Powered by TypePad

« No Charges Against Rove | Main | Harry Potter Watch »

June 13, 2006


richard mcenroe

1. I don't believe there was a source outside of JL's drug-addled mind.

2. In the unlikely event there was, so what? Are YOU going to believe Jason Leopold about ANYBODY he names now?


That's why he was the perfect guy for the job...shilling for Wilson.


I'm glad that this "In God we trust" case has been tossed out. Now what's the latest on the cross in San Diego?

Hey, I would believe Jason NAMING Wilson, Johnson, AND McGover.


Michael Newdow, the Sacramento, California lawyer and doctor who had previously launched a court challenge on behalf of his daughter over the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance said in schools, had argued that "In God We Trust" on monetary instruments violates his rights.

OK, no kidding the guy lives down the street from me...


Newdow can always use credit cards.


Here's what Ronald Reagan said:

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under."

- Ronald Reagan"


You can't burn Jason on this without him taking Larry and Joe with him. Either he made it up and they vouched for him, or they made it up with him. Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see another option.


You can't burn Jason on this without him taking Larry and Joe with him.

or how much burning can Jason endure?

Hey, here is a thought...why haven't they outed those Major Network Main Streamers who were emailing all the confirmation and support?

(BTW - if it isn't obvious, I am loving that this has turned into an actual real outing situation)


Gee, I had no idea I was "proselytizing and evangelizing for monotheism" when I paid for my Starbucks this morning. Hmmm. Maybe that's why everyone broke out into "Every Sperm is Sacred". Who knew?

Newdow is like that guy in your office that always complains about how they shorted him .35 hours on earned vacation in his paycheck. The guy needs a life, badly.


ts- you are right. I don't know how much burning he can endure, and right now I picture him having that same expression James Frey wore on his 2nd visit to Oprah.

Ok. A new bold prediction. Armitage will say little about this on Charlie Rose. I think his the importance he gives this whole debacle has always been about 0.


Not making fun...
But again, you keep saying that Jason lied.

Do you understand that the word "lie" confers an intent to mislead?

What is your evidence that Jason intended to mislead? Not simply that what he wrote turned out to be incorrect in some fashion, but that he meant to write something that was wrong...

Where is your proof?

mojo sends

I take it this means they are finally coming around on the entire Bush Lied meme?


The guy needs a life, badly.

He raises a lot of money, make that A LOT of money doing what he does. Ironic, isn't it?


I think bigger names need to start asking about the Leopold-Johnson-Wilson connection in regards to this story. Johnson, via Wilson, vouched for Leopold's story a month ago. Doesn't that mean that Wilson was also lied to, or, that Wilson is involved in this fake story somehow?

That might be mighty interesting, no?

On Newdow, I'm an atheist, and I think his case against the Pledge of Allegiance is a good one. The law that was passed back in the 1950s to put "under God" into the pledge violates the 1st Amendment. Only problem with his case was that he couldn't fight it for his daughter and it got tossed on a technicality.

With the "In God We Trust" on money, I'd say that is also a violation of the 1st Amendment if there was a law passed by Congress which made this happen. I don't see any "coercion" clause in the 1st Amendment, I see a clause forbidding Congress to pass laws respecting a religious establishment.

Easy fix: just stop new coinage and bills from having religious symbols and words that respect an establishment of religion. It would be a waste of everyone's time and money to take all the old money out of circulation to remove the "In God We Trust", but a compromise should be in order.

I know many of you will disagree with me on this, but that's where I stand on the issue.

Now can someone please get Joe Wilson on the phone and ask him what kind of spices they are using to roast their Leopold?


I know many of you will disagree with me on this, but that's where I stand on the issue.

I do, that's why they call the GOP the big tent though!

Now can someone please get Joe Wilson on the phone and ask him what kind of spices they are using to roast their Leopold?

Spices? I think it's bit of paper that say "In God We Trust"...at least that is the only thing that makes sense to me...

(Sidenote: why is all the scorn heaped on Leopold...Larry said back in Oct. 05 that Fitzgerald had 22 folders marked indictment from a Lunch Date, so? Hows come Larry doesn't get called to the source outing mat -- since his have been consistently wrong too?


Seixon- I asked empty wheel a little bit about this on THN, and she answered me- a little.


When in doubt, trackback.
1. We have a disgraced journo no one will hire.
2. Truthout which depends on contributtions suddenly engages him.
3. His job is to keep the anti-Administration (culture of corruption) meme alive.

4. His sources are said to be VIPERS and Wilson.
5. He says if his sources lied to them he'll out them.
6. They clearly lied to him.
7. Now he says his publisher won't let them out him.

Who wanted JL to do this?
Did they contribute to Truthout to help spread the story thru JL?
Isn't JL in retrospect the perfect dunce for this, because if he does make charges no one will believe him?

Not proof, but not crazy speculation either.


not crazy.



I just want to be clear...I 100% disagree with you on Newdow, I also 100% respect your view, your stand and your willingness to state it.

I think conservatives need to tout this, we are far more of late the party accepting of diverse points of view within....that is I do not think Seixion is the devil or Joe Lieberman because he has a point of view, a a stand on an issue that differs from mine...something to think about.


""[Armitage's] answers would wait until Fitzgerald had concluded his investigation""

Reasonable reply. I'd keep my mouth shut.

For future reference Charlie Rose researchers, ask him also if he was Novak's first source.

richard mcenroe

"I just want to be clear...I 100% disagree with you on Newdow, I also 100% respect your view, your stand and your willingness to state it."

Ditto... but I'm nevertheless suddenly possessed of a burning urge to put Charlton Heston as Moses on the California nickel...or maybe Olivia Newton-John as the Muse Terpsichore from Xanadu? Morgan Freeman as the Almighty...?


""[Armitage's] answers would wait until Fitzgerald had concluded his investigation""

Fitzgerald has a Marc Grossman problem. Who would Armitage finger as his Plame pipeline of information? And so Armitage would be putting forth he didn't know there was a classified issue and --as the Daily Sun said -- he was only discouraging reporters from writing.--- cue Armitage calling Grossman...who would HAVE to say he didn't tell his boss there could be problems if he talked to reporters -- WHICH is completely different than what he told Fitz he said to Libby...

Grossman told Fitz one thing and Libby and Army an altogether thing...


Did Keith Olberman cut and run and not appear on his show tonight?


an altogether *different* thing...


--Did Keith Olberman cut and run and not appear on his show tonight?


No, he wasn't on last night too...unless the gossip came at cocktail hour on Friday of last week...::wink::


Gotta just love these quotes...

From Olbermann Watch:

July 18, 2005:
FINEMAN: Karl Rove did leak. I mean, that is a leak.
OLBERMANN: But realistically, the bar was just raised from involved in to committed a crime.

October 25 2005:
OLBERMANN: The political blog, "The Washington Note," quoting what it colorfully calls an "uber-insider source," who says, "One to five sealed indictments will be handed up tomorrow. Probably more rather than less. The recipients already know. It will be made public in a news conference on Thursday."

April 6, 2006:
OLBERMANN: Also in his filing, Mr. Fitzgerald stated that he won't be calling Karl Rove or Stephen Hadley or George Tenet as witnesses at trial.
SHUSTER: Federal prosecutors say that you don't usually call somebody to the witness stand if you are thinking about making them a target in a separate case. And that would complain [sic] Karl Rove and Stephen Hadley, who clearly might have testimony, all from this particular case.

April 26, 2006:
OLBERMANN: So that Mr. Rove appeared voluntarily today, given the enormous possibility that he could have contradicted previous testimony, and thus digging a deeper hole for himself, might someone conclude that he had nothing to lose, that talking his way out of being charged is a risk he needed to take?
SHUSTER: Absolutely. And we've been given every indication that Karl Rove felt he had no other opportunity, that he felt that the evidence that his own lawyer had provided to prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that was supposed to clear Karl Rove out of all of this, that didn't work.

April 28, 2006:
SHUSTER: The bad news in all this for Karl Rove is that it means that after three and a half hours of testimony, where he's answering a wide variety of questions on Wednesday, his fifth grand jury appearance, the prosecutors were not willing to clear Karl Rove, nor were they willing to give any sort of signal that Rove's answers satisfied the grand jury.

May 5, 2006:
SHUSTER: Well, the tea leaves seem to suggest that Karl Rove is going to get indicted.... He went to such great lengths today to try to avoid mentioning Karl Rove or talking about his status. Now, that, in and of itself, seemed to signal something unique.
OLBERMANN: More rocks being overturned, and more worms beneath.

May 8 2006:
SHUSTER: Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted.


May 8 2006:
SHUSTER: Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted.

Which is weird cuz Luskin told TalkLeft that he has been reporting on the Rove team without the benefit of actually even contacting said team...which is even weirder cuz Schustie tonight tried to imply his lame tea leave reading ( you know the the leaves that say Fitz has never not indicted someone he hasn't specifically labeled target -- or some such) on defense attorneys - and um that would be Rove's I am sure.

Schuster...you out there? Good try on the punt schmuck...Wilson's got you and Matthew's hooked up on that blackberry too, we aren't stooopid you know...

Rick Ballard


No, Seixon is the devil. Well, Loki, anyway. Be careful or he'll send a halfling after you.


Re: Enemies List - Tuesday, June 13, 2006 @ 11:59:36 AM

Prowler: Let's not forget Joe Wilson in the catalog of losers. I have a reporter friend who was standing next to Wilson when Jason Leopold's bogus scoop that Rove's indictment was imminent flashed on Wilson's Blackberry. Wilson, goes the hearsay, was enthusiastic and utterly credulous-- when a prominent liberal columnist involved in the conversation (rhymes with Smellanor Swift) wondered if TruthOut.org was a reputable source and the story could be trusted, Wilson declared firmly, "It's true."

How do you suppose he reacted this morning?

Posted By: John Tabin

Busy blackberry...anyways I presume those are "fair game" in a civil action...anyways.


Maybe Schuster's source was Grossman and Martin's lawyers. In any event MSNBC is the major network loser, I think.


Maybe Schuster's source was Grossman

and Leopold's too...I think it is apparent in the Truthout Leopold Exhibit L(?) was it the sudmitted...something like "former senior state officials say" - I think...

Tom Maguire

Grossman told Fitz one thing and Libby and Army an altogether thing...

I love that - it is high on the "To Steal" list (don't let me forget...).


Yes, ts, As I recall the truthout article Libby wanted to put into evidence was a truthout piece naming Grossman as the source of the charges against reove and Libby.


Clarice...Fitz's Grossman Problem

Exhibit L - 14 Apr 06 truthout article (Leopold), "Libby Filing: A Denial and a Mystery"

Defense attorneys for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby said in a court filing late Wednesday that the former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney doesn't remember a conversation he had with a State Department official in June 2003 in which the official told Libby that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA....

...At least a half-dozen witnesses who testified before a grand jury over the past two years said that they were at the meeting when Marc Grossman, the former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, told Libby that Plame Wilson worked for the CIA, according to attorneys and US officials close to the two-year-old CIA leak probe. Grossman also told Libby that Plame Wilson got the CIA to send her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, on a fact-finding trip to Niger in February 2002 to check out reports that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from the African country. Wilson took the trip and reported back to the CIA in March that he found no evidence that Iraq tried to acquire uranium.

"It's not just Mr. Grossman's word against Mr. Libby's," said one former State Department official knowledgeable about the substance of the conversation between Grossman and Libby. "There were other people present at the meeting at the time when Mr. Grossman provided Mr. Libby with details about Ms. Plame's employment with the agency. There is an abundance of evidence Mr. Fitzgerald has that will prove this."....

Uh huh. Joe Wilson...

----I love that - it is high on the "To Steal" list (don't let me forget...).---

Not a chance I'll let you forget!


Papelbon G 29 SV 20 IP 30.1 ER 1 ERA 0.30
Rivera G 26 SV 12 IP 32.0 ER 7 ERA 1.97


We have to remember the media angle. The New York Times writes that the Libby trial could be a a major embarrassment for the White House. One could argue that it could be a major embarrassment for the media as well.

The credibility of key members of the media will be under fire. And did the fact that the potential witnesses against Rove included Cooper and Wilson have anything to do with Fitz not charging? Just wondering.

M. Simon

The Supreme Court has held and this district court upheld that the words do not mean what they say. So there for no religiion involved. Now go away.

Which is the basic problem of letting religion get involved with government. Religion, like the currency, will over time be debased.

Tom Bowler

What's this about the Wilsons and a civil suit? Fitzgerald and Walton have been going to extraordinary lengths to stay far away from any and all discussion of Joe Wilson's veracity or the role of Plame at the CIA in sending him to Africa. We're now supposed to believe the Wilsons are going to open that can of worms in a civil suit? This I gotta see.


Tom McGuire said:

Fitzgerald has been very reluctant to release Ms. Plame's classified employment status (although he has been ordered to provide a summary). Is the CIA going to provide that for the Wilson's civil suit? Or how will that suit proceed without it?

What I want to know is exactly what legal theory will be applied to this threatened "civil lawsuit"?

Civil lawsuits, in order to succeed, generally must prove one party harmed the other. So what harm has been done here? Was Plame denied career advancment because of Rove's actions? I doubt that very much. Did she loose her job because of Rove? No.

Oh, I know - Joe Wilson will claim but for Rove outing his wife, the discrepancies between his NYT Op-ed and reality would have never been brought to light, and his reputation would be unsullied.

That sounds like a winner.

The Unbeliever

A classic line from the TruthNot comment thread:

I am a human animal, and I know the truth when I FEEL it.

Well, I very deeply FEEL that the site and 99% of its commenters are off their rocker. Can I label that as Truth and post it to their front page?


A Wilson civil suit would provide everyone with years more entertainment, we really need to talk to Ken Starr for some advice on that routine.

Maybe we'd get that JOM/KOS Plame roundtable on C-SPAN.


Rove's lawyer would cream his jeans if the Wilsons were foolish enough to sue.

Can you say "discovery?"


Hello, nice site looks this

The comments to this entry are closed.