It appears that TruthOut has managed to irritate Jeralyn Merritt. What, there was no land war in Asia they could start? No bet with a Sicilian when death was on the line? (And check the reader revolt at TruthNot).
In other news, Richard Armitage will be on Charlie Rose in about 90 minutes (on my NYC outlet) - one might expect his status in the Plame investigation to be discussed.
[It is, briefly, and late in the show. Armitage says he is not worried about his own status, and does not even have an attorney. He declined to answer whether he was Woodward's source, saying that his answers would wait until Fitzgerald had concluded his investigation. He also expressed the belief that the leaks were not intended to harm Joe Wilson - speak for yourself, gnomish-looking one (although that jibes with Woodward, Pincus, Novak, and, one might argue, Miller). Weak and unconvincing, to say the least, but no news.]
MORE: How great is Mariano? Now if only the Mighty Shaq can show the heart of a chamipon... while I watch Charlie Rose.
ERRATA: Rational Exuberance:
Message to Joe Wilson:
FROGMARCH THIS!
PILING ON: Now, if only he had brought a suit on "In Rove We Trust":
A U.S. district court judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit brought by a California atheist against the U.S. government for its use of the phrase "In God We Trust" on its coins and currency.
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.
Newdow claimed that by using coins and currency bearing the phrase, he is forced to carry religious dogma, proselytise and evangelise for monotheism.
Judge Frank Damrell of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California held in his opinion that "In God We Trust" is secular in nature and use, and its appearance on coins and currency does not show government coercion on behalf of monotheism.
SAY WHAT? Jane Hamsher, writing with the "auto-rebut" activated:
Let's take (1). I'll accept that "anyone who pretends to know anything conclusive" may be unreasonably confident, but what about "We have no idea what Fitzgerald has"? If we have no idea, why have we been reading all these filings, and why has he been writing them? Of course we have *some* idea of his case, simply not enough for many firm conclusions.While there are certain to be those who are more focused on their next cruller than the facts and accuse Fitzgerald of wasting public time and money, several things need to be made clear:
- We have no idea what Fitzgerald has, and anyone who pretends to know anything conclusive one way or the other about what he got from Rove and where he’s going with this is talking out their ass
- Whatever it is he wanted from Rove, he obviously got it without going through a long expensive trial and putting the country through a media circus. That’s called being responsible, not a Ken Starr showboat.
- David Johnston’s paragraph this morning in the New York Times that seemed to indicate the investigation was at an end is at best poorly written. Rove will most certainly not be off the hook completely until Libby has had his day in court. If Libby makes a deal with Fitzgerald and implicates Rove, all bets are off. Fitzgerald acknowledges that because justice was obstructed, he could not know exactly what happened. The investigation will remain open at least until the Libby matter is closed. That’s just how it works.
- Rove is not in the clear, not by a long shot. The Wilsons have backed off on their civil suit in order to give Fitzgerald the room he needs to maneuver, but that will not last forever. Do you think Joe Wilson is interested in letting bygones be bygones with regard to Karl Rove? Send me your email, I just received a large inheritance in Nigeria and I need your help.
That said, how can we get from (1) "We have no idea what Fitzgerald has" to (2) "Whatever it is [Fitzgerald] wanted from Rove, he obviously got it"? I have no idea whether Fitzgerald got what he wanted from Rove or gave up in frustration, and I think someone telling me differently is talking out of her rear area.
Finally, what about (4):
Rove is not in the clear, not by a long shot. The Wilsons have backed off on their civil suit in order to give Fitzgerald the room he needs to maneuver, but that will not last forever.
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?
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?
Posted by: richard mcenroe | June 13, 2006 at 09:40 PM
That's why he was the perfect guy for the job...shilling for Wilson.
Posted by: clarice | June 13, 2006 at 09:59 PM
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.
Posted by: Lurker | June 13, 2006 at 10:00 PM
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...
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 13, 2006 at 10:30 PM
Newdow can always use credit cards.
Posted by: PaulV | June 13, 2006 at 10:37 PM
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"
Posted by: Lurker | June 13, 2006 at 10:46 PM
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.
Posted by: MayBee | June 13, 2006 at 10:52 PM
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)
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 13, 2006 at 10:57 PM
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.
Posted by: inmypajamas | June 13, 2006 at 11:07 PM
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.
Posted by: MayBee | June 13, 2006 at 11:08 PM
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?
Posted by: Tollhouse | June 13, 2006 at 11:25 PM
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?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 13, 2006 at 11:26 PM
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?
Posted by: Seixon | June 13, 2006 at 11:44 PM
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?
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 13, 2006 at 11:52 PM
Seixon- I asked empty wheel a little bit about this on THN, and she answered me- a little.
Posted by: MayBee | June 13, 2006 at 11:56 PM
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.
Questions:
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.
Posted by: clarice | June 13, 2006 at 11:59 PM
not crazy.
Posted by: MayBee | June 14, 2006 at 12:02 AM
Seixon
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.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2006 at 12:05 AM
""[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.
Posted by: Javani | June 14, 2006 at 12:06 AM
"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...?
Posted by: richard mcenroe | June 14, 2006 at 12:12 AM
""[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...
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2006 at 12:12 AM
Did Keith Olberman cut and run and not appear on his show tonight?
Posted by: PaulV | June 14, 2006 at 12:14 AM
an altogether *different* thing...
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2006 at 12:14 AM
--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::
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2006 at 12:17 AM
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.
Posted by: JJ | June 14, 2006 at 12:19 AM
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...
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2006 at 12:28 AM
TS,
No, Seixon is the devil. Well, Loki, anyway. Be careful or he'll send a halfling after you.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 14, 2006 at 12:31 AM
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.
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2006 at 12:32 AM
Maybe Schuster's source was Grossman and Martin's lawyers. In any event MSNBC is the major network loser, I think.
Posted by: clarice | June 14, 2006 at 12:41 AM
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...
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2006 at 12:46 AM
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...).
Posted by: Tom Maguire | June 14, 2006 at 12:53 AM
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.
Posted by: clarice | June 14, 2006 at 12:57 AM
Clarice...Fitz's Grossman Problem
Exhibit L - 14 Apr 06 truthout article (Leopold), "Libby Filing: A Denial and a Mystery"
Posted by: topsecretk9 | June 14, 2006 at 01:12 AM
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
Posted by: Dave | June 14, 2006 at 02:45 AM
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.
Posted by: kate | June 14, 2006 at 04:35 AM
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.
Posted by: M. Simon | June 14, 2006 at 06:34 AM
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.
Posted by: Tom Bowler | June 14, 2006 at 06:55 AM
Tom McGuire said:
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.
Posted by: Truzenzuzex | June 14, 2006 at 07:23 AM
A classic line from the TruthNot comment thread:
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?
Posted by: The Unbeliever | June 14, 2006 at 09:31 AM
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.
Posted by: jerry | June 14, 2006 at 10:40 AM
Rove's lawyer would cream his jeans if the Wilsons were foolish enough to sue.
Can you say "discovery?"
Posted by: mojo | June 14, 2006 at 04:28 PM
Hello, nice site looks this
Posted by: pennie | July 05, 2006 at 05:55 PM