Mr. Leopold, I apologize. I hope you'll understand the circumstances.

[originalpckelly]

But now that we have this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x368081

I think you deserve the apology.

You were right, and your critics, myself included were wrong.

You were right about Rove, he was about to be indicted, but a slimy weasel tipped Rove off and he turned over a crucial piece of evidence at the last minute and got off the hook. That's why your sources were right, yet Mr. Rove was not indicted.

[notadmblnd]

1. I remember the flamefest over that issue

and basically stayed out of it. It was a classic example of the bully/mob mentality that takes over here occasionally. Thanks for stepping up, it helps restore my confidence about what a great place DU is.

[acmavm]

7. Yeah, and there was one particular old woman who had a lot

of foul spewage and she was always so damn sure that she was an expert on EVERYTHING to do with that particular mess. She was quite a repugnant specimen, and she was a lawyer to boot. I wish she was here now so that she would have to EAT HER OWN GARBAGE.

[speedoo]

12. I know EXACTLY who you are talking about.

That was the first time I used "alert" and that poster was eventually TS'd, thankfully.

[Mandate My Ass]

14. Me too

The JL topic wasn't the only one in which she tried to run roughshod over the board, but it was probably the biggest. Blowhard, big time.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

146. Funny, that poster was the first to come to mind as I read this. She was mercenary in her

attacks. MKJ

[hlthe2b]

23. I wondered what happened to her...

hmmmm.

[liberalnurse]

36. Probably disbarred........

This may of been the only gig he/she could get. :toast: :rofl: :applause:

[Goblinmonger]

81. Probably tired of dealing

with people telling her she was wrong when she was 100% right. Probably tired of putting up with people that blindly follow anything that Leopold and TruthOut have to say. The article in the OP does not prove jack shit about Leopold. It is about an indictment from a year prior to Leopold's article. Though maybe "12 months prior" is what Leopold ACTUALLY meant by "24 business hours."

[Shakespeare]

99. She very deservedly was tombstoned.

It's one thing to vehemently argue your position; it's quite another to be unrelentingly, profoundly abusive in doing so. And the Leopold dustup wasn't the only time she behaved that way. She was one nasty piece of work.

[Beelzebud]

105. That person told me I was mentally deficiant for saying:

The latest season of South Park wasn't as good as the ones before it.

It was actually creepy. They were telling me that unless I make a cartoon show on TV, I should stfu because I was too stupid to know how hard it was...

Glad to see that idiot TS'd.

[Goblinmonger]

111. I am only speaking to this incident

She was right about Leopold. Nothing has ever come up to suggest Leopold was right. Nothing.

I am not defending the sum of her actions and posts.

[Catherine Vincent]

20. old lefty lawyer?

S/he played a lawyer on the internet.

[Sydnie]

25. Makes you wonder who is paying her/him to post now, doesn't it?

You know what I mean. ;)

[Laurier]

157. You're suggesting she's still here with a sockpuppet?

I doubt it. Doesn't seem her style at all.

She was right about Leopold and Pitt and Truthout then, and if she was still here now, she'd still be right about them. They were wrong - dead wrong - about their "Rove Has Been Indicted" BS story and they were wrong in all of their follow up stories in which they tried to skate around their initial BS story and they were wrong in every subsequent story about it.

I agree that OLL was unnecessarily abrasive and downright annoying sometimes, but she was right about Leopold and Pitt and Truthout, there's no denying that.

[WiseButAngrySara]

159. Might be you with a sockpuppet, all of 121 posts. OLL was bad news. n/t

[Laurier]

160. Paranoia much?

No, I'm not OLL, but I remember her. As I said, she was unnecessarily abrasive and downright annoying, but she was right about Leopold and Pitt and Truthout.

As for your lefthanded dig about my post count, I am quite sure that once upon a time you, too, had only 122 posts. Or doesn't that matter now that you have more?

[INDIA]

164. Member for little more than a month,,,

Yet discussing events that took place almost two years prior? You can't blame him/her for being a little suspicious.

[Laurier]

166. More paranoia, I see.

Hope you're happy with that.

I've been reading for a long, long time. (Much longer than the two years you reference, in fact, but the events you're talking about happened last May, some 10 months ago, not 2 years ago, just so we're clear) I just didn't post until recently. I'm sorry for you, and for the progressive cause as a whole, if you find that somehow "suspicious".

[Cha]

171. No..she wasn't "right about Leopold,

Pitt, and Truthout" and neither are you.

[Bonobo]

28. Nasty piece o' work, that one.

Though some bowed down and sniffed her boots cause...well I guess they sensed they were outmatched in the smarts department and felt they must pay obeisance.

[Morgana LaFey]

60. Yeah, she unfortunately had a LOT of followers here

glad to hear shoe got ts'd. That's exactly what should've happened a long time before it did.

[Goblinmonger]

82. Of course she is still right about Leopold. n/t

[Morgana LaFey]

121. If so, that would have been about the FIRST thing she was right about

but I rather doubt she was right about that either. Nor do I care. Pfffft. GOod riddance to bad garbage.

[Goblinmonger]

125. You seem to care enough

to claim vindication for Leopold and join in the celebration of this thread. Which has nothing to do with the "indictment" that Leopold wrote about.

I am not defending any of OLL actions outside of this. All evidence points to her being 100% right about Leopold's claims.

[Morgana LaFey]

153. ????

Hardly. My comments on this thread have been about OLL, period. And I don't give a hoot whether she was "right" or not. She was dead wrong on SO many things that being right on one hardly rehabilitates her.

[Cha]

172. It beat the hell

outta me? :shrug:

[DancingBear]

33. Hee, hee, hee

If you only knew.....

[hlthe2b]

53. you TEASE....

Come on and spill it, DBear.... Inquiring minds want to know...LOL

[scruffy]

61. Delete

Sorry - wrong place.

[Maddy McCall]

75. And I'll second that...

"if you only knew"

:rofl:

[depakid]

177. That was NOTHING but irresponsible "journalism"

and Leopold deserves to have lost all his credibility. I for one will never read anything he has to write anymore- and unless you all want to be suckered again, I'd advise that you do the same.

Anyone who has any knowledge about how the judicial system works could smell a rat in that story immediately. Some of us did- and were argued with to no end by the wishful thinkers and conspiracy theorists.

[tridim]

24. She claimed to be a lawyer, and old, and a leftie.

Hint hint. I really didn't enjoy that brief moment of DU history. I'm glad that Leopold is finally mostly vindicated. There's so much to this story that no outsiders can possibly know about.

[shadowknows69]

90. There's no vindication here.

I guess i'm to be tombstoned now because I won't forgive shoddy journalism ever. Sorry.

[Shakespeare]

100. That's not why she was tombstoned.

She was tombstoned for being (as I just mentioned upthread) profoundly and unrelentingly abusive. You can argue your position without resorting to that; she just had a hard time doing so. I don't miss her one bit.

[nicknameless]

137. I'll never forget her haughty spewing about "the arrogance of the unimportant"

What unbelievable conceit that one had.

[depakid]

178. She happened to be right

and knew what she was talking about... not that it was anything people wanted to hear.

[Cha]

173. Strawman! But, don't let

that stop you from carrying on, so.

[WyLoochka]

98. She is an old leftie lawyer

and contributed much to DU with her biting wit and insight prior to the Leopold debacle, for which she she does not bear the sole burden.

Mostly it's still Leopold's own fault. He was so intent on being the first one to break the news of a Rove indictment that he just couldn't wait until the papers were filed. Folks - that is not journalism - that is personal aggrandizement.

[Straight Shooter]

34. Yes, 100 percent arrogant. 100 percent wrong.

I have two DU'ers on Ignore. She was one of them. I didn't even realize she'd been tombstoned.

Ha Ha!

Jason has been vindicated. This is a good day. :)

[Goblinmonger]

112. Jason has been vindicated?

How? By the article referenced in the OP? That article is talking about an indictment of Rove in October 2005. Leopold was talking about an indictment in 2006. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Start talking about vindication when you actually have something that says that Rove was indicted in 2006. Until then, Leopold is still a turd.

Hint: You won't find the indictment. There was no sealed indictment filed during the time period that Leopold said there was.

[Laurier]

158. She was arrogant, but she wasn't wrong about Leopold, Pitt, and Truthoutt

They most certainly have not been "vindicated". They were wrong all along and they are still wrong. That is not likely to change in the foreseeable future, nor, in fact, in your lifetime.

[Cameron27]

161. You know what,

OLL was arrogant, but she was also intelligent, articulate and funny as hell. She was one of the first DUers I met when I became a member and I liked her immediately.

It's sad to see her name being dragged down around here when she's not able to defend herself.

[Laurier]

163. Agreed.

Her arrogance wasn't entirely unjustified (if that's the right word), and after I got past my initial surprise at her abrasiveness, I found her intelligence and humor rather interesting, and she certainly added more to the forum than the vast majority of her detractors.

The posts here dragging her name through the mud when she isn't here to respond are indefensible, not to mention that they are also against the rules. But the rules don't seem to matter to mindless sycophants... 'nuff said.

[Catherine Vincent]

165. Well, you're working hard to defend a ts'd poster.

It's too bad s/he left on such bad terms. You're talking about the rules yet you're calling DUers mindless sycophants. :eyes:

[Laurier]

167. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em. Always have, always will.

If you have read my posts, you will have seen that I'm not being unfair, nor "defending a ts'd poster" per se (although a number of people here are working pretty hard at dissing a ts'd poster, so what does that say to you?)

OLL was, in my view, unnecessarily abrasive and sometimes arrogant, but she was also dead right on this topic. She's not here to defend herself so I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out that not everyone here agrees with the bash-fest.

As for the mindless sycophants bit in my post, yes, that stands. As written, not as you tried to reframe it.

I read all of those "Rove Has Been Indicted" threads back then and the "mindless sycophants" label is equally applicable now to those that it was applicable to then. Not naming names or anything, just saying. As should be obvious to anyone, notwithstanding your attempt to reframe what I said into something that I did not say, I was referring not to "DUers" generally (which group would include myself, btw) but only to those who were and are mindless sycophants.

Nice try, though.

So, is there anything specifically that you take issue with in my posts or were you just passing through?

[Lars39]

40. In particular, I remember her once stating that *everyone* in DC

knew that Plame was a spy. :eyes:

[hlthe2b]

54. missed that one...

yes, it does make one wonder who was paying her/him to post....

[Jim Sagle]

135. Then I guess the old leftie was really a worthless piece of Republican shit.

[Hun Joro]

69. Yes, but she had an entourage also.

I'm not sure if any of those are still around.

[Goblinmonger]

80. You do realize that she was still right

The article that the OP links to is about an indictment in October 2005. It IS NOT about the Leopold discussion of an indictment in 2006.

But you go ahead and keep smearing someone who was, and is, factually correct. Hope that works for you.

[Midlodemocrat]

83. She wouldn't be able to read any of it.

She had almost everyong on DU on ignore. :rofl:

If you even *hinted* at disagreeing with her, or called her on her disgracefully arrogant and obnoxious posts, "meet the ignore button".

The view from ignoreland was pretty good though for a while!

[The Count]

87. Yup. Said "the Wilsons jumped the shark" and "Rove broke no law"

The stink started to accumulate, so she left(y)?

[magellan]

134. Second that.

[acmavm]

2. Hope everyone sees this. Nominate it for greatest so they do.

[liberalnurse]

95. That's a great idea!

O8) :hi:

[Mandate My Ass]

3. That's very big of you

I remember those flamefests well. I always thought JL was trustworthy so I kept out of it.

WTG. :toast:

[Goblinmonger]

84. Why would you think that?

He plagiarized, made up sources, and got into a lot of legal trouble with his employers. He was a shamed journalist when he came to TO. Why would you give a journalist that many chances?

[myrna minx]

4. K&R.

This is very big of you. :hi:

[grytpype]

5. Uh, no.

Leopold said Rove was actually indicted and that it was under seal.

Rove was never indicted, therefore Leopold was wrong.

Leopold did not say Rove was almost indicted. He said actually indicted. And the circumstances tended to indicate (to me at least) that it was a fabrication by Leopold.

[originalpckelly]

8. Rove got a deal.

Little fucking creep.

[bryant69]

21. Leopold got it wrong by jumping the gun

I don't think that undoes the good work he's done - but he screwed up that time.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[speedoo]

9. And how do you know there is/was no sealed indictment?

Just curious.

[grytpype]

11. I'm not going through all this again.

It's been done. Someone went through the D.C. court docket and could not find any sealed filing (it would be captioned United States v. Sealed) that could have been a sealed indictment of Rove.

And this article by Sid Blumenthal, that the OP is saying requires an apology to Leopold, does not say Rove was indicted. Read the first sentence: "Just as Fitzgerald was about to indict Rove for perjury and obstruction of justice, Rove got a lucky break."

And no one else, absolutely no one else, has reported that Rove was secretly indicted.

Sorry, but there will be no apology from me.

What I think happened is Leopold heard that on a particular Friday there was a lot of activity in the offices of Rove's attorney, and that Fitzgerald was visiting that office. Several people reported that. He guessed that it was an indictment. He knew that if he was the first to report Rove had been indicted, even if he had no source, he would get a huge amount of glory for breaking the story. So he made up a story about Fitzgerald sticking the indictment under Rove's nose and telling him he had 24 hours to settle his affairs. And then it all fell apart, although he still has his defenders.

[SodoffBush]

15. Thank you.

Let's do move on.

[w4rma]

32. You should apologize to Leopold though. Leopolds story created a lot of buzz in big media

about this case which helped get information about this case to people that might not have otherwise heard about it.

His source appears to have been correct, but the source didn't have the follow up information that a tip off had occurred.

[Goblinmonger]

74. Apologize for Leopold

because he shitty journalism (which he has done before) caused a stir and made the liberal blogosphere look like a complete fucking joke? Yeah, I'm going to apologize.

[Laurier]

154. He was wrong, and he's still wrong. No apologies required.

And Pitt is still wrong, too, by the way. He said a lot then to suggest that he was "in the know" and he knew nothing of substance at all. Still doesn't.

No, no apologies are owed to Leopold or Pitt for their parts in that "Rove Indicted" fiasco. It never happened.

[KittyWampus]

29. Fitz had Rove by the shorthairs... and an actual indictment is the only thing Rove understands

frankly, the idea that Rove would take a threat of indictment seriously is less plausible than Leopold's assertion.

[speedoo]

6. Hear, hear.

Well done, originalpckelly. As you know, many in DU "criticized" (being polite here) Leopold. Maybe others can add their apologies, in view of the Blumenthal piece.

[grace0418]

16. Looks like some folks still won't admit they were wrong.

I had no reason to believe he was making it up and stayed out of it. Who's more likely to be a lying, conniving, slimy POS, JL or Karl Rove? Hmmmm.

[Recursion]

50. The beltway pundits came out of this looking plenty bad too

Tweety et al were using Leopold's legwork for all it was worth and then when he overstepped they hung him out to dry as a lunatic blogger.

But, the final responsibility remains Leopold's; either he jumped ahead of the story or his source did. If he's not willing to own up and say which one it was, he's not a journalist anymore.

[Goblinmonger]

76. Show me the source

which says (and proves) that Fitz had indicted Rove. Actually had a sealed indictment. Because that is what Leopold said.

Hint: You won't find a source that says that because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. ROVE WAS NEVER INDICTED.

[JanusAscending]

136. Uh...hi!!

Hate to tell ya this, but.........It seems that everyone has you on "ignore" as no one is responding to your posts. Think ya might take the hint, and let it go??? thanks.

[alcibiades_mystery]

138. Noone is responding because nobody has a good argument in response

Goblinmonger is absolutely right. There is not now and never was any evidence whatsoever that Rove had been indicted.

[Laurier]

155. Exactly.

Leopold was wrong. Pitt was wrong. Truthout was wrong.

They still are wrong, and they still haven't the cojones to admit it.

[Goblinmonger]

145. Here's what I don't get.

People keep bringing up these threads that in no way show that Leopold was right yet they turn into this "Leopold is vindicated" party where everyone talks about those of us who said Leopold was a turd getting our "uppence." And whenever anyone comes on those threads and points out the truth that Leopold has NEVER been shown to be correct, WE are the ones that need to let it go. WE are the ones that just keep digging up these "old hurts."

If people would stop posting this nonsense, I would never speak of Jason Leopold again. I promise.

Here's the other thing I don't get. I am right about this. This little Leopold party that has far too many recs is about an article that has NOTHING TO DO WITH LEOPOLD. The article is about a indictment that predates the Leopold article by a year. Yet I'm the bad guy. Everyone on here that is praising Leopold for this looks like an idiot to anyone that actually reads that article. Yet it is I that needs to let go.

If everyone has me on ignore, then fine. I am going to keep speaking the truth about this. If the Leopold followers want to stick their head in the sand and pretend Jason is some fantastic journalist that is just so far ahead of the news cycle, then that is their problem. I, personally, don't see how that befits the usual personality of a DU member, but it is their problem not mine.

[Tin Man]

148. Gob,

Unfortunately, there are far too many DUers who bash the cognitive dissonance of RW ideologues, while failing to recognize that they themselves are ideologues, too.

For these folks, reality is parsed and culled in such a fashion that "truth" is constructed from solely the observations that support their particular belief set. The contortions get pretty ridiculous at times... as witnessed elsewhere in this thread, challenges to their perceptions can even be reformulated into "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" evidence of the certitude of their own beliefs.

However, there are more than a few critical thinkers around DU, too. It's just that alot of us got tired of fighting with the ideologues on the JL/TO issue. Fifty years from now, those same folks will be saying "but you still can't prove there isn't a sealed indictment for Rove on the docket... Anyhow, it's a shame, but is what it is. DU is still the best technical format I've encountered for supporting online discussions, so I intend to stick with it.

[Cerridwen]

10. K & R this thread

and the other.

Thanks, originalpckelly for bringing this to my attention. :D

:kick:

[Me.]

13. Nice

Never thought I'd see a thread like this on DU. I felt there was truth to the story so this makes it doubly nice. Fact is, we may never know the whole story on any of this, but maybe bits will slip out here and there. In reading this, I also am considering the fact that Sid B. is one of Wilson's best friends. Joe W. once said publicly that Sid and his wife had been rocks for the Wilsons and they couldn't have gotten through everything they did without the Blumenthals.

[speedoo]

17. K&R. This is the kind of thread that has to go to the TOP..

of the greatest page.

[hlthe2b]

18. I agree...

Yes, DU is a wonderful place, but there is a pack dog mentality that sometimes takes over, that is not at all "pretty."

I doubt we'll hear from those unrelenting detractors.

[mzmolly]

19. Some of us speculated that Rove "squealed like the pig he is."

My own quote above. Glad there is some light being shed.

Kudos to Jason L. and those who gave him the benefit of the doubt. :toast:

[Recursion]

41. But he wasn't indicted

Look, this is really simple.

Leopold said an anonymous source told him Karl Rove had in fact been indicted.

I think everyone now agrees that, by hook or crook, Rove was never indicted.

As I see it one of two things happened:

1. The source falsely told Leopold that Rove was indicted because he knew Rove was facing indictment. If this source did that, Leopold owes him 0 protection, and the public deserves to know who it was since they probably have some kind of public life.

2. The source correctly told Leopold that Rove was within a hair's breadth of indictment unless he started singing, and Leopold fabricated the actual indictment story.

The point is, if he wants to continue as a journalist he needs to clear up whether it was he or his source that lied. Otherwise I don't think he should write anymore.

[KittyWampus]

43. Look, this is really simple. It's most likely Rove WAS indicted and that's what prompted him

to cooperate.

[Recursion]

46. No, you can't just indict someone and make it disappear

As was pointed out upthread, there were no "US vs. Sealed" indictments on the docket. When a GJ indicts someone that fact is made public; that's a protection that dates back to the Magna Carta.

And also a prosecutor can't just ignore a grand jury's indictment; if the grand jury had indicted Rove, Fitz would have been required to act on that indictment.

[alcibiades_mystery]

124. That's simple? You speculate that something happened, and that proves

that someone's previous speculation was a fact? Wow. How simple.

This is truly ridiculous. You saying that Rove "probably WAS indicted" (the capitalization makes it so, I suppose) means nothing. There is no evidence that he was, in Blumenthal's column or anywhere else. And yet Leopold REPORTED (all caps, except demonstrably TRUE) that he WAS.

[mzmolly]

44. Gotcha.

However, once indicted is it too late to deal?

[Recursion]

48. Remember, technically Fitz didn't run the grand jury

A grand jury is by statute something of an independent entity (Scalia has called them a "fourth branch of government" in some decisions). There's not even a mechanism for a prosecutor to receive an indictment from a grand jury and either hide it or ignore it -- when a grand jury presents an indictment the prosecutor is obliged to act on it (the action could be looking at the case and saying "well I just can't prosecute that", but he cannot keep the fact of the indictment secret).

[mzmolly]

57. How bout sealed indictments?

Would that be relevant?

[Recursion]

66. Sealed indictments still show up on the docket

A sealed indictment would have left some record on the docket in the form of "United States vs. Sealed".

A bunch of hay was made of the fact that there was a "Sealed vs. Sealed" on the docket from earlier that week, but the US does not seal its end of indictments, and the docket entry wasn't an indictment anyways.

[mzmolly]

68. I must defer to those who know.

I haven't a clue. :hi:

[TheWraith]

52. No, but it is too late to be kept secret.

Sooner or later, an indictment has to be public knowledge. It's not possible to make one just disappear.

[mzmolly]

55. What about sealed indictments?

Can the indictment later be dismissed?

http://www.mcacp.org/issue5.html

[TheWraith]

152. Not without a court proceeding, I think. Not a lawyer, though. NT.

[Marie26]

117. Oh, he squealed ... in 2005

Rove cooperated w/Fitz waaaaayy back in 2005, more than a year before Leopold wrote his story. So what prompted Leopold' story, more than a year later, that a cooperating witness had been indicted? Who knows? If anything, the OP's article shows that Leopold's story was even more off - Rove had already dodged the bullet a year before.

[Sammy Pepys]

22. Why didn't they know about the last minute evidence?

If they had that much sensitive info coming to them, wouldn't they have found out about the last-minute wrangling by Rove's lawyer too? Couldn't that have provided an explanation for why things didn't pan out the way truthout had reported?

Honestly, I'm over it and don't hold any grudge against truthout...but they made no attempts to explain their error....they just made lame excuses. In the end it looks like the explanation was very simple.

[Nikki Stone1]

26. Thank you. I always thought some sleight of hand had occurred with this

:kick:

[Balbus]

27. He said Rove "was" indicted - not "about to be" indicted.

Of course the "24 business hours" probably aren't up yet, so I guess we can't officially call him wrong on (yet another) news story quite yet. Nice try though....

[KittyWampus]

37. And an actual indictment is the most LIKELY scenario in which Rove would cooperate

or maybe you're right and Rove just decided to be an upright guy and cooperate with Fitz.

[Balbus]

47. Spin it, baby!

[Goblinmonger]

77. So where is the paper trail for the indictment?

Hint: There isn't one because there was no indictment.

[rec_report]

42. I agree w. Balbus. He said 'was' - not 'about to be.' n/t

[DancingBear]

30. Oh, this is hilarious

May 12th!

The papers will have Rove's name on them - mark my words!!

4th floor sealed off!!!

Secret Service everywhere!!

Sealed indictments!!

All day meetings!!

With Fitzgerald AND the defense team!!!

HE HAS BEEN INDICTED!!!!

24 business hours!!!!

(what, you forgot all that?????)

Some of you will believe ANYTHING to make things line up in your own mind.

You may want to re-read the part about the crucial piece of evidence and the fact that Rove was the missing witness (not INDICTED witness, just witness) for the prosecution.

Unless, of course, you think Fitzgerald would have indicted him ANYWAY, then been kicked to the curb when the email showed up.

He would have had ZERO credibility then.

Really kids, you do everyone with the ability to think rationally a disservice when you post silliness like this.

"Sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows everywhere..."

[Individualist]

35. Shhhh!

Don't confuse people who insist that was means about to be.

[Cameron27]

58. Correct

:thumbsup:

Thank you :-)

[Maddy McCall]

71. Yep.

:thumbsup:

[RB TexLa]

110. Yep. Funny watching the "Hoaxmas Was Real! Hoaxmas Was Real!" bandwagon

Sure it was.

:rofl:

[H2O Man]

31. The information

about Ms. Novak was what saved Rove in October of 2005. It is not about April/May of 2006.

[BurtWorm]

59. Excellent point, H20 Man.

:toast:

Not that it will make any difference to the ongoing Leopold wars.

[Maddy McCall]

73. Shhhh. Don't let the dates keep you from believing this.

Leopold never did.
You know..."two business days" and all that--
:D

[Marie26]

113. This whole thing

is a depressing commentary on human nature. People seem able to change facts to fit their beliefs, instead of changing their beliefs to fit the facts.

[KoKo]

38. Seems Leopold got it correctly that something Big was up with Rove ....

and misinterpreted it as an Indictment that would be forthcoming...not realizing that it was the BIG DEAL Fitz made with Rove that would keep him from being indicted.

Everyone was so on edge hoping for Fitz to go after Rove and Cheney and Leopold having had problems in the past was hoping to have a BIG Scoop. When the indictment didn't appear everyone got very worked up and jumped on Leopold. Then Truth Out dug in heels defending Leopold and it all got out of hand...

I always wondered WHY Leopold and Truth Out were willing to take so many hits to their credibility if there wasn't any truth in the Rove Indictment. Blumenthal's article lays it out very well. It makes so much sense what he says. And, while Leopold could be criticized for his misinterpretation of what was happening between Rove and Fitz....he really did get that what was going on was BIG. And, hopefully Congress or the Plame Civil Suit can pry out that Indictment which probably was drawn up by Fitz and used to get him to recant on his Fifth appearance to the GJ. It's Fitz's trump card if anything goes further. And, Leopold might not deserve an apology.... but, maybe he has gained back some credibility amongst those who were so angry. :shrug: Compared to the MSCorporate Media Leopold deserves better for his reporting that those who will never report on Blumenthal's article.

[Goblinmonger]

78. Like the old cliche goes

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But Leopold wasn't right. Just because we can now put some faint hint of truth on Leopold's article doesn't mean jack shit. He was wrong. Period.

[alcibiades_mystery]

126. So, in other words, Leopold GUESSED, but reported it his GUESS as FACT

Wow. That's some vindication...:rofl:

[Recursion]

39. I'm sorry, but he was still wrong, and he should still out the sources

He said Karl Rove was indicted.

Karl Rove was not indicted. He avoided indictment. Either Leopold or his sources lied that Rove already had been indicted. He should make clear which one it was, or quit journalism for a job he's better suited for.

What if an airplane had mechanical difficulty but landed safely and he ran the story "Airplane crashes"?

[Tin Man]

132. That's the problem - Leopold would have to 'out' himself as his 'source'

Leopold guessed, but guessed wrong.

[Peace Patriot]

45. Gracefully done, Originalpckelly! You are a gentleman or gentlelady, as the

case may be. This was my read on the Leopold story--that Rove was threatened with indictment, or had been indicted, and Leopold's sources knew that much but weren't privy to how he got out of it. An understandable mistake, especially if you have good sources, and he always said they were.

I found it a waste of our time for people to keep ragging on Leopold--a quite good writer and investigator--when we have so much else to do--a democracy to save. I'm sorry that you got caught up in it, and I am very, very glad that you have apologized, and I honor you for it. That takes a big heart and mind!

[Joe Chi Minh]

79. It was the deranged note of Leopold's critics that confirmed to me

that they were a few bricks short of a load. Almost hysterical at times. As if he'd give a sh*t for their approval. Yet you'd have thought, still think, in some cases, his journalisitic credibility rested solely on their say-so.

[alcibiades_mystery]

127. The world turned upside down: those asking for evidence are "deranged"

Those who believe the unsubstantiated are the true and righteous.

These threads are as comical as they ever were.

[shadowknows69]

147. Disturbing really

n/t

[TheWraith]

49. Leopold's article was complete bullshit, and this doesn't change that.

Besides the simple and obvious fact that the incident being talked about in that thread was in October 2005, and the TruthOut "article" was in May of 2006...

24 business hours, anyone? Leopold's story bears no resemblence to what's being described in that thread except for the use of the names Rove and Fitzgerald. It certainly bears no similarity at all to reality. At best, at the very best, Leopold got wind of old rumors and basically fabricated a story out of rumor. At the worst, it was completely made up to begin with.

Leopold certainly does not deserve any kind of apology from anyone.

[rec_report]

85. Right, and is it possible that Leopold fabricated the key points....

of the article, for the sake of publicity?

[karlrschneider]

51. No apology from me. He didn't say "about to be indicted". He said it had been done.

If I were a con man I could sell a million acres of Utah beachfront property to some DUers.
:eyes:

[DancingBear]

65. Just tell 'em all the sand came from the May 12th 4th floor beach party

That oughtta do it. :)

[karlrschneider]

67. Great idea, and I can double the price!

:rofl:

[Garbo 2004]

56. The Salon article doesn't support TO's contention that Rove was indicted in May 2006.

It discusses why Rove wasn't indicted along with Libby in October 2005 and escaped indictment altogether.

It's not news that Rove was on the verge of indictment and some heavy tapdancing by Luskin in Fall 2005 stayed Fitzgerald's hand from charging Rove with lying about not being a source for Cooper.

Truthout's source asserted that Rove was indicted in May 2006 and TO has stated it as fact. So far there is no evidence to support their contention.

[Blackhatjack]

62. The truth about whether Rove was actually indicted will come out when....

one of three things happens:

1. Rove is called as a prosecution witness. He will be required to reveal to the defendant's counsel any 'deals' he made with the government to avoid prosecution, which would include avoiding indictment and prosecution as an element.

2. Rove is required to testify under oath before a Congressional committee, and he is asked specifically about the deal he made with Fitzgerald to avoid indictment and prosecution.

3. Rove finds it helpful to publicly disclose this information(ie. in a book he writes).

Otherwise, unless 'an insider' violates the rules regarding grand juries it will remain a secret.

[bvar22]

63. K&R

I took the "Wait and SEE" position on Leopold. I saw no need to "Rush to Judgement", no need to gather a lynch mob, no need to discredit the entire volume of good work Leopold has produced.
Leopold may deserve some criticism, but the wholsale slimeball condemnation (lynching) he received from some here was completely undeserved.

There are some who can never apologize or admit mistakes (eg: bush*, Hillary, etc.) They will grasp at straws and continue to insist they were RIGHT to the bitter end.

:dem:

[Laurab]

64. K & R Even though the dates don't coincide

I HATED DU back then - it was the first time I ever used "ignore". I don't owe Leopold an apology, because I stuck up for him. The circular firing squad on DU was working overtime at the time, and it was so hateful I couldn't believe it.

No matter what happened, I put NOTHING past Karl Rove. It's obvious he was deeply involved in this, and somehow got out of it. I also believe there was an orchestrated effort to discredit Leopold. I believe he was either lied to, or Rove managed to get out of deep, deep trouble, by singing like a canary. Maybe there was an indictment, maybe just a threat of one. Either way, I believe Leopold reported in good faith on information given to him.

Maybe this doesn't actually "vindicate" him, but at the very least, it proves there is a whole lot more to the story than we know, and IMO with Rove, anything could have happened. The fact that Truthout stood behind Leopold speaks volumes to me, and I hope at some point he is completely vindicated.

[krispos42]

70. Somebody should update Wikipedia

I don't know enough about this to do so competently (unlike those idiots on conservapedia), and I have to go to work, so I don't have time to bring myself up to speed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Leopold

[alcibiades_mystery]

128. What's the update? Leopold and Truthout still fucking wrong?

:rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

72. That article does not prove Leopold correct

It says, if we believe it, that as Fitzgerald "was about to indict" Rove. Meaning he hadn't yet. Leopold said he had. Said he had the indictment in hand and was going to deliver it in 24 (then business) hours. That never happened. Leopold got it wrong. Again.

On edit: If you really read the article (I just skimmed it first), it is talking about the indictment in 2005 not the one Leopold was talking about in 2006. But I guess some people want to believe Leopold SO BADLY that they will jump on anything. :eyes:

[tritsofme]

86. I still call bullshit.

TO and Leopold took a chance, on a weekend where everyone expected Rove to be indicted they said he already was.

Then the whole 24 "business hours" fiasco.

Leopold was a shady "journalist" with no credibility walking into this mess, and walked away with his reputation in tact.

[LSK]

88. K&R - I find it disturbing that people hold such a grudge about this

[Goblinmonger]

91. This isn't a grudge

He was wrong. Period. The article the OP talks about is in reference to an Oct 2005 indictment NOT the 2006 indictment Leopold "predicted." This is more about people holding on to wanting Leopold to be right than it is a grudge.

Leopold made shit up and caused the liberal blogosphere to look like hacks. Sorry if wanting him to be held accountable for that comes off as a "grudge."

[shadowknows69]

89. No, it was still a case of a journalist printing something

that wasn't confirmed. Period.

[Kelly Rupert]

94. No, I think this case (and its aftermath) simply proved

that Mr. Leopold is scarcely a real journalist.

[Kelly Rupert]

92. Even a stopped clock... n/t

[The Doctor.]

93. When I put 2+2 together,

it most certainly appears that the 'sealed vs. sealed' was likely against Rove.

I remember this hubbub well. JL said that sources he trusted gave him the info, and there was a flurry of activity confirmed by the link in the OP.

[autorank]

96. Originalpckelly, you have a lot of class! K&R

This is well said and, damn, thanks for that Blumenthal link.

That's the best story I've read in this entire affair.

My compliments.

[warrior1]

97. I always believe him

I still do.

[DisgustedTX]

101. Signature included

:rofl:

[Canuckistanian]

102. That whole "bash Leopold" theme was, frankly, embarrassing for DU

And why do I say that?

Because there was no corroborating evidence either for or against the rumour that Rove had been (or was about to be) indicted.

And, barring an official pronouncement from Fitz, NOBODY knew what was going on. Fitz ran a tight ship.
He never leaked a goddamned thing about his investigations. And that's how it should be. Unlike certain other prosecutors *cough*Ken Starr*cough*.

We, as educated, aware, and politically savvy people acted rashly.

I can partially understand why, in retrospect. At the time we had NOTHING except the indictment of Libby.
Finally, a ray of hope beamed into the dungeon of our despair. Some justice, finally. And, face it, we grasped at straws to justify our outrage.

But some went too far.

[Catherine Vincent]

106. It's still embarrasing.

The JL bashers are here.

[Canuckistanian]

108. I can see them

There's a certain percentage of nitpickers and naysayers in any group.

The question is, where do choose to devote your energies?

The JL saga expended a lot of that valuable energy.

May we never do it again.

[Goblinmonger]

114. If people would not blindly

support someone just because they write for a liberal web site, then we wouldn't have to waste our time making sure that journalistic integrity is upheld.

[Marie26]

116. It's as bad as

the fundies swallowing everything Limbaugh says because... well, it's Limbaugh. It's nice to have an authority figure you can always trust & parrot w/o question. Much easier than actually having to think for yourself.

[Canuckistanian]

120. Think. For. Yourself.

That's a liberal value.

[Canuckistanian]

119. I agree, to a point

But the lengths that some went to was excessive.

It was beyond mere concern about good journalism.

It was almost like a pogrom.

[DancingBear]

118. So what's more embarrassing

a) calling out proven falsehoods, or

b) falling for something once hook line and sinker;
continuing to believe it long after it has failed to come to pass;
finding a story that doesn't even match up to the Leopold time line and jumping up and down while yelling "see! see! told ya!"

Boy that's a tough choice...

[Canuckistanian]

129. Very true. MISTAKES WERE MADE.

Doubt everything.

But NOTHING was proven at the time, either way.

[Catherine Vincent]

131. None of the above.

The JL bashers are embarrassing.

[DancingBear]

143. I just looked up the phrase "hoisted on your own petard"

Your picture is next to it.

That can't be good.

[Catherine Vincent]

150. I rest my case.

:eyes:

[brentspeak]

103. Er, no. He wasn't right. He was very wrong.

Leopold said (lied) that he had the scoop that Rove had already been indicted by Fitzgerald.

[BlooInBloo]

104. Unless my memory fails, this is absolute 100% bullshit. Truthout said Rove WAS indicted.

[Marie26]

107. I DO NOT apologize!

He was wrong, Rove was not indicted, and when did people start apologizing to reporters? Reporters who got a story wrong?

[alcibiades_mystery]

130. When they LEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRVVVVVVV them

Ooooo smoochie smoochie Leopold. You're saying imaginary things that I really really really WANT to believe! I looooove you, Leopold! Tell another imaginary story that suits my desires! I'll blackball anyone who disputes you beautiful beuatiful Leopold!

That's about the speed of it for the apologists behind that fucking liar.

[Tin Man]

133. Marie26, ya done good on debunking the TO story when it was first published

There were a couple other folks involved in that research - I wish I could remember their handles, but I'm bad with names - to those peeps I appologize.

That was one of the best threads I've ever read here at DU - it was exciting to witness the truth being distilled, via a collaborative online discussion. A great illustration of the potential power of the internet.

[Marie26]

176. Thanks!

Now I feel all appreciated. But I guess that, ultimately, people will believe what they want to believe. I really don't think we have much right to laugh at the "Kool-Aid" drinkers who swallow whatever Bushco says if we are equally willing to swallow whatever a liberal "authority" says. It's a little scary to me how far people are willing to go to twist the facts so that it reflects what they wish was the truth. Maybe the pro-Bush "sheeple" are just doing the same thing - it's hard to admit that someone you trusted was misleading you, or even lying. And we'll go to great lengths to avoid having to face that.

[Laurier]

156. Nobody owes him an apology. He was wrong then and he's still wrong.

The OP is just another example of revisionism at its finest.

You were right then, Marie, and you're right now.

[rocktivity]

109. I don't owe him an apology

"The mere fact that (the MSM) haven't made a peep about this story hardly proves that it's fraudulent or false. Their inertia...probably has more to do with their fear of, or capitulation to, the Bush White House." link

:evilgrin:
rocknation

[Nutmegger]

115. Fool me once shame on you ... [n\t]

[alcibiades_mystery]

122. How do you read that Leopold was right?

Nothing has vindicated him. These threads insisting that Blumenthal's column has vindicated Leopold are utter nonsense.

Do you people even REMEMBER what Leopold wrote? Nothing we have seen lately has borne out his speculations (which were, mind you, posed as fact).

[rocktivity]

139. How do you know that he was speculating?

Maybe the situation was simply that his source was absolutely right, and Vivkea threw in the monkey wrench at the very last minute.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Garbo 2004]

142. It was Luskin's telling Fitz in Oct 2005 of his 2004 conversation with Viveca Novak

that was the monkey wrench and why Rove wasn't indicted along with Libby. This isn't news since it was publicly revealed at the time. Here's Viveca Novak's own account published in December 2005: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1139820,00.html

Leopold's article appeared on May 13, 2006 claiming that Rove had just been indicted. Will Pitt said here on DU that the date of the indictment was May 12, 2006.

The Luskin/Novak "monkey wrench" occurred 7 months before TO's claims of a May 2006 indictment.

[alcibiades_mystery]

144. Riiiiight...Viveka Novak voided a grand jury indictment

Mmmmkay. You'll believe anything. That's clear enough. Never mind that the business with Noval took place in late 2005, while Leopold's article putatively described events in Spring 2006. Leave out that pesky little FACT.

But you're right. I am speculating that Leopold was speculating. He might have been outright lying. He might have been reporting something he believed to be true. He might have been the biggest sucker on Earth for somebody else's machinations. All that is established is that he said Rove HAD, in fact, been indicted, and he was wrong about that. So, yes. I was speculating that he was speculating. The difference is that I don't pretend to be a journalist in my posts here, and I don't pretend to be reporting vetted facts. That's the kind of duplicity, stupidity, or slipshod-ity (if I may) that was practiced by Jason Leopold and the editors of Truthout. Would that you, rocknation, would have been on their board. You might have sniffed out a non-factual statement, and prevented this mess.

[alcibiades_mystery]

123. How do you read that Leopold was right?

Nothing has vindicated him. These threads insisting that Blumenthal's column has vindicated Leopold are utter nonsense.

Do you people even REMEMBER what Leopold wrote? Nothing we have seen lately has borne out his speculations (which were, mind you, posed as fact).

[fooj]

140. I think the newspaper with Cheney's writing on it is what Rove turned over...

Seriously. Where did that come from? Who the hell else would hold onto something like that?

Just my 2 cents...

[Justice Is Comin]

141. Deja and vu

:popcorn: Like watching the Morton Downey Show.

[Beelzebud]

149. How was he right? Rove wasn't indicted.... Pathetic.

No wonder the fucking press is so awful.

WE even seem to be willing to accept whatever bullshit is poured down our throats.

[deaniac21]

151. He'll be right in 24 business hours.

[Catherine Vincent]

162. You definitely woke up the anti-JL/TO/WP brigade with this thead

Good job! :hi:

edit: and also the anti-OLL (ts'd) brigade. :)

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

168. This thread has it all. LOL!

MKJ

[Cha]

169. Oh, that "Mr Leopold"!! Jason Leopold..

I was one of his defenders cause I can imagine how screwed up things can get when you're dealing with the Dick of Death and the Ghoulag.

I had this strong educated guess that there was more to be revealed later in favor of Jason's "exclusive". And I really appreciated it that he got on DU and defended himself.

Thanks, Jason Leopold, for all your investigative work for our Democracy.

[WillyT]

170. My One Post On The Entire Hubbub !!!

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1430703

:hi:

[treestar]

174. I agree this is probably what happened

Sometimes you can be too far ahead on a scoop, apparently.

[alcibiades_mystery]

175. And by "too far ahead on the scoop" you mean "reporting shit that didn't happen"?

:rofl:

Yes, one can be very far ahead on the scoop...