Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove Secret Indictment

Tuesday :: June 20, 2006
Luskin Denies Latest Truthout Report on Rove Secret Indictment
Bump and Update: Rove attorney Robert Luskin sent me this denial of Truthout's report:

"It is insane and nonsensical, equal parts bizarre innuendo and alleged facts that do not square with reality or the American legal system. Truthout's stubborn nuttiness to the contrary, some times things are simply as they appear: Mr. Fitzgerald completed his investigation, reviewed the evidence, and concluded that it simply does not support a charge. There never was -- not for a second -- any secret meetings at my office, plea negotiations, secret sealed (or not so sealed, as the case may be) indictments, or last minute concessions."

more at:
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/015121.html

There are still those of us who haven't seen it yet.

Srry, still not getting the same signal you are. I'm still looking for the frequency though, KENNETH WHAT IS IT!

"The complete exoneration and clearing notice" from Fitzgerald's office with the rest of
the Torture photos and the secret energy meeting notes.

I hate myself.

Five appearances before the grand jury, and he claims no concessions?

Luskin's denial is hollow. How 'bout he cough up the communication from Fitzgerald?

Is WHY Luskin cares about what Truthout has to say...

The boy has work to do...

considering the number of eyes and ears Truthout reaches. We're not talking USA Today here...

I have not really been a part of this debate, but it does strike me as very odd that he would come out with this statement. It makes me wonder if perhaps Truthout is actually onto something after all. From what I've seen, this is the first bad play Luskin has made.

He was responding to Ms. Merritt's specific request for his comments on the latest truthout story, as Ms. Merritt points out on her site.

She has been speaking to him as well as Leopold throughout this saga.

I was wondering how he could have been so stupid.

And why would Team Libby reference TO in a court document?

But the content of the article mentioned in the filings wasn't anything uncovered by TO iirc.

I'm really surprised you are not outraged Leopold has debased the investigation as he has considering the care you have taken witting about it.

IMO Leopold probably copied a lot from you, red head, and emptywheel.

so much more interesting... :shrug:

Luskin et al are spinning like crazy -- they are hiding something . . .

Christy at firedoglake on another plamegate nasty:

<snip>

Here is another truth: those of us outside the case can have no earthly way of knowing what exactly is going on inside (unless of course you are Murray Waas, who seems to be omniscient at times). But here is what I do know: the GOP spinmeisters are working overtime to get their side of the story cemented as the conventional wisdom on this case. Why, you ask?

Because something is going on that they do not want us to know about — and I, for one, sure as hell want to know what that is. (You want more on this, read this from EPU. Interesting, no?)

No one works that hard to suppress or downplay or manipulate public opinion unless there is a very good reason to do so. Here are a few: (1) Information that is bound to come out in testimony during the Libby trial is very damning, and they are trying to get out in front of it. (2) No one wants Dick Cheney under oath and on the stand in front of the public. (3) Karl Rove may not have an official deal, but he does have an obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the stand — or face perjury charges. And that is not something he wants to do under any circumstances. (See Number 2 above.) (4) The investigation is continuing, Fitzgerald is chipping away at the evidence, and the spinmeisters want to turn public opinion against him before he goes much further. (5) The WHIG is restless….well, you get the point.

<snip>

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/20/popping-the-trial-balloon/

btw, I do think something smells here. Either some did happen that they're trying to hide, or they're trying to set up the groundwork for a pardon for Libby or something equally outre.

here is EPU's comments she's linking to -- worth reading too

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/20/safavian-found-guilty/#comment-150735

that there was a person.

We would do well to focus on #2.

I will humbly suggest that, in regard to #5, we add a "part B." And that would be that the OSP is even more restless than the WHIG.

Nobody has every answered that question to my satisfaction.

Unless there is a war in the white house to get rid of cheney who refuses to leave, I don't see any possible reasons ANY of them would roll.

How many insiders rolled during Iran Contra?

#1: For good or for bad, no one needs to answer questions to your satisfaction, nor to mine. It doesn't matter what any of us think. It only matters what Mr. Fitzgerald and a small team of very talented people he has assembled think about Rove.

There was, of course, a time when Mr. Fitzgerald & Co needed to answer questions to the satisfaction of several federal court judges reviewing the effort to force Miller and Cooper to testify to the grand jury, or face incarceration. They had to meet a high standard. All of the judges agreed that Mr. Fitzgerald had evidence of a very serious crime (or crimes). It is possible that those crimes are the five charges that Scooter Libby now faces. It is also possible that there is something else.

It would be nice if you and I had answers to our full satisfaction. We don't. However, we can all have patience. That can include (though certainly doesn't require) that we have patience on the Rove business. There were people other than those from TO who were under the impression that Mr. Fitzgerald was making some move on the Rove business. It may be it was simply to decide not to go any further. Or it might be something different.

#2: In Mr. Wilson's book, he stated that there was friction between the Office of the President, and the Office of the Vice President regarding the Plame scandal. He noted that he had sources who told him the tension was between Rove, and the two fellows he blamed for the problem: Libby and Cheney.

In general terms, people "roll" to protect themselves, more often than they roll in order to accomplish any other goal. This is confirmed in two of Mr. Woodward's books, where he quotes Mark Felt discussing how suspects are turned.

#3: The question on Iran-Contra is well-taken. However, in interests of a fair comparison, we should also include Watergate. There are individuals who will turn more easily than others, just as there are prosecutors more capable than others of turning witnesses, and some situations lend themselves more to a prosecutor exploiting a weak link.

I say this without attempting to imply that I think Rove has been turned in the context of an early May move by Mr. Fitzgerald. My only goal is to suggest that people keep open minds, and watch the case and related events with a sense of confidence that the story will continue to unfold.

1. I agree my satisfaction means nothing to the case, it is only my own yard stick for engaging certain theories.

2. I'm sure there are many different factions within the White House and I'm also sure the bungling of the Wilson job has created divisions, but I haven't seen any indication these divisions rise to the level of forced removal from office, which is exactly what Rove turning on Cheney would be.

3. While I will gladly defer to a more learned opinion, I'm not sure Watergate is a comparable investigation in as much as the targets of this investigation circle around a very small group of perps. IIRC Watergate required low level operatives not nearly as invested in the administration as Libbey, Rove, Cheney, and hadley are.

It is for that reason I can't see any of them flipping when pardons can be issued to a small group without causing too much controversy. Even though there would be considerable outrage here and elsewhere, the pardons themselves wouldn't be overturned.

would seem more like Watergate, at least in my opinion. Bush2 is similar in some of his personality traits to Nixon. I think there is relatively small chance of pardons.

I think that all of us would prefer more information on what is going on with the investigation. For many people, seeing Rove indicted would be a highlight. I am more concerned with the OVP. I think that the people in the OVP, which exercised control over the OSP and WHIG, brought us to war in Iraq, and put the world at risk for increased violence in other lands such as Iran.

You have every right to want evidence that Rove may be cooperating with the investigation, before you engage that theory. And that is all it is now: a theory of what might be. Citizens actually have the responsibility to demand a level of proof for any and all claims to fact .... because as the war in Iraq indicates, all tyranny rests in fraud and deceit, and in convincing people to accept a lie on face-value. So any person who for even a moment suspends that "questioning spirit" has betrayed themselves and their country. So I have no problem with people who have sincere questions about what TO has reported -- and that group obviously includes you. But I am concerned that others have a different agenda, that does not include any search for truth. That is why I suggest that people keep an open mind. There are forces at play that most people in this country are unaware of. But the truth will come out, soon enough. There are a few more surprises.

for mastermind (not Cheney) for the whole...whatever this is. El Stinko traitorous messing with covert agents' lives for purposes other than the public dissent of an ex-diplomat. So maybe a pissed off Rove (pissed at having dirty tricks played on HIM...HIM!) by Libby, to take the rap, is going to convict Libby on perjury/obstruction or the main crime, and the Bushites hope that will be an end of it, and Fitz hopes that will pressure Libby to give up at least Cheney, or to trip over himself in his blockade/cover up. This had to come from the OSP. I've thought for a long time that Rumsfeld is the one they're all circling the wagons around, because he is critical to mideast oil/war plans and Cheney is not. And Cheney is definitely expendable politically (he has a lower approval rating than Bush--maybe lower than Zarqawi, whom OBL didn't even like, so his tapes say). He might have proven hard to dislodge (I've wondered about that shooting incident in this regard), but he is definitely a drag on any phony Bush miraculous "comeback" yarn for the fall. So is Cheney the final barricade before we reach Rumsfeld. Or is Bush? I figure they've got all kinds of moats and trap doors around the Pentagon, and if they ever go in there to handcuff Rumsfeld, they might be greeted by some of those surface to air missiles that went inactive on 9/11. So that may be it, huh? They sacrifice Cheney into splendid retirement--the Pharoahs of Egypt ain't in it--after a wrist-slap by the Diebold Congress, and start the march to '08 with fresh blood, but they can't shake Mr. Tenacious, and have to throw Bush under the train in '07, to maintain essential control over the keys to the secret dungeons and torture chambers, and what not. Rumsfeld. Hm.

That is the first thing I said when I saw the headline. WHY would a high priced lawyer CARE what some dumb liberal website says? Thy protest too much???

Very, very interesting indeed. First Rove slams all liberal blogs, then Luskin names TO... uh-huh.

I'm surprised he even reads it. Very curious, just lends more credence INHO.

he was responding to Ms. Merritt's specific request for his comments on the latest truthout story, as Ms. Merritt points out on her site.

She has been speaking to him as well as Leopold throughout this saga.

asking him about Leopold's claims as posted on their site. I doubt that he had heard of them before May 12.

that truthout even existed before he was bombarded by journalists asking him about the unsubstantiated stories that truthout published on May 12 and 13, never mind the ever increasingly more ludicrous stories truthout has been publishing ever since.

And it seems rather obvious, to me at least, that his response to Ms. Merritt's inquiry was just that - a response as a matter of professional courtesy to a fellow lawyer that he'd had previous communications with about the matter at hand. (i.e. the prior communications they had about the leopold/truthout allegations after May 12)

Jeralyn Merritt is no idiot, and neither is Bob Luskin.


Truthout, on the other hand...

Why Luskin has become the new CREDIBLE source in this matter. Huh? Seems fairly gullible, IMO. I don't trust anyone who has ANYTHING to do with Rove. Remember...he initially denied having ANYTHING TO DO with the Plame leak. Media Matters goes into it in detail.

was worth its weight in gold, at one time. Then he got caught.

Has he issued a report (or a statement that he won't be writing one)? I haven't heard definitely that the investigation is OVER (did I miss something?).

finished. Others might wish differently, but hey, declaring "mission accomplished" didn't exactly make it happen now, did it?

vestigation..

several times in the past 24 hours actually came from June 12. More, one source added a sentence that other sources do not include. For example, CBS News transcript shows Bush saying, "It's a chapter that ended. Fitzgerald is a very thorough person. I think he's conducted his investigation in a dignified way. I think it's going to be important for you all to recognize there's still a trial to be held. And those of us involved in the White House are going to be very mindful of not commenting on this issue -- because of the Libby tyrial."

President Bush only stated the Rove part of the investigation is over.

Fitzgerald can just pack up and go home if he wants.

I don't care what Asshat may have said -- I won't believe it's over until Fitz says so.

So, he still has a job to do.

The Independent Counsel law was allowed to reach sunset (legally lapse) in the waning years of the Clinton Administration. Congress elected not to renew the Independent Counsel law and its inherent authority.

The Special Prosecutor has the powers equivalent to the Attorney General in the realm of this case as re-affirmed by the current Judge only a few months ago.

anything Luskin says is spin.

He's upset with the bloggers regarding his client, so he's biased.

If he is upset with the bloggers (and not using them as a means to his own ends, as I suspect) then his words are even more hollow.

But let us be honest with each other, do you think he'd take a moment of his time to comment if he didn't have something to gain from it? I know I don't.

why would Luskin be upset at bloggers?

Has everyone dropped that conspiracy theory now that TO claims they were being used by Fitzgerald?

Has it been replaced by a theory that has Fitzgerald acting unethically for the first time in his career and Leopold likewise acting ethically for the first time ever?

It's so hard to keep up.

Ash implied they may have possibly been used by someone. He was not specific in any way.

So that may be why you are confused.

"Our primary sources for this report are career federal law enforcement and federal government officials speaking on condition of anonymity."

"Yes, it does appear that Truthout was used, but not lied to or misled. The facts appear to have been accurate. We reported them, and in so doing, apparently became an instrument. From all indications, our reports, first on May 13 that Rove had been indicted, and then on June 12 when we published case number "06 cr 128," forced Rove and Luskin back to the table with Fitzgerald, not once but twice. They apparently sought to avoid public disclosure and were prepared to do what they had to do to avoid it."

Used by who if not Fitzerald?

Are you suggesting some low level Fitzgerald investigator was working outside the purview of Mr.Fitzgerald? The information came from a government employee who was trying to pressure Rove into cooperating so I'm not assuming anything.

I don't believe any of it personally I'm just trying to parse out TO's excuses.

There are deals and there are deals. There are written deals and there are unwritten, deniable deals. Given Rove, I would expect some interesting provisions, like control of the newsstream for a while.

No letter disclosure.
No exoneration from Fitzgerald
No comment from Fitzgerald on any of it.
Best guess: He's still got Rove on a tight leash--at the least as a Libby witness (so Libby can't claim he can't get a fair trial--White House won't cooperate), and who knows what else? Fitz had him on perjury, from what I could see.

A behind-the-scenes "Saturday Night Massacre" is also still a possibility, although I think Fitz won that round. (He's got the goods on Gonzales, too--on obstruction.) (That's why Bush made him head of the Dept. of Justice--because he wouldn't hesitate to obtruct justice.)

A deliberate burn of Leopold/TO is still a possibility (no matter what Rove's status, or status of the case). Luskin's fussing and fuming about all this nonsensical insanity and nuttiness could point that way--part 2 of the burn. Sounds like Rove wrote it. And if Leopold/TO have just gone batshit crazy--a possibility, I suppose, although a very remote one, given their years of writing like sane men (and writing very well)--wouldn't it be a curious thing that the batshit crazy junta in the White House has driven sane men mad?

The changing theories of who was/is pulling Leopold's string are ridiculous.

Yesterday everyone was saying this was one big Rovian scam. Today the believers are claiming Luskin seems too preoccupied by an insignificant website.

Rove falsely told reporters during the course of the investigation that he was not involved in disclosing CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity to reporters or that former White House press secretary Scott McClellan also relayed Rove's false claim to reporters.


In the grand scheme of things, what is TO to Luskin, really???

Ms. Merritt is a well respected criminal attorney that asked her colleague for a response.

Do you forget that Luskin is a Democrat?

Maybe he is embarrassed by all of this.

:shrug:

Democrat?

You really don't have a clue do you. Luskin's wallet, along with many a lawyer's, is where he goes to get all of those donations to the Democratic party.

Are you saying that lawyers can't defend guilty republicans without losing the Democratic creds? That's not very American of you.

Everyone guaranteed their right to counsel and all that. Maybe you want all the criminal republicans sent to gitmo, but I want them all tried by the justice system and judged by a jury of their peers.

I think it's the best way to let the world know these vile abominations do not represent American values.

he is getting paid plenty... I don't really care what he feels.. He made his bed....

Don't tell me what is American.. Only Republicans bring up the Patriot Line.. Are you a republican??

Cause you sure as hell sound like one....

I sound like the republican? You are the one that is saying ideology trumps all, not me.

And, it is un-American to deny someone the right to the council of their choice. That is not a republican belief. Republicans believe their enemies deserve indefinite confinement without the opportunity to speak to a lawyer.

Exactly what has Luskin done to "make his bed", defend Rove?

I have never stated differently....

He has defended some high-profile Republican politicians in his state...and the tax lawyer is a Democrat. And a damn good lawyer. He gets a good laugh out of it, but feels professional pride in winning a case.

He also believes that everyone in this country is entitled to due process (remember that???) and a good defense. Yes, he makes good money off of it, but why not?

Show me where I said anything contrary...

is that Democrats often represent Republicans in court cases, even repukes in the political scene.

My point is their wallet knows no party line.....

use hyperbole.

And while the notion that Rove set up TO may be a bit far fetched... the observation that Luskin is overly concerned with a website is quite apt.

How is it "apt" to describe Luskin response to a well respected colleague's question as overly concerned?

from Lusking 6/12 statment:


In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel’s decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove’s conduct.

Now that I've stopped the baseless speculating, back to talking about the Plame case...

Yeah, sure.

he was not involved in the Plame Case. Obviously he was involved...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1469616&mesg_id=1469616

events. The "speculation" is hardly "baseless." Rove was thick in the middle of the Plame/Brewster-Jennings outings. He may technically be off the hook on the main crime, if he has been able to establish that he didn't know Plame's undercover status. (The law requires knowledge and intent.) But five appearances before the Grand Jury--something Karl Rove would not do willingly, if he were not in personal jeopardy? ( (or, possibly, designated Grand Jury spinner?) He's very likely been trying to explain something away, for his own sake--in fact, we know he has been (changed his story on the perjury; his lawyer, Luskin, suddenly found emails, etc.), and maybe fingering others, depending on what Fitz thinks he knows, and how much heat Fitz put on him about his perjury (lying about what he told a reporter). I think there's a good possibility that Libby tried to set Rove up to take the fall on this crime. He might have ratted about that, since Libby's already Mr. Martyr. I tend to think that wouldn't be enough for Fitz, but it might be, if he thought that, through the Libby trial on perjury/obstruction, he can get at the higher perps, which had to have gone above both Rove and Libby, and at the true reason for the leak.

Now that I think of it, at the Libby press conference, Fitz stressed his goal of finding out WHY the leak occurred, since it was a grave matter of national security. Maybe he's wondering about the oddities of that tale, too, as I have been--the oddity of thinking that revealing Plame's identity would in any way discredit Joe Wilson, as to his trip to Niger. On the face of it, having a wife who heads a covert CIA counter-proliferation network would seem to ENHANCE Wilson's ability to accomplish the Niger mission, not take away from it. And that's the supposed story of Rove's involvement--casting aspersions on Wilson BECAUSE his wife was a covert WMD agent. Sounds like a hasty, cobbled together cover story. Sounds like there was some panic involved. Somebody writing the script for all this in a hurry, and not thinking it through too well.

The more I think about it, the more absurd does Luskin's protest become. Who does he think he's kidding? I see no way out of this, for Rove, except, a) indictment for perjury; b) cooperating witness--indictment put in abeyance; or c) Saturday Night Massacre--Gonzales power-playing Fitz, or secret Bush pardon. (Could "Sealed v. Sealed" be about a Bush pardon? Hm.) (But if it is, what then of Rove cooperation at Libby's trial?)

IS the word!

Peace Patriot:

If I could write - what I have been thinking -

I would have written - what you wrote.

Thanks for the words...

"Fitz stressed his goal of finding out WHY the leak occurred"

No I don't believe he did, but I would be happy to be proved wrong. I read many people hoping he was going to broaden his scope to include the "why" but never saw any Fitz quotes suggesting as much.

Libby's trial. I believe it was the April 3rd filing. He told the judge that, and Libby's attorneys then said they may call Rove as a witness FOR Libby.

This all happened because Libby's attorneys wanted information on Rove's GJ testimony. They claimed they needed it so that their case wouldn't be compromised if Rove was a witness. They lost the motion once Fitz said Rove was not on his witness list. They lost the second motion because Fitz argued that even if Rove was a witness for Libby, they still had no right to the information. The judge eventually agreed.

So, unless Fitz changes his mind, he doesn't intend to call Rove in trial. That's why I think he may want information regarding Cheney and Bush.

Libby already turned on Cheney and Bush, which we know from the Libby filings. We don't know Rove's testimony before the GJ so it's possible that Rove already turned against Cheney (and Libby of course, although Fitz doesn't seem to need him as a witness).

rather than "no comment." Luskin can blather on about anything. It's not against the law to tell lies to the press. Just common.

Fitz better continue to try his case in court, not in public. No comment is the absolute best thing he has going for him right now. Give no freebies to the other team.

:thumbsup:

My attitude as well.

til then, no comment is right--and Luskin is wrong.

..that there are people on DU whom simply want to believe some things so badly, that they will swallow even the stupidest, most outlandish, utterly ridiculous, and demonstrable false stories. It really reminds me of how con-men manage to flourish in this world. There are just too many suckers waiting to get ripped off, used, lied to and otherwiser abused.

I mean seriously folks? How can any thinking person actually believe this steaming pile of horse manure?

It really is amazing. Truthout writes an obviously silly story with evolving meanings of business hours and apparently ever changing numbers of sources. Why exactly would Rove be given 24 hours, business hours, leisure hours, recreation hours, or hours of any other kind to "get his affairs in order" anyway? It's not like the guy was going to be spending any time in jail. Truthout is the only outlet who has this supposed blockbuster story despite the fact that far larger media outlets whom employ journalists with actual credibility (unlike Leopold) are working feverishly on it. Truthout claims an indictment has been filed - running with a "story" that no other news outlet reports. Time passes, the definition of business hours gets murky, no indictment is announced, more time passes, no indictment is announced, Truthout tells us they have gotten "too far out in front of the news cycle" (meaning exactly what no one seems to know), bizarre updates are presented as "what we know" and "what we believe", Truthout starts "pointing" at 06 cr 128 for reasons that simply make zero sense, more time passes...... Then Luskin, an actual lawyer with a real reputation to protect announces as FACT that Fitzgerald has notified him that the investigation is essentially over and no indictment is coming. The vast majority of the news media (including news outlets with real reporters that have real sources who provide actual facts), recognizing that Luskin is a high powered lawyer with a professional reputation to protect would not announce such a thing if Fitz has not given the word, reports the no indictment story bringing the matter largely to a close.

And instead of admitting they got it wrong, Truthout now claims to be some sort of unwitting hero? Their story was not only right, it was instrumental in getting Rove to squeal on Cheney? Truthout, by claiming to have been used as some kind of "instrument", almost seems to suggest that sources in Fitz's office (the actual number of sources seems to evolve) were leaking to them to get Rove to talk. So the Special Council's Office, in a carefully orchestrated operation, used the quasi news outlet Truthout for this? And were not supposed to laugh at this?

Please, this is ridiculous. How anyone believes any of this bologne is beyond me.

What is easier to believe? That Fitz determined he just didn't have enough evidence at this time, and likely never, to indict Rove specifically in the Plame matter? Or, that the Jason Leopold with a terribly checkered past and very little jounalistic integrity remaining had these amazing sources and become entwined in this great conspiracy?

This story was crap from day one. It was crap on May 13th, it is crap now, it will be crap next week, and it will remain crap until Truthout finally admits they got it dead wrong - then it will just be a testament to how gullible some people are in believing this sortof of thing.

Most of us have said we're waiting to hear from Fitzgerald.

Your gonna hear only "no comment" unless Fitz indicts someone. Your not gonna get updates. That is why the "I have no comment" statement by Kimberly Nerheim is utterly meaningless. It doesn't leave the door open to anything of anykind. The Special Council's Office is not going to comment EVER. It means nothing that Fitz hasn't responded with any thing other than "no comment", because he was never going to.

So you can wait from now till eternity but I think your never gonna get anything other than "no comment". I'm not even sure Fitz plans to issue a public report when the entire investigation is wrapped up, so your wait could be painfully, endlessly long.

I'll wait as long as it takes, even if you're not sure...

Had Rove turned evidence at Cheney, do you think that for one second that he would still be working at the White House?

I've read "Bush's Brain". Rove is loyal to craphead to a fault.

... "That Fitz determined he just didn't have enough evidence at this time, and likely never, to indict Rove specifically in the Plame matter? Or, that the Jason Leopold with a terribly checkered past and very little jounalistic integrity remaining had these amazing sources and become entwined in this great conspiracy?"

The the Fitz letter is legit, and the Luskin is a bastion of truth. How is believing Rove's lawyer and better than believing Leopold?

There's one man to listen to in this case, thy name is Fitz. Everything else is spin or speculation.

Sealed vs Sealed contradicted ALL of Leopold's previous stories.

BTW What's the date on that indictment?

I'm just not putting the whole thing away as "Leopold playing funny buggers". Larry Johnson and Joe Wilson also talked about a Rove indictment. Something happened on May 12. I don't know what, just that it is a lot stranger, and more sinister, than you think.

People sure are placing a lot of faith in Bush's Justice Department, expecting them to follow due process and all that shit. They stole 2 presidential elections and lied the country into war. Why are people expecting this to play as if they guys don't have a reputation for fucking the rules.

well, some people (including leopold and others) said the same thing last October....

strange?

sinister?

or over-zealous imagination combined with wishful thinking?

It seems that door number three is the answer in this case.

We can all understand the wishful thinking part, of course, because we want to see the bastards busted and doing the perp walk and, yeah, I can even understand how that desire might cloud the judgment of some - but come on, since when did rational people suspend all disbelief when fed a pile of crap like the truthout story just because we *want* to believe it?

I'm not convinced that anything of significance at all happened on May 12, or within 24 hours of it or within 24 business hours of it or within a week of it for that matter .... What is it that makes you so sure that *something* significant happened on May 12 as you said in your post?

:rofl:

Because his client is?

:rofl::rofl::rofl: