"Here is another truth: those of us outside the (plame) case can have no earthly way of knowing what exactly is going on inside (unless of course you are Murray Waas, who seems to be omniscient at times). But here is what I do know: the GOP spinmeisters are working overtime to get their side of the story cemented as the conventional wisdom on this case. Why, you ask?* luskin on TO, via jeralyn:
Because something is going on that they do not want us to know about — and I, for one, sure as hell want to know what that is. (You want more on this, read this from EPU. Interesting, no?)
No one works that hard to suppress or downplay or manipulate public opinion unless there is a very good reason to do so. Here are a few: (1) Information that is bound to come out in testimony during the Libby trial is very damning, and they are trying to get out in front of it. (2) No one wants Dick Cheney under oath and on the stand in front of the public. (3) Karl Rove may not have an official deal, but he does have an obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the stand — or face perjury charges. And that is not something he wants to do under any circumstances. (See Number 2 above.) (4) The investigation is continuing, Fitzgerald is chipping away at the evidence, and the spinmeisters want to turn public opinion against him before he goes much further. (5) The WHIG is restless….well, you get the point."
""It is insane and nonsensical, equal parts bizarre innuendo and alleged facts that do not square with reality or the American legal system. Truthout's stubborn nuttiness to the contrary, some times things are simply as they appear: Mr. Fitzgerald completed his investigation, reviewed the evidence, and concluded that it simply does not support a charge. There never was -- not for a second -- any secret meetings at my office, plea negotiations, secret sealed (or not so sealed, as the case may be) indictments, or last minute concessions.""
* jeralyn on Sealed v Sealed:
"...That argument falls apart for me not because of the dates, but because I think it would be improper for a proseutor to obtain an indictment only to engage in plea bargaining, with no intent of prosecuting if the defendant accepts his offer. And it would seem likewise improper for a judge to be complicit in such a scheme by withholding it from the Clerk's office while the parties negotiated."* btw, someone in the comments (viget?) asked about kathleen's observation that there was more than one sealed case. perhaps kathleen was referring to this comment by jeralyn:
"So there remain two sealed cases, one in District Court and one in Magistrate court that could be for Joe Schmo or for someone connected to PlameGate."
25 comments:
The "128" argument falls apart BOTH because of the date and because it is improper for a prosecutor to use an indictment he does not intend to proceed with as coercion.
AGAIN, I will clarify that there are TWO "128" cases, but only one is sealed. the one in magistrate court is NOT SEALED and we KNOW it pertains to a miscellaneous action filed by reporters to quash subpoenas issued by Fitzgerald. The SEALED "128" is a criminal action filed either May 16 or May 17. (i.e., between 127 and 129)
As for the White House being nervous. Obviously, but but how does that add the slightest credence to any of the "there's an indictment-- no there's a deal-- no there's an indictment-- no there's an indictment and a deal --no..... " nonsense?
The bottom line is that if the objective was to head off people testifying under oath, the easiest thing to do would be to wait until a few days before trial and then have Libby plead guilty straight up to the indictment (meaning without a plea agreement). As the trial is not currently set until January 2007 (and could possibly be continued), the mid-terms are out of the way and then sentencing wouldf not be for several months after that at the earliest. Then, Libby could appeal whatever sentence he receives and seek bond while the appeal is pending (not a sure thing but certainly possible). An extension or two of the briefing schedule (routinely granted) and the typical length of time it takes an appeal court to render a decision and we are probably well into 2008. then, file a writ for certiorari to the Supreme Court and a motion to continue bond while that is pending and, it is far from unlikely that we could be past the 2008 election before Libby's case is final. thenn, Bush can pardon Libby if he wants and there is a good chance he's necer spent a day in jail and no one has been "forced" (by court order, agreement or simple political or personal self-interest) to testify under oath in open court.
I'm not predicting that is what is going to happen. I'm just stating that if we begin from the premise that avoiding testimony is the paramount objective, that would seem to be the best tactics.
No, I was referring to a Wayne Madsen Report about the Rove/Fitz drama. I'll go look for it.
Also, check out the comments at TO, by Molly Shaw on "imposed immunity", my favorite explanation for this current puzzle. US Code, Title 18, Part V, Chapter 601, Sec: 6002, 6003. Rejoice and chill that champagne.
Kathleen:
Do you not have a problem with that making no sense? Go ahead drink the champagne and live your life. If you are keeping it chilled until the fairy tale that Rove was indicted is announced, you will just have overpriced vinegar. Why do you have such an emotional investment in believing something so clearly false?
You DON'T need to defend TO's lying stupidity to make very valid points about Karl Rove and his conduct. Stick to doing that because you lose credibility when stating opposition to things he have done if you are simultaneously expressing belief in things one would have to be crazy to believe.
THINK! How does the fact that prosecutors can obtain an immunity order to compel a witness to testify lend any credence whatsoever to the fantasy that Rove was indicted?
There's a federal law that makes it illegal to transport minors across a state line for immoral purposes. That doesn't lend any support to the argument that Rove, you or I were secretly indicted for violating it and now are being forced to testify against someone else by being given immunity.
The entire scenario[s] set forth at TO is obvious nonsense and the utterly absurd rationalizations of really ignorant and unintelligent sycophants among the TO cultists don't change that.
All you can possibly accomplish by citing TO as support for ANY position on any issue, let alone this one is to destroy your own credibility. Don't fall for the BS they are feeding you.
thnx again, WakeUp.
Wake Up: I don't consider myself an expert, just a relatively well informed citizen. I read lots of sources and do my best to construct a reasonable conclusion, knowing full well that I have feet of clay, but gullible is not one of the things I am.
I am not invested in any blogs reputation, but rather take my responsibility as a citizen to make informed decisions and do my very best, very seriously. The Plame investigation is very high on my list of concerns, as is ethics in gov't and the fiduciary responsibilities of office holders and the employees they hire to assist them, like Libby and Rove.
We are all rendering educated guesses here, putting together as many pieces to the puzzle as we find and sharing them, including you. You are invested in the reality being that Rove was not indicted, so don't drink any champagne. I happen to like the stuff, but not to worry, I like vinegar too.
I'm Italian, so I'm partial to Bellinis, a summer punch made with champagne and fresh peaches. My grandfather used to make it for dessert, sometimes, if the peaches were ripe.
In any case, your arguement that a Prosecutor cannot impose immunity, doesn't wash because US Code Title 18, Part V, Chapter 601, 6003 & 6003 state quite clearly that a US Attorney can, as well as, say Judge Reggie Walton could have in the Libby Case in the recent pre-trial hearing.
There is also the provision for a Congressional Committee, subcommittee, joint committee imposing immunity and we have a Congressional request to Fitz from 40 Congressmen, written in August,2005, requesting that he increase the scope of his investigation, beyond the sheer question of who leaked Plame's name and did they know they were releasing classified info, to include the Niger forgery phase of the buildup to the use of force in Iraq. Fitz definitely has the authority to do just that if his investigation uncovers other crimes. In fact, he has a duty.
You also are looking at Luskin's interpretation of no idictments letter, he won't or can't show, in the Plame leak investigation to mean the whole kit and kaboddle of everything that Fitz has against Rove, in addition to that NARROW aspect of the questions at hand in the Libby case. You have no knowledge that Sealed vs Sealed is only against Rove, for only one charge.
Maybe Fitz and Rove refused to bugde in their positions on an agreement and Walton was forced to impose immunity. It's conceivable, in my particular bubble.
In any case, Wake Up,(does that mean rebirth or something), I'm not going to give up a perfectly sunny day at the beach to go sit in a law library reading Corpus Juris Secondum just to verbally duel. Your'e working so hard to burst my bubble, I'm gonna need the chilling bubbly to refresh my ephervesence to approrpiate living standards. Levity, brevity, blevity. Bippity, boppity, booo.
For that matter, Judge Reggie Walton may have felt he had to give Rove immunity to guarantee Libby a fair trial. If Rove is subpoenaed to produce dox, he has to be free to submit dox that incriminate or exculpate Libby but can't be made to, if he takes the 5th because they ALSO implicate him and others with greater fiduciary responsibilities to the public.
As for the typical lawyer response to the concept that if Rove made a deal he would be an "impeachable witness" I wish that were so in every other criminal investigation, where even false "dealt testimony" is taken as gospel truth, except for the ultra elite. But if immunity was imposed on him, its a way to eliminate impeachability questions.
When I know the truth, I'll accept it, but until Fitz says Rove won't be indicted, I'm not putting him in the all clear column. You can do what you want with him.
US vs. Sealed could have been drafted and served on Rove and then Walton at the recent hearing in the Libby case, imposed immunity on Rove, strictly as it relates to leaking, which may be why we don't hear anymore about that one.
Sealed vs, Sealed could include Rove as ONE of the named Defendants, Offical A.
Well, Wake up, maybe you should have some bubbly and lighten up yourself. You could be right, I could be right, we could both be wrong. Champagne goes with every occasion.
Incidentally, I thought of imposed immunity right off the bat, one week before TO's piece and the comments. I'm glad I know what US Code to quote now. Thanks, Molly Shaw. I'm not part of a TO cult and don't have an account there, but I like to check it out, as do you, too. I like to make up my own mind reading blogs, books and MSM. I draw my own conclusions. I don't leap at CW.
So chill and ciao
WakeUp: Maybe you could enlighten us why Luskin isn't showing the letter, fax?
TO is not the ONLY source for the Sealed vs Sealed indictment reporting.
You consider my conclusions a fairy tale and I consider your acceptance of Luskin's word with a "no show letter", an MRE in the Food For Thought Department, Pre Packaged thinking, sounds nourishing, but read the ingredients, cooked up in a lab.
Incidentally, there is no such thing as an overpriced vinegar to a gourmet.
Vinegar is a very important ingredient in the best kitchens. Some are so good they're more costly than the wine you probably drink. Champagne vinegar is one of the best. You really should try it sometime. Yumm.
Wakeup; You also say Bottom Line: if the objective was to avoid people giving testimony under oath...
Objective of what was to avoid testimony under oath? The indictment.../ the deal.../ the imposed immunity?? the No deal???? The trial may not begin in Court until Jan, but pre-trial hearings happen before that, like the one just last week on the day when Luskin announced Rove not being indicted in the leak case.
They had to do something to get that "he's clear signal" out to the press. "Clearing" Rove for purely political reasons so the cloud over Rove's head wouldn't continue to drag Bush's stats, meant they had to bring about a headline before the midterms. Yes he could continue his testimony till cows come home, but an all clear is what is required before the midterms.
I don't think the answer is, shuchks, we just can't prosecute this guy. If it was, Fitz would say so and Luskin would make a broadway musical out that letter.
i'm with you kathleen - there are so many unknowns... let's hope we learn something soon.
Here are my answers:
"WakeUp: Maybe you could enlighten us why Luskin isn't showing the letter, fax?"
Because the letter is undoubtedly a terse missive that says nothing of substance beyond, "This office does not anticipate seeking an indictment at this time," and my well also have language expressly stating that it is not intended to foreclose indictment if new evidence comes to light (or words to that effect). Thus, it is better PR simply to disclose the truth that the letter states no indictment anticipated without actually suggesting it clears or exonerated Rove because they know many will take it as clearing him.
"TO is not the ONLY source for the Sealed vs Sealed indictment reporting."
So? First, the "sealed v. Sealed reporting UNDERCUTS TO's original stories because it is known the 1:06-cr-000128 matter could not contain an indictment returned prior to May 12 as claimed by TO. Second, it isn't "reporting" by anyone in any real sense of the word. It's just a claim without any basis whatsoever that it contains something related to Rove-- despite the absolute on-the-record denials from Luskin. I can say that since there's many other sealed cases it probably means Bush has been idicted too. that's not reporting; that's nonsense.
You consider my conclusions a fairy tale and I consider your acceptance of Luskin's word with a "no show letter", an MRE in the Food For Thought Department, Pre Packaged thinking, sounds nourishing, but read the ingredients, cooked up in a lab."
Defending nonsense with more of the same does not make it less nonsensical. There is no reason whatsoever for Luskin to lie and many related to both this case and his own career for him not to lie. If he is lying it will be proven -- and he will not face an audience of hopelessly gullible people with an extreme emotional investment in ignoring his obvious lie.
"Incidentally, there is no such thing as an overpriced vinegar to a gourmet."
I hear it's good on crow with sour grapes, which is what you will be served if you persist in publicly supporting these fantasies. (Even if you believe it why not just be clever enough to recognize the risk to your reputaton if wrong and keep it to yourself?)
"Wakeup; You also say Bottom Line: if the objective was to avoid people giving testimony under oath...
Objective of what was to avoid testimony under oath? "
The objective of "the Administration." I'm not saying it is the overriding objective (although it is obviously an important one), I was just taking someone else's premise and offering the best way to meet the objective proposed in that premise.
"The indictment.../ the deal.../ the imposed immunity?? the No deal???? The trial may not begin in Court until Jan, but pre-trial hearings happen before that, like the one just last week on the day when Luskin announced Rove not being indicted in the leak case. "
Yes, pre-trial hearings are routine in all types of cases. What is your point?
"They had to do something to get that "he's clear signal" out to the press. "
Who is they? Are you suggesting Fitzgeral is conspiring with Rove's team to mislead the press? Are you actually still trying to argue there was no letter to Rove from Fitzgerald?
""Clearing" Rove for purely political reasons so the cloud over Rove's head wouldn't continue to drag Bush's stats, meant they had to bring about a headline before the midterms."
Rove ISN'T cleared. I've tried and tried to get you to grap that. A decision not to indict is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion that may be done for a variety of reasons only two of which are the prosecutor's belief the target is not guilty or that he lacks sufficient evidence to convict. As I said the OBVIOUS reason Luskin does not want to disclose the letter is that it contains no language that would be construed as clearing or exonerating Rove. Luskin is telling the truth and he's not even mischaracterizing the letter (he'd have to be a total fool to do that); he's simply letting other people do that.
"Yes he could continue his testimony till cows come home, but an all clear is what is required before the midterms."
Maybe, but don't you see that because people like you are still busy wasting time and sacrificing credibility chanting incantations over the rotting corpse of the "TO told the truth about Rove being indicted theory," you are making it EASIER for the "Rove has been cleared" message to pervade the consciousness of the general public? Focus on THAT. Point out that he HAS NOT been cleared simply because he isn't being prosecuted. He still did what he did. Publicize what he did and make good arguments for why it was wrong (it doesn't even have to be "criminal" to be "wrong"). YOU are helping them by fighting a fight that you not only can't win but that you look foolish shadow boxing yourself after your opponent has left the ring and is preparing for hi next bout.
"I don't think the answer is, shuchks, we just can't prosecute this guy. If it was, Fitz would say so and Luskin would make a broadway musical out that letter."
What you think has no relevance. It's not a matter of "we can't" prosecute this guy. It's a matter of that at this time he "isn't going to be" prosecuted unless something changes,. Fitzgerald will not say so now-- about Rove or anyone else. He will say IF he indicts someone and he will say when the investigation is over. Even when he says it is over he will make no specific comment about the guilt, innocence or the evidence favorable or unfavorable towards any individual. He'll jst say we have concluded the investigation. Fitzgerald is NOT preparing an investigative report for Congress, the media, the public or any entity. He's conducting a criminal investigation and prosecuting a criminal case. He will follow the rules and practices associated with those not some ethos about the people's right to know.
12:35 PM
lukery said...
I missed your first post and only responded to the second. Belatedly:
"Kathleen said...
Wake Up: I don't consider myself an expert, just a relatively well informed citizen. I read lots of sources and do my best to construct a reasonable conclusion, knowing full well that I have feet of clay, but gullible is not one of the things I am."
We'll have to disagree on that. Believing Rove has been indicted for no reason other than the claim of aconvicted felon who tells lies so inherently implausible it defies description is gullible to the extreme. Continuing to believe it in the face of the passage of 6 weeks time and the unfolding of events that made the story that was obviously bogus on its face pretty much a moot point to anyone with a pulse goes beyond gullibility to delusional.
"I am not invested in any blogs reputation, but rather take my responsibility as a citizen to make informed decisions and do my very best, very seriously."
You are going to have a very hard time persuading anyone you take things seriously if you insist upon espousing ideas that are comical.
"The Plame investigation is very high on my list of concerns, as is ethics in gov't and the fiduciary responsibilities of office holders and the employees they hire to assist them, like Libby and Rove."
Same.
"We are all rendering educated guesses here, putting together as many pieces to the puzzle as we find and sharing them, including you."
No, your guesses are not educated-- they are the antithesis of educated and are based on nothing but absurd conspiracy theories with no basis in fact. you are not putting pieces of a puzzle together. You are ignoring all the pieces and leaping to an absurd conclusion based on silly lies that you choose to believ for no reason other than you wish they could be true.
You are invested in the reality being that Rove was not indicted, so don't drink any champagne."
No. I'm invested in getting people to recognize and repudiate obvious lies that bring discredit to anyone remotely associated with them and trying to convince people the dumbest thing they can possibly do if they oppose Rove is make it easy for him to disparage his critics as hopelessly foolish nuts.
In any case, your arguement that a Prosecutor cannot impose immunity, doesn't wash because US Code Title 18, Part V, Chapter 601, 6003 & 6003 state quite clearly that a US Attorney can
NO-- it doesn't say that. It says a prosecutor can with authorization from the AG or his designee (here, for purposes of this case fitzgerald is endowed with the authority of the AG so he doesn;tneed to seek approval from ?Gonzales o his designee) REQUEST an order granting immunity from the court. It also says the court shall grant the order if properly made but that is not the same as the prosecutor having unilateral authority to IMPOSE immunity. Only the court can do that.
" as well as, say Judge Reggie Walton could have in the Libby Case in the recent pre-trial hearing. "
Could have, but didn't. That we know.
"There is also the provision for a Congressional Committee, subcommittee, joint committee imposing immunity"
This is another reason why your "guesses" are uneducated. Congress can grant (impose) immunity to compel testimony BEFORE CONGRESS. It cannot impose immunity appliacable to a witness in a JUDICIAL proceeding.
"and we have a Congressional request to Fitz from 40 Congressmen, written in August,2005, requesting that he increase the scope of his investigation, beyond the sheer question of who leaked Plame's name and did they know they were releasing classified info, to include the Niger forgery phase of the buildup to the use of force in Iraq."
More evidence you are not "educated." Congress has no authority to do anything in this matter by a letter to Fitzgerald. That was nothing more than a politically motivated request the signers knew had no effect.
"Fitz definitely has the authority to do just that if his investigation uncovers other crimes. In fact, he has a duty."
No. Fitzgerald is a "special prosecutor" because we no longer have "independent counsel" (thank Congress). Fitzgerald's authority is expressly limited by the terms of the delegation of authority given by the AG. (It does include pursuing crimes committed to obstruct the investigation such as perjury, false swearing and obstruction of justice). It is not an open-ended mandate. (Thank Ken Starr and Congress). If Fitzgerald wishes to expand the scope of his investigation beyond his delegation he would have to request such an expansion from the AG. (which would be very interesting because it would certainly create a huge political football for Bush and Gonzales) .
"You also are looking at Luskin's interpretation of no idictments letter, he won't or can't show, in the Plame leak investigation to mean the whole kit and kaboddle of everything that Fitz has against Rove, in addition to that NARROW aspect of the questions at hand in the Libby case."
I've repeatedly explained this. The letter undoubtedly means nothing more and nothing less than what Luskin said. That Fitzgerald stated he does not anticipate indicting Rove. I've never suggested that the letter exonerates Rove or would in any way be enforceable against Fitzgerald if he did indict Rove. I've endeavored to get you to understand that and suggested your best approach is to point out that the letter does not "clear" Rove of wrongdoing and does not foreclose the possibility he might in the future be indicted. However, everyone with any sense will dismiss you as not a reliable commentator on that issue if you keep making the silly argument that Rove has been indicted. I'm trying to help sterr you in a fruitful direction (not the peaches) but you insist upon driving off the cliff with the stupid argument.
"You have no knowledge that Sealed vs Sealed is only against Rove, for only one charge."
It's not "knowledge." It's inferred from all known evidence other than the evidence that truthout and Jason Leopold have convinced a very few very gulliblke partisans to believe black is white.
"Maybe Fitz and Rove refused to bugde in their positions on an agreement and Walton was forced to impose immunity. It's conceivable, in my particular bubble."
Again, you simply have no clue what you are talking about. Judges don't grant immunity months prior to any trial testimony. It would only be imposed IF ROVE IS IN FACT CALLED AS A WITNESS AND THEN TAKES THE 5TH. That you keep resorting to these nonsensical fantasies just makes you sound whacked.
"For that matter, Judge Reggie Walton may have felt he had to give Rove immunity to guarantee Libby a fair trial. "
AGAIN, he isn't in a trial yet and Rove has not bee subpoenaed to testify yet and that simply DID NOT and COULD NOT have happened. (Wake up! is an exhortation directed at people like yo who trance-like accept utter garbage as being possible.
"If Rove is subpoenaed to produce dox, he has to be free to submit dox that incriminate or exculpate Libby but can't be made to, "
Again, that is simply not true. the privilege against self-incrimination is a TESTIMONIAL privilege and does not allow a person to refuse to produce relevant documents pursuant to to a subpoena duces tecum. You have no real clue about the law so you are easily misled by other swho either do know something and ARE TRYING to mislead you or as is more often the case know as little as you do but pretend to know something.
"As for the typical lawyer response to the concept that if Rove made a deal he would be an "impeachable witness" I wish that were so in every other criminal investigation, where even false "dealt testimony" is taken as gospel truth,"
Trials are far from perfect. Often people with deals tell the truth but they often lie. You are missing THE POINT however. Usually, the person has a deal to plead to a crime that is not one that stands as an admission one is a liar as with perjury and false swearing. NO PROSECUTOR with a pulse is going to acuse someone of being a perjurer and then put him on the stand and tell the jury to credit his testimony. Putting a tax cheat on to testify his accountant set it up or one drug dealer to finger another drug dealer are sometimes necessary evils, but putting a PERJURER on the stand not the same thing and obviously not necessary when the prosecutor can simply not accuse him and leave the job of working for the acquittal of the defendant to the defense counsel.
"except for the ultra elite. But if immunity was imposed on him, its a way to eliminate impeachability questions. "
I'm not sure what that means but saying granting one immunity makes him less impeachable (let alone eliminates impeachability questions) is just so incredibly wrong in every way possible, I'm flabbergasted that even you can not see it.
Wake Up,
Sorry to butt in here, since you seem to have built up a pretty good head of steam in your rants at Kathleen, both here and in the other thread, but I've a few questions:
Are you an attorney? If so, are you (or have you ever been) a federal prosecutor? In what state(s) are you licensed to practice? Where do you come by your "authority" to be so insistent that your viewpoint is correct? Why not keep it simple and just give us a copy of your CV.
How do you account for the fact that Fitz has yet to release a single public comment to confirm he no longer has any interest in Rove as a target of his investigation? Do you have inside information about where it is all heading? Who are your sources?
It is difficult to understand why it is so important to you that Kathleen interpret the facts of this situation the same way you do. I'm also puzzled by your very heated and apparent determination to defend Rove -- is he paying you to raise this much dust?
And as a lurker who has been reading this exchange between the two of you for just a couple of days, I am one who has no more inside information on this situation than anyone else here, and on the face value of your posts, I am not convinced you are trying to "help" Kathleen.
Judging by the length and totality of your responses to her posts, it appears you like to get your dander up and yourself into a decidedly UN-helpful state of belligerence.
It would be lovely if you could consider accepting my comments as being given in an effort to help YOU assume a more friendly demeanor.
With all this in mind, perhaps you could comment on the quote from ReddHedd that began this thread. I am very interested in hearing your take on that, if it wouldn't be too much trouble. And as a reminder, please give us your qualifications to support your opinions (i.e., in the other thread (Here: http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/06/06cr00128.html#115116240227442500), you dismissed Kathleen's perspective because of her age, where you said,
I DO question your credibility. I don't think you have ANY concerning these issues because you have no understanding, knowledge or ability to reason. I know you are young and were raised to believe "self-esteem" is a divine right and all opnions are worthy simply because they exist. I am from an era where we were taught to disrespect things noty worthy of respect. (Emphasis mine)
OUCH! . . . so in addition to my prior questions concerning your qualifications, please also tell us your age and a brief description of your life experience so we can put your comments in the proper context.
Thank you so much!
LeeB:
I will answeer some of your questions.
"Are you an attorney?"
Yes, and I have represented hundreds of criminal defendants including well over a 100 defendants in federal criminal cases. I have not represented any nationally prominent politicians but I have represented several people involved in political corruption cases and many others involved in multiple defendant/target "white collar" federal cases where the process is similar.
If so, are you (or have you ever been) a federal prosecutor?
No. I worked briefly as a prosecutor many years ago, but most of my career has been on the defense side.
In what state(s) are you licensed to practice?
Not relevant.
Where do you come by your "authority" to be so insistent that your viewpoint is correct?
The "authority" derives from not being utterly clueless about these things. It's not a matter of my viewpoint being correct. it's the fact i know what the law i and isn't. I know what the law means and don't misinterpret things I cut and paste without understanding and then claim it supports my position. It's a matter of recognizing how totally foolish the Rove has been indicted scenario is based on every single known factor. Look at it this way:
Take ALL the known facts specific to this case and all inarguable realities of federal criminal law, practice and procedure then ask yourself: Would anyone even be talking about the possibility that Rove HAS BEEN indicted if not for a single source on the media fringe that published an outlandish story? The answer is NO! All this talk is solely the result of Leopold's story in TO. EVERYTHING else points to the obvious conclusion Rove has not been indicted.
How do you account for the fact that Fitz has yet to release a single public comment to confirm he no longer has any interest in Rove as a target of his investigation?
I HAVE answered this but will do it again. Fitzgerald is A PROSECUTOR conducting A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. He is NOT charged with providing information for the public, the media or Congress. That's not his job and in fact he is PROHIBITED from disclosing all but very general information. He will announce when someone IS indicted and the nature of the charges. He will also announce when the investigation concludes. When he announces conclusion that is all he will do. He won't provide reasons, describe evidence that doesn't or doesn't exist, comment on the strenght or weakness of any evidence or how it relates to any particular individuals or give his reasons for not charging anyone.
Arguing that someone is not doing something that simply is not done in this context is simply not an argument that the silence supports an inference that one particular (of many possible ) things not commented upon is thus more likely true. That is simply false logic. Fitzgerald also hasn't stated he thinks rove acted appropriately. It is equally wrong for rove supporters to claim THAT SILENCE supports their position.
"Do you have inside information about where it is all heading? Who are your sources?"
No. I have commented with assurance only about where we undoubtedly are, not where the investigation might finish. (I have speculated that I don't expect any indictments for the actual leak and that any perjury/obstruction type charges will likely be against lower profile folks than
Rove or Cheney even if they come to pass-- but that's just speculation.)
I have no "inside sources." Inside sources are not necessary though to recognize that Leopold's story was a complete fabrication.
"It is difficult to understand why it is so important to you that Kathleen interpret the facts of this situation the same way you do."
It's not her interpretation of facts. It's he inability to understand the known facts and her willingness both to base conclusions on mistaken premises and to reach conclusions that do not follow from her premises even if the premises were accurate. She simply has no clue about how the legal system works. It's not "interpreting" to argue that the legal system operates in ways completely contrary to reality-- it's nonsense. I do not feel obliged to "be nice" and respond to nonsense without pointing out that it is nonsense.
"I'm also puzzled by your very heated and apparent determination to defend Rove -- is he paying you to raise this much dust?"
Then you sufeer from an affliction similar to Kathleen-- the inability to read and understand. I have not once defended Rove's conduct in any way, shape or manner. I think what he did was wrong and he should be fired whether or not he is ever charged with a crime. Not being a sadly gullible fool does not make a Rove defender. Accepting the reality that he has not been indicted and the claim he was is an obvious lie is not defending Rove. Actually, as I have said, being a sadly gullible fool and keeping attention focused on the one issue on which he can obviously prevail-- whether or not he has been indicted-- does way more to help Rove. That allows him and his surrogates to dismiss valid points about his conduct by pointing out those points are largely being made by people who have no grasp on reality and lets him avoid addressing the actual substance of the points because it is so easy to ridicule the messengers.
"And as a lurker who has been reading this exchange between the two of you for just a couple of days, I am one who has no more inside information on this situation than anyone else here, and on the face value of your posts, I am not convinced you are trying to "help" Kathleen."
Well, if you think it helps people to let them continue to discredit themselves by spouting nonsense we disagree.
"Judging by the length and totality of your responses to her posts, it appears you like to get your dander up and yourself into a decidedly UN-helpful state of belligerence.
It would be lovely if you could consider accepting my comments as being given in an effort to help YOU assume a more friendly demeanor."
I'm not trying to be your friend. I could not care less if you like me. That has nothing to do with whether what i say is correct and whether what Kathleen says is nonsense.
"With all this in mind, perhaps you could comment on the quote from ReddHedd that began this thread. I am very interested in hearing your take on that, if it wouldn't be too much trouble."
I'm not sure what point you mean. If you mean do I think the Administration will "spin" this (and everything else) as far as it can get away with, i obviously agree. If you mean do i think it is even remoterly possible that Rove has been indicted and the 44 million reasons to think that is untrue are nothing but spin, I think you have to be nuts to think that. i think the "spin" is the argument that the decision not to indict Rove clears him and should end discussion of what he did. As I said, the approach taken by silly gullible people helps him with that spin. I have repeatedly urged people to FOCUS ON WHAT ROVE DID AND WHY IT WAS BAD. That's an area where Rove can be successfully challenged. For som bizarre reason, you guys don't seem to talk about that and keep discrediting yourselve's by trying to construct a ridiculous scenario in which he has been indicted.
Choose your battles wisely. As it is the fight will be over how delusional you are because you keep saying foolish things,
with little attention give to what Rove did and why he should at the least be fired for doing it
"And as a reminder, please give us your qualifications to support your opinions (i.e., in the other thread (Here: http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/06/06cr00128.html#115116240227442500), you dismissed Kathleen's perspective because of her age, where you said, "
I did not dismiss her opinions because of her age. I dismissed her opinions because they are based on foolish speculation, misapprehension of law and procedure and an appalling lack of logic. I pointed to her age merely as an explantion for why she would feel her opinions are worthy despite their utter bankruptcy and persist in asserting them for no reason other than she wishes they were true.
"so in addition to my prior questions concerning your qualifications, please also tell us your age and a brief description of your life experience so we can put your comments in the proper context.
Thank you so much!"
I'm a middle-aged lawyer. I don't think anything else about my life has any bearing on anything.
Well, well, Wake Up! So you DO claim to be a lawyer. No surprise there. You state you have represented criminal defendants in "well over 100 cases" but you forgot to mention how many were successful - that is, resolved by dismissed charges, acquittal, or favorable plea negotiations saving the accused money (legal fees and/or fines) and/or prison time. I'm interested because Fitz's track record has been discussed at length in various media so I'd like to have something with which to compare.
Oh, and by "middle aged" do you mean you are somewhere around 50? . . . 60? You brought up the subject of age in your assessment of Kathleen, so it appears YOU believe age is relevant to this discussion.
I am curious how you "know" Kathleen is young and why you think her age is relevant. Are you personally acquainted with her? . . . did she already tell you that in some other post (that I missed) or are you simply making an assumption? What does her age - or anyone's age - have to do with you employing an abusive, derisive and jeering style of communication in this discussion? To be a bit more clear, when working to persuade a judge or jury (or prosecutor) to your line of thinking in representing a criminal defendant, is this how you speak to them? I get that you don't particularly care if you are liked, but what I do NOT get is how this style of communication is effective if your focus is to "help," educate, or to persuade. I've never found personal attacks to be particularly persuasive, but maybe that's just me.
As to my inquiry concerning your take on reddhedd's quote posted at the beginning of this thread, are you including reddhedd in the category of "silly, gullible people who [help Rove] with that spin . . . . That's an area where Rove can be successfully challenged. For som [sic] bizarre reason, you guys don't seem to talk about [WHAT ROVE DID AND WHY IT WAS BAD] and keep discrediting yourselve's [sic] by trying to construct a ridiculous scenario in which he has been indicted."
???
Could you illustrate your response with specific quotes from reddhedd, please, so there is no doubt as to your meaning?
"you guys" ??? Who is included in this phrase? Would that be anyone on this forum who believes that (1) since Rove's attorney has not seen fit to publish the entire FAX received from Fitz; and (2) since Fitz is quite properly remaining in "no comment" mode with respect to Rove; AND (3) since Fitz ALSO has not announced the end of his investigation, that (4) there is likely more to this story that meets the eye? . . . and just so you can relax about this part, I think we all know "what Rove did and why it was bad" and we're not much interested in wasting time discussing that part of this puzzle at this time, but you are welcome to go right ahead and explain why you think it is important to do so now.
It does appear that your conclusion is reddhedd = "silly, gullible" and I just want to be sure I understand your answer as you intended.
Do tell.
LeeB - thanks for unlurking.
WakeUp - thanks again for helping explain the situtation.
oops - just seeing LeeB's new comment here (which snuck in before i posted my previous comment)
I'm sure WakeUp will answer only the questions he(?) chooses - but let's try to keep focussed on the relevant issues.
(unless you all enjoy duking it out - then feel free)
LeeB:
Evidently you just like to argue. Pity you are so bad at it.
LeeB said...
Well, well, Wake Up! So you DO claim to be a lawyer. No surprise there. You state you have represented criminal defendants in "well over 100 cases" but you forgot to mention how many were successful - that is, resolved by dismissed charges, acquittal, or favorable plea negotiations saving the accused money (legal fees and/or fines) and/or prison time.
Actually, I said I've represented hundreds of criminal defendants and that well over 100 of them were in federal criminal cases. "Success" is a relative term in criminal cases. Relatively few result in outright dismissal of criminal charges that have been filed (but it does happen). More frequently, a defendant who is a target or subject to an investigation succeeds in avoiding being charged (as with Rove, for example). As for successful negotiations, if an agreement is reached that idicates the defendant is getting some sort of favorable treatment -- otherwise there is no reason to sign an agreement. Judging "how" favorable a plea agreement is to a defendant cannot be objectively compared because no two cases are alike and the "favorability" is necessarily subjective. As with all real lawyers who practice criminal law, I win some cases and lose some cases. I'm good and I win considerably more than I lose but I have had more than a few clients convicted at trial. Fines (and often restitution) are part of sentences-- so my clients always save money in that sense if they are not convicted-- but, on the other hand my fees often greatly exceed what they would have to pay in fines (or restitution) if they just walked in by themselves and entered a guilty plea. They "waste" this money because of small consicerations because of prison time, loss of jobs, loss of professional licenses, disgrace and the like. The best money saving tip is don't do something wrong that gets you introuble and causes you to need a lawyer. Winning a criminal case is just about the second worst thing in the world--exceeded only by losing a criminal case.
"I'm interested because Fitz's track record has been discussed at length in various media so I'd like to have something with which to compare. "
He has a very good track record (ALL federal prosecutors who last more than a couple of years have a very high conviction rate because 90% of cases resolve by a plea agreement and you'd have to really suck not to have a good one as a prosecutor), , but he has an excellent repution for judgment and ethics as well. This good track record is ONE of the reasons why the absrd claim he indicted Rove, got the inndictment sealed by the court and is using the indictment to force Rove to cooperate is so stupid. the ACT of indicting Rove would have the effect of making his cooperation nearly worthless to Fitxzgerald- Even a a stupid and incompetent prosecutor would understand that and Fitzgerald is not stupid an incompetent.
"Oh, and by "middle aged" do you mean you are somewhere around 50? . . . 60?"
A little less than 50.
You brought up the subject of age in your assessment of Kathleen, so it appears YOU believe age is relevant to this discussion.
No, I believe her age ( and apparently your age as well) explains the childish attitudes expressed, and the immature belief that simply having an opinion makes it mwan something when the opinion is foolish and based entirely on ignorance. If either of you are older yo have my aopolgies, but also my sympathy because it's even more pathetic if you guys are experienced adults.
"I am curious how you "know" Kathleen is young and why you think her age is relevant. Are you personally acquainted with her? . . . did she already tell you that in some other post (that I missed) or are you simply making an assumption?"
I am simply making an assumption she is well under 30 on the basis the vast majority of people older than that have more wisdom and common sense even if they are similarly lackig in knowledge.
"What does her age - or anyone's age - have to do with you employing an abusive, derisive and jeering style of communication in this discussion?"
I's not her age. It's the really stupid, ignorant things she says. If she is older I still hold her views in contempt because they are stupid views. I don't go around attacking stupid people at random but whenb people CHOOSE to exptress themselves in a public forum they open themselves to criticism. People who don't like criticism should not say stupid things. I open my self to criticism of being arrogant and mean and I accept that criticism. because sometimes when you are dealing with really dense people you have to be arrogant and mean to get your point across. It's not necessary when dealing with smarter people who don't simply keep repeating the sema nonsensse over and over despite being shown their many mistakes.
"To be a bit more clear, when working to persuade a judge or jury (or prosecutor) to your line of thinking in representing a criminal defendant, is this how you speak to them? "
No, it's not how I would speak to a judge or jury. It is similar to the way one would cross examine an adverse witness whose credibility needs to be destroyed in the eyes of the jury and makes it easy by acting the fool. If I have a really stupid witness who likes to say really ignorant things, I make sure the jury understands that he is not only stupid and ignorant but that he is not about to let that stupidity and ignorance dissuade him from talking anyway so they should not believe him. Amazingly enough, it's very effective with juries.
"As to my inquiry concerning your take on reddhedd's quote posted at the beginning of this thread, are you including reddhedd in the category of "silly, gullible people who [help Rove] with that spin . . . ."
Her post is somewhat inscrutable. I'm not sure what she is identiffying as personal belief and what she is simply passing along as things she read. She does say she doesn't know anything with certainly and she never, as i read it, suggests belief in the Rove was indicted nonsense. Based on that i would not put her in Kathleen's class. Reddhead also doesn't try to quote law she doesn't understand, or describe procedures in a way that is totally incorrect.
Obviously, Rove is spinning. Apparently, he came out of the womb spinning. My only point is the reality that he has not been indicted is not spin. the spin begins with what he can convince people to believe the decision not to indict him means. AGAIN, silly people making silly arguments that he has been indicted HELP HIM because that arguemt he has already won and it is giving him a pass on the argumetn that he COULD LOSE -- that he is responsible for serious wrongful conduct despite the decision not to indict him and shoulkd be held accountable in the court of public opinion and by losing his job.
"That's an area where Rove can be successfully challenged. For som [sic] bizarre reason, you guys don't seem to talk about [WHAT ROVE DID AND WHY IT WAS BAD] and keep discrediting yourselve's [sic] by trying to construct a ridiculous scenario in which he has been indicted."
???
Could you illustrate your response with specific quotes from reddhedd, please, so there is no doubt as to your meaning?"
Are you just trying to be stupid? What i said has nothing to do with what Reddhead said or didn't say. If you can't understand what I am saying about it being follishly counter-productive to keep arguing Rove has been indicted when he obviously hasn't can't help you. Just rememeber every utterance you make is not considered discretely with reference only to the narrow specific thing you address. If you repeatedly say something untrue people will think you are either a liar or a fool-- in either event thay will give you no credibility. that loss of credibility HELPS THOSE YOU OPPOSE.
"you guys" ??? Who is included in this phrase?
Anyone stupid and ignorant enough not to recognize that Leopold fabricated the story about rove being indicted, that he invented the "multiple high level" sources he claimed, that the subsequent rationalizations and explanations are nonsensical lies and who believe Rove has been indicted when the ONLY reason it was ever even considered is that a self-admitted dishonest, felon with a long history of bad behavior and mental illness made it up and there is absolutely no reason to believe it and countless reasons not to believe it.
People should not need it pounded into their skulls how utterly foolish it is to keep ascting as thought TO has it right and the entire rest of the world has it wrong. Those who do are HELPED by aggressove efforts to get them to stop being stupid. Having your feeling s hurt is not as bad as continuing to act stupid in public.
Do tell.
Wake up said... "LeeB: Evidently you just like to argue. Pity you are so bad at it."
Hm. How on earth did you confuse a series of questions aimed at gathering information about you and your positions with making an argument? Nevermind. I don't really want an answer from you this time. Instead, I will just happily point out that my questions succeeded in drawing out answers from you that flesh out the perch from which you pontificate. By my scoring system, that would be
Wake Up - O
LeeB - 12+
Your continuing responses are amazing in their basis on your assumptions instead of simply answering the questions asked. I would have thought an experienced trial lawyer would know better. Silly me.
With respect to this one, "I am curious how you "know" Kathleen is young and why you think her age is relevant. Are you personally acquainted with her? . . . did she already tell you that in some other post (that I missed) or are you simply making an assumption?"
I was favorably impressed that you admitted to ". . . simply making an assumption . . . .", however, the extent of your willingness to continue to assume (while professing to be basing your posts on THINKING and on facts) is . . . well . . . . simply breathtaking.
I asked you, "when working to persuade a judge or jury (or prosecutor) to your line of thinking in representing a criminal defendant, is this how you speak to them?" You admit, "No, it's not how I would speak to a judge or jury."
Then you go on:
"It is similar to the way one would cross examine an adverse witness whose credibility needs to be destroyed in the eyes of the jury and makes it easy by acting the fool. If I have a really stupid witness who likes to say really ignorant things, I make sure the jury understands that he is not only stupid and ignorant but that he is not about to let that stupidity and ignorance dissuade him from talking anyway so they should not believe him. Amazingly enough, it's very effective with juries."
I find it amazing that you would abuse an informal discussion forum such as this with such a boorish display. It boggles the mind.
I asked, "As to my inquiry concerning your take on reddhedd's quote posted at the beginning of this thread, are you including reddhedd in the category of "silly, gullible people who [help Rove] with that spin . . . ."
You responded, "Her post is somewhat inscrutable. I'm not sure what she is identiffying as personal belief and what she is simply passing along as things she read. . . . . Reddhead also doesn't try to quote law she doesn't understand . . .. " I'll come back to this in a minute.
Then I asked, "Could you illustrate your response with specific quotes from reddhedd, please, so there is no doubt as to your meaning?"
You replied with this stream of unrelated-to-the-question abuse, " Are you just trying to be stupid? What i said has nothing to do with what Reddhead said or didn't say. If you can't understand what I am saying about it being follishly counter-productive to keep arguing Rove has been indicted" . . . When did I argue anything one way or the other about what is really a huge unaswered question about the status of this CIA investigation!? . . . Oh, wait! I remember!!! This all falls under the category of Wake Up's ASSUMPTIONS.
Then I asked, "you guys" ??? Who is included in this phrase?"
Your reply? "Anyone stupid and ignorant enough not to recognize that Leopold fabricated the story about rove being indicted, that he invented the "multiple high level" sources he claimed, that the subsequent rationalizations and explanations are nonsensical lies and who believe Rove has been indicted when the ONLY reason it was ever even considered is that a self-admitted dishonest, felon with a long history of bad behavior and mental illness made it up and there is absolutely no reason to believe it and countless reasons not to believe it." . . . . .
Uhhhhh . . . . What about NBC and David Schuster? He came out with the same story which he dug up from his OWN sources. Please don't take my word for it. Crooks and Liars posted video on May 8. (Oops! Now I expect you'll unleash similar invective in the direction of Schuster and NBC.) Oh, well.
Having now given you, Wake Up, ample time to make your points, answer my questions, and add meaningful information to this discussion, I would like to share a few of my personal conclusions.
(1) This is an informal discussion forum - the issue will not be decided here, and none of us are witnesses in the case.
(2) I don't have the patience to attempt to sort out what may be fact from all the heated attacks that make up your posts, so I won't comment one way or another on whether I think you are correct, incorrect, or simply crazy as a loon. It isn't relevant.
(2) Your attacks on other commenters (and me, as my arrival quickly - as I expected - drew your fire and amazing assumptions away from Kathleen, at least temporarily) don't exactly encourage anyone to participate here with whatever questions or theories they may have . . . . hence, many "teachable" moments may simply fade away. It is really too bad, because otherwise the perspective of a member of the federal defense bar could be valuable. As it is, the thunder and hellfire you bring with you far outweigh any chance you may have had to instruct. Kathleen deserves props for hanging in despite your idiotic abuse.
SO, I think for answers to questions pertaining to what is going on with Fitz, his investigation, and how federal prosecutions and grand jury investigations operate, I'll be getting my information and analysis from my usual sources, which include ReddHedd - a former federal prosecutor (and to whom you applied your usual arrogant - and ignorant - assumptions, i.e., ". . . . what she is simply passing along as things she read" (?). . . . "Reddhead also doesn't try to quote law she doesn't understand . . . . " ROFLMAO!! Omigoodness!! When I got to this part, I was laughing so hard the tears were running down my face. Thanks! I was so hoping you would swallow the bait and you exceeded my wildest hopes, thereby affording me this opportunity to show you the folly of making assumptions.) Christy (a/k/a ReddHedd) manages to entertain questions and the thought processes of laypersons by describing the procedures as an insider and not once that I have seen has she ever cluttered the landscape with attacks on those who are offering their ideas for discussion as we all try to understand what the heck is going on.
In conclusion, instead of viewing this discussion forum as an opportunity to treat everyone with whom you disagree or feel superior as hostile witnesses, you might instead try to see it more as a gathering in Lukery's home and try to behave accordingly. Best of luck to you in developing some social graces. Heaven knows, at your age, you're long overdue.
thnx you two for your contributions again. i don't usually get ongoing heated discussions here, and i don't really know whether/how i'm supposed to attempt to moderate or whatever... so the best that i've been able to offer is the anodyne 'thnx for your contributions'
WakeUp: I will disagree with (most of) this:
"Anyone stupid and ignorant enough not to recognize that Leopold fabricated the story about rove being indicted, that he invented the "multiple high level" sources he claimed, that the subsequent rationalizations and explanations are nonsensical lies..."
I believe that he was telling the truth and was set-up for one reason or other. I know that he went to DC on the day he was expecting an indictment presser. and i know that his editors all had many meetings, for weeks, with the sources. Separately, there is absolutely no logic for TO/Leopold to fabricate claims that would be categorically disproved in a couple of weeks.
Yes, he has a history of problems, and no, i'm not defending him (i have my own personal beefs with him), and yes, he's perhaps guilty of certain sloppiness - and, yes, the ex-poste rationalizations appear to be desperate straw-clutching - but still, I can't believe that he and the rest of TO would go on a suicide mission - for no apparent reason, with such a short expiration date.
... and that opens up a whole 'nother can of pandoras.
BINGO!
Thanks, Lukery.
LeeB said...
" With respect to this one, "I am curious how you "know" Kathleen is young and why you think her age is relevant. Are you personally acquainted with her? . . . did she already tell you that in some other post (that I missed) or are you simply making an assumption?"
Uh, wouldn't the merit of my assumption have a lot to do with whether it is correct? Unless you can show the assumption is wrong it is just nonsensical to criticize it. We all make many assumptins to guide ourselves in all pahses of life. that is not only proper, it is necessary. the people who have problems are those who frequently make incorrect assumptions about important things. People who never make assumptions by applying reason a and common sense to make inferences are pretty much just wandering aimlessly through life.
"I was favorably impressed that you admitted to ". . . simply making an assumption . . . .", however, the extent of your willingness to continue to assume (while professing to be basing your posts on THINKING and on facts) is . . . well . . . . simply breathtaking."
Same
"I asked you, "when working to persuade a judge or jury (or prosecutor) to your line of thinking in representing a criminal defendant, is this how you speak to them?" You admit, "No, it's not how I would speak to a judge or jury."
Then you go on:
"It is similar to the way one would cross examine an adverse witness whose credibility needs to be destroyed in the eyes of the jury and makes it easy by acting the fool. If I have a really stupid witness who likes to say really ignorant things, I make sure the jury understands that he is not only stupid and ignorant but that he is not about to let that stupidity and ignorance dissuade him from talking anyway so they should not believe him. Amazingly enough, it's very effective with juries."
I find it amazing that you would abuse an informal discussion forum such as this with such a boorish display. It boggles the mind."
It boggles your mind that you "ask a question" and get an answer you don't like.? Again, that is childish.
"I asked, "As to my inquiry concerning your take on reddhedd's quote posted at the beginning of this thread, are you including reddhedd in the category of "silly, gullible people who [help Rove] with that spin . . . ."
You responded, "Her post is somewhat inscrutable. I'm not sure what she is identiffying as personal belief and what she is simply passing along as things she read. . . . . Reddhead also doesn't try to quote law she doesn't understand . . .. " I'll come back to this in a minute.
Then I asked, "Could you illustrate your response with specific quotes from reddhedd, please, so there is no doubt as to your meaning?"
You replied with this stream of unrelated-to-the-question abuse, " Are you just trying to be stupid? What i said has nothing to do with what Reddhead said or didn't say. If you can't understand what I am saying about it being follishly counter-productive to keep arguing Rove has been indicted" . . . When did I argue anything one way or the other about what is really a huge unaswered question about the status of this CIA investigation!? . . . Oh, wait! I remember!!! This all falls under the category of Wake Up's ASSUMPTIONS."
I assime there is meant to be a point in there somewhere. If so, it's not a good one.
"Then I asked, "you guys" ??? Who is included in this phrase?"
Your reply? "Anyone stupid and ignorant enough not to recognize that Leopold fabricated the story about rove being indicted, that he invented the "multiple high level" sources he claimed, that the subsequent rationalizations and explanations are nonsensical lies and who believe Rove has been indicted when the ONLY reason it was ever even considered is that a self-admitted dishonest, felon with a long history of bad behavior and mental illness made it up and there is absolutely no reason to believe it and countless reasons not to believe it." . . . . .
Uhhhhh . . . . What about NBC and David Schuster? He came out with the same story which he dug up from his OWN sources. "
No, he didn't and no one else did. Many people were speculating that Rove MIGHT be indicted and a few opined that THEY THOUGHT HE WOULD BE INDICTED. NNo one else published the OBVIOUSLY ridiculous story that An indictment WAS RETURNED and that Rove's lawyer was handed a copy of it during a 15 hour meeting at Patton Boggs after which Fitzgerald dramatically intoned "he as 24 hours to get his affairs in order.." No one other than TO claimed ANY sources let alone multiple independent sources with direct knowledge of the events. Also no other than TO has even attempted to suggest they have a single source to partially verify a single asserted fact contained in Leopold's publications of May 12 and May 13.
"Please don't take my word for it. Crooks and Liars posted video on May 8. (Oops! Now I expect you'll unleash similar invective in the direction of Schuster and NBC.) Oh, well."
No, he was wrong but he didn't just make stuff up and then lie repeatedly about in the aftermath. big difference. If TO had merely been wrong it would not be that big a deal.
"Having now given you, Wake Up, ample time to make your points, answer my questions, and add meaningful information to this discussion, I would like to share a few of my personal conclusions.
(1) This is an informal discussion forum - the issue will not be decided here, and none of us are witnesses in the case."
Isn't that AN ASSUMPTION? See, people make them all the time.
"(2) I don't have the patience to attempt to sort out what may be fact from all the heated attacks that make up your posts, so I won't comment one way or another on whether I think you are correct, incorrect, or simply crazy as a loon. It isn't relevant. "
Or, you are a gutless coward and totally incapable of adequately addressing the merits of my the facts about the law i have provided and the inferences and assumptions I have made from them and to chicken either to admit my facts are right, the assertions i attacked are wrong and Kathleen doesn't know what she is talking about. You jump in a fight but have no ammunition and make a few whiny complaints about my style then skulk away.
"(2) Your attacks on other commenters (and me, as my arrival quickly - as I expected - drew your fire and amazing assumptions away from Kathleen, at least temporarily)"
Don't flatter yourself. Kathleen simply hasn't responded to my latest follow-up to her post. you are a VERY INEFFECTUAL defender of the damsel in distress.
"don't exactly encourage anyone to participate here with whatever questions or theories they may have . . . . "
I don't encourage people to write nonsense. I DISCOURAGE nonsense. It's a bad thing. Participation limited to false statements of law, faulty logic and incessant repetition of silly conspiracy theories and adds nothing to any debate. I welcome intelligent discussion and consideration of actual facts and the law as it actually exists. You and Kathleen don't do that and i don't encourage you to keep doing what you have been doing.
"hence, many "teachable" moments may simply fade away."
That's too bad. If you and Kathleen are such thin-skinned children that you pout and refuse to learn just because your tender feelings have been bruised that's not my problem.
"It is really too bad, because otherwise the perspective of a member of the federal defense bar could be valuable. As it is, the thunder and hellfire you bring with you far outweigh any chance you may have had to instruct."
Maybe, if you get your mommy to read it to you she can skip the scary parts for you.
"Kathleen deserves props for hanging in despite your idiotic abuse."
That's EXACTLY the jkind of stupidity I despise. Hanging in there and continuing to write NONSENSE never deserves praise. Nonsense should be identified and if the person does not cease he should be shamed into ceasing. Writing stupid things just causes more stupidity. It NEVER helps anything.
"SO, I think for answers to questions pertaining to what is going on with Fitz, his investigation, and how federal prosecutions and grand jury investigations operate, I'll be getting my information and analysis from my usual sources, which include ReddHedd - a former federal prosecutor (and to whom you applied your usual arrogant - and ignorant - assumptions, i.e., ". . . . what she is simply passing along as things she read" (?). . . . "Reddhead also doesn't try to quote law she doesn't understand . . . . "
How does her being a former federal prosecutor change any of what I wrote? Does it make her post any more clear as to what she is expressing as personal belief and what she is passing along? Does it change the fact that her post did not quote any law? You, sir, simply do not know what you are talking about.
"
ROFLMAO!! Omigoodness!! When I got to this part, I was laughing so hard the tears were running down my face."
And, evidently you cannot laugh and comprehend at the same time.
Thanks! I was so hoping you would swallow the bait and you exceeded my wildest hopes, thereby affording me this opportunity to show you the folly of making assumptions.)
you are too stupid toi understand tyour "trap was not properly baited and caught nothing and in YOUR ARRAGANCE you think you made a point you clearly did not. Other than pointing out Reddhead's post was less than clear i said nothing remotely touching on HER qualification. you and Kathleen I think are childish fools. I have no opinion about Reddhead.
"Christy (a/k/a ReddHedd) manages to entertain questions and the thought processes of laypersons by describing the procedures as an insider and not once that I have seen has she ever cluttered the landscape with attacks on those who are offering their ideas for discussion as we all try to understand what the heck is going on. "
Maybe she's nicer than I am. Good for her. That doesn't make you or Kathleen any less foolish.
"In conclusion, instead of viewing this discussion forum as an opportunity to treat everyone with whom you disagree or feel superior as hostile witnesses, you might instead try to see it more as a gathering in Lukery's home and try to behave accordingly. Best of luck to you in developing some social graces. Heaven knows, at your age, you're long overdue."
See, that's just more childish BS. People who post thoughtful posts get thought ful replies. from me. People who past nonsensical garbage first get the errors identified and then wehen they think they can deny the errors simply by saying they are not errors do I attack them for being stupid.
***********
7:59 AM
lukery said...
thnx you two for your contributions again. i don't usually get ongoing heated discussions here, and i don't really know whether/how i'm supposed to attempt to moderate or whatever... so the best that i've been able to offer is the anodyne 'thnx for your contributions'
WakeUp: I will disagree with (most of) this:
"Anyone stupid and ignorant enough not to recognize that Leopold fabricated the story about rove being indicted, that he invented the "multiple high level" sources he claimed, that the subsequent rationalizations and explanations are nonsensical lies..."
I believe that he was telling the truth and was set-up for one reason or other.
I don't think that is even remotely possible based oon his own words. He claimed MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT SOURCES WITH DIRECT KNOWLEDGE. He didn't say he spoke to someone who heard it happened. He claimed to have spoken to many people who knew it happened. That there were many people, posing as independent but actually aligned who all lied to him and actually convinced him they had direct knowledge of the events as he described them is so extraordinarily unlikely it really is not worth considering unless there was no better explanation. W
When the explanation that he heard the same rumors everyone else was hearing and embellished the rumors to make up a a supposedly factual article that would bring him acclaim and prestige if he bet right on Rove being indicted within a short period makes so much more sense and is totally consistent with every known fact and every reasonable inference.
(If nothing else don't you think other reporters would be all over the Leopold was burtned story if there was anything at all to it?0
"I know that he went to DC on the day he was expecting an indictment presser."
So? i have no doubt he thought rove was going to be indicted. i just think he invented multiple sources with direct knowledge and made up a version of events. Also, doesn't the fact he had TO GO to DC (rather than being there full-time) make you question how he would have the "Scoop" the hundreds of journalists in DC missed?
"and i know that his editors all had many meetings, for weeks, with the sources."
Other than the fact one editor claimed to have personally verified the sources and story how do you know? why on Earth would you believe him when his story has changed many times and nmever made any sense? (And, where did the editors claim tihave had many meetings for weeks?)
"Separately, there is absolutely no logic for TO/Leopold to fabricate claims that would be categorically disproved in a couple of weeks."
Sure there is and it's been discussed from the day it all happened. Leoplold thought Rove would be indicted (as did many). He gambled and made up the story figuring if rove was indicted he's get the glory and the made up details could be dismissed as insgnificant and that the complaints were just coming from jealousy. TO also wanted the glory so they ran the story without proper verification. That first weekend when the questions started arising TO still thought Rove would be indicted so it (foolishly) stood by the story and claimed to have properly verified it thus forever preventing TO from distancing itself fromn Leopold and wrting it off as a rushed decision that turned out badly. Now, TO cannot do anything but admit it lied ofr continue ther ridiculous charade that the story was true.
Yes, he has a history of problems, and no, i'm not defending him (i have my own personal beefs with him), and yes, he's perhaps guilty of certain sloppiness - and, yes, the ex-poste rationalizations appear to be desperate straw-clutching - but still, I can't believe that he and the rest of TO would go on a suicide mission - for no apparent reason, with such a short expiration date.
... and that opens up a whole 'nother can of pandoras.
6:08 PM
LeeB said...
BINGO!
Thanks, Lukery.
6:46 PM
well - i'm not sure i believe that they were that stupid - but if yuo are correct, then they deserve all the disdain they can get.
there were actually a lot of reporters who could single-source the stroy, but not get it confirmed.
larisa said "I know Marc Ash flew to another state to meet with these sources, over a two week period, they had many meetings." - so i'm just taking her cue. i'm not sure who her source/s was/were...
That many people regularly do things that are obviously stupid and which an objective opbserver would see carry a high risk of being exposed and then having severe consequences imposed goes a long way to explaining why prisons and jails are so crowded.
Also, isn't it easier to believe two people would do something they thought would not be exposed, (especially when one of them is a former drug abuser with admitted mental illness and an admitted history of doing stupid things, getting caught and suffering severe consequences) than it is to believ MULTIPLE people who would have had to have high level positions to have DIRECT KNOWLEDGE would do something even more stupid. would you not agree that it is even more stupid for anyone-- let alone MULTIPLE people to have risked their careers to give Jason Leopold a scoop? Even if one had some ulterior motive to leak, why in the world would anyone be insane enough to choose someone with Leopold's background as the person in whom to place his future? It's a lot easier for me to believe Leopoold lied, tricked Ash who was in a hurry to get the big scoop and then Ash stupidly claimed to have properly verified Leopold's story when he still thought it was true precisely because he had been tricked.
"MULTIPLE people who would have had to have high level positions to have DIRECT KNOWLEDGE would do something even more stupid"
well - you may be correct - in which case we are still left with the possibility that these sources knowingly told Leopold some lies.
"...risked their careers to give Jason Leopold a scoop?"
let's not forget that this story of leopold's didnt come out of the blue - he had been working the story for months, and already had a number of scoops - so we know that some people were talking to him.
i do agree that the most likely story is that leopold lied and ash fell for it, as you say. the facts sure seem to point that way.
What's with the "regularly do things with high risks and ...severe consequences.... full jails.
Ominosity.
Post a Comment