this Leopold-Rove thing is smelling like the CBS AWOL story

[leftofthedial]

to me. Is it to you?

[Dora]

1. No.

But that's just my uninformed opinion.

[leftofthedial]

5. I hope you're right

the guy deserves the worst punishment ever conceived

[Atman]

2. Even the reaction to it by the Repubs smells like team spirit

Check out the freep boards. They're already jumping all over this angle, laughing it up that now the democrats are saying it was all just planted by Rove.

It's a brilliant strategery by Rove if it's his doing, because simply suggesting it is a Rove plant fires up the extremists, who immediately invoke start yelling "Dan Rather all over again!"

And it will probably work again, too. Americans are a stupid lot.

[katty]

29. yup,Rover is the big dog and he's gonna be put down...they know

Freedom lovin' people everywhere will be rejoicing & celebrating his fall

[Canuckistanian]

3. Yup.

But it's a dangerous game. If it's true that the story is a hoax, Rove better hope he doesn't get indicted.

Otherwise, this could backfire by keeping the story alive before the real indictment.

[BlackVelvet04]

4. I think it's waaaaaaaaay too early

to start thinking it smells like the AWOL story. Didn't you see where the T.O. article said it would be 24 business hours before it was announced?

[leftofthedial]

11. I saw it

still, something stinks here . . .

[karlrschneider]

13. No lawyer would ever use the phrase "24 business hours"

it has no meaning, either legally or practically.

[Justice Is Comin]

33. That struck me right away too.

But that could have gotten twisted around in the translation. He says later in the piece that Fitzgerald's announcement would come sometime "this week."

I think he's got that end result right, just very badly worded and some out of sync contradictions that he should have looked at more carefully himself after he wrote it.

Freepers are going to be crying instead of laughing before this is all over.

[karlrschneider]

42. Well, you might be right but it baffles me why Fitz or any other

prosecutor would deliver an indictment and wait 3 days to announce it. Makes no sense to me.

[Justice Is Comin]

50. Oh sorry if you thought

I subscribed to that either. No way. I've posted numerous times I think the charges are laid out, approved by this jury as requested by Patrick and a vote for the true bill I hope is going to come this Wednesday or Friday.

I think it would have happened last Friday but I changed my mind when apparently Fitz didn't meet with the jury on Wednesday. That in my opinion was a needed day. Something wasn't ready or he had too many things going on.

In my opinion it will terminate with the vote in the courtroom by the required majority, will be handed up to the judge for his acceptance and the indictment will be filed. Just like the Libby procedure took place. It is Fitz's modus operandi.

Media will also get a reasonable alert advisory to get their security passes and opportunity to be on site with their camera positions for the press conference.

Fitz is so damn precise and professional, he can drive ya crazy. But he doesn't make mistakes.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

45. I thought Leopold wrote the article. He's not a lawyer, is he?

[karlrschneider]

48. I don't know, I doubt it...nor is he much of a journalist either.

There is no excuse for either "mistranslating" something like that -or- "inventing" it...it's just shitty writing no matter where it came from.

[Jazz2006]

62. "24 business hours" is a meaningless phrase.

Agreed. It's not a phrase that ANYONE uses, let alone lawyers, because it has no meaning.
And besides, the original story at truthout said "24 hours" and it wasn't until well after those 24 hours had passed that the site edited it (without any notation on the site, by the way, that it had been edited).

After the "24 hours" passed and the story did not pan out, it was changed to a non-existent phrase without explanation and without even noting the change on the site, just in time for some posters to offer all manner of convoluted interpretations of the "24 business hour" phrase. Those started with "it means Monday" and expanded and convoluted to "it means Tuesday" and expanded and convoluted to "24 business hours means 3 days and that means Wednesday" and expanded and convoluted to "that means Thursday or maybe Friday", etc.

I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous.

I can't imagine how a "dozen eyes" (according to a DU poster who says he was part of that dozen eyes) could have read that initial story and not noticed that it said exactly what it said: i.e. "24 hours", a phrase that everyone understands, and that it didn't say "24 business hours", a phrase that nobody ever uses, that has no meaning, and that - had it been the actual case that such a bizarre, meaningless term was actually used in the alleged meeting - would have stood out and prompted immediate inquiry on the part of the publishers as to what it was supposed to mean.

If the people who wrote, reviewed, edited and published the story (and then retracted/revised it without pointing out the revision on the site) believed that it meant 3 days, why on earth would they not say "3 days"? Why say 24 hours and later change it to 24 business hours instead of saying what they now want us to believe they meant to be 3 days... starting from some as yet undetermined moment, which could possibly mean any time in the next week? If they meant three days from Monday morning, why not say so? If they meant 3 days from Monday night, why not say so? If they meant some time between Saturday and next Wednesday, or some time between Saturday and next Thursday, or some time between Saturday and next Friday, why wouldn't they say so?

What they reported was a "24 hour" ultimatum delivered on Friday.

Even later, when they came up with the revision to "24 business hours" - no attempt to explain what that non-phrase was supposed to mean. Come on. How ridiculous is that?

Moreover, stories about the pending indictment of Rove has been circulating since at least last July. Truthout knows how badly we want it to be true and how badly we'd like it to be true NOW. They also know how many times the same "pending indictment" story has not come to fruition.

Thus they had an even greater duty to give their purported "scoop" even greater attention to detail and getting it right.

And they didn't.

On the detail front, aside from the "24 hours" subsequently changed when it didn't happen, the story was poorly written in the first place as it lacked internal consistency on points that should never have been in issue. (I.e.: its references to the meeting between Fitz and Rove's lawyers being either "more than half a day" or "15 hours" or "the whole day" all within a couple of paragraphs. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy.

That last part is, obviously, a mere bagatelle in the big picture, but jesus... if you're trying to portray having written the scoop of the decade, I don't think it's too much to ask that you proofread the big scoop for inconsistency and coherence before publishing it. Failing to do so is inexcusable, in my view.

[Chomp]

64. All of that is true

irrespective of the actual truth or otherwise of the story itself.

[DearAbby]

6. Nope...I am just gonna sit back and watch it all

want some popcorn? :popcorn:

[leftofthedial]

7. popcorn is high in fiber

isn't it?

[DearAbby]

51. Popcorn is good for you...

better than colon blow! :evilgrin:

[leftofthedial]

61. is that anything like colon bowel?

(former secretary of state)

[rooney]

8. Last night, my husband and I were discussing

the report about Rove being given 24 BUSINESS hours to get his affairs in order. The business hours could start this morning, Monday and make , say, 8 of the hours. Tuesday would be 8 more hours and wednesday would complete the 24 business hours. Soooo, It actually could be Thursday that it would be publicized. What do you think?

[leftofthedial]

10. could be

:shrug:

[BuyingThyme]

12. Yeah, the whole BUSINESS HOURS thing is kinda silly, isn't it?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. Why even to get his affairs in order? He's not being thrown in jail.

He'll have time up until and through the trial to get his affairs in order.

[savemefromdumbya]

9. someone is going to be indicted soon

[LaPera]

56. Well, that's a given, we all know that...

But I wouldn't write until I have all the facts and absolute certainty the story is legit.

[Garbo 2004]

14. Remember that CBS got the story right. Military records and secretary

confirmed the substance of the report.

What overshadows the fact that they got the story right was all the hooha over the authenticity of the memos. And again, the secretary confirmed the content of the memos was the sort of thing she had indeed typed and heard from her boss. The provenance of the docs themselves, not the content, was what was in question.

[leftofthedial]

22. that's what I mean

the issue now isn't whether Rove is an evil treasonous perjurer

the issue has become whether or not Leopold's story is 100% accurate

[Nimrod2005]

NO, I am keeping hope alive until about Wed. AM.

[Blue_In_AK]

18. Yes, Wednesday.

That's what I've been thinking. Fingers crossed.

[NYCGirl]

15. Why in the world would they target truthout.com? NT

[Jersey Devil]

21. It makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Like Rove is watching DU to see if any posters start blogs and BANGO, take them out.

[NYCGirl]

23. That's just silly. They go after the big guys. NT

[Jersey Devil]

27. Umm, I thought that's what I said

Sarcasm doesn't work well here unless you turn on the sign - :sarcasm:

[NYCGirl]

30. Okay, now your post makes sense.

:hi:

[dogday]

26. you get a 10 on the silly meter

that is just ridiculous!!!

[leftofthedial]

24. is that a trick question?

:shrug:

[NYCGirl]

41. No, not at all. Why would they bother with them? NT

[leftofthedial]

47. progressive website, thorn in their side, beyond the reach

of their corporate control

election year

opportunity to innoculate KKKarl from PR fallout from this by projecting the issue onto Leopold's accuracy. Rove has done this same trick over and over and over again.

gee, I wonder why?

[NYCGirl]

49. Little teeny tiny readership compared to all the others.

Edited to add: Little teeny tiny LIBERAL readership compared to all the others, with no crossover.

[leftofthedial]

57. they don't care about the readership

they have zero interest in communicating with truthout's readership

but if the media picks up on the falsity of those loony left websites reporting about Rove's indictment, it provides the same innoculation as if it were the Wash Po.

They did this with James Hatfield, nobody author of _Fortunate Son_, and successfully innoculated bush from accusations of cocaine use. Karl (through a "secret inside source") planted a false story about bushturd's cocaine conviction(s) for Hatfield to use in his book. They then proved that that specific claim in Hatfield's book was false, thereby discrediting him and his book. They never even had to address the underlying issue of bush boy's cocaine conviction.

This is the same technique they used to destroy CBS News and Dan Rather and kill the AWOL story, with the false planted AWOL memo.

It's a play right out of the Lee Atwater book of disinfo dirty tricks (and Goebbels before that). It's call "innoculation."

It doesn't matter if it's truthout, or The NY Times, or ABC or CNN or DU or your Aunt Gertrude's kaffeeklatsch. All that matters is that it is covered by the corporate media.

[deaniac21]

16. Has Colbert weighted in yet?

[Bjornsdotter]

17. Nope

I'm pulling for Wednesday.

:popcorn:

Cheers

[dogday]

19. The phrase is actually "Business Days"

and is used in the banking industry on a daily basis... Business hours reflect the same thing...

[Fredda Weinberg]

34. Business days makes sense, business hours means

when you open and close. Sorry, but you're grasping at straws now.

[dogday]

36. I am not grasping at anything

I am explaining what the terms mean... Maybe I think you are jumping the gun...

on edit I think operating hours are when you open and close

[Fredda Weinberg]

58. Your explanation is fatuous

Normal business hours are 9-5 ... I'm sure you've heard that expression. Checks clear in 1 business day, not 8 business hours.

Sorry, but we've descended into semantic silliness - why not just admit that Leopold was fooled again? At least this time, he didn't take Salon and Paul Krugman with him.

[leftofthedial]

35. I've never heard such a phrase used in a legal context

they commonly use a time certain, for example, by 5:00 PM on Wednesday, May 17

there's something funky going on here

[dogday]

37. Business days refers to like when a Bank

puts a hold on a check, it will hold it for like 10 days, but they will tell you it is ten working days and explain the M-F rule....

I am not advocating, only explaining, so please don't jump on me like that other poster did.....

[leftofthedial]

43. not jumping on you

I just think the whole "get your affairs in order" part of this seems odd. Indictments do have a deadline, but it's along the lines of "turn yourself in by noon Wednesday or we'll issue a warrant for your arrest," not "we'll give you 24 business hours to get your afairs in order."

[LaPera]

25. 400, 500, 600, post & recommends at DU jumped on it knowing NOTHING!

from a thread by someone, who also, it appears knew nothing... fucking sheep!

No facts just hope and still they didn't know what the fuck they were talking about...But couldn't post fast enough.

At least wait until the facts are actually in. Then know what the facts are, and if appropriate, jump up and down for joy and post like there is no tomorrow, if thats what makes you feel stronger & better with a.. Take That attitude...Go for it!

[Clovis Sangrail]

28. sorta

I mean, I really really want to see Rove indicted... but it's looking like a setup.

think about it:
There were 6 whitehouse staffers and 2 RNC higher ups willing to talk to Leopold about this...
but not to ANY other reporters?

This has spread through the corridors of the whitehouse to such an extent that Leopold found 8 people to confirm it... but nobody else can find anybody??

Aside from Leopold there are lots of journalists who have groomed lots and lots of anonymous sources over the years that regularly feed them "anonymous" information.


Maybe there was some sort of vise-clamp tightened on leaks after Leopold's story.
:shrug:

I hope for Leopold (and our nation) that this isn't a setup but it smells funny.

[npincus]

31. oh ye of little faith

I'm surprised at how many folks are turning on JL already.... it's only Monday.

[leftofthedial]

39. I'm not turning on him

I'm a tuthout fan

if it plays out like CBS, he's a victim not the bad guy

I hope he's right

I'm just getting suspicious of the way this is spinning out

[Clovis Sangrail]

40. faith is for suckers

/nt

[walldude]

32. No comparison... first of all the AWOL story

was reported on CBS. A major news network. No offense to Truthout but they are hardly called a major news network. Second, the AWOL story was true, they got busted because the source was dubious. If Leopold turns out to be wrong(which I highly doubt) it won't have any impact on anything but his personal and website credibility. If he turns out to be right, maybe people will listen a little closer when he breaks a story.

[WinkyDink]

38. No.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

44. Nope.

[alcibiades_mystery]

46. If so, then Leopold is a Class A fool

n/t

[axollot]

54. That would make everyone on here a fool who believed...

his story, I simply would not call it that. I have been following this since it broke here on DU. I have read a great deal about what other DU'er's are saying about this.

My opinion is (and its my opinion everyone has one) that he (Leopold) heard some great information and scooped to early to fully confirm. It makes for sloppy journalism. Look at when the Miner's died this year. Every one of the MSM reported they were all alive - all trying to be first to report "good news", when sadly only the one gentleman lived. Personally, my husband and I jumped up and down from the beginning, but slowed down when it wasn't reported anywhere else...yet. I hold out that it will.

[alcibiades_mystery]

55. I agree

But Leopold would be more of a fool for being taken by either his sources or his desires.

[leftofthedial]

60. here at DU, we all know that Karl is guilty of far worse

than what Fitzgerald is investigating

so believing is hardly foolish

I'm just concerned that something is not quite right about the story as we currently know it.

[Ladyhawk]

52. Regardless of why, if they're wrong, Truthout will have some serious

'splainin' to do.

[LaPera]

53. Kick!

[leftofthedial]

59. if it's true that Leopold has multiple independent sources

we might have some forensic fun tracking the Rovian web.

[bklyncowgirl]

63. That's what I thought when I learned only Truthout had the story

When I first heard it announced on the Randi Rhodes show I let out a huge war whoop. Later during the news segment when it was clarified that this was just one media outlet that had the story I started to worry that maybe Leopold had been "Rathered".

I certainly hope it's true, that Rove is lining up his appointment with the official GOP mug shot artist (the guy who did Tom Delay & Rush Limbaugh) and that Truthout will be vindicated.

If the story is not true, Jason Leopold will not be the first reporter to fall for a fake story that 1. Would have been the scoop of a lifetime and 2. One that he desperately wanted to be true.

He will not be the last, either.