

FWIW I also think some of the most vicious flame threads result from every one being partly correct. Leopold may be a serial liar. TO may've gotten spun. Or, maybe not. Rove may've been indicted. The indictment may've been sealed pending. Or, maybe not. But Rove ends up testifying at Libby's trial I'll be pretty happy. I can wait.

you are still filled with illusion.

Educate me, if you can.

would Fitz go after Libby over Rove? Why let a big fish go to catch a little one?

At least that's what the commentor I was reading believed. Plus, Rove was cooperating while Libby was not.

and that would be the big fish to catch.

Given the private comments of attorneys - that I called around - not likely. I think it a red herring frankly, but don't know if I am right. My gut says something went wrong, but what, I don't know. I also think that Luskin should produce this letter or fax he speaks of because it would then close that end of the argument. Fitz is not being responsible either way as he should provide the public with a simple explenation because of the person involved, his level of clearances, his previous history, and the distrust the nation has of him as a whole. He is simply acting as though Rove was his client and not the public, who have a right to know regardless of how Rove's privacy may be affected... after all, he Rove set the rules for public discourse on this topic: fair game.

But Luskin needs to produce this letter to put to bed TOs story as false. It is that simple. And TO needs to do an aggressive investigation to determine their sources' motives, good/bad faith, etc., and then proceed accordingly. But this sealed vs. sealed seems a red herring to me. Then again, what do I know. I am a spectator in this as much as anyone.

that needs to do something to disprove the Leopold stories?

Am I understanding you right?

What about a month later rove is walking the streets, there is no sealed vs sealed, no target letter, and Rove didn't get indicted.

You can't just UNindict someone secretly.

your site, and haven't done so even a month after the initial story by Leopold and truthout.

Good on you for not reporting unsubstantiated nonsense disguised as "news" like truthout did.

I'm guessing that's because you were not convinced of the veracity of the initial story; that you have not subsequently been provided with evidence to support the truthout/leopold claims; and that you still haven't seen anything to this day that supports the truthout/leopold claims.

Would that be accurate?

If it is, it might indicate that your site adheres to some semblance of journalistic standards which, unfortunately, truthout does not seem to bother with, even though you're being very circumspect and even though it appears that you have not taken a position either way on the story as reported by truthout.

So, point blank question - no spin, no nonsense, no subterfuge.... : do you believe that Rove has been indicted and that he was served with an indictment on May 12/13 as truthout claimed....

.... or not?

As follows:
I had one person tell me this the same day Jason's story broke, but I was unable to find a second source, that is correct and I have stated this many times and all over the place. In fact, I stated this in much the same context. Does that make the story wrong? No. Does it make it cooked? No. Does it make it sloppy reporting? Looks like at this point.

But what we/you should be asking is this:
1). Why would an entire news outlet, around for years, take a suicide mission off a cliff together? What do you think would explain this cliff jump?
2). If Jason cooked the story, then what of Marc Ash and Will Pitt? One would have to conclude that they were in on it and I don't buy that. Do you? Does anyone?
3). If Jason made errors and was sloppy, which appears to be the case (at this point in the game, as far as we know), then what parts were not errors and what parts were errors? I want to know. Do you? Does anyone?
4). Were his sources good/bad faith and has TO determined this yet? I want to know. Do you? Does anyone?
5). Why will Luskin not show the letter he has from Fitz? I want to know. Do you? Does anyone?
6). Why won't Fitz confirm this? I want to know. Do you? Does anyone?
7). Did any other journo confirm the story but not run it? If so, why? I want to know. Do you? Does anyone?

See, for the past month it has been attack, attack, attack which is precisely why this disturbs me so. It was attack when the story broke, it was attack after the story broke, and it is still attack now. But I want answers to the questions I have and attack mode does not allow for that kind of discussion.

What we as the public know:
1). TO ran this story
2). TO seems certain of their sources
3). TO stands by its story
4). TO was attacked within hours and the very next morning NRO had a story out discrediting TO
5). WSJ had a story discrediting TO the next day
6). Corallo asks Kurtz to pen a piece on Jason
7). No other journalist has been able to confirm the story
8). Corallo and Luskin reach out to the left blogs like never before, commenting at all hours of the night
9). Corallo claims to have had a call from Jason posing as someone else
10). Kurtz pens his piece
11). TO continues to stand by its story
12). Attacks keep coming mostly from the left now
13). TO checks and rechecks with sources they say, stand by story
14). Jason runs sealed v. sealed
15). Key points discredited within hours (because sloppy reporting is obvious here)
16). Luskin says Rove not going to be indicted, claims a letter from Fitz, does not show it to anyone
17). Multiple stories of a call, a letter, a fax of Luskin's account
18). Fitz won't comment
19). TO puts ball in Rove court asking that the letter be put forth
20). Luskin rolls out the blogs are bad garbage and cites Jason
21). Rove rolls out blogs are full of hate on the left

That is what we know thus far. Did I miss anything? Now based on this, what appears to be the case that can be made? From this, can anyone say with any certainty that the story was cooked? No, at least I cannot. There is not enough evidence to say that. If there were, I would have written about it.

Can we say from this that the story had errors? Yes, it appears that certain errors were made, like 24/24 biz, etc. But do those errors indicate sloppy reporting or would they be enough to suggest a cooked story? I would say sloppy reporting is likely, given the info that we have thus far.

Can we say from this that TO was set up? No, not with any certainty. If there was enough evidence, I would have written it. But, there is enough to suspect this as a possibility and given Rove's MO, there is no reason to discount this theory.

Now unless someone has additional information, I suggest that the focus be constructive and instructive, not destructive as it has been. I am not saying you of course. I am merely stating it here because I was replying here. If people really want answers, then the best way to get those answers is to avoid the traps, like emotions and trolls. DU has thousands of talented researchers and includes reporters (stealth, but some I have communicated with) and all sorts of folks. If you want answers, and I do as well, then this should be investigated as any story would be. I am stuck on Iran and another story for now, so I cannot devote the time to this that I want. But I think everyone should put aside the noise and work on how to best approach this.

That said, TO is not excused and should conduct an investigation into their sources (good faith/bad faith), Luskin should produce the letter, and Fitz needs to comment. Now DU's work can be made easier by these things to be sure, but it is not relying on these things.

What else can be added to this? I don't know, but everyone is welcome to have at it. I just think there is more to this story than meets the eye. I don't know what it is, but I sure want to know.


Some other things to consider:
In my dealings with gov informants, I have noticed that they are always easily discredited because of their past. That is why they are chosen. If I wanted to discredit a story and a journalist on that story, would I pick Sy Hersh to do it with?

Jason and Pitt are both mentioned in one of Libby's filings, which is odd given the stupid context of it.

What was Jason working on other than this story?

Does the WSJ writer, Kurtz (that we know anyway), and others, including this latest have any connection to Rove?

---

anyway, hope that helps, that is my 2 cents on this whole scandal. now back to Iran, sadly, because between Jolie Pitt baby and this, no one seems to be paying attention to what these guys are up to in their policy games.:(

Funny that you didn't say any such thing until now.

You know, back about a month ago when Leopold and truthout was publishing a story with zero confirmation and your site didn't post a single thing about it... people here were asking why rawstory hadn't published any such thing for the few days that it went on (the obvious inference being that rawstory was more credible than leopold and truthout, and you said (after two or three days) that it was because you and your beau had been away at the beach and you insinuated that you had heard nothing about it.


Following that, lots of people here wondered aloud about why rawstory didn't run the story, and you posted about it not being your focus, etc. and, to your credit, you declined to blindly support the leopold story.

That's a far cry from what you seem to be saying now.

Far as I can tell, there is still no "Rove has been indicted" story on the rawstory site.

Is there?

But now, a month later, you suddenly come up with a 21 point response to my simple post as though that somehow makes your new-found support of leopold and truthout believable?

Surrrrre.

Truthout and leopold were wrong, just as you believed a month ago.

Today, for whatever reason, you've decided to support them, but only surreptitiously in a response to some random post on DU, and not overtly by saying the same on your site?

Gee, with friends like that...

As for your queries #1 - #21, I'll get to them soon ~ within a month anwyay. (Surely, since it took a month to come up with the question, you won't object to taking a month to answer).

"Today, for whatever reason, you've decided to support them, but only surreptitiously in a response to some random post on DU, and not overtly..."
Wrong. this thread was about a transcript from a radio show.
you can download it and listen - i recommend that you do.
(mp3) http://server4.whiterosesociety.org/content/collins/CollinsShow-%2814-6-2006%29.mp3
it's the second hour.

that Rove was served with an indictment on or before May 12 or 13?


Seen any story published there supporting the Leopold story?

And did you really miss the early posts where lalarawraw said she was away at the beach in response to queries about why rawstory said absolutely nothing about the leopold story?

You have a star, why don't you do a search?

Just kidding, I'm told that's what people that question Larisa get called around here.

The only question I have left is why Raw Story let their "friends" at Truth Out hitch their wagons to Leopold after Raw Story fired him?

I've never heard the term and I've never heard the story that you're alluding to.

And that deleted sub thread at the top was me asking who Larisa was and why we should care. None of my remarks broke any rules but lala called me several things breaking many rules so I guess the mods deleted the whole thing so the thread would make sense.

Which story haven't you heard before, the one about Raw Story dumping Leopold because they had problems verifying his sources for stories he had written for them?

Jeez. I didn't know he was at Raw Story as well - add it to the list, I guess. Leopold wrote many stories about the Fitzgerald investigation while at Raw Story. Apparently, Larissa & Leopold also collaborated on some stories about the Plame investigation. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/National_Security_Adviser_was_Woodwards_source_1116.html In Dec. 2005, Salon wrote an article questioning some of Leopold's unnamed sources for stories that he wrote at Raw Story. This prompted Raw Story's editor to write a (very honest) response that detailed which stories had been confirmed & which had not:

Salon.com - "And some of our skepticism comes from Leopold reporting that hasn't panned out. When we wrote in December 2005 that we thought some of Leopold's work for Raw Story was implausible, Raw Story editor John Byrne posted a response in which he defended much of Leopold's reporting but said that three stories hadn't been confirmed: a report that Cheney aide John Hannah was "given orders by higher-ups in Cheney's office to leak Plame's covert status and identity in an attempt to muzzle Wilson"; a report involving the Plamegate role allegedly played by Rove assistant Susan Ralston; and a story published days before Scooter Libby was indicted that said that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had asked the grand jury to indict Rove; that Fitzgerald had asked the grand jury to indict Libby on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice and outing Plame; and that two other government officials were likely to be indicted as well. When Libby was indicted the following Friday -- not that Wednesday or Thursday, as Leopold's reporting had predicted -- Libby wasn't charged with outing Plame, Rove wasn't indicted at all, and there was no sign of the two mystery officials. Leopold hasn't written for Raw Story since January -- Byrne declined to comment on his departure, saying he couldn't discuss "personnel matters" -- but questions about the reporter's work have followed him to Truthout."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/05/16/rovereporting/index.html
Editor's explanation - http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Editors_Note_Examining_Raw_Storys_leak_1215.html

So, Leopold was claiming Rove was being indicted way back in Oct. 2005, & updated the same claims in May 2006. Huh. Looks like he's peddling the exact same story at Truthout that he wrote at Raw Story 10 months ago. It's interesting that Leopold stopped writing for Raw Story about the same time as the editor released his explanation of the Plame sources. Here's the Oct. 2005 Leopold story -

"Fitzgerald seeks indictments against Rove, Libby"

"Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has asked the grand jury investigating the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to indict Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Bush's Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, lawyers close to the investigation tell RAW STORY. Fitzgerald has also asked the jury to indict Libby on a second charge: knowingly outing a covert operative, the lawyers said. They said the prosecutor believes that Libby violated a 1982 law that made it illegal to unmask an undercover CIA agent...

"Those close to the investigation said Rove was offered a deal Tuesday to plead guilty to perjury for a reduced charge. Rove’s lawyer was told that Fitzgerald would drop an obstruction of justice charge if his client agreed not to contest allegations of perjury, they said. Rove declined to plead guilty to the reduced charge, the sources said, indicating through his attorney Robert Luskin that he intended to fight the charges. A call placed to Luskin was not returned." http://www.rawstory.com/news/2005/Prosecutor_in_leak_case_seeks_indictments_1026.html

Sounds familiar. I really wish I could put a link to that story, but the Raw Story link doesn't work, so here's a reprint. "Raw Story: Fitzgerald seeks indictments against Rove, Libby" - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/26/1370/2123. I'm curious about why that story seems to have been removed from Raw Story's website. I'm also curious about why Leopold was let go - the timing suggests it does have something to do w/his Plame investigation sources. But I can see why Raw Story wouldn't repeat Leopold's story this time around.

go for it

I'm curious. Why did Raw Story remove that story from their website? Did they remove it because the sources weren't valid, or because the story was wrong? It would've been helpful if that was left up, so people looking into this could discover that Leopold had also (falsely) reported a Rove indictment in the past. I've just discovered this info after reading the post above - I had no idea Leopold worked for Raw Story as well. If you two have collaborated on Plame stories, you've got some first-hand information about Leopold's journalistic practices & also about his sources. What was your impression of him? What was your impression of his ethics & the way he went about getting a story? What was your impression of his sources? And, honestly, I am curious about why you're here defending Leopold now, when Raw Story didn't back up the Truthout story. Is it an attempt to shore up a friend, or is it because discrediting Leopold might also discredit some of the work you did together? I dunno. It just seems like there's a whole lot of inside politics/agendas going on here that most of us aren't aware of.

and a tin foil hat to go with it too... please, do continue:)

Stop insinuating everyone is out to get you or they will be.

Christ almighty you are insufferable.

i cannot answer the question because it is based on a false premise... that is what is called a straw man

And given the way you word things, I'm not entirely certain any more that she wouldn't be correct.

I thought you had super spy gear that cleared me?

Your obsession with this guy is weird considering he is two clicks away. Why don't you guys go confront him?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Where?

Who let you out of the dungeon?

People are aware that there is this little thing called a judge involved, right?

"You fight with the Army you have, not the Army you want."

If you're going to run a story that big there shouldn't be an ounce of doubt.

because what i said was regarding a group effort and you do the best to investigate the story with the information you have and you don't run it without doing that legwork and getting it solid, which is what i understand was done here and so my point is what the hell actually happened and why will no one tell us? not TO, not Fitz, not anyone. we are left waiting for someone to tell us how a group of people got it this wrong and we are expected to believe that they all cooked it? someone has to tell us what has happened and TO needs to provide a step by step account of what they looked at, how they looked at it, if possible some more information about their sources and if the sources are good faith, then obviously not out them, but to provide some background as to times, dates, meetings... and notes... notes tell a lot of what a journalist was doing and the editor's own notes as well. TO needs to do this in order to make clear that this was a team effort. Fitz needs to tell us what happened because we have a right to know - in fact, given his position in the government and his clearances, it is imperative that we know. and everyone else needs to demand these things, not go slamming and smearing when the reality it is we don't know what happened, but something did happen. something happened and/or something changed.

The first story about Rove telling WH aides he was about to be indicted came from, I believe, GOP WH aides. Now if I were a reporter these days I would not believe anything coming from the lips of anyone connected to this White House. So when I saw that story, I smelled something. Question: Would you use someone in this administration as a source?

but I may be wrong here as I have not followed this argument in the last few days. there are 3 primary sources and several confirming sources... the gop folks I think, are the confirming, not the primary. and then later, there was a single source that made some comments after that story ran that Marc Ash ran as "what we believe."

So to be clear - if my own memory serves:
3 primary, and 3-5 confirming/secondary = indictment article
after that, 1 source made some additional comments, but that they could not confirm so they put into the "what we believe" bucket.

in any case, what matters is the 3 primary sources and if they were acting in good faith, which is why TO needs to do an aggressive investigation and if they are not good faith sources, then TO/Jason is not bound to them IMHO.

Sat. May 13. I am referring to the story posted on or about Thurs. May 11. The story referenced WH aides and GOP insiders as sources and only referred to Rove believing he was ABOUT to be indicted. I may be wrong but I don't think so. Given that, would you trust these people (GOPers) enough to publish a story like that?

It is the motive, not the person that must be questioned. For example, let's say that someone leaking the Abu stories has an agenda that is not entirly honest, does that make the story false and does it make the story less important to the public's need to know? That is where the real analysis should be:

what does this person want?
why are they leaking this?
why to me?
if proved true, does this serve the public good and need to know?
if proved true, does the public good outweigh the motive?
if proved false, was this person knowingly lying to me?

So that should be the way to really address the whole source question.

But to simply say they are "gop" is not enough to establish the credibility or lack there of where a source is concerned. People have all sorts of motives for telling the truth as well as lying, despite their affiliations. I simply don't know enough on his sources to make a case for "good faith" vs. "bad faith" which is where we are now. we are well passed asessing the source, we now must determine good/bad faith status and that is not up to us, rather, it is up to TO and them doing their own internal investigation. hope that helps, best i can do given my limited knowledge of the sourcing on this story.

all my speculation is making my head hurt :eyes:

maybe someday we'll find out what really happened

We need TO to do an internal investigation, Fitz to make a public statement, and Luskin to produce the letter. Otherwise, all three are not worthy of our time and our speculation, as limited as it is. That is how frustrated I am at this point. :banghead:

Hi, in the radio program, you said, "I know Marc Ash flew to another state to meet with these sources, over a two week period, they had many meetings." I'm just curious; where did you hear this from? Was it from Ash, Leopold, the sources met, etc.? Thanks.

but i heard it from someone reliable, so i take it on good faith. also, jason flew for the non-indictment indictment presser... he flew to DC for a press conference that he was that sure would take place... so something is very odd, no?

but did you read my questions below, the very long thread " i can say"? i think that is more important, then we get to this stuff. hope that helps and sorry could not provide more.

OK then. Someone can be reliable, & still have no first-hand information. If it's Ash himself, he can be telling the truth, or making it up. If it's someone else, they could have heard it from Leopold, or a friend, etc.; it just goes into rumor territory there. I'm sorry, I don't really understand why the source for this info can't be confirmed. It makes sense to have "unnamed sources" when reporting a secret GJ proceeding, or a whistle-blowing Enron investigation. But this is just info that Ash flew into a state - why is that so top-secret? And you've said that Leopold flew to DC for a press conference - but haven't stated the source for that either. I understand if it was told in confidence, though. It just seems a bit odd for an editor to personally fly to a location & spend two weeks talking to sources for an article he's not even writing. That should be Leopold's job, no? I dunno. A lot of things seem odd about this story, & I also hope TO can help clear up some of the confusion. Thanks a lot for the response.

i did not write an article about this and as such, i am not required to source this in any way for anyone. i provided my opinion based on what i had heard and I did so on an interview, that is not an article and it is simply part of my opinion which i clearly state. please understand the difference before you freak out, really. opinions stated and news articles are two different animals. i have no obligation to this. i did not write it. i did not publish it. and i might add, i don't claim to know what happened. i am, like you, full of questions. but i also have the ability to ask around and that is my business. you can take it or leave it, but i owe no information regarding this story to anyone, TO does and Luskin does and Fitz does. not me... so yes, let's hope they can clear up some confusion for all of us - but please don't put me in some sort of obligation to "readers" mode when the context is not the case by any measure.

thanks:)

The story was wrong.

They will never admit they were wrong..and now they are trying to shift the focus.

is here trying to shift the goal posts instead of explaining why it dumped leopold and never linked to the famous story.

Funny thing is Larisa accused me of being someone that seems to have her number.

Thanks for the tip larisa, this AA guy seems to know his shit.

Even though it looks like she got one of her friends to start a thread about the guy she accused of attacking her and her friend, the only thing that gets linked in it are stories about people that have a problem telling the truth.

More illusions.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

He said a lot of things that made sense. Thanks for giving me the heads up.

I think you need to back up what you say about this AA guy.

It seems if he was such a bad guy or even close to being as full of shit as you say he is you would sign up at kos and refute him.

His last diary about Leopold (the one you linked to) had well over 50 recommendations and recommendations from most of the front pagers, are you sure you aren't putting me in the middle of some axe you have to grind against kos? (you never did explain why you couldn't go there, when you said he hides out at kos)

Just because you say Truth Out isn't your competition doesn't make it true. Your site's are similar in the content you provide and you target the same audience.

How would I know who Andy is? Who is Andy? Bev Harris is in the news regularly and is often discussed here and Kos.

What I find strange is you needing to smear me with what appear to be baseless accusations against someone else.

Strange behavior indeed.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Proceed with your witch hunt I'll be here.

It's pretty pathetic you accuse me of being your arch enemy, then clear me of the charges, and when I go look the guy up and express some more doubt about Larisa I'm him again.

Ha Ha.

If they believed they were wrong. They see events and new facts against them. But they know what they know and they haven't budged an inch on that.

Leopold has already changed his story.

Sealed vs Sealed contradicts everything Ash and Pitt said defending Leopold and changes his own previous stories, like the one about Rove telling the WH he was going to be charged.

Ash said there was no evidence Leopold acted unethically, yet Laurie blew that out of the water yesterday. Sure, maybe Ash didn't know about that but it is one of those 'facts' that automatically renders previous claims wrong.

What else is wrong?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Ever heard of it?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you have to warn me when you make funnies like that;)

Do you speak for anyone other than yourself here? Have I pissed off the queen bee or something, is that why all the accusations, because I spoke out of turn?

So that makes it an official 'we'.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Let's take on the questions posed by lala-rawraw:

1). Why would an entire news outlet, around for years, take a suicide mission off a cliff together? What do you think would explain this cliff jump?

I would explain it simply. Leopold lied, (as he's done before on other stories) and he hid the weakness of his sources from Ash and Pitt, and Ash and Pitt jumped the gun and believed Leopold.

2). If Jason cooked the story, then what of Marc Ash and Will Pitt? One would have to conclude that they were in on it and I don't buy that. Do you? Does anyone?

They would not have to be "in on it" to make the mistakes they made. They, like most of us, 'wanted' the story to be true, and didn't do enough vetting of the sources.

3). If Jason made errors and was sloppy, which appears to be the case (at this point in the game, as far as we know), then what parts were not errors and what parts were errors? I want to know. Do you? Does anyone?

Neither Jason not T.O seems willing to give us the "whole" story - T.O. is "standing down." We may learn the fuller story, but it's not obvious at this time.

4). Were his sources good/bad faith and has TO determined this yet? I want to know. Do you? Does anyone?

We don't know. I think the likelier story is that Leopold put words in the mouths of his sources, and Ash/Pitt didn't uncover the deception. We may never know.

5). Why will Luskin not show the letter he has from Fitz? I want to know. Do you? Does anyone?

Do you think you'll ever know why Luskin doesn't release the letter? We can assume there is more on the letter than Luskin is willing to publish. That's not unusual, and Luskin is protecting Rove by not publishing some of its contents. A lawyer should never publish something that's not in his client's interest. (Some lawyers have said on DU they would never publish a lawyer-to-lawyer memo.)

6). Why won't Fitz confirm this? I want to know. Do you? Does anyone?

Just because you want to know, what are we supposed to do?

7). Did any other journo confirm the story but not run it? If so, why? I want to know. Do you? Does anyone?

NO. The 'Occam's Razor' reason why others didn't run the story is because the story was untrue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601754.html

Three days later, Leopold's Rove story appeared. I wrote him a congratulatory e-mail, wondering how long it would be before the establishment media caught up. But by Monday there was no announcement. No one else published the story. The blogosphere went wild. Leopold said on the radio that he would out his unnamed sources if it turned out that they were wrong or had misled him. I trawled the Internet looking for a clue to the truth. I found a blog called Talk Left, run by Jeralyn Merritt, a Colorado defense lawyer.

Merritt had called Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department spokesman who is now privately employed by Rove. She reported that Corallo said he had "never spoken with someone identifying himself as 'Jason Leopold.' He did have conversations Saturday and Sunday . . . but the caller identified himself as Joel something or other from the Londay Sunday Times. . . . At one point . . . he offered to call Joel back, and was given a cell phone number that began with 917. When he called the number back, it turned out not to be a number for Joel." A chill went down my back. I freelance for the Sunday Times. My first name is often mistaken for Joel. My cellphone number starts with area code 917.

I called Corallo. He confirmed that my name was the one the caller had used. Moreover, the return number the caller had given him was off from mine by one digit. Corallo had never been able to reach me to find out it wasn't I who had called. He said he knew who Leopold was but had never talked to him.I called Leopold. He gave me a profanity-filled earful, saying that he'd spoken to Corallo four times and that Corallo had called him to denounce the story after it appeared. When he was done, I asked: "How would Corallo have gotten my phone number, one digit off?" "Joe, I would never, ever have done something like that," Leopold said defiantly.

Except that he has done things like that. His memoir is full of examples. He did break big stories, but he lied to get many of them. He admits lying to the lawyers for Enron executives Jeffrey Skilling and Andrew Fastow, making up stories to get them to spill more beans. "I was hoping to get both sides so paranoid that one was going to implicate the other," he wrote.

And to me, the most unbelievable part of this story is that Mark Ash has money for air fare.

here at DU.. This thread has not been locked.

As for Mark Ash's personal finances, I have no knowledge of that.. How do you???

it might regain them some credibility

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

TO has always been very reliable. i don't know what happened this time, but I'll trust TO over the M$M anyday. They've been much more accurate and informative.

but it seems to me that resigning, and who knows, coming back later, might help them in the long run. second acts and all that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't want to accuse anyone here directly, but I have seen what I can only describe as a concerted effort to tear down our best and most effective warriors in the Godd fight such as you and Will Pitt.

I have also seen many of our best DU'ers baited until they lost their temper and then banned or left.

I was just looking at all the liveoaktx canofun threads in the Research Forum and almost cried at the loss of so many of our best DU'ers.

Please, La-La, don't become another one. I and the rest of DU would miss you terribly.

DON'T GIVE UP THE FIGHT!!!!!

:yourock:

you're wrong. i have one user acct at du and joined because of one du member's dead-on postings on an entirely different subject. i admit to little prior knowledge of 'to's work, but i honestly think they could extricate themselves from thier current troubles if they turned the reins over to a caretaker for a while.

:rofl:

all of the journalist and editors and publishers who have posted lies and untruths in this country..

and 'to's case certainly isn't the worst example. not by the longest of shots.

Judy Miller comes to mind... Robert Novack comes to mind... WaPo comes to mind NY Times comes to mind... Well, you get the message... People died from the stories they told....

and fitzgerald got one small bit player out of the several people who were involved in this crime. oh well,much to do about nothing

Where did you see that? The Grand Jury has been dismissed then? Fitzgerald's office make the statement?

This has become inflammatory.