Where's the Target Letter? We were told there was a Target Letter here

[symbolman]

I'd like for Will or someone to clear this up.

On April 26th, we were told by Truthout (and some reported that Raw Story had the same tale at the same time, maybe even before) in an article by Jason Leopold, which was CONCRETE according to Will Pitt, that there was a Target Letter received by Rove/Luskin that drove Rove BACK into the Grand Jury for the 5th time.

Where is the Target Letter? Who are the sources? I have been researching this story for a year and half and even made a film about it that's 150 minutes long, the complete Chronology of Plamegate, and according to my sources (which include sources of Volcanoe Jan's and Firedoglake and a few others, who are PROSECUTORS), once a Target Letter is delivered the Victim is INDICTED within HOURS.

This has not happened. Where is the proof that this Target Letter exists and why hasn't any of the other Mainsteam Media reported on a Target Letter? Nothing.

The story is still on Truthout's front page, but Raw Story changed their story to read that a Target Letter had NOT been received. Who is correct here? If we are to believe our Left wing sites, and trust their veracity then WHICH site is correct, and who's not pulling a story or printing a retraction?

or At least revealing sources.

Did Rove/Luskin receive a Target Letter on or before April 26th or NOT?

[Duer 157099]

1. I wonder the same, thanks for asking n/t

[uppityperson]

2. Good question. Will?

all sources are suspect, especially those not revealing their sources. And FOX.

[Jigarotta]

3. can u catch me up with a link of discussion about this target letter? nt

[spanone]

4. Here tis.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1030979&mesg_id=1030979

[demobabe]

5. Not it.

That's Leopold's update, but still, there is no letter that we can see. He says there is one, but no actual proof exists at this point.

NYTimes and hundreds of other sources are reporting otherwise. Even Raw Story, which Leopold also writes for, has published the NYTimes version of the story.

I think Truthout is falling into the same trap Salon did in 2002 with Jason Leopold.

[Jigarotta]

6. thanks, I skimmed but can make no sense of it.

too many notes like that jealous guy in Amadeus said.... sorta

gladys gravitz summary please. ;)

[spanone]

10. Sorry that was the update.

[WiseButAngrySara]

7. Here's the link to the original article. I posted it in response to your

question in another thread, but I don't know if you received it!

Jason Leopold | Target Letter Drives Rove Back to Grand Jury

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042606I.shtml

<snip>

Jason Leopold examines the facts: "Karl Rove's appearance before a grand jury in the CIA leak case Wednesday comes on the heels of a 'target letter' sent to his attorney recently by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, signaling that the Deputy White House Chief of Staff may face imminent indictment, sources that are knowledgeable about the probe said Wednesday."

[demobabe]

9. Yes, this is the article in question

Everybody else other than Jason Leopold, including Raw Story, are going with the story that Rove didn't receive a target letter.

I would like to see the proof that shows that New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, Raw Story and others are all lying.

[WiseButAngrySara]

11. Or that Truthout is currently Truthnot! or Truthoops! ....n/t

[demobabe]

13. I don't want to say that about them...

I actually like Truthout and think they do good work. But it looks like they may have put their eggs in the wrong basket on this one. If so, I hope they print a retraction and move on - and check their facts better!

[WiseButAngrySara]

14. I like Truthout as well. Do you know of the Salon incident that Leopold

was involved with in 2002? Someone mentioned it in another post, but had no details.

[WiseButAngrySara]

15. I just read your answer in another post! Thanks!

[liberalnurse]

69. Relax already.....

Why is this such a pressing issue for you? Just be patient. I question your aggressive thinking.

[WiseButAngrySara]

8. Valid question. What happened with Jason Leopold and Salon?

:kick: and R.

[demobabe]

12. They pulled a story of his after the facts couldn't be substantiated

Read it all here, both Salon's account and Leopold's rebuttal:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0210/S00084.htm

After Financial Times accused Leopold of plagiarism in the Salon article, Salon fact checked the facts and sources in article further (which they should have done before publication, but they aparently trusted Leopold). Basically they said:

"The faxed e-mail contained no e-mail addresses or other headers, and that raised our concern, as did a published denial from White in a letter to the New York Times, where columnist Paul Krugman had picked up Leopold's story. We told Leopold we needed to authenticate the e-mail. He told us the name of his source for it, and Lauerman told Leopold he was going to call the source to verify the e-mail. The source denied ever having spoken to Leopold.

With sensitive investigative stories, it can happen that a source will get "cold feet," and that was certainly a possibility in this situation. Leopold assured us that he had cell phone records to prove that he had indeed talked to the source on numerous occasions. Then he told us that he didn't have the cell phone bill, but he would have the phone company send it to us by the morning of Monday, Sept. 30.

We were increasingly concerned that the process was becoming drawn out, but felt we needed to review the phone records. By early Monday afternoon we had not received them, and found that Leopold was not returning our calls or e-mails. Later that afternoon we received a call not from Leopold but from a relative of his who was also apparently serving as his attorney and intermediary.

First, this intermediary had a phone company representative in a conference call read off phone numbers and dates of calls to us -- but they were calls to a different source in the story than to the one Leopold had told us was his source for the e-mail. Furthermore, all the calls took place after the story had been published."

[jsamuel]

16. hmmm...

[Maddy McCall]

17. Damn. This needs a thread all its own.

So far, will spoke in support of Leopold AND Raw Story, and both appear to have gotten it wrong.

:yoiks:

[symbolman]

18. We did a littlle poking around on the web about Jason

and one of the posts even talked about Jason's Book being made into a Movie or a TV series, the movie being played by JOHNNY DEPP :)

I am not shitting you..

There's a whole lot more about Jason, he's admitted that he lied on his resume, about graduating from some New York School, Forgery, Grand Larceny - actually all admitted by him in his book, which may be a great read.

I found one admission pretty damning tho, Jason actually took a source and outed him against his will, LEAKED his story since he couldn't use it, to two other papers, once they got wind of it and started publishing, THEN it was okay for HIM to use/publish the Leak (at least it was okay by his own standards), that HE himself had LEAKED in the first place.

Sound familiar? I guess he IS the guy that should be investigating these guys, he has experience at it :)

All his own words, I'm not making any of this up.

[WiseButAngrySara]

22. Damn! He belongs to the wrong party! ....n/t

[symbolman]

23. I don't think he's with the wrong party

I think he's a News Junkie, like his book says.. he wants the NEWS and he wants it NOW, and that's admirable, he does string a lot of facts together well and that's helpful.

What doesn't help is error and too much of it. WHEN does credibility start and end?

There are some writers who cross the street when they see him coming, others like Palast, Mark Crispin Miller have given him Book Jacket blurbs so I suppose they trust him, dunno if they know him, that can happen too.

I just want to know where the Target letter is, and if it was delivered on or before April 26th. TO me THIS is a VERY important story and not one to be trifled with or sensationalized.

So who on the left, is RIGHT?

[WiseButAngrySara]

51. What do you make of this e-mail notification received this eve. re: Fitz

BREAKING | Jason Leopold: Fitzgerald to Seek Indictment of Rove

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042806Y.shtml

Despite vehement denials by his attorney who said this week that Karl Rove is neither a "target" nor in danger of being indicted in the CIA leak case, the special counsel leading the investigation has already written up charges against Rove, and a grand jury is expected to vote on whether to indict the Deputy White House Chief of Staff sometime next week, sources knowledgeable about the probe said Friday afternoon.

[lala_rawraw]

64. You know, I wonder what poking around about you might bring up...

First of all, you did not need to do poking because Jason wrote the book and told everything about his actions, his regrets, and what happened or did not happen. Second, Johnny Depp was not considered, rather, it was another very attractive actor and they are still in negotiations. The admission you found was in Jason's book about himself, so nice work there sherlock. I have to show Jason this thread, because we have been finding your insults and smears against us really amusing, so it is refreshing see you acting as though you actually uncovered something... "and I'm not shitting you."

How do you go from insulting someone to pretending to be "in the know"? Wow. Very odd.

[demobabe]

67. So let's say if...

...you can find some nice juicy dirt on Symbolman?

Would that excuse Leopold's blatant disregard for journalistic integrity? Would that make it okay that he's using an unnamed source - which he even admits in his book that most editors wouldn't touch a story like that unless there was some really compelling reason to print the story?

Your tired argument doesn't work. YOU guys are the ones trying to convince us that what you do is professional, and when called on the most fundamental basics of journalism, rather than respond intelligently and with any facts, you just smear the messenger. Every time.

According to you, I'm a five year-old who can type like a monkey.

Did you learn that in j-school too?

There is no excuse for this for someone who is truly a professional. If Symbolman was writing for Truthout or Raw Story and passed off a story like Jason's, I'd be the first to jump all over him for lack of a source as well.

But he wasn't the one that wrote the article.

Can't you guys ever take responsiblity for what you write and respond reasonably to concerns and print retractions when necessary instead of insisting the world is flat?

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

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

[symbolman]

131. I happen to know this person who's quote you are using

very well, and they've worked for major newspapers and own a copy of AP Style and Libel Manual. is fully aware of how the system works.

How is asking a simple questions a "hit piece"?

It's a totally valid question given Leopold's history at a minimum in the writer's world, Read some of his Plagiarism escapades with Salon, Financial Times, Leaking to other newspapers so HE can use the inside scoop, which could have gotten someone else jailed.. in my opinion these send up red flags at least for me all over the place.

I'd love to give someone another chance, it looks like he's had about 4 of them, not up to me to tell others not to trust or believe, but many people may not know about his checkered past, and for me, I have trouble believing him.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

140. Please. You've established a pattern of attacking RS and....

...Truthout despite your protestations to the contrary. What you're doing may not be approaching the threshhold of libel, but you've certainly established a pattern of cyberstalking.

Why don't you give it a rest?

[sheelz]

161. He's asking a simple question.

Why give the search for truth a rest?

[demobabe]

163. "Approaching the threshhold of libel" and "cyberstalking"

The accusation of Symbolman cyberstalking IS libel, whereas what Symbolman has said about Raw Story or Truthout or Leopold is not.

[symbolman]

68. Here's what's funny

I was actually PROMOTING Leopold's book and you thought I was insulting him. I also mentioned that all this was IN HIS BOOK (I believe I gave out the Title - if that isn't promotional I don't know what is. I didn't pretend that I had somehow FOUND all this bad stuff out, I said it was HIS WORDS, HIS BOOK. Everyone knows this anyway.. I like the way he started it with the LEAK that HE made, so that he could USE the info himself, not that it made it possible for the man he leaked about to go to jail for it, no harm done, eh? Wait, I don't think his lawyer thought that, and got the first publication Stopped.

You really should read Entire threads, I've been more than fair to Jason, telling both sides of the story, making sure HIS side was prominently displayed, else why would I mention that one site said that Johnny Depp might play him, and really WHO could do it better?

If you find that amusing that's fine with me, I bet you find a lot of things amusing. To some folks I guess I may be a pretty pathetic case. You might want to slip downthread and read about my time after Nam when I cared for 300 Vets who had been driven insane by war, so I pretty much know what crazy is, and how to spot it.

You'll have to forgive me tho, most of the time I can't wrap my brain around what you are saying. It's so emotional that it sort of doesn't make sense to me. It must be me though, maybe it's because my dad had Alzheimers.

I thought you made it clear that you didn't want to fight.. Me either.. I just want a straight answer, and also not "updated" pages that don't say the same thing they did before.

WHERE is the TARGET LETTER? It's the Entire basis of that report on April 26th. Simple.

C'mon, you can do it, I believe in you.

[liberalnurse]

70. Thank you lala......

I second that reply!

[kohodog]

152. Hi Lala

Seems to me I remember someone plagiarizing one of my threads here and it wasn't Jason. Perhaps you remember as you came to my defense without my asking. I let it go, but was thankful you noticed and mentioned it.

These attacks do nothing to make things better in the world imho. With the uselessness of the MSM, T.O. and Raw Story have brought more correct reporting to the table than any where else.

[WiseButAngrySara]

20. Oh, this is sad! I thought that it was just a story on which he jumped to

the wrong conclusions and later turned out to be untrue. Plagiarism is no small error. To me, it is morally reprehensible.

[demobabe]

24. What was worse than the plagiarism

Is that according to Salon, Jason Leopold turned around and said the Financial Times stole his words and then THAT couldn't be proved:

Salon senior editor Kerry Lauerman, Leopold's editor at Salon, asked Leopold if he could explain what happened. Leopold told us he felt that the Financial Times' reporters had in fact based their work on his own earlier reporting on Dow Jones Newswires. We asked Leopold to send us evidence, and he e-mailed us a document that appeared to be a Jan. 15, 2002, Dow Jones Energy Service report by him.

But when we contacted Dow Jones to verify the story, they informed us that they had no record of it in their database. Leopold told us that he believed Dow Jones had "deleted 420 of my stories" from its archive. We pressed Dow Jones for a formal statement and this is what they wrote us: "Articles published by Dow Jones Newswires are included in a database available through Factiva. There has been no purging, let alone a wholesale purging, of articles from that database, whether written by Mr. Leopold or any other Dow Jones reporter. In short, no one at Dow Jones can find a copy of the article you have sent to us that is described as having been published on Dow Jones Newswires on January 15; no one at Dow Jones has any recollection of ever working on or reading that article before it was sent to us by Salon."

[WiseButAngrySara]

25. Did you read post #18? This guy sounds like a mediawhore himself!

Not someone who should be writing for Truthout, as he is apparently not as interested in the truth as in self promotion.

[rodeodance]

56. his behavior does raise red flags as I read his material

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

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

[demobabe]

125. I gave the link and said there was a response from Leopold there

A person's professional history as it applies to their job isn't character assassination! This is why people have resumes.

Oh, and welcome to the DU. :)

[Beausoir]

19. I agree. What a crock.

That whole thing was a fiasco and I am so freaking SICK of people promoting themselves as somehow having "insider" knowledge about this case.

I fell for it. I really did. I'm more pissed at myself than anything. I should have known better than to believe the self-promoters. And this is not the first time that this kind of thing has gone down.

I won't believe the DU gossips again. Facts, facts and MORE facts.

[symbolman]

21. Don't get me wrong

I Like Truthout, and believe they are a valuable resource, always have been, and I've liked Will for a long time, interviewed him, bought him tequila at the DU Party during the Dem convention in Boston, met with him in Conyer's office when I filmed the entire Downing Street Minutes hearing at the capitol in HiDef, we gabbed about Hunter Thomson's Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, and how it seemed very similar to today.

Gonzo was also a stickler for facts, and he DID get inside, get drunk, get thrown out, but always got the story straight.

My problem is that I've got Two different takes on this and I want to know which one to believe, and that's not counting the Media in general - if I can't trust the corp media, cos they're all "LIARS", etc.. but I get stories and conflict then I'd like someone to verify at least one of them, show some proof.

The left cannot complain about the corp media if they get their facts wrong. WE have to be squeaky clean. Call me the "jello sheriff" (your brother making sure you don't get more than him, as per Bill Cosby), but I am Takebackthemedia.com and believe that if WE want to take it back then we can only do so if WE demand that the truth be told.

And only the truth, leave the posturing and grandstanding to Drudge (which I'm not accusing Truthout of, I just want an explanation or to be shown some proof)..

[NastyRiffraff]

26. There may BE a Target Letter...

For all we know. If you believe Luskin (hah!) Turdblossom ain't a "target." but remember, we heard that meme over and over about Libby, too.

That said, a prosecuter has NO obligation to inform a lawyer and his client that the client is a target. Often, a letter is sent, as a courtesy, but just as often it isn't, until just before indictment. (As happened with Libby). And I wouldn't blame Fitz for not offering Luskin that courtesy, with his penchant for flapping his mouth to the media.

I suspect there is no target letter...yet. We'll prolly know about it within hours after Rove does.

[demobabe]

28. You're absolutely right

But Jason Leopold and Truthout published an article that said point blank that Rove had received a target letter and that his testimony on the 26th was in response to that. Will Pitt vouched up and down and has put his reputation on the line, saying that Truthout editors are stickers for details and have checked all the details.

All other media is denying a target letter was sent. We want to know who is lying: Leopold, or hundreds of other news sources?

[npincus]

27. Libby got his (target letter) the morning of his indictment...

[symbolman]

37. Could you help me out with a link to that

Because everyone I know has said that there was No Target Letter for Libby or they just don't know.. I was in the Hospital then and didn't get a chance to find out.

I know that Firedoglake would be really interested as well, they have actual Prosecutors there working on this scenario.

Thanks

[npincus]

57. David Schuster said this on KO- it was

Thursday night. He said it as kind of an aside, bu my ears perked up because it was informatin I hadn't heard or read anywhere before. I posted a thread about it which sank like a stone, plus this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1046701&mesg_id=1048050

DUer 'stop the bleeding' saw the same Schuster report. Perhaps he/she knows more. Sorry, i don't have a link to an article.

Interesting nugget, huh? Libby got it hours before the indictment was handed up! I thought those things went out well in advance.

[stop the bleeding]

58. Yes Schuster did say this on Thursday night

I did some searching last night on the internets and could not come up with anything in writing.

Sorry people, but Schuster did say this. Also we must remember that Fitz and the GJ were racing the clock on that Friday in October, so Rove's letter may get to him with a little more time.

I am just guessing here.

[npincus]

60. good thought

the clock was ticking on that GJ expiration date.

[symbolman]

78. Thanks for the link about Libby

and the GJ reminder.. when does THIS ONE run out anyway? Anyone know?

[stop the bleeding]

79. No I don't

as far as I can remember Fitz picked this one from a pool of GJ's that were already in session back in the Holiday season time frame. I think that they typically serve a period of 18 months or at least Fitz's last GJ did.

I'm glad that it is a DC GJ

[symbolman]

92. Hopefully it's got some regular people on it

some blacks and women and other persons of color instead of the pasty white fatass john lennon wearing bald Cheney guys..

I'd like to see Rove face to face with a poor and/or black woman with relatives in New Orleans.

I bet if you dropped Rove out of a plane over San Francisco tho that they'd tear him to pieces small enough to sell on Ebay :)

(Just kidding Mr Gonzales, no threats all satire)

[gkhouston]

121. they kept Rove for 3.5 hours of questioning

I'm guessing they weren't serving him tea and cucumber sandwiches. Maybe Rove thought switching grand juries would work to his advantage, but that doesn't appear to be the case. You'd almost think the everyday Americans know when they're being snowed and care about their country or something "quaint" like that. :bounce:

[symbolman]

134. Firedoglake brought up a good point

I love their work, prosecutors there, real legal eagles..

One of them said that Fitz deliberately brought in Rove for them to Meet. They can read transcripts all day long, but until they see that razor smile and the look in his eyes that says, "YOU ARE GOING TO DIE" they don't really FEEL how slippery he is..

So that's a good move too..

[gkhouston]

165. not only did the jury get to see how slippery (I'd say slimy) Rove is

Luskin got the opportunity to gauge the jury's reactions to Rove. Apparently, Luskin wasn't encouraged by what he sensed. :rofl:

[Garbo 2004]

166. Witnesses' attorneys aren't allowed in the fed grand jury room. They have

to wait outside. The witness can, with permission, leave the room to consult his attorney, but the attorney cannot be present in the grand jury room. Luskin no doubt did debrief Rove after his testimony but he wouldn't have been in the room to see for himself how the jury questioned or responded to Rove.

[gkhouston]

167. you're right, I'd forgotten that about grand juries

Still, I expect Rove himself probably sensed the BS wasn't going down too well.

[stop the bleeding]

149. that is exactly what I mean by a DC GJ n/t

[symbolman]

132. You might want to look downthread

where la la refutes this.. interesting, because I thought they were quoting Schuster as well before, maybe not..

[kpete]

29. I for one hope Leopold is right

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1053672&mesg_id=1053672

[symbolman]

34. I appreciate your posts

and I want this manpig to be screwed to the wall as much as any one else, I didn't spend a year researching this for nothing..

But once again, we were told there IS a Target Letter, is that TRUE or not?

I've got news for everyone, People have been saying that Rove will be Indicted for a LOOONG time.

No one has said other than Leopold that there exists a Target letter.. where is it?

Or is that fact going to be conveniently "forgotten and forgiven" should Rove be Indicted?

I don't understand why People do NOT believe that TRUTH is the basis for News and should be demanded from every Journalist or there's nothing but Entertainment Tonight Anarchy.

If there is no "Belief system" there is no such thing as RATIONAL thought, History doesn't really exist, if it's rewritten, that's straight from Orwell's mouth and it applies to everyone, we don't need a Liberal "Ministry of Truth".

It's a BAD thing.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

30. Paging Deborah Howell and Jason Blair to the courtesy phone?

This all sounds so familiar {cue wavy lines and flanged music}:

I find that the latest brouhaha about Raw Story parallels what happened in January when The Washington Post published a crock of an editorial by Susan Schmidt. This editorial falsely claimed that Democrats had also received baksheesh from one Jack Abramoff. Then Deborah Howell -- who, in her role as Ombudsman of The Washington Post is supposed to represent the readers -- posted online to support these false claims. Now we see Raw Story publishing a similar crock with attendant uproar and their editorial staff posting similar defenses.

The main differences in these two cases are:
1) DU rallied against the falsehoods of WaPo and yet seem to be somewhat divided about Raw Story because "they are on our side". Is this a case of IOKIYAAL (It's OK If You Are A Liberal)? :puke:
2) The Washington Post once garnered some respect for journalistic integrity but has lost it. Raw Story hasn't got it yet.

Apropos of Truthout.org, I held them in higher esteem than Raw Story based on their past quality of work. I am now waiting to see their response to these claims of plagiarism and falsehood by one of their featured journalists {hence the Blair reference}. Will Pitt was very open about Jason Leopold's "baggage" and vocal in support of Raw Story, but he has been much quieter on this subject so far. I look forward to seeing how Truthout responds to these claims.

/Kudos to symbolman for this thread. I hope I didn't crap on it too much.

[Laurab]

31. This might be Truthout's response - I sure hope so

Jason Leopold: Fitzgerald to Seek Indictment of Rove


don't know if the link will work, but just check the post above yours if it doesn't.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/042806Y.shtml

[demobabe]

32. Where's the Target Letter? There is NO PROOF!!

Just the same rumor and generic crap we already know.

Wonkette said it nicely today:

"He’s “Official A,” fer chrissakes! That’s like an indictment guarantee! But if there’s one thing that could stop the whole train right here, it’s the excitement with which liberal blogs are greeting every rumor. Seriously, guys, you’re just gonna jinx it."

Now Truthout and Leopold, we want your proof about that target letter you say Rove/Luskin received on 4/26/06 or prior.

Where is it?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

110. Where's your proof that it doesn't exist? Cough it up now....

...or stop this silliness until we all know for sure.

[stop the bleeding]

33. No target letter? :(

here something to make you smile

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1053672&mesg_id=1053672

edited for civility

[symbolman]

35. Uh, you still have nothing but conjecture

this is an educated guess and sensationalism, if you are swept up in it and don't care about FACTS, where were you when President Clinton didn't tell the Truth?

Should we have just said, NO Biggie, when he lied?

I HATED the rignt wing witch hunt, they were insane, they created faked "fact patterns" as well - it was disgusting, but the truth was that Bill Clinton DID have sex with "that woman".

Is that to be ignored? So if we ignore that then Sex parties using 21 million bucks of our tax payer money to screw prostitutes in the Watergate is just FINE?

Try Rational, it's a lot healthier.

I'm getting a real PEE WEE Herman vibe here :)

[stop the bleeding]

38. I am always the first to call someone out on something

especially when talking about Clinton and him f*cking up royally, anyone who tries to argue against that needs to have their head examined.

As I have said before I think that the reporting that you did in Rove's War was great, I learned a great deal, but at the same time I don't like the tone that you take with other people on these boards. This all being that we are on the same team fighting the same fight. I understand your zeal for getting correct, verified information, but going around and saying things like I'm getting a real PEE WEE Herman vibe here does nothing to help our cause in fact it borders on childish silliness.

[demobabe]

40. It looked like you were throwing that article in his face

And Symbolman reacted to that...

I guess that isn't how you meant it - Internet communication lacks sometimes. We are all on the same team, and I'm glad you're willing to call people out - good to know we can rely on you to demand excellence in journalism on the left as well as the right. :)

[stop the bleeding]

46. I demand excellence in everything I do, my lady and friends hate

me for it. In fact my last job was working in the compliance department, we basically made sure everyone followed the rules/law. So this kind of thing is right up my avenue.

[Maddy McCall]

52. LOL.

[stop the bleeding]

59. I am glad that you find this amusing Maddy McCall

some how I am not surprised in the least

[symbolman]

41. You want to explain your lil emoticon?

I don't want to get in a Pissing match, I want the truth, with comes Honor, Integrity, and all those goodies.

All that title of your post did was by all indications to me to be a petty post.

A smiley face is usually used to communicate that you are Joking or being "satirical" or whatever.

Thanks for mentioning my film, it's all true and fact checked.. But I will tell you this, I DID go out on a Limb myself with some of that Information and luckily for me it DID turn out to be true.

So there, I suppose I'm guilty of the same thing Leopold does, but *I* don't claim to be a journalist, and frankly the Target Letter wouldn't be all that important, I wish he'd never said it, but since he did he needs his feet held to the fire, just like the Corp Media..

Takebackthemedia.com FORCED CNN to PUT BACK 700 WORDS in the Hans Blix report on their page PREWAR, and THAT is the power of TRUTH and THAT is how we WIN or create our OWN media that is credible.

[stop the bleeding]

44. Here is the deal on the smiley or frown

You, me and everyone else on this board will have to wait and see if and when a target letter appears. I linked the most recent posting to add some hope to your question. Hence is why I said it should bring a smile to your face. I know this is killing you as it is killing me as well, but here some Dumsfeld wisdom to hold us over: until we know we don't know what we really would like to know.



I like you as well want the truth, with comes Honor, Integrity, and all those goodies.

[symbolman]

48. Thanks

But to tell you the truth this is also not New News, I myself and others have been saying that Rove WILL be Indicted for more than a year, maybe two.. anyone who looked into this and did the research knows this will be true.

It's like saying water is wet.

"Rove's Sky is Falling" is really not new news, it's a WISH, and folks here got their hopes and wishes crushed before with Bev Harris, I don't want to see that happen again. The difference is SHE cost them a LOT of money, all this is, is a little Truth, but that is something that is definate, like a woman can't be a little Pregnant, the Truth is the truth, sure there are grayzones to be debated, but in this case it's either, is there a Target Letter or not?

If there is shown to NOT be one later, then what was said is Untrue, making that person non credible, no matter what the outcome of the players, the actual people doing the good work of America Like FITZ, an all American hero.

OR as One person said it,

"FITZ IS THE DECIDER" (which really isn't true as the media is spinning that Fitz will or can Indict, which is not true either, only the Grand Jury can do that..

So when Luskin says, that Fitz will not Indict his client, he ISN'T LYING.

Ignorance is the Tax we inherit without info, that's why we pay plumbers to fix our toilets, as we are ignorant about it's magic workings, and they know it's a 15 cent part, and get to charge us 100 dollars.

[stop the bleeding]

50. Yes -

we all have been waiting for Rover and others to be indicted/go down for quite some time now, I also was a poster on BBV after the 2004 theft-election. Yes it is up to the GJ to decide, what I like is the numbers game of the GJ(total #'s vs #'s needed to indict) and the fact that they are a DC GJ and I think that bodes well for America.


What do you think of Rice coordinating this effort from AF1 during the infamous Africa trip?

I am basing this from the Roger Morris - Counterpunch article "The Source Beyond Rove"

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:RajaUXFaeDcJ:www.counterpunch.org/morris07272005.html+counterpunch+rice+INR+NIE+plame&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

H2O Man pointed me to this a while back.

[symbolman]

136. Amazingly NO ONE is bringing UP RICE?

Jesus, WHO was in CHARGE of all these people? HER!!!!

Yet you hear Nothing.. there they were on the AF 1, all passing this top secret paper around, ARI Fliescher, etc and having a ball..

I WISH they would Indict the ENTIRE WHIG group as it appears to me that THEY were ALL involved in this, but he's not touching Conspiracy, if he ever does, it will be WAY worse than Watergate, and maybe he knows that the results would be a lot different this time.

Instant Shadow Govt, Martial Law, who knows.. Fitz may be saving us from sheer HELL.

[Catherine Vincent]

54. "Bill Clinton DID have sex with "that woman"."

Not according to the definition the attorney's gave him. So, technically, he didn't lie.:)

[Festivito]

62. That was "sexual relations" in D.C. You're right.

He gave the TV interview from D.C. where the definition was narrowed beyond touching and oral sex.

If their smart lawyers could not get a man who spoke the truth under oath in a court of law to speak the answer they wanted, then they were not entitled to that answer they wanted.

[demobabe]

36. Okay, please help me here

Here is a quote from the article you linked:

Luskin was informed via a target letter that Fitzgerald is prepared to charge Rove for perjury and lying to investigators during Rove’s appearances before the grand jury in 2004 and in interviews with investigators in 2003 when he was asked how and when he discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA, and whether he shared that information with the media.

Now answer this question: what is the source that Luskin received a target letter?

a) Is it Luskin or his office or client?

b) Is it Fitzgerald or his office?

c) Or is it some other source?

If your answer is c), please name the source.

[stop the bleeding]

39. I never said there was one in my post

I just said that this may bring a smile to symbolman's face, thats all sorry to have mislead you in my layout of the post.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

42. I guess when Fitz is ready to make it public, you'll be among....

...the very first to pubically know.

How's that? Feel better now?

In the meantime, some of us will feel pretty good accepting the reports by Raw Story and Truthout.

[symbolman]

43. Okay, Sure I accept that

fair enough, as long as there IS a Target Letter, otherwise that means that Leopold is back to his old tricks and sensationalism. That he Lied, if he Knows there is NONE, and it has happened before.

But in the meantime, you don't CARE, do you? As is your right, and Bless your lil heart for it.

FREE ICE CREAM! (But it has gravel in it..)

Hey, did everyone hear that? FREE ICE CREAM!

[druidity33]

61. sorry

I just can't understand why you're getting so upset over this. I know you spent time on Rove what with your movie and all... but i think you're being unreasonably critical of Leopold. His source(s) told him there was a "target letter"... he reported it. Rove goes to GJ same day. Rove's lawyer offers denials... no surprise.

A reporter has to, to a great extent, trust his sources... Leopold has been accurate enough for me in the past that if his sources have led him astray, i'm willing to forgive him. As for the "target letter", perhaps it didn't quite fit the dictionary definition of "target letter" and so Rove's lawyer felt he could enjoy plausible deniability. To assume that Leopold LIED and that he KNOWS there is no target letter is pretty harsh.

Either way, the fact that Rove is being shuffled around is good news... we'll know in a week or two what's gonna come of it. So why not just take deep breaths, get a bottle of good wine/beer/champagne and wait for the pig to get put down... which he surely must.

It's a beautiful weekend!

[symbolman]

65. This may sound silly to you

after Nam I worked in a VA Hospital, I took care of 300 Patients, ex vets who had been injured mentally or were just scared shitless for the rest of their lives. Their lives were ruined. Part of my job was to read all their files (which I had to HOPE were TRUE) and observe them for signs of Pain or Suffering that they could not or would not convey to us. All I had to go on was their records since they were in some cases, Incommunicado.. nuts, crazy, whatever we call people who disagree or can't get along with what WE all Perceive and create a "consensus" as REALITY.

They lived on the grounds, locked up, going from building to building in a maze of underground tunnels, which at times looked a lot like a Fellini film, I used to take drawing paper there and draw their faces and the scenes I saw, them shuffling along in bathrobes and paper slippers, bumping into each other and the walls, etc. Little lights down there, one every 100 feet or so, so it was scary, and they were not to be abused, nurses would get raped but were not allowed to HIT or abuse the Veterans in any way. There was no defense.

They were all my friends, and in some ways I considered a lot of them to be nicer people than the average asshole in the street, as John Lennon used to say, "It's hard to hide when you're crippled inside.."

I learned to "see" pain. Like one of those Star Trek freaks who were empaths. I still have problems going into large crowds or cities because I can "see" and "feel" what people are going through. Limps show me X-rays in my mind, like a doctor I can tell if someone is sick, or even needs their toenails cut, we had some patients who's toenails would grow THROUGH their shoes before anyone noticed and helped them.

I had to observe them, and based upon their records and how they moved or related, figure out Who to send them to in the Hospital to get them fixed, what was Wrong with them physically. I got good at it, a regulare Sherlock Holmes. I know body language like no one else, and can figure out where people are coming from pretty quick, like "name that tune" becomes, "Name that Personality"..

So now this is my cross to bear, I helped a lot of veterans, stopped a lot of pain. But one thing I started thinking about was the meaning of Reality, exactly WHAT it IS. Like I said, it's a "consensus" - if you lived under Hitler, you're reality was that you burned Jews and killed them, and goose stepped all over the world dying for the Fatherland. Anything else, any other ideas got you killed.

I realised that Reality is VERY PRECIOUS. One of the reasons I call myself "symbolman" is that I've studied a lot of anthropology and Joseph Campbell, "Looked into the Abyss as the Abyss looked into ME.." Myths, Symbolsystems, how the mind comprehends using a symbolsystem to run, the software of the brain, etc. Learning what makes people tick all these years, was a great brain fucker for years but gave it up, realizing it was dishonest and a form of "theft" from the other person. Unethical

One of the animations I did in 2000 won me an award in Hollywood (you can see it at http://www.symbolman.com ) where I boiled the basic story of "Boy Meets Girl" (the basis of most films, books, etc) into one little animation that entranced a lot of people. It's been used in college courses around the world, found out on the internet, and my work has sat on pages along with really huge artists as an innovator.

Reality is so precious that we do not want to mess with it, by creating false words or deeds, it creates a false reality in people's minds, and makes them less than they could be. The psyops crap we see all day in the media is no accident,they know that if you toss in a flag, apple pie, a puppy, a mom and a baby, they can just about sell you anything. Nationalism is hard wired into all humans, as is a feeling of spirituality,and you can MAKE THEM feel and do things since most people don't understand what's happening to them, sometimes they just go with the flow, hell, everyone ELSE is doing it, must be right. Sometimes they don't even stop to think about what they are saying or doing or how they arrived at that point, or thought, or supposition.

There's more of this mind fucking going on each day, people become corporatized, little buying machines, they've been brainwashed into thinking that if they don't have the right clothes, or shoes or car, or deoderant that no one will LIKE THEM. For Decades the media has been telling people that there is something WRONG with THEM, and the ony way to FIX IT, is to BUY A PRODUCT.

And don't forget the herd instinct, that's pretty strong, also called "peer group pressure", which doesn' disappear after you are through with your teen years, it never goes away. People want respect, to be listened to, appreciated, have someone share a secret with them.. Humans are pretty easy prey really..

So in my mind Reality is tied into ETHICS. If you lie to someone you are literally changing the world, you are messing with someone else's reality, and it's not just wrong, but dangerous. If enough people accept something at face value without any critical thought, then when they all get into a big enough group they are the NORM. Hitler created a NORM that was extremely dangerous and millions died.

But lies and half truths are insidious, sneaky, and can add up. Before you know it, you really don't OWN your own mind. You can become like a lot of people we see now, who just walk around REPEATING something they've heard, and call it Conversation. Like people that watch too much tv and never read books or look very deeply at their own thoughts - I call them "repeater stations" and they are exactly what the media loves, and what people like Rove and Bush and the right USE to create radical shifts in the population.

Look at what's become sort of "okay" in the last 5 years. Killing for no reason, torture, etc. And they know that if they keep it going long enough without answering for it, these lies and actions repeated, then eventually it will be the NORM, and a nation of people who no longer think or feel will say, "GET OVER IT" or "What's YOUR Problem?" When people who think, and feel, and want the best for humanity speak up.

So it IS important for US, the ones that CARE, the ones that want to make humanity BETTER, to help the elderly, the not tax people into the ground who earn their money clawing for it, to welcome differing races and outlooks and thoughts so we all BENEFIT -- it's important that we have ETHICS, and pass them along by telling the TRUTH, and ALL of it.

Nothing makes you more of a better person than to admit if you were wrong, it takes guts and class to say, "Hey, that wasn't right or true" and people DO see that and take it to heart, and then they TRUST YOU. Once more people start to TRUST it becomes contagious, that peer group pressure thing I mentioned.

THEN we actually DO have a better world, it becomes THE REALITY.

I just personally have high standards, I can't tolerate anyone who lies to me, it's why I started Takebackthemedia.com, to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, etc. But like I said, that means that WE on the left have to have higher standards than those scumbags who try to Trick us into being uncaring assholes.

WE HAVE to have ETHICS and standards and not take anything at face value, without examining it, making sure that there are MANY sources that PROVE something is true, and not just repetitions of what we WANT to hear. What we want to hear may not be the Truth, like an engine, in order to Fix it, you have to look at the components and Find the problem. IF you fool yourself into thinking you can change a rear turn signal, when your transmission is broken, then you really aren't going anywhere :)

Okay, enough of the soapbox, but there you go, from the heart, as to WHY I find it neccessary to ask tough questions and demand answers from anyone. I don't want to be led around by the nose like a steer, I want info that I can use that I KNOW is SOLID so I can really think about it and come up with solutions, not delusions :) We can't use logic like, "since someone refused to answer then I must be right.." that's just nutty, and I know, I worked IN a nuthouse, like I said..

Thanks for your time, I'll be here all week, except next week when I do my show at the Poconos, bring a friend, no cover charge :)

[davekriss]

104. Top shelf post!

You Buddhist, you! :)

[symbolman]

141. Thanks

I've thought about writing a book about those times, where Reagan "set them free"! Like throwing a canary out the door in 50 degree below weather, or Castro emptying out his nuthouses and jails and floating them over to Miami..

Awful days for the Veterans, but then again, when has it been GOOD for them? As a Vet I've had to wait a YEAR with no pain meds in the south to get a VA appointment, my neck/back are wrecked (too many barfights after Nam days, armwrestling the biggest guy in any bar I walked into and tearing cartilage out of my spine rather than losing.. I guess *I* was just as crazy) and I still suffer from it, been fighting for Vets for long time..

We were one of 14 finalists in the MoveOn contest, Bush in 30 Seconds with my ARMY OF ONE ad, attacking Bush for his treatment of the troops.. I got to show it on Scarborough's show the next night, so it went National before the winner did :)

I'll keep fighting for them too, not just since I am one myself, but for my 19 year old son and any potential DRAFT, which is how they got ME..

Appreciate your comment

[demobabe]

45. So it's okay with you to lie

It's okay for Leopold to lie, but not Rove?

Then Fitzgerald should drop this whole silly indictment thing and let Rove get back to his lies.

Granted Rove's lies affect national security, but still, you cannot have it both ways.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

107. We don't know that anyone has lied, do we? What's your problem?

[demobabe]

108. Somebody got something wrong

Either Luskin is lying or Leopold got his story wrong.

Or several hundred news sources are wrong.

This is the issue.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

111. Do you personally trust Luskin and/or the "several hundred news sources"?

[demobabe]

117. Raw Story was one of the several hundred news sources you say lied.

I thought you trusted them.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

135. Excuse me? I thought RS and Truthout were basically the only....

...media sources reporting that a target letter had been issued. Did I miss something, or are you just trying to be deliberately obtuse?

[demobabe]

137. No, Raw Story ran the New York Times article denying the letter.

[demobabe]

116. Raw Story published the account there was no target letter, btw

[lala_rawraw]

123. We linked to the attorney's statment... really what is this need to

Distort? We provided a link to the article and the attorney's statement, because that is how news works... now you can base your opinions entirely on Luskin's denial, which I frankly find amusing, but you cannot suppress his comment when the story is about his client. We simply linked to both, not PUBLISHED accounts. First you cannot tell the difference between a column and an article, and now you cannot tell the difference between links and actual reports. I think you and symb are on a war path to destroy Raw Story and TruthOut.

I ask everyone reading this to search out Symb's and Demobabe's comments here at DU and see if you find a pattern. It is really pathetic and frankly ugly the way you are attacking the few journalists we have left who are already under attack and under threat of imprisonment and who are doing their best despite the odds. Why are you doing this? Really, why do you want both publications destroyed... envy? What is the reason for this non-stop garbage?

Your motives are suspect, period. Anyone who buys into your feeding frenzy cannot calm any honest reason as you present nothing but lies to justify your smears and attacks. If you want to know about the target letter and since you are the expert on this case and on journalism, why don't you go out and find sources and write an article of your own. But smearing actual people, using their names, and putting themselves on the line from the comfort of your own living room and under an anonymous screen name is hardly a vantage point and hardly gives you the right to assume you know. Simply put, posting comments in a forum does not make you a journalist, or an expert. There are plenty of people here who are incredibly talented, like H20 and Robertpaulsen, and so forth and they have a vantage point, IMHO, from which to openly criticize.

Now I post at DU because I want to have a relationship with readers so I can better represent their interests. Would you really have me leave DU so that you and Symb could fill your egos to the brim over having me here, on your side? Just tell me straight out, without lies, and support with evidence, what your issue with my reporting is. I want examples of my work where I am inaccurate and I want the counterpoint to be credible, not gossip you heard somewhere. If you are going to assume the position of expert on journalism and ethics, if you are going to drag through the mud people who use their own name (not a screen name) and put themselves on the line, so that you (yes, you) can be better informed, then you better back it up and I might suggest you use your real name to do it with. If you have something to say and you feel this strongly, put your name to it and put yourself out there.

Otherwise, in shorthand (and in general how Jason -he read this - and I, and every other writer I sent this to as an example of a ego driven war against the free press, feel about this is) back it up or shut the fuck up. Can you gather enough mental resources to grasp this and if so, we await your very well written argument exposing the falsehoods in our work (yes, all the reporters at Raw Story, Jason, me, and some MSM folks that are on the left's side who agree that we are under attack and to whom I also sent this little example) citing sources, and examples. I read your long account of how "Raw Story manipulates" and lies. That is so easy to say when you don't actually have to prove it. So, provide detailed examples of my erred and manipulative reporting or shut the fuck up.

The rest of you: Search DU for her threads and Symb's threads and see if you find a pattern. Anyone who defends this kind of attack on the free press deserves the press they get, which is the MSM that they now have. So when you complain about the media, consider what journalists who stick to their guns are up against and ask yourself what you are willing to do to ensure a free press?

[Roland99]

129. There are many people here at DU that would certainly miss your posts

We've already lost canofun.com links because people up here expect to have full streaming audio/video within 2 min. of an event happening and they want it free and coming down thru a fat pipe. Is it any wonder the right-wing is full of talking points about the left about wanting something for nothing and then actions like this keep cropping up?

And this assault on RawStory is just mind-boggling.

I've seen AP reporting incorrect headlines and content in articles to correct them later. I've written the NY Times, myself, upon finding problems from as basic as grammatical structure and spelling.

Pobody's nerfect.

But, I guess in the case of RawStory and TruthOut, perfection is not only requested but outright demanded or they'll have their bond.

[symbolman]

144. How exactly is this an "ASSAULT" on Raw Story?

Excuse me, but I just want to clear something up, I am seeing words bandied about like prize bass here, like "assault", "attack", "we're onto their little tricks" and others.

This is called "framing" in a debate, and we've seen it before, it's very useful for making it appear that someone ELSE is out of control, and is also used in conjunction with straw men, red herrings, etc.. Look those terms up if you don't know about them, you'll realise what kind of wordsmithing is going on around you and how you are being Led to a conclusion that has nothing to do with the originating poster.

Feel free to use these terms and "defend" raw story, but as I've said, I'm NOT attacking anyone..

I just want answers. Honest answers.

Here's a good one for you. About the framing stuff.

In the NEXT article written by Leopold, the following Friday (the one where he says that Rove will be Indicted, which many have been saying for a long time, but pick your favorite writers and enjoy), Leopold writes in such a fashion that the TARGET LETTER is ALREADY A GIVEN, that its NOW FACT..

Take a look. Now, this makes it all the more troubling, to me, and is why I still want my original question answered, pretty please with sugar on it, not starting a fight, please don't say I am.. WHERE is the Target Letter? And now WHY is it ASSUMED to be a FACT SINCE THEN..

The plot thickens.

Thanks for you input, I now return you to your favorite channel.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

138. Keep posting...I'm one of those who appreciate the work that you....

...and Truthout are doing. Don't let the detractors get you down...I think most of us are on to their little game.

[Jack Rabbit]

139. I, too, would miss your input and information

This controversy over the Barton piece has gotten way out of hand (see my post 128, below). It is something to get upset about, but it is no excuse to attack anybody who writes for Raw Story other than Ms. Barton.

We have important work to do. We have an illegitmate, tyrannical regime to oust from power and we have to minimize that regime's ability to damage the nation and the entire world any more than it has until then. Let's work together on that.

[symbolman]

148. Please maintain civility, I thought we had agreed on that, I did.

"I think you and symb are on a war path to destroy Raw Story and TruthOut."

Excuse me, but this appears to be an actual attack a two du members, without mentioning anyone else who is doing the same thing, expressing an opinion and asking a simple question. One Quesion.

It's also absurd. So you're saying that a Vietnam Era Veteran with arthritis of the spine sitting at a keyboard in the middle of the Pacific is going to DESTROY TWO LARGE WEBSITES with a single question? Me. I'm going to actually be able to do that. How exactly would that be possible?

"I ask everyone reading this to search out Symb's and Demobabe's comments here at DU and see if you find a pattern. It is really pathetic and frankly ugly the way you are attacking the few journalists we have left who are already under attack and under threat of imprisonment and who are doing their best despite the odds. Why are you doing this? Really, why do you want both publications destroyed... envy? What is the reason for this non-stop garbage?"

Nonstop garbage? You have asked me to be civil and I have complied. I'm not REQUIRED as far as I know, being a veteran and all fighting for free speech with my BODY, to LOVE Raw Story, and I've always backed Truthout and Will Pitt, FOR YEARS - almost since the DU was started. Been here a long time.

I am trying to Help the left, we need to be more scrupulous than the right to be believed and trusted, we don't need inaccurate material being spread to all the blogs, who are doing their best to fight the right.

And if there is any pattern it is that you (and I would stick up for my site too, if someone was questioning it) want to follow me around and engage in what appears to be character assassination, while demanding that I shut up.

Not just shut up, but SHUT THE FUCK UP. Excuse me, but I'm not fighting with anyone, as I said, how about answering why there is no Target Letter mentioned anywhere in the rest of the media?

I don't understand why you are allowed to attack and accuse so many people, mostly me and my wife (which I'm sure you figured out who that is by now), by calling her a "5 year old Typing like a Monkey" -- of course that would upset anyone, should I sit back and let someone talk that way to my wife?

Or relentless attacks on the athiests who disagreed with the "editorial" on your own site, but that's not the the business of this thread.

I feel that you are baiting me or trying to cause so much sensation on this thread that you can get it shut down. I think you've got it pretty well figured out, that coming into each thread that disagrees with you and loosing the wrath of la la on them, that the mods will just think, "Hey, this is out of control, let's shut it down", and that it serves you well.

When you can engage in debate without using abusive language, and please stop saying these kinds of things to my wife, then I will be happy to engage with you, and maybe even take the time to point out some inaccuracies on Raw Story so that the left is better served by a progressive site.

here's the strange part la la. If you just left half of these threads that disagree with RS alone they'd probably drop like a rock.

[lala_rawraw]

151. Listen here and I will be as civil as someone can be after

The type of garbage you have posted about me. Stop using your history as a veteran and your history of illnesses as vindication of something. While I think we all appreciate your service to this country and we are all saddened by your illness, what you have posted over and over about me personally has nothing to do with where you were 30 years ago or how you are feeling now. Because if it did, then let me assure you, that while each person's pain is equally tragic, my background would probably entitle me to a series of free passes for the rest of my life. I know arthritis my dear, I have Lupus and my pain is beyond reason. But that does not in any way excuse me when I am in the wrong as it should not excuse you. I spent my early years living under Soviet rule as a Jew, who while not practicing (such things were not allowed) my documents identified me as such. I will spare you and others what adults who hate will do to children who happen to be part of the group hated. This is but my first 7 years and I will not bore you or anyone else with the rest. But I find it offensive frankly, that you would use your personal tragedies (and I am sorry for them) to somehow make legitimate the things you have said about me for a good long while now. So, if you want me to be civil, then you have to approach me from a position of sincerity, not a position of victim. Because we are all victims of something, but that is not something that can or should define or even somehow excuse our behavior.

As for leaving it alone, if you look at the thread, it was started by you and presented as an either/or, which is aimed at making people choose sides between two valuable outlets. If you go back to your comments, for example, in the last 48 hours, and the whole big thread started by your wife, you cannot call that civility or even decency, can you. I have repeatedly asked you to leave me alone and you two continued this crusade. When I respond, you suddenly play victim. This is very manipulative frankly and really dishonest. I am, as I have said, more than happy to forever ignore you and your family and friends. But when you smear me and publications that I know are doing honest work and doing it the best they can, I do not take it lightly. Not because I see you as a threat, I don't. But because there are too few of us out there doing this work and we cannot allow your words to become the talking points for those who have the resources to extinguish us. I don't always agree with Jason, but I will always defend Jason when attacks are based on doing nothing more than destroying his credibility. You can disagree with him, but until you can provide an adequate representation of where it is that he was inaccurate in this article, to simply demand his sources is unacceptable.

Now, if you really want civility, then I suggest you and your wife, and the other two screen names (I don't know if they are you or others, frankly) leave those of us out on the front lines alone. There is more than enough to be angry about. Use that energy to some value as opposed to using it against people doing something of value.

So let's agree to disagree and go our separate ways. I am more than happy to do that. Are you?

[demobabe]

158. So let's get this straight

You want Symbolman to leave you alone, yet you seek him out and spend half your day posting on HIS thread.

And he wasn't saying a single thing about you until you came on this thread and insisted on making yourself the subject.

And you're not threatened by him but you're afraid he's going to destroy Truthout and Raw Story.

Even though he (and I) have publicly come out in support of Truthout.

You acuse Symbolman of playing the victim - which is untrue - and yet you talk all about how you were abused as a little girl by adults who hated Soviet Jews.

There is no way to respond to your emotional non-sensical character-assassination spew.

All either one of us asked for is for Jason Leopold to produce his facts about the target letter only he is claiming Rove/Luskin received. That is all. We didn't attack you or question Raw Story's role in this. We only asked for Leopold's facts - which look like they don't exist. If this story was credible, no doubt every other media source would pick up on it, but that hasn't happened.

[demobabe]

154. This thread isn't about Raw Story

Never have I criticized you, lala, personally. Conversely, you've made repeated cheap name-calling shots at me when I ask relevant or critical questions. You are the one leveling attacks - vicious attacks.

I've been critical of Raw Story (as have many others) about their farming of the DU for ad revenue and suggested they open their books and show us exactly how much they're making off of DU. Of course, those requests were completely ignored and the thread left to drop. You'll never let the folks here know that truth, will you?

How 'bout you show me where I specifically criticized something you published in Raw Story? How about showing where I called you any kind of name like you've called me?

Otherwise, how 'bout you or Leopold give us hard facts behind his belief in this target letter that he's now quoted exists in TWO stories while the rest of the media has no such report? Or maybe in your words as you say "shut the fuck up?"

[ruggerson]

47. Anyone who believes anything written on the internet

on some amateur site that is being passed off as "news", has to have their head examined. I don't read any of the leftwing (or rightwing) "news" sites for real information, I get my news from the good old fashioned "elite" NY Times and similar sources. I'm sure I'm wildly elitist and hopelessly pedestrian, but I'd rather know that what I'm reading has been vetted by professional editors who actually went to good journalism schools and adhere to a set of journalistic ethics and have the resources and background to stand behind the authenticity of what they print.

Leftwing (and rightwing) startup "news" internet sites are, imho, no more credible than gossip. There also seems to be a tendency amongst those who toil there to engage in childish, intramural infighting, subjecting everyone here at DU to constant, irrelevant turf wars and endless "publication" and republication of their written words and screeds in an almost embarrassing self promoting fashion.

I'd rather spend all the energy they seem to spend fighting each other or proving what wonderful screeds they can write, on actually fighting the real enemy: the Republicans. If we used our resources to focus on getting the assholes out of power instead of fighting each other in useless turf wars over issues no one really cares about, we might get a bit more accomplished.

Them's my thoughts. Flame away. I'll be reading tomorrow's Washington Post.

[symbolman]

49. Hallaluya

I've been SAVED :)

THIS is what I'm talking about tho It may sound like I'm on a high horse, It's not my intention - just want factual vetted solid material so I can USE MY MIND and not worry about if I could be wrong.

You can't build a building without a solid foundation, as, Saint Peter said, Not to build the Church on a bed of sand.

Thanks

[Maddy McCall]

53. ...

:thumbsup:

[sandnsea]

55. Use it all

There is literally no major media source that completely and fairly covers everything. Exhibit A, Iraq War. I use everything, and prefer to go to the direct source with no media filter at all. I don't need any reporter to tell me what somebody said when in the internet age, you can usually find the original press release or interview. Sometimes those are found in links from "startup news sites" and blogs. So it all has its place, as long as the reader knows what the place is.

All the major media does is add viewpoints I might not have thought of, more jumping off points to search down all the facts for myself.

[davekriss]

105. NYT? Ahem...

...try Chomsky/Herbert's Manufacturing Consent or Chomsky's Necessary Illusions, then tell me you continue to get your news solely from "NY Times and similar sources". These works were written before the near-monopolistic concentration of all major media; things are much worse now.

[lala_rawraw]

63. Are you simply attempting to start a fight or are you unable to read?

Go back and read both, this is not an either/or argument. One is an original report, the other is a statement issued. But then again, it is not like you want to really know, you just want an excuse to start a fight and have people choose sides. The reality is, that only the original reporting must stand up to scrutiny. What a lawyer says only requires that he gets paid. So again, not an either/or argument. Nice to see you trying to get more mileage out of creating rifts and such. Truthout and Raw Story get along and apparently both have the same taste in the talent we hire;)

[symbolman]

66. No I can read fine, thanks. So don't worry your pretty lil head..

It seems that Raw Story and Truthout both had the same story on April 26th, that a TARGET LETTER had been sent to Rove/Luskin - later Raw Story changed or "updated" to a NYTIMES conjecture, and said that there was NO TARGET LETTER, as well as something about it perhaps being WEEKS for Rove to be Indicted.

If you look upthread you'll find that Libby was given a Target Letter and was Indicted within HOURS, which as I understand from many Prosecutors is standard, if they give one at all, as they are not required to. But just because they are not required to, doesn't get Jason off the hook since he said that one HAD been given to Rove/Luskin.

So when I read that and then see that Truthout says there's a Target Letter, well, gosh, I start to wonder which one is wrong?

It's really very simple, there's either one or there isn't - which is it? Semantic dervishing aside, just tell me the truth please.

And I'd really appreciate it if you would not be nasty to me, or my wife for that matter, calling her a Monkey who could Type was upsetting to me personally - it would be a good start, are you willing to be civil with me, and show yourself for the classy lady everyone knows and loves here?

I hope you can see that I'm being very civil here, just want this cleared up, so do some others.

[druidity33]

91. what?

You claim Libby got a target letter and was indicted hours after? Where's your source on that? Is it from the passing mention by Shuster on KO? Because if so, you're being no better than Leopold here. As for the NYT... fffffttt!!! to them! The number of articles i've seen in that rag about Venezuela, Big Oil, "business", policy, etc that have been flat-out one-sided and anonymously (or slyly obscured) sourced is appaling! I have more faith in the investigative reporting of Rolling Stone, the Valley Advocate and Mother Jones... not to mention Amy Goodman and other individuals (love to you, LaLa).

I respect and honor your service to our veterans, and believe you when you say you can feel pain from across the room. As one who has known an empath, i submit that it is a difficult burden to bear. I wish you well in these regards...

But i still don't think you answered the basic question about why pick on this particular detail? Are you saying that Leopold is intentionally trying to decieve us? If so, i think it's more important for you to offer proof of that than it is for him to offer proof of his claim.

I think there are a number of plausible theories as to how/why Rove's lawyer can claim that "there was no target letter" and not "technically" be lying. And given that we'll hopefully only have to wait a week or two to find out what the deal is... i just don't understand why i should be critical/distrustful of Leopold yet. Starting a post on this after it's already been delved into, when there are so many other things going on, seems divisive.

Why can't we all just get along?

[demobabe]

95. Leopold has built a career on it

He wrote an entire book about the kind of deception he's used in journalism, and had an article pulled from Salon because he couldn't prove his facts. Sources didn't line up. Phone records showing sources contacted after the article ran.

If this was the first time Leopold did this, sure, I'd toss it off as a mistake. This isn't. His headline and main focus of the story was that a target letter had been sent to Luskin.

Not that it might have, of that one existed but Luskin didn't get it...

No, it was a headline that said Rove was returning to the Grand Jury because he received this target letter.

Leopold has lied in his articles before, and there is nothing to show that he didn't fabricate the whole target letter thing.

Plain and simple, if Leopold is correct about this letter, then the entire rest of the media has printed incorrect articles and should be called to task.

It's amazing how much vitriol and excuses are being made when it is really simple:

Does the target letter actually exist like Leopold says it does, or is he trying to pull a fast one like he's been known to do in the past, and could very likely do again in the future?

[druidity33]

99. but, but...

even if there is a "target letter", it's not like he would be able to produce a copy of it. Do you think Luskin is capable of obfuscation, or lying to the press? Leopold is relating what his sources tell him. Period. When anyone else reports something citing "anonymous sources" it's code to me to take it with a grain of salt, because i don't know where it is coming from... it should be that way from everyone from the NYT to the local newspaper. Any one who reads news should understand this. (ie. "former hill staffer")

As for Leopold's "character"... as far as i can tell it is only the one "incident" and the many takes that have been written about that piece. How long ago was that? Have you read his book? I have not, and as so am unwilling to comment on it.

Did you sense vitriol in one of my posts? If so it was unintended or mispercieved. IMHO, you are making too much of this by demanding proof when you KNOW he will be unable to offer it. Sometimes things only become clear over time.

Would you be willing to apologize to Leopold if there is a "target letter" and it gets released somehow?

[demobabe]

103. but, but, but...

I'm sorry about the vitriol thing - I didn't mean to direct it at you. I've just been attacked with all kinds of crazy comments (one poster just outright called me a five year-old that types like a monkey), so the comment was a generalization. I have no problem at all with reasoned discussion, devil's advocates, etc.

There was the Salon thing, and Dow Jones Energy Service pulled him from the Enron beat for an inaccurate story. He was also fired from the LA Times, but that was for something different and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

I am absolutely willing to apologize very publicly to Leopold if there is a target letter that was received by Luskin/Rove on or before April 26, 2006. In fact, I've made this offer in other threads if what he published in that 4/26/06 article is correct.

I'd love nothing more than to be wrong here - it does look like the guy has been through a lot and I like to see happy endings, but at this point it just looks like more of the same.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

109. Then you won't mind waiting until we all know, will you?...

...To me, this looks like more of the same attacks, personal and otherwise, on RS and Truthout. Based on some of the posts in this thread an outsider might think RS and Truthout are freeper media outlets. IMHO, that's just wrong. Period.

But, by all means, keep grinding away. IMHO, the only people you and Symbolman are benefitting are the rightwingers.

[davekriss]

106. Yea for the mention of AMY GOODMAN

Everyone posting here should watch DemocracyNow! daily! Available for download at the website, www.democracynow.org, as a podcast, on your local TV or your radio (in a few markets).

That anyone here would accept "news" from sources like the NYT without digesting alternate media like DemocracyNow! means to me that "anyone" doesn't get it, hasn't been listening, and explains a lot why we as a nation are where we are at.

[lala_rawraw]

112. Libby was called two hours prior to his indictment.

You remind me of Karl Rove who spends six years bashing people and then when someone turns the tables on him, he says "let's all be nice to one anoher"

No one changed a story... the site is updated constantly. You know what might help you? Waiting for next Friday. Can you wait? If Jason is right, then you will have your answer. If Jason's sources made an error, then you will have your answers. What is this with attack the journo first then wait to see if they were right? I don't need you to be civil, what I want is for you to stop attacking writers.

[liberalnurse]

71. Does symbolman have a dog in this race that we don't know about?

One appears to protest too much. :shrug:

[demobabe]

72. Yeah, he kind of does

He and I both worked on an election fraud film that includes Will Pitt, and we both greatly respect Truthout.

We would like to see that Will Pitt's and Truthout's integrity is maintained.

[Laurab]

74. Oh, I see

so he starts a flame-bait thread about the lack of integrity, to make sure the integrity is maintained......makes perfect sense.

[liberalnurse]

80. Will can handle himself quite well by himself.

I don't sense he would endorse the tone of this thread. I'm additionally concerned that DU stop eating their young. Remember, we just lost liveoakstx this month.

[symbolman]

82. Will has said lately if people don't read or listen

to opposing views they are something like a "usless meatbag".. pretty much sure that was on the "Sticking up for Raw Story" thread..

So he doesn't have to agree with me either, his right.. like I wrote to him, since I was drafted and Did my time in the military during Nam that I have EARNED my right of free speech, and am not trying to cause any trouble or fight with anyone, just want verification since this is so important.

How exactly did we lose liveoakstx this month?

And I personally am asking for the truth, how does that turn into "eating their young"?

[stop the bleeding]

83. You said it

I know people would like to get to the bottom of things and I don't blame anyone for trying. I just wish there was a less divisive way to do it.


what happened to liveoakstx?

[symbolman]

87. How is it devisive?

It's a simple question, and people are supplying their opinion. Are you implying that anyone who disagrees with either website is automatically Divisive?

I thought we were all here to make our opinions known, as long as we are civil, and discuss differences in the same fashion.

I'm not being devisive, I just want an answer, if someone can answer it please do..

[stop the bleeding]

126. It is a site

where opinions are freely expressed, yes. My point is how does this better anyone's mood or situation by going around doubting the guy and his sources. There are a lot of people on these threads who happen to enjoy Leopold and his work, myself included.

The question you ask is one thing, but it is entirely different when you keep revisiting the well for your war on RS, TO, and JL. If you can not see that your tone and method/context of threads as antagonistic/not helpful then I am sorry, because it is there and several other DU'ers notice it as well.

As stated before I enjoyed your work on Rove's War but to keep beating this horse/war on RS, TO, JL is doing us no good in the long run. No one made you guys the Journo Police and even if you were I am sure there is a better approach to it, but I will leave that you guys.

You guys do always get me thinking and appreciate the discourse.;)

[Scout1071]

85. What do you mean we "lost" liveoakstx?

I was on the road without a laptop for about 2 weeks. What did I miss? He is such a respected DU'er.

[salin]

93. I missed it, too...

from what I gather liveoakstx site got a new format - and some were unhappy about it - a long and rather heated thread ensued which led to liveoakstx to sign off of DU. :-(

[liberalnurse]

94. Similar type of criticism which was actually

irrelevant. She was flamed for how slow her clips would load and how it was difficult to use the clips with foxfire. The verbal assaults were most insensitive.

Liveoakstx preformed a community service for DU. She was Not a Service Provider for a Fee for chripe sakes! She packed up her keyboard and blew this pop-stand.

[demobabe]

97. Apples and Oranges

What I see of LiveOakTX is a person who is offering up a free non-professional resource. Doesn't look like her main income came from that web resource.

Jason Leopold is a journalist by profession, and we're supposed to take him seriously as a journalist and put faith in his articles. Being accurate with facts is the basis for all journalism. If he makes mistakes, he will be known as not being reputable.

If you took your car to a mechanic to be fixed, and the mechanic returned your car without tires, would you just say, "it's okay, it still has rims and I'll drive on those instead?"

[Scout1071]

102. She provided a great service.

Too bad people had to ruin it.

[lala_rawraw]

113. So why not wait then instead of smearing Jason

First? If that is really your goal, to protect TO, you guys are going about it badly.

[demobabe]

115. Okay, help me out here

What exactly am I waiting for? To see if Rove gets indicted?

Supposing he gets indicted in the next two weeks, what does that prove?

Jason said Luskin/Rove received a target letter on or before 4/26/06.

All the other media give reports that he didn't.

Apparently the GJ is still weighing evidence on whether to indict, which would suggest there is no target letter and that Leopold's article was complete sensationalism.

Jason's whole article was based on the idea that Rove was testifying to the GJ because he received a target letter. This was reported as if it were fact, with no proof.

It's simple. Either he received a target letter or didn't. I'm not asking about whether he will receive one in the next two weeks or however long it takes for him to be indicted.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

145. I'm sorry, but you need to exercise some patience on this issue....

...because none of us will know for sure until it becomes public knowledge. Why is that so difficult to understand?

[symbolman]

159. C'mon la la

How can I smear Jason when what he's done is the MEAT of his BOOK NEWS JUNKIE? IF Raw Story and Truthout and others have revealed his checkered past, then it's already there.

The difference is that I have the right to say that something doesn't pass the smell test and want more info.

[Laurab]

73. Good question - must be something like that

it would seem to me there are FAR more important things to spend time on than attacking those on the same side, and writing detailed post after post about it. Not to mention the self-promotion in the posts. This is a big waste of DU space, and time.

[demobabe]

75. Right...

THAT old argument.

We shouldn't hold people on our side accountable because they're on OUR SIDE.

But we should hold everyone else to a higher standard.

We can't be hypocrites. There are set rules in journalism, and people we like don't get to break those rules and maintain credibility just because we like them.

[liberalnurse]

81. Please try to think outside the box here.

Again, red flags have gone up regarding the intensity of the protest. Next, you'll want to burn him as a Witch.:banghead:

[symbolman]

84. What are you talking about?

I don't understand what you mean, sounds a little drastic to me, no one wants to burn anyone as a witch? And if you're referring to Will, wouldn't that be a Warlock? :)

That's a joke in case you don't see I am kidding..

Who is intensifying any protest? If anything all the people coming on the thread and screaming that there's s fight are just bumping it up, why not just hit the ignore button?

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

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

[liberalnurse]

147. I like your style.

I have the same intuitive feeling. This is a pure and simple flame bait .....I am curious as to where "the gain" is by doing such a disruptive, vindictive and worthless post. I think you nailed it....There is plenty of passive-aggressive behavior displayed. O8)

[symbolman]

150. I don't understand why people

insist that other people do not have the right to REFUSE to believe something and question it.

After seeing Leopold's checkered past and his admission of it, and some other sites description of his style it is very possible that he is engageing in sheer sensationalism.

WHY is this a reason to attempt to smear and destroy DU members who want answers to WHY the Target Letter is not mentioned by other Media?

I have been here for a long time and have done a lot of hard work for the Left, and for this type of thing to happen, over a simple DISAGREEMENT is just nutty.

If we were the only ones saying it I'd even agree with you all, but we're NOT.

And like I mentioned to La la, if you just left threads like this alone, they may even drop like a rock.

How about some civility around here? But at the same time, let's Please not try to use attacks to try and get Mods to shut down reasonable requests, debate and questions when there ARE serious issues with credibility?

[symbolman]

76. Please explain what you mean

first of all, how is a question about where the Target Letter is "flame-bait"?

Second, how am I attacking anyone? I've been pretty civil and I think fair, and even promoted Jason's book and/or movie deal, with a sense of humor, sorry if you can't see that.

I'm also sorry that you think demanding an answer about the very basis of something posted as a scoop or news item is a waste of DU space, isn't finding out the Truth more important?

Where is the proof that the Target Letter exists? It WAS and IS in the article is it not?

Once again, look upthread at other people interested in this who say that once Libby received his Target Letter that he was Indicted within HOURS, wouldn't that make you wonder why Rove isn't INDICTED yet?

As for self promotion, please tell me exactly who you mean so I can address that?

Thanks

[demobabe]

77. self delete

[librechik]

86. MSNBC reports that Fitz will take 10 days to 3 wks to write indictments

so don't expect the target letter for awhile. It may already be written (and even revealed to Luskin, who would wish to cover up that fact) but not yet delivered. My impression is that while it has not been sent, the letter is a certainty. We're just counting up the charges and getting the ducks in a row before picking up the gun to shoot them in the face.

Remember only Fitz and the GJ know what's happening for sure. Any reports from journalists must by necessity be a little vague, and apparently sources differ.They also may be deliberately misleading to conceal their identities. As a reporter you still have to trust your sources, no matter how long it takes for the truth to come out. In short, Raw Story and Truthout are both right.

[Zorra]

88. Is it possible that Rove was informed that he was to receive a

"target letter", but, upon hearing that he was to be subpoenaed in this manner, made an agreement with the prosecutor, and opted to testify voluntarily at the last possible moment, thereby making the "target letter" unnecessary?

I'm not an expert in Federal Law or Grand Jury investigations, but I just wondered if this was a possibility.

[symbolman]

89. But he said the Target letter

was Received by Luskin. If Luskin is a liar, then how does Leopold know that Luskin ever recieved it?

Here's what kills me. I happen to know from my own research, and it's a well known fact on the web that Fitz DOES NOT LEAK. If anyone in Fitz's office Leaked they could go to Jail.

When Fitz leaves the GJ he STRIDES away, does not say a thing, the only time he's spoken up is when he made the Libby announcement.

So that leaves Fitz's office out as a source. If Luskin is the source and they claim he's a LIAR, then how could you USE HIM as a source and say it's SOLID that HE or Rove received a Target Letter.

It just doesn't add up. Can't have it both ways.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

114. So, in your way of thinking, there is no possibility of someone else....

...being the source of the information of the target letter? Are you asking us to believe that the only players in this story are Fitz and Luskin?

You also stated that "if anyone in Fitz's office Leaked they could go to Jail". Isn't that true of anyone that leaks information about cases at this level? Historically, that hasn't stopped leaking in the past, has it?

Define your statement "it's a well known fact on the web", please.

[demobabe]

90. That is possible, but that wasn't what was reported

Leopold said point blank that Luskin received a target letter for Rove.

The rest of the news media quotes Luskin as saying no target letter was received. Jason Leopold is the only person in the press saying there was a target letter, and he's not providing any proof for the basis of his claim other than he has some unnamed sources.

So I'd just like to know:

Is Luskin lying, or is the basis for Leopold's entire article fake?

[Zorra]

96. I was trying to think about what Rove might do in order to

discredit information about his *possible* upcoming indictment as a political tactic.

Luskin may be lying, but: Why would Rove decline to testify voluntarily if he knew he was going to be subpoenaed? A "target letter" would be far more politically damaging than agreeing to testify voluntarily. This way, they can apply a little public topical anesthesia and have more time to spin before Rove *possibly* is indicted.

So maybe an eager journalist jumped the gun on a "scoop" in order to be the first to break a story.

Like "Dewey Defeats Truman!", or "Gephardt Chosen For VP Slot!".

Just musing on possibilities from an uninformed perspective. It appears to me that when you consider any action by Karl Rove, it is probably wise to think in Machiavellian way.

[demobabe]

98. It really looks like Rove is going to fry no matter what

Firedoglake had an excellent analysis (go read their site - it's great - and I have no affiliation with them) about all the Rove stuff.

They were saying Rove's testimony was a last ditch effort for him to talk the GJ out of indicting him. Rove going in there voluntarily is the very last card he can play, and the fact he was grilled for over 3 hours on one detail doesn't bode well for his case. And if it's still up in the air about indicting Rove, then no target letter would have been issued.

He's Official A - he isn't going to walk out of this unscathed. But go check out Firedoglake - they have a bunch of prosecutors and law types there and are posting all of the scenarios. It's really fascinating.

on edit: I wanted to thank you for your post - it is a good one. :)

[Zorra]

100. Hope you're right. Very few people in this country deserve

to be battered and fried more than Karl Rove.
:toast:

[leftstreet]

101. Firedoglake has been a GREAT source for info on the leak case

imho

Lots of information AND interesting conversation.

[Roland99]

130. When has Luskin (or Rove for that matter) ever told the unvarnished truth?

Rove's hired a freakin' PR firm now, fer chrissakes.

These people are TOTAL SLIME and people up here are giving them benefit of the doubt?

[euroexpat]

118. Revealing sources?

Symbolman - I am surprised that you don't seem to have a grasp of how it works - how it goes down... the laws of journalism.

Like Deepthroat you mean? Why does Jason have to reveal his source to you or DU for that matter.

Do you really think he is going to dump a name to satisfy your doubt?

I wouldn't

Neither would James Risen on the NSA. Do you doubt him too?

[lala_rawraw]

124. thank you:)

[Media_Lies_Daily]

142. Add Sy Hersh to the list of those with sources he will never reveal.

[symbolman]

153. Well how about because his credibility has been called into question

and MANY times? IF even HE admits that then how am I "destroying" his character? Even Raw Story and Truthout say they all know about it, they've accepted it, me, I got butterflies and want to know MORE. Esp since NO OTHER MEDIA is mentioning a Target Letter on or about April 26th. If it's TRUE then I'm glad, but if it isn't I think there is a problem.

If you screw up at many journalism features, you can easily become a paraiah in the industry. No one is saying that he's a Bad guy, or that he doesn't write well, or that he should never write again.

But with his past I think he needs to make sure that he doesn't go too far out on a limb.

Now once again, that is MY opinion (and a some other folks) and it is NOT GOSPEL, I have told people to believe what they want to, their right, many fought and died for that right, I fought for the right of free speech, offering up my own body in the Military during Nam.

I think I've earned the right to an opinion, but have myself with all my own progressive work, also earned a reputation that should not so easily be called into question. Any of the Old timer DU'rs here can tell you how much I've done with my own site for free or the past 5 years.

DOZENS OF Political Flash animations that garnered 100 million hits the first year alone, working with MoveOn, Buzzflash (we did the LibbyDefensefund.com which let's people donate instead to Progressive sites recently), boycotting Limbaugh to great effect, being SUED by Michael Savage for a Half a Million BUCKS.. if that isn't laying your butt on the line for the sake of truth in the media then I don't know what is.

But you don't have to respect that if you don't want, all I ask is civility on the DU over these matters. Defending your site is one thing, saying that there is a "conspiracy" between two DU members to DESTROY TWO HUGE SITES is something else altogether..

[Jack Rabbit]

155. Let's not be ridiculous, sir

EDITED for puncuation

What concern is it of yours if Mr. Leopold becomes a pariah in the journalism industry?

If he "screws up" at many features, that's one way. Another is to start revealing his sources. Who is going to talk to a journalist if he says "so-and-so told that this-is-what-happened"?

Mr. Leopold is not going to reveal his sources to you just because you think he's messed up. If he has messed up badly, over and over again, then he doesn't need your help becoming a pariah.

[symbolman]

156. I respect you

but it does make a difference to me, since he now "represents" the Left or the Progressives, and we have to demand high standards. I'm sure you hear right wingers, hell, my christian sister says it, "Oh, well, that's JUST the Internet, WHO believes that?"

This is the problem, we WANT people to believe. So if he's representing the Progressive side, that includes me, and since I run Takebackthemedia.com and have asked both the right and the left to FIX mistakes, or make retractions for credibility sakes, then it's important to many.

Our site once forced CNN to PUT BACK 500 words they'd left OUT of a Hans Blix report, prewar.. that makes a difference, and it's all about credibility. Out site had the credibility to ask people to Pepper CNN over this, and it happened in one afternoon.

For those that say I'm self promoting, there's nothing I can do about that, we're proud of it and want to see more of that happen, but if won't if we say one thing one day and a different thing the next.

[Jack Rabbit]

160. Thank you for your respect

A possible reason is that Mr. Leopold is, at least for now, standing by his sources. They have told him that a letter was sent to Rove, and he still believes it.

Even if that turns out to be incorrect, I don't think he's going to tell the world who told him. He may admit that it was wrong and state what the facts were.

There is good reason to believe, based on what Mr. Luskin has said, that Rove is in legal jeopardy, regardless of whether a target letter has been sent. If Rove is indicted in the near future, few people will be concerned whether there was a target letter or not.

This will only be an issue if it turns out Rove had a clean bill of health all along, in which case more journalists besides Mr. Leopold will be eating a lot crow.

[Jack Rabbit]

128. A few points

1. Luskin has turned out to be a very poor source of information. Just because he says there is no target letter does not mean there is no target letter. Luskin would do better by Rove (and himself) if he learned how to say "No comment". This guy really talks too much.

2. A target letter is sent by the Justice Department to a grand jury witness advising him of his rights. Here is what a web page from Lawyers.com says:

If the target of a grand jury investigation is subpoenaed, it’s the policy of the Department of Justice to advise the witness of his or her rights, either by attaching an "advice of rights" form to the subpoena or in a letter than accompanies the subpoena. In the case of a witness who’s the target or subject of the investigation, the following advice is provided: "The grand jury is conducting an investigation of possible violations of Federal criminal laws involving: (the general subject matter of inquiry, for example 'conducting an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 1955'). You may refuse to answer any question if a truthful answer to the question would tend to incriminate you. Anything that you do say may be used against you by the grand jury or in a subsequent legal proceeding. If you have retained counsel, the grand jury will permit you a reasonable opportunity to step outside the grand jury room to consult with counsel if you so desire."

Targets are also advised that their conduct is being investigated for possible violation of federal criminal law.

3. If there is an actual target letter, Mr. Leopold isn't likely to see it. It doesn't appear that Jason Leopold has seen it. What can be surmised from his April 26 report is that Leopold was told a target letter concerning Rove had been sent to Luskin, but he does not know when. Leopold doesn't say where he got the information about a target letter being sent and that's probably wise of him not to say.

4. If Mr. Leopold reported the existence of a target letter erroneously, it may not be as big an issue as symbolman is making it out to be in the opening post. What we can say for certain is that two weeks ago Rove was a "subject" whom Luskin said was not going to be indicted and last week Luskin was making no predictions as to whether or not charges would be brought against his client. We can surmise that something about Rove's status changed in the intervening time, that it isn't good news for Rove and in whatever form it comes, Luskin is aware of it.

5. A piece appearing in Raw Story says that a spokesman for Rove denies that Rove has received a target letter. As somebody observed on one or another thread, Leopold said the letter was sent to Luskin. That's a case of equivocation on the part of Rove's spokesman, but Washington is full of equivocators.

Now, I know there are a lot of people here who are really, really POed at Raw Story and, to a lesser extent, TruthOut. We all know why and, speaking for myself, I understand why. That had to do with a writer who wasn't Jason Leopold, Larisa Alexandrovna or Will Pitt. It had to do with a poorly written editorial piece that wasn't about Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, anybody else in the Bush junta or Valerie Plame. So what is with attacking these people over that? It looks to me like there are some people here who want to throw out the baby with bad water in the worst way.

In the end, no one is going to remember whether Rove or Luskin got a target letter. My guess is that Rove and Libby are both going down and, whether they want to or not, they're going to drag Bush and Cheney down with them.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

143. Outstanding post! Thanks for taking the time to put this together! :-)

[savemefromdumbya]

146. If someone already had a sealed indictment would they get target letter?

how do we know if there was a sealed indictment?

[Seabiscuit]

157. To answer most of your questions, Symbolman,

no one outside of the investigation is going to "see" the target letter, and Jason Leopold isn't going to reveal his sources any more than Sy Hersh would, and indictments do not follow target letters by a mere 24 hours. Give it a week, possibly by next Friday. First, Fitgerald has to go to the grand jury and get them to vote on the charges he's written up (according to today's new article by Mr. Leopold), then once an indictment's issued by the grand jury (in secret, with the indictment sealed) Mr. Fitzgerald's office has to give the media at least 24 hours' notice of a news conference at which Mr. Fitzgerald will formally announce the indictment.

I can appreciate your frustration given the amount of work you've been doing following all this.

Just try to be patient. I have every confidence Mr. Fitzgerald isn't going to let Rove off the hook, and every confidence that the grand jury will vote to indict.

Someday you may get to see the target letter. But for now, no one but Fitzgerald, Luskin, Rove, and one or two others in Fitzgerald's office have seen it. There's no way to "prove" its existence at this point in time without Mr. Leopold revealing his sources, which, of course, he will never do. That doesn't mean the letter doesn't exist.

As for Raw Story's behavior, I don't know what to make of it.

[demobabe]

162. I don't get why people are comparing Jason Leopold to Sy Hersh

Does Sy Hersh have a track record of printing stories where the facts were unproven and retracted?

[Seabiscuit]

164. The comparison is made because

Both Sy Hersh and Jason Leopold have an unblemished track record in their respective areas of reporting things based on what have proven to be their unimpeachable sources that no one else seems to be able to do.

So far, history has "proven" each of their stories to be accurate.

Of course, history takes some time. So give Leopold's story on this one the time it needs for history to prove its truth.

Leopold didn't "retract" his latest story. Only one website did, for reasons it refuses to discuss. Other websites have not retracted the story.

For the record, in my original post, the only parallel I drew between Leopold and Sy Hersh is that it is not reasonable to believe Leopold will attempt to satisfy the urgent thirst of those urgently demanding "proof" before events play out by uncharacteristically revealing his sources, any more than it would be reasonable to believe that a fellow journalist, Sy Hersh, would reveal his sources. Without those sources neither have such stories to report.