Rove's Attorney Thumps The Blogosphere

Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, takes a victory lap with Anna Schneider-Mayerson of the NY Observer.  He is not kind to the blogosphere:

Actually, it’s the media—not the prosecutor’s office—that he’s angry at, and especially the bloggers. Mr. Luskin was eager to portray the suffering of his client as a function of media attention and speculation, rather than real danger of a conviction.

 

Mr. Rove, Mr. Luskin said, had fallen victim to partisans and—more importantly—the bloggers who became their enablers.

...“That is a function of the tension that there is now between the mainstream media and the blogosphere. On the one hand, it seems to me that the CBS National Guard stories were the poster child for the principle that sometimes the blogosphere keeps the mainstream media accountable, and it seems to me that this story is, if you will, the poster child for the fact that the blogosphere is itself often not accountable, and that there are a universe of folks out there who have got personal or political agendas who were masquerading as news sources. That is just as destructive in its own way, or more than the mainstream media’s insularity is on the flip side.”

Meanwhile, the Wash Times names names in the mainstream media:

Unfortunately, at times, some in the media sounded more like cheerleaders for Mr. Wilson, who said in 2003 that "it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." In October, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert referred to Mr. Rove as "the administration's resident sleazemeister, who is up to his ears in this mess but has managed so far to escape indictment"; in November he declared that Mr. Rove and Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were "clowns" who had been "playing games with the identity of a CIA agent."

Keith Olbermann of MSNBC turned his TV show, "Countdown," into a veritable repository of misinformation: A Lexis-Nexis search shows that the subject of Karl Rove's demise was discussed 26 times on Mr. Olbermann's program. In an Oct. 28 appearance, Jim Vandehei of The Washington Post quoted "people close to Rove" who "are telling us that there's still a distinct possibility that he could be indicted, and that they probably will know soon." On the same broadcast, NBC News Correspondent Norah O'Donnell said that Mr. Rove "has come within a whisker of being indicted." But even though Mr. Rove had escaped indictment, Mrs. O'Donnell said it was still bad news, because he was still working at the White House: "In a way, it might have been even cleaner and more helpful to the president if Rove had gotten nipped with some minor level of indictment, so that you could just get rid of both of these people [Messrs. Rove and Libby] today." On the May 8 "Countdown" broadcast, MSNBC correspondent David Schuster said flatly, "I am convinced that Karl Rove will in fact be indicted."

How Chris Matthews escaped their lash I don't know.

Comments

[Gary Maxwell]

He should put a number 9 shoe in the backside of Tommie Thompson. Feingold would be down in flames if he would enter the race.

[clarice]

I think we ought to MAKE someone from here go on that trip...and I think TM would beperfect..Imagine Katrina, Ritter and Wilson hour after hour..Whoever is picked has to see that the entire ship gets quarantined for something and no one can even get off at a port of call..

[Rick Ballard]

Kohl, Feingold isn't up. I agree that Thompson could do the trick on Kohl but it would be expensive - Kohl isn't short of dough.

[verner]

Rocco,

I will say this for his mama. From everything I've heard, she was a sweet southern lady--so you must be right. It's the only way to explain it. He didn't get it from her.

[Rocco]

Sounds like the Love Boat! TM as Captain Merrill Stubing?

[JM Hanes]

Can they ban you if you've paid to go? I'll have to check out the fine print...

[richard mcenroe]

Ooh! Are we attacking semanticleo, Mister Luthor?

*ahem*

"...can you cite
as representing a divergent POV at JOM?

I think two is the correct number. Jeff and myself are the only two."

Jaysus, if you were any more self-involved the resulting black hole would suck down the Moon...

[John Loki]

Eddie Hayes, of CourtTv fame, is on John Batchelor's Radio Show and he just said that, in agreement with John Loki, that Libby's testimony is not material because he "lied" about a noncrime and he's not "thrilled" about the indictment.


However, Eddie then dips into his democratic party bag and pulls out a tinfoil hat. He says that Libby will take a bullet for Rove and pled guilty to something and serve jail time to avoid a public disclosure of Conspiration grande and to avoid Rove from having to testify.

[clarice]

Is he willing to put money behind that?

[topsecretk9]

Hamsher

"Frankly (Joe L) he can’t leave the party fast enough for me. He makes Democrats look like weak-kneed, flip-flopping, opportunistic, treacherous little toadies and his continued presence in the party is a huge PR hurdle. .."

Uh huh. First of all, she doesn't realize it but she has just described John Kerry to a tee and if JL does make the leap he will prolly do better because more republicans will gladly cross over to vote for him with the big "D" next to his name erased.

Dem leadership knows it and knows what this net-roots movement is doing...they'll support a Lieberman Independent run but will be praying it isn't the start of something...such as a lot of Dems in red-states looking for a way to distance themselves from this anti-war fringe collar around their neck.

[Lurker]

That would be a good sign, TS9.

After two days, ya think this ROVE indictment story will soon die out?

[topsecretk9]

After two days, ya think this ROVE indictment story will soon die out?

MSM? Yes. Left-o-blogs? No, in fact, I am sure the kindling has been stacked for quite a while...it will never die.

[danking70]

The Board should pitch in for a ticket for TM.

[clarice]

I'm in. He can blog from there.

[Rick Ballard]

I'm sure he'll enjoy the Havana stop.

[windansea]

Standing Down on the Rove Matter

By Marc Ash,

Yesterday, most Mainstream Media organizations published reports about a letter supposedly received by Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. As an example of the supposed letter's contents, TIME Magazine stated that, "Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said or wrote, 'Absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove.'"

Truthout of course published an article on May 13 which reported that Karl Rove had in fact already been indicted. Obviously there is a major contradiction between our version of the story and what was reported yesterday. As such, we are going to stand down on the Rove matter at this time. We defer instead to the nation's leading publications.

In that Mr. Luskin has chosen the commercial press as his oracle - and they have accepted - we call upon those publications to make known the contents of the communiqué which Luskin holds at the center of his assertions. Quoting only those snippets that Mr. Luskin chooses to characterize in his statements is not enough. If Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has chosen to exonerate Mr. Rove, let his words - in their entirety - be made public.

Reporter Jason Leopold

Mr. Leopold did not act alone in his reporting of this matter. His work, sources and conclusions were reviewed carefully at each step of the process. There is no indication that Mr. Leopold acted unethically.

Please keep in mind that over the years we have reported on many examples of individuals being scapegoated in crisis situations by superiors seeking cover from controversy. Truthout, however, does not do scapegoats. And we stand firmly behind Jason Leopold.

The Confidentiality of Our Sources

As journalists, nothing is more critical to being able to report guarded facts than the guarantee of confidentiality we provide to our sources. Truthout has never compromised the identy of a confidential source. We will protect our sources on this story, as we have on every other story we have ever published.

Expect a more comprehensive accounting of this matter on Monday, June 19

goofout

in other words, we look like fools and even though Jason promised to out his sources UNEQUIVOCABLY we will pretend to uphold journalistic standards and wait till Monday okay?

[MayBee]

" They'll join Navasky and Nation editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel in what has always been both an enlightening exchange of ideas and a no-hassle, relaxing vacation

Ah, that description cracks me up. There is something so... post-hippyish about that. Enlightened and no hassle.
It works better, I suppose, than pretending a cruise with the dour-faced Katrina would be something as frivoulous as fun.

[MayBee]

let his words - in their entirety - be made public.

Wherein goal-post moving become its own sport.

[clarice]

Rick, come clean..I know you're thinking of getting a fake moustache, birkenstocks, cargo shorts and hopping aboard that cruise ship..HEH

[topsecretk9]

Wherein goal-post moving become its own sport.

I here the left has so many they're lobbing the Olympic Committee...an effort to finally experience a moral victory.

[clarice]

Lieberman's threat to run as an independent:

****So, the Democratic Party is in a quandary. On the one hand, the base needs Senator Lieberman because if the senator decides to run as an independent, he could very well win. As the article states, a Quinnipiac poll said Lieberman would get 56% of the vote if he ran as an independent compared to Mr. Lamont's 32%. This would doom even the slightest chance the Democrats have in taking back the Senate. On the other hand, the party's leftist base already thinks Lieberman is a traitor to its anti-war manifesto and acts like it resents his even being a Democrat.

The modern day Democratic Party has morphed into an unrecognizable blob of leftist insanity. What does it say about the Democratic Party and its future if it has no room for its members who are reasonable and judicious? Maybe the more appropriate question is why would politicians who are reasonable and judicious want to stay in the Democratic Party?
********http://wizbangblog.com/2006/06/14/lieberman-considering-running-as-an-independent.php

[ordi]

windansea,

Ironic isn't it, T.O. calls for disclosure of the contents of the letter from the MSM but they are not willing to submit to the same standard on their sources. LOL

Liberal! Can't they see their own hypocrisy? They think they are being virtuous but in actuality they look mealy-mouthed, self-righteous and holier-than-thou. Typical Liberals!

[clarice]

Here's my guess--and I know I'm repeating--someone who's financially backing them doesn't want them to out their sources.

[windansea]

depending on where their bread is buttered I expect mainstream dems (not a big group) to tack smartly starboard or lose relevance...

I am imagining smoke filled rooms in Cape Cod reaking of WTF?....

[windansea]

Here's my guess--and I know I'm repeating--someone who's financially backing them doesn't want them to out their sources.

I don't think there's some vast left wing conspiracy here...just a fringe website that took a very calculated and premeditated gamble to generate traffic and ad $$$

they blew it and know it...

[topsecretk9]

--- What does it say about the Democratic Party and its future if it has no room for its members who are reasonable and judicious? Maybe the more appropriate question is why would politicians who are reasonable and judicious want to stay in the Democratic Party? ---

Kos, Hamsher et al fancy themselves as the sort of "third party" -- their "movement"...if Liberman makes the leap and other Dems who really see themselves as Zell Miller in redstates see Liberman kill it...I expect many more to jump ship leaving Pelossi, Reid and Dean holding the leashes.

If making the leap means more contributions because people finally have a reason to vote for them then what's stopping them? It's not like they'd have been in the majority if they stay.

[topsecretk9]

--I don't think there's some vast left wing conspiracy here--

I don't think it is vast...I think it's VIPS.

[ordi]

Here's my guess--and I know I'm repeating--someone who's financially backing them doesn't want them to out their sources.

Ah, so "principled" or is that "principal" as in principal and interest.

[clarice]

Mine, too, ts..

Surely if it was the VIPS and they outed them, traffic would be up, too wouldn't it?I can't believe protecting their sources will make more than the 10-15 lunatic readers onboard.

[topsecretk9]

n that Mr. Luskin has chosen the commercial press as his oracle - and they have accepted - we call upon those publications to make known the contents of the communiqué which Luskin holds at the center of his assertions.

I am sorry, but I almost pee'd my pants on the "oracle" bit...hilarious.

but this 3 degrees removed dare...that they can't even manage is after a monthis just embarrassing. That at this point even think the MSM will feel challenged by this joke of a site? propaganda feel good meeting place? is delusionally creepy, now.

Seixion's theory...seems right to me. Truthout is mostly VIPs - McGovern, Scary Larry...this BS story pull the curtain back on all the BS stories.

[windansea]

VIPs or not...goofout did it for the money

[MayBee]

Clarice:Here's my guess--and I know I'm repeating--someone who's financially backing them doesn't want them to out their sources.

I am repeating myself as well, but I don't think most of the people who think they want Leopold to out his source really do.
Because Wilson and Johnson have the same source as Leopold, and were interconnected in this reporting. And Waas, who criticizes Leopold, seems to also rely heavily on Wilson.

Yet passionate Wilson supporters are vehement Leopold critics. Have any of them noticed this?

[topsecretk9]

Oh...just thought of something...the old 2x6er is really dead and the source of that is who? GroGroGrossman was it? Hmmm...wasn't that article a handful of sand?

[clarice]

MayBee, I'm certain that haven't put that together . You have to be able to add 1 and 1 together to get to there.
Let's get Specter to go over there and make that suggestion. LOL

[topsecretk9]

oooh...the sexy whistleblower, I mean ROCKSTAR!

[topsecretk9]

BTW...I love the acceptable - NOT acceptable Freudian slip...and his running Rove out on a rail...

[windansea]

This is the jerk that put the kiss of death on the CIA

I like the first comment!

[Semanticleo]

CLARICE;

"Still, that we don't fold and accept your contentions is not the same as saying you are being muzzled is it?'

I welcome a debate and do not fear being in the minority as long as the discussion does not degenerate into cat-calling from the peanut gallery composed of limited thinkers who have run out of discursive gas. I think you understand the difference.

[Semanticleo]

"Welcome to your world!'

JM;

The irony of your declaration of superiority juxtaposes a singular sweetness with the
absolutism of your moral judgements about the plausible explanation offered by Maguire
for whatcould have occured at Haditha.

Really. Can you be any more two-dimensional
in your black/white worldview?

First of all, your supposition that I am loathe to protect myself based upon the notion that 'end never justifies means' is superfluous and is designed to give you moral elbow room to excuse, ostensibly, yourself and others from the consequences of their actions. One can always use the dodge,
'I'm just protecting myself' for any nefarious activity, as long as there is some circuitous path back to a paranoid delusion
such as 'everyone is out to get me.'

On the other hand, a sentient being might be able to defend himself against a genuine threat using the LAW and some common sense
BEFORE it is necessary to protect himself and his own from physical threats by resorting to using lethal force.

As for the Haditha thread;

""If it were I who was involved in Haditha, I'd prefer to think it was stress which led to an accidental tragedy. Wouldn't you?"

No, I'd prefer to think I'd done my best to do my duty, according to the rules of engagement I'd been trained to rely upon."

Yes, in the perfect world you've constructed where everyone does just as he/she is trained to do no matter the degree of fatigue or pressure, such responses are preferable. But you weren't there, were you?

And the exposed nerve which itches every time someone suggests the execution of this war might not have been the preferable kind of competence, does not serve your ability to discuss this subject with much objectivity. Does it? But maybe when the facts emerge we will find a different scenario more to your liking. In the meantime, Maguire has listed one that seems plausible, and minimizes the outrage over the behavior of our troops.

[Patton]

Semanticleo...

Maybe your soo stressed because you have John Murtha, John Kerry and many on the left ready to label you a war criminal, a atrocity committer, a baby killer and spit on you when you get home from a war they VOTED TO SEND YOU TO...

Now that's stress

When the left wing media is ready to crucify you with lies, half truths and believe every former Saddam or current Al Queda terrorist charge first, and disbelieve every American explanation.

Its the media and the Democrats like Murtha that have been not following proper rules of engagement, they've been storming in making wild charges full of lies against our soldiers. They've been wildly flinging their word weapons around attacking every American soldier and claiming every incident is an American soldier out to murder civilians.

Maybe you should look at those that have been really reckless and endagering our troops by repeatedly claiming our soldiers are an enemy of the Iraqi people- it is the leftists that is putting the bulleye on their backs!

[Patton]

"""On the other hand, a sentient being might be able to defend himself against a genuine threat using the LAW and some common sense
BEFORE it is necessary to protect himself and his own from physical threats by resorting to using lethal force.""""

This is circular logic, if the LAW allows deadly force, then you are using the law. Deadly forces usage and the LAW can be on and the same.
You have separated 'deasdly force' from being a legal action under the LAW, when the LAW doesn't even do that.

[JM Hanes]

"Can you be any more two-dimensional in your black/white worldview?"

Sure. I could be making unqualified assertions like "Ends never justify means...."

"On the other hand, a sentient being might be able to defend himself against a genuine threat using the LAW and some common sense...."

Well, if ends never justify means you're limited to doing it that way whether you're loathe to defend yourself or not, and regardless of whether the LAW proves an adequate preventive in every circumstance or not.

"But you weren't there, were you?"

Nope. And I'm not the one who posed the hypothetical either, am I? Twice.

"But maybe when the facts emerge we will find a different scenario more to your liking."

Maybe we will. Maybe we won't. That's the point, of course.

"In the meantime, Maguire has listed one that seems plausible, and minimizes the outrage over the behavior of our troops."

Funny you should bring that up, because the alternative view TM was quoting, and which you now appear to be promoting, belongs to http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/10/AR2006061001129.html>Wuterich who is reportedly saying "his unit did not intentionally target any civilians, followed military rules of engagement and never tried to cover up the shootings." Didn't have anything much to say on your theme though, and he was definitely there.

[PeterUK]

Semanticleo,
"I welcome a debate and do not fear being in the minority as long as the discussion does not degenerate into cat-calling from the peanut gallery composed of limited thinkers who have run out of discursive gas. I think you understand the difference."

I in turn welcome your new found open minded attitude to debate,now, shall we discuss the topic of the thread,the excoriation of the biased side of the blogosphere by Karl Rove's Attorney Robert Luskin?

[Patton]

By the way, 'sentient' can mean alot of other things besides humans. You might have meant 'sapient', but Star Trek probably doesn't fully explain that concept.

But I don't think all sentient mammals refer to the LAW.

[PeterUK]

Patton,
"""On the other hand, a sentient being might be able to defend himself against a genuine threat using the LAW and some common sense
BEFORE it is necessary to protect himself and his own from physical threats by resorting to using lethal force.""""

These are the words of someone who has never been in a ruck,criminals and terorists do not,by definition,regard themselves bound by the abstract concept of the law.Reciting the relevant statutes is of little use
Common sense would tell one that in the face f a genuine threat,there are only three choices,submit,run or fight,and these options have to be considered quite rapidly.
It also needs to be considered that all might fail.

[Jane]

I don't get it. If Truthnot "never" reveals its sources why didn't they reign good old Jason in on May 15th when he first promised to reveal them (in a week if Rove wasn't indicted)? Can we assume this is a new rule? And how much were they paid to implement it?

My favorite part is the demand to Luskin. Yeah right Marc, he'll get right on it, right after he dines out with Jerilyn Merritt.

[Lurker]

I don't see how Zell Miller can be part of the KOS "3rd" party.

Whatever Peggy Noonan proposed as the 3rd party won't include the KOS kids. Not what she had in mind.

Oh, Mac Ranger now predicts that we will find Osama before the summer's over.

He's been right so far and I hope he's still right on this one.

Bush is certainly a shrewd poker player - knowing full aware that good things have to happen this summer in time for the November elections.

But he also knows how critical it is for the Republicans to not make serious mistakes. Hastert and Specter are good examples. How about the UAE port deal? Boy, we blew that one big time.

[Lurker]

Ah, good for the Marine calling Murtha as a witness:

Marine may call Murtha as witness

[verner]

"I welcome a debate and do not fear being in the minority as long as the discussion does not degenerate into cat-calling from the peanut gallery composed of limited thinkers who have run out of discursive gas. I think you understand the difference."

Oh Pleeeeeze. I'm really getting tired of this. I have not read a thing that you've added to the "debate" yet. The pro Wilson camp doesn't rely on "facts" they rely on conspiracy theory and lies.

FACT: Wilson was an Al Gore suppoprter.
FACT: Wilson was sent to Niger on the recommendation of his wife.
FACT: Wilson did not sign a confidentiality agreement.
FACT: Soon after his return from Niger, Wilson began associating with the MEI, A dem. party invitation only "think tank" and the Iraq Policy Information Project--all orgs. that OPPOSED Bush administration
policy.
FACT: Wilson lied to Kristof.
FACT: Libby's team has FIVE witnesses who will testify that Wilson told them that Val worked for the CIA.
FACT: The Butler Review and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee report prove that a) Bush didn't lie when he included those 16 words in the SOTU, and that there was evidence that Iraq tried to procure yellow cake from Niger.

FACT:The SSIC outed Wilson as a liar, and he was dropped by the Kerry campaign soon after.

These are just of a few of the facts that the left ignores. There are others. But when you try to stick to the facts--they start calling you names, cause that's all they have left since Fitzmas turned into Ash Wednesday.

Until pro-Wilson supporters agree to these "facts" as a baseline, I have absolutely no interest in debating any of them.

By the way, Byron York has a great interview with Hugh Hewitt up at raidoblogger.com

[sbw]

Cleo: I welcome a debate and do not fear being in the minority as long as the discussion does not degenerate into cat-calling from the peanut gallery composed of limited thinkers who have run out of discursive gas.

Debates are about winning more than they are about understanding. Adversarial exercises aren't the most constructive way to ferret out the truths all sides have to offer. JOM participants tend not to be adversarial, but collegial in their quest for understanding. I value JOM participants for their approach and welcome you along, but encourage you to leave some clichés and some habits at the door.

Montaigne was not committed to his own ideas, but to sound ideas. He said, "Why should I not run to embrace the truth when I see it coming."

[sad]

Byron York also has an interesting aticle about the lefty convention and the Plame discussion. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTE1OWVhYjNiZDlmMzcwOGMwZGU3MzdiOTkyZmViOTU=

[maryrose]

The time is ripe. The truth is coming out. It's all good except I miss Kim and Larwyn...

[Sue]

Leo,

I welcome a debate and do not fear being in the minority as long as the discussion does not degenerate into cat-calling from the peanut gallery composed of limited thinkers who have run out of discursive gas. I think you understand the difference.

It would seem you don't understand the difference.

Then WingNut Nation can regain their monopolistic megaphone to peddle their wares unchallenged.

My unsolicited advice to you...don't start that which you can't or won't finish.

::grin::

[verner]

From York's Piece:

The day after the panel, Marcy Wheeler, who writes under the name emptywheel, introduced herself to me and asked what I thought of the session. I said I thought there would be tremendous disappointment in the audience if Karl Rove were not indicted. Really? she asked. Yes, I said — I guessed that nearly everyone in the room was hoping that Rove would face charges.

Wheeler later wrote an account of our conversation — bloggers seem to write up everything — and by her own recall she said, “But don’t all reasonable people have hopes that Rove will be indicted?” I said no, I didn’t think so. Wheeler wrote, “As soon as I walked away, I wished that I had responded, ‘No, Byron, many of us have even higher hopes that Dick Cheney will pay for his obvious involvement in this case.’”

Marcy is a freaking fruitbat. And boy does she have a lot invested in Wilson. No Wonder she reacted like she did to my comments that the god-king Joe was a proven liar. It must have been like throwing Holy Water on a Vampire! No No the truth aghhhh...

[noah]

We all (me as an observer mostly)have had our fun with the timelines, the guessing about UGO, the perceived outrageousness of the prosecution of Libby, etc.

The decision not to charge Rove takes some of the helium out of the balloon for both left and right.

Cleo and his sort clinging to fantasies is about all we have left to amuse ourselves or are there any potential blockbusters on the horizon? Just asking.

[Gary Maxwell]

Sue

Wait for it. I predict a response along the lines of, I was just responidng in kind after much provocation, you know a smart progressive like myself can only take so much from you mouth breathers who are not even bright enough to recognize your betters .... blah blah blah some obligatory reference to Hitler or chimps or Halliburton and finishing with a crescendo.

[Sue]

Gary,

Possibly...or more like probably...

...I would like to discuss this with you further, but I'm afraid my trust fund needs attention at the moment and it would seem today is a good day for some day trading. ::grin::

[SunnyDay]

From the linked Kos article:

Cheney won't let us negotiate honestly with Iran?

Are they serious or just suicidal?

[noah]

OT: but I (ta dah!) had been saying for months that Zarqawi should get the hell out of Iraq before he got his ass killed.

I for one think that Bush should go into Bosnia mode and conduct the war from this point forward from above 15,000 feet plus a few advisors for the Iraqi army. The Iraqis can sort things out. One way or another things will get sorted.

[Sue]

My point, Leo...in the event you miss it, which I assume is a given...is you don't even recognize your own condescending tone...that is how I know I am dealing with a liberal...without content or context...the inability to recognize their own dart throwing.

[verner]

Seriously Noah, what blockbusters could there be? Do you honestly think Fitz would have issued that letter if there were any blockbusters?

As the docs show, he is going to have a tough time with Scooter. Wells isn't done with him yet. Who knows what else Libby's team has in store?

I'm getting a completely different reading from this. I think that as time goes by, Fitz learns more and more about the Wilsons, and the smelly evidence surrounding them. I predict the chance of any more indictments is slim to none--and a few that he slapped on Libby may be dropped.

And look at the political landscape. They had to send a backbencher like Waxman to call for hearings that they never want to really happen--cause they know that a lot of inconveinant truths like "who sent Joe" and "why didn't he sign a confidentiality agreement" and "What was Plame's real status at the CIA" will be put on the table for all to see.

The only elements in the Democrat party who are embracing the Wilsons are the kook fringe Nation reading types, who--despite much evidence--refuse to see how Wilson is pulling their strings. Just look at what happened to Jason Leopold! They are tearing him apart, without seeing the role Wilson played in the whole charade (and catch Seixon's post on that. Rivers in a drunken screed that got captured by the freepers before it was pulled 5 minutes later makes it clear that Joe was involved!)

[cathyf]

Small note... Yesterday's dead tree edition of the WSJ has an article about Bob Luskin. He is obviously the main source, and it contains two little factoids that we haven't quite been able to figure out.

First off, is the story of the finding of the email. Luskin really did find it personally. He locked himself in his office for 3 days, and read every piece of paper he had on the case, including printouts of every piece of email Rove sent over a 2-month period. Speaking as a computer professional who has done theoretical work on search algorithms, it is totally, embarassingly lame that the white house IT staff, or their hired consultants, weren't able to find the mail with a keyword search. In their defense, I will speculate that someone technologically stupid, either the lawyers in the prosecutors office or the FBI agents, specified the keywords, and they were a stupidly short list. And that the job was done by contractors, who didn't do one spec of work past what was specified in the contract, and certainly took no initiative to do anything clever to find something.

The other little fact is that Rove did not remember the Cooper call when he saw the email, and says that he still does not remember the call.

If anybody has a subscription to the pay online site you can probably find the article and quote out the paragraphs in question.

cathy :-)

[Pete]

I can understand Robert "Gold Bars" Luskin's outrage at the blogosphere, since they took a look at the story objectively and not from his one sided viewpoint. BTW - isn't justoneminute part of the blogosphere?

However I laugh at his portrayal of his suffering client. Rove was the one who could have clarified the situation by being honest about his real role. Yet Rove chose to lie about it and choose the kind of obfuscating words that would have made Clinton proud.

Equally hilarious is Luskin's outrage at the media - to whom he was leaking like a sieve.

[Sue]

Cathy,

The other little fact is that Rove did not remember the Cooper call when he saw the email, and says that he still does not remember the call.

I thought I had heard or read that Rove still didn't remember the phone call, even with the email. I'm sure Fitzgerald was having a hard time believing Rove really forgot. That might be why he had him back 5 times, trying to trip him up on his lapse of memory claim.

[The Unbeliever]

Oh no, Pete is displaying a third dissenting opinion on the site! Leo's ridiculous assertion has been blown even further out of the water!

Speaking of which, where's AB/JayDee/Katrina? I would've thought JOM would be his first stopover after hearing the latest Rove news...

[Gary Maxwell]

Repete back again I see. Get a new writer. Your schtick is getting tired.

[sad]

Scary, over at No Quarter, is "challenging" Luskin to prove that Rove won't be indicted. It's a short post but typical. I guess somebody is still trying to get that book deal signed.

[verner]

Three days to read two months worth of e-mail. No wonder Rove didn't remember. More evidence that outing Plame was a pimple on the elephant's behind...

[Pete]

How hard is to for someone like Rove to search for the keyword "Niger" on the emails he sent out in July 2003.

[verner]

Are they also asking Luskin to prove that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning?

You've got to give them credit--like true zealots, they are relentless.

[Sue]

Leo is conveniently forgetting Polly, Jim E., and the entire thread devoted to the Magical Hat that drew untold numbers of dissenters that were allowed to post dissenting comments. If Leo wants to prove a point, he should explain why dissenting voices are shut down at the websites run by liberals. I tell you what though, if you add the word f**k into your thought process, you are more likely to be clapped on the back and welcomed into the fold. They truly love that word. Shows off their intellect...free thinking spirit...or just stupid ignorance...

::grin::

[Jane]

I'm getting a completely different reading from this. I think that as time goes by, Fitz learns more and more about the Wilsons, and the smelly evidence surrounding them. I predict the chance of any more indictments is slim to none--and a few that he slapped on Libby may be dropped.

verner,

That's my take on what is happening as well.

[windansea]

Equally hilarious is Luskin's outrage at the media - to whom he was leaking like a sieve.

However I laugh at his portrayal of his suffering client.

did Petey take some happy pills or is that the sound of teeth knashing?

[Gary Maxwell]

Oh no, Pete is displaying a third dissenting opinion on the site! Leo's ridiculous assertion has been blown even further out of the water!

Is it only ridiculous? Look above,Pete calls Rove a liar right above. So based upon this wouldn't Leo also be a liar? He was wrong about only two dissenting viewpoints here, therefore he is lying QED ( I know it takes willfulness but heck I am using that NoEuclidian logic that liberals love so much).

[verner]

As I hope my posts above show, concerning my recent short visit to the Flat Tire err..I mean Empty Wheel shows, Leo, Pete, PollyannaUSA and their ilk are major hypocrites. They demand civility, but offer none in return. They also have an aversion to both the truth and reality.

And why should we care? If they want to be chumps, let them. In the long run, the crazier they get, the better for me.

[noah]

I only post at sites that don't require signing in and from my experience these are mostly in the rightosphere. But I could be wrong...point me in "right" direction Cleo!

[MayBee]

Leo is so entrenched in Fire Dog Lake world she copy and pasted a full front-page post from there (Otis says:) without explanation, and later told JHM not to "EPU" her. How utterly into FDL would one have to be to assume anyone *else* would know what that meant?

Now, perhaps she is under the mistaken impression that no dissenting voices ever even try to post on FDL. Perhaps she doesn't know they are just deleted or banned.

I, for one, would welcome Leo if she would ever just get down to it and state an opinion, rather than spending all of her time here telling us about our own opinions.

[MayBee]

akk...*JMH*

[Semanticleo]

..the inability to recognize their own dart throwing.
Sue;
Apologies for the rhetoric. Part of my enjoyment is punching phrases, but as you
can see from exchange with JM (in which no quarter is given, or asked) it's sort of a defensive mode.

[Extraneus]

Hey Gary, speaking of liberal crescendos, did you happen to see this one? A classic.

[topsecretk9]

Thanks sad...I've been keeping an eye for Scary...little late to the party eh?

---Oh. So Karl Rove got a pass? Really? Where's the letter? Seems none of the mainstream media can get their story straight. Some report there is a letter from Patrick Fitzgerald, but none have seen it. Some say there was a phone call. Really? Let's see the phone records. Others say there was a fax. Okay, where's the damn fa----

1. I think is hilarious that these guys think there is something fishy that Luskin "got a phone call", then a "fax" and then cue creepy music...a "letter" ( you don't think Fitz "faxed" the "letter" do you? oooooh)

About 80% of the time my lawyer would have a "phone call" with another attorney, then he write up a "letter" and "fax" a copy, then take that original place it in an envelope--yes, the same one he faxed, can you believe it? -- seal envelope, run through postage meter then...cue creepy music...hand over to the mailman -- often he even made 2 envelopes and sent me a copy of the correspondence too!

The other 20% of the time, only "phone" then "fax" occurred

2. But what is amusing me even more? Don't you just see this as pile of merde for WIlson/Johnson/TruthNot to step in #258?

As days go by, and fevers rise --over the contents of the letter that Luskin is afraid to reveal---bam...here's your letter...and it says everything Luskin said it said...Talkleft even acknowledged that no lawyer (especially this high profile) would risk his career/bar lying "no deal" AND one day 1 Fitz would correct the record if he was.

[verner]

By the way, did anyone else see that take down of Anna Marie Cox? Leopold, Cox, Lieberman--Saturn eating his own. Bad sign for the revolution! LOL

[Semanticleo]

"Look above,Pete calls Rove a liar right above."

Such overwhelming dissent must prove Leo wrong again! Or is it the exception which proves the rule?

[Pete]

verner | June 15, 2006 at 08:40 AM:

If you are referring to me could you explain how I have not been civil?

[Gary Maxwell]

Extraneus

Did you notice it was signed by Al Gore's mom? JK of course.

[Semanticleo]

BTW;

I sense (due to Typepad timing me out for hours on end) that Maguire is exercising his
editorial perogative and will shortly have proof of same. Therefore if you do not hear from me again,it's not because I 'cut and ran'
but rather the collegial and open-ended philosophy of honest discourse that permeates
this site. My apologies to the few who seem sensitive to that principle, but there it is.

[Gary Maxwell]

Sorry Leo you are a liar. I proved it above. You must go in the corner and watch OReilly rerun for three hours. Until then we are going to shun you.

[Sue]

Leo,

Maybe you misunderstood me. I could care less how you post here. Just don't pretend you aren't doing what you accuse others of doing. If you want people to respond to you with civility, try not to insult them first by lumping them into a category that includes wingnuts, trust fund babies, day traders, etc. Most of us, if not all, have worked just as hard for our money as you have. ::grin:: Except for me, of course. I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth and a penchant for being cheeky. And I don't mind indulging in a little hypocrisy of my own. ::grin::

[MayBee]

Ah, here is the good question on No Quarter:

---
Larry,
Thanks for weighing in. I'm curious though; 1) Why didn't you nor Joe Wilson defend TO/Leopold at the FDL panel last Friday, as he was being thrown under the bus by Waas, emptywheel, et. al.? and 2) You stated on DU that Wilson had confirmed, _independent of Leopold's sources_, that Rove had been indicted. Do you and/or Joe still consider that to be good info?

Thanks.
----

[Gary Maxwell]

Fat lady humming? I love the weaved tale of a conspiracy of one. Maguire you magnificent bastard you!

[Sue]

LOL.

[Semanticleo]

http://www.sixapart.com/typepad/news/index

05.03.2006
Word banning, and a word of thanks

The storm seems to have passed, and to mark a day of (relative) calm, this evening we introduced a new feature to TypePad: Word Banning.

You can now block comments and TrackBacks from reaching your blog if they contain words or phrases that you find offensive. For example: say that are you sick and tired of comments on your blog about Mary Poppins. Now you can simply ban the word "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" and comments that contain that quite atrocious word will be stopped before they reach your blog.

word-banning.png
Word and IP Address Banning in TypePad

Banning keywords is easy. We've combined word banning and IP banning into a single page in your Control Panel. IP banning continues to behave as it always has on TypePad -- adding an IP address to the list will block any comments or TrackBacks which are sent from that address.

[MayBee]

I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth and a penchant for being cheeky.

And you look HOT in earmuffs. :-)

[Sue]

Maguire you magnificent bastard you!

Maguire isn't even here. Maguire is in hiding because he doesn't eat crow as well as I do. ::grin::

[topsecretk9]

MayBee

Notice, Larry doesn't take the tough questions he like to doll out. And like you observed yesterday, his sheep don't notice that about him.

I think it's time for a Scary Larry field trip everyone!

[verner]

OK Pete, If you insist, sorry to include you if you don't think it applies.

I should have written Jeff. I have a hard time telling the two of you apart. It all sounds so alike after a while.

[Sue]

Maybee,

Well, you would look HOT in earmuffs too if you lived in Texas and wore them in June. ::grin::

[topsecretk9]

like to doll out. = likes to dole out

Also, if we take a Larry field trip we can show Leo in real time our "tough but polite" comments deleted and let the banning begin!

[Gary Maxwell]

Maguire isn't even here

Oh yes he is, Leo says so. And he is blocking his posts! For hours at a time!! The self centeredness of it is a hoot all by itself.

Yell boo and see if leo jumps.

[Sue]

Top,

I can't post there. Mr. Scary banned me for making fun of him making fun of me. Over typos no less. Mr. Scary is a real man's man. ::grin::