 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar???
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Stringsinger Date: 29 Sep 12 - 10:36 AM No one is going to prosecute Karl. He is above the law. He also is responsible for incarcerating Alabama Governor as well. He is a powerful operative who controls the GOP. Anything he says should be totally mistrusted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Sep 12 - 09:57 AM So what if this particular prediction did not come true? It would not even diminish his statement about being rarely wrong, much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Greg F. Date: 29 Sep 12 - 09:30 AM Blow Me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Sawzaw Date: 29 Sep 12 - 08:58 AM Still waiting for an explanation for your WRONG prediction Bobster. First of all, I am very rarely wrong!!! No brag, just pure fact!!! Ever notice how Bobert brags about not bragging? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Bobert Date: 27 Jun 10 - 08:35 PM Call yer Betty Ford counselor, Sawz... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Sawzaw Date: 27 Jun 10 - 10:01 AM What happened to your prediction Bobert? Were you WRONG again? But I'm gonna go on record of predictin' another 9-11 event in just over a year becuase the Repubs will be in desperate need for one and if they are goina stand any chance of holding the White House, after this dismal 8 years of theivery and lies, they can't do it without another 9/11... Keep in mind that the week before 9/11 Bush had the lowest approval rating of any president since such polls have been taken.... So that's my prediction... Sad... but I'm sticken by it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Bobert Date: 19 May 08 - 12:57 PM Hmmmmmm.... Better move over Scooter... Karl's movin' in.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Amos Date: 19 May 08 - 12:48 PM (Huffington Post, May 15 2008): "Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two other people: "We're closing in on Rove. Someone's got to kick his ass." Asked a few minutes later for a more official explanation, Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn't, said Conyers, "We'll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We'd hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested." " A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Donuel Date: 06 Mar 07 - 10:20 PM Ha Ha Ha, Dickey always takes the absurd position a mile to the right of Pat Buchannon just to get your goat. Will prison make Libby flip? He sure could if put in general prison population right off rt. 1 in Burtonsville. If however he gets the brig at Camp David he could do 2 years in a 4 room suite with a private chef for his meals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Bobert Date: 06 Mar 07 - 06:34 PM Well, I just heard a spokesman for the Scotter Libby trial say that the jury was concerned that Libby was being made a scpaegoat for both Rove and Cheney... Hmmmmmm??? Yeah, nither will be brought to justice but, like O.J. Simpson, thet will both me marked men until the day they die... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Bobert Date: 25 Feb 07 - 08:15 PM Well, Dickey, it was ***you***, not me who chose to use a four year old poll to try to defend a current day issue... Heck, if that is your M.O., you could justify slavery if you dug back far 'nuff... And, just to show that you perghaps are incabable of discussing ***current*** events you drag up some ancient paragraph, which most likely came from the editorial page, to try to prove a point, whatyever yoar particular point is, that is... Can you bring yourself to the here and now, or at least a little closer than scrounging up 6 and 7 year old obscure editorials??? 'Er is this too much to ask??? BTW, whatever Bushite blog that you are usin' sucks... There are much better ones, I'm sure, than this one that gives you editorials that were printed over a half a decade ago to argue pionts with... ...but I do always enjoy you Bushites bringin' up Bill Clinton as the root of all Bush's problems... Always good fir a chuckle... Not that I liked Clinton, mind you, but it a sorry stae of affairs in the Bushite circle when here yer guy has been in the white house for over half a decade an' all his screw=ups are Clinton's fault??? Hahahaha... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 25 Feb 07 - 05:51 PM Bobert: "Now to your 2003 poll???" It was a Washington post poll. How about the 2001 poll compared to the 2002 poll? And is the "nuke lie" you are referencing the one from The Guardian in 2000: "SADDAM HUSSEIN has ordered his scientists to resume work on a programme aimed at making a nuclear bomb, a defector warned yesterday. The Iraqi dictator, whose efforts to make atomic weapons were thwarted by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf war in 1991, revived the plans two years ago, the defector said. Scientists who had previously worked on the weapons programme were made to return to their duties in August 1998, four months before Saddam expelled the inspectors. " |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 25 Feb 07 - 02:48 PM Yes Bobert, People will believe the big lie if it comes from the Washington Post or the New York Times: The Washington Post Jan. 29, 2001, "Of all the booby traps left behind by the Clinton administration, none is more dangerous or more urgent than the situation in Iraq. Over the last year, Mr. Clinton and his team quietly avoided dealing with, or calling attention to, the almost complete unraveling of a decade's efforts to isolate the regime of Saddam Hussein and prevent it from rebuilding its weapons of mass destruction. That leaves President Bush to confront a dismaying panorama in the Persian Gulf," including "intelligence photos that show the reconstruction of factories long suspected of producing chemical and biological weapons." The Source of the Trouble "Pulitzer Prize winner Judith Miller’s series of exclusives about weapons of mass destruction in Iraqâ€"courtesy of the now-notorious Ahmad Chalabiâ€"helped the New York Times keep up with the competition and the Bush administration bolster the case for war. How the very same talents that caused her to get the story also caused her to get it wrong." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Bobert Date: 25 Feb 07 - 09:15 AM Well, Dickey, if you had read, rather than skimmed my post that quioted the Wsahigton Post article you wouldn't have to ask brought up the two hour meeting but for review: Fitzgerald asked the question which was based on information that had been provided to him druing the investigative stage... Had it been a meeting that never occured than Libby's defense team would most certainly have objected and the judge most certainly would have sustained the defenses objection... The polls I am referring to are really a combination of several non-partisan polling organizations that I pay some attention to including the New York Times, the Washington Post and even the network polls... While these organizations do represent the ruling class on the whole, they are at the very least somewhat in the ball part evn if they tend to scew toward the folks in power so when I see them admitting that 60% of the American people thought that the Iraq invasion was a mistake then in my mind I factor in the "corporate/establishment variable" which means that the number is probably somewhat higher... Learned that in "Statistics 201" which dealt alot with polls... Now to your 2003 poll??? Well, yeah, at the time the American people were being bombarded with super-patriotism and lies so it's no wonder they held the opinions that they held... Even a year later after the Saddam/al-Qaeda connection had been debunked and the nuke lie had been debunked there were still a lot of people who still believed both of those lies... Why is that??? Well, Hitler put it very well when he noted that people will believe "the big lie" and so the million$ that went into proaganda were well spent... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 25 Feb 07 - 03:01 AM Does the fact that less people believed that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11 during the alleged propaganda campaign than before the alleged campaign mean that the campaign, if there was a campaign, support the assertion that it was brilliant and highly successfull? It was from Bobert's source of the truth, the Washington Post. Washington Post Poll: Saddam Hussein and the Sept. 11 Attacks Saturday, September 6, 2003 The latest Washington Post poll is based on telephone interviews with 1,003 randomly selected adults nationwide, and was conducted Aug. 7-11, 2003. The margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Sampling error is only one of many potential sources of error in this or any other public opinion poll. Interviewing was conducted by TNS Intersearch of Horsham, Pa. *= less than 0.5 percent How likely is it that Saddam Hussein (INSERT ITEM) ? Would you say that it is very likely, somewhat likely, not very likely, or not at all likely? --------Likely------- -------Not Likely------ No NET Very Somewhat NET Not very At all opin. a. was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks 69 32 37 28 15 12 3 b. has provided assistance to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network 82 51 31 14 8 6 4 c. was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction 84 62 22 14 9 5 3 d. had already developed weapons of mass destruction 78 51 27 19 12 7 3 a. was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks --------Likely------- -------Not Likely------ No NET Very Somewhat NET Not very At all opin. 8/11/03 69 32 37 28 15 12 3 2/6/03* 72 34 38 25 16 9 3 10/24/02 71 34 37 25 16 9 4 9/13/01# 78 34 44 12 9 3 9 * 2/6/03 and previous - Time/CNN. "…personally involved in the terrorist attacks (on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon) on September 11th (2001) -- very likely, somewhat likely…" # "How likely is it that Saddam Hussein is personally involved in Tuesday's terrorist attacks..." b,c,d. No trend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 25 Feb 07 - 02:44 AM "when, the jurors had been told, Libby met for two hours with Times reporter Judith Miller to complain about Wilson." Told by Whom? And what Bushite cut and paste was that? Is everybody that disagrees with Bobert a Bushite? According to Bobert when "It wasn't until the public opinion polls reached 60% saying the Iraq war was not worth fighting that Russert, the ever political journalist, stepped back from Bush" So could TIA say with certainty tah the polls caused Russert to flip flop? Were those polls accurate? Was Bobert an idiot for citing polls? Were the polls cited by Bobert "released by a party that has soemthing to gain from the results of the poll"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Bobert Date: 24 Feb 07 - 04:50 PM Well, while most polls are purdy much meaningless, others are fairly accurate... It all depends on the wording, meathodology and the motives of the pollster/s... I don't trust any poll that is released by a party that has soemthing to gain from the results of the poll... This, of course, includes all politicans and political parties and many so-called objective organizations which have their own axes to grind... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST,TIA Date: 24 Feb 07 - 01:10 PM Dickey, You are an idiot. I never said polls are meaningless. I said that YOU cannot interpret a poll a particular way without a further key piece of evidence. You say the polls only went up a little, therefore the propaganda campaign doesn't exist. I take may dog out to pee every morning, then the sun comes up. So, I say my dog peeing makes the sun come up. Should make perfect sense to you Dickey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Bobert Date: 24 Feb 07 - 09:39 AM Dickey, Washington Post,Feb 23, 2007, Page A-3, "A Nonpartisan Reputation at Stake" by Carol D. Leonnig "The trial has given Fitgerald cahnces to show his well-known mastery of facts and his expertise at cross examining. When Libby's former deputy, John Hanna, testified for the defense on the overqwhelming nature of Libby's job, Hanna said that at the time, Libby was monitoring al-Qaeda plots, the Iraq war and other national security threats. Hannah, who said he was lucky to get a few minutes to talk to Libby, was supposed to help butress Libby's argument that ha had more important things to remember when he spoke to investigators than conversations with reporters. With two quick questions, Fitzgerald drew Hanna to the week of July 6, 2003, when, the jurors had been told, Libby met for two hours with Times reporter Judith Miller to complain about Wilson. "And so, if you look at what was going on... if he gave someone an hour or two during that week, it was something that Mr. Libby thought would be important, correct?" [Fitzgerald] Hannah paused, but had to agree: "With regard to me, yes." ******************************************************************** So, Dickey... Realy hate to interupt yer little Bushite cut 'n paste but there are some inconvient facts here, regardless of the verdict in this case... Think O.J. Simpson here... Crooks don't always get nailed... Speaklin' on crooks that don't get nailed... Dick Cheney is a crook of the highest order with Karl "Crook" right behind him and with Libby set up to take the fall (or not, think O.J., Part B) there is a good chance that the corrupt Justice Department will not so much as make an attempt tp bring these two repulsive individuals to justice... And just a side bar pop quiz question: How much did the government spend to investigate Bill Clinton during his presidency??? And ho much has the government spent in investigating the Bush admininsrations efforts to discredit Joe Wilson??? Give up??? Clinton $71M Snitch-gate $1.4M Hmmmmmmmmm??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: dianavan Date: 24 Feb 07 - 05:01 AM Dickey was the first one to mention a poll on this thread. What poll are you talking about, Dickey? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 24 Feb 07 - 12:07 AM What is the difference Bobert? Where and when was this two hour meeting held exclusively on descrediting Joe lawsuit Wilson? I wish TIA could tell us which polls are meaningless and which are not. TIA: It is now your obligation to pop up whenever someone cites a poll and tell us wether it is meaningless or not. Otherwise I will have to assume they are all meaningless now that you are casting doubt on them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 07 - 06:36 PM Ahhhh, there's abig difference between a two hour meeting exclusively on discreditin' Joe Wilson and a somewhat casual conversation over lunch in which many topics were discusssed... Libby has lied thru his teeth on this one... Too bad that he has been chosen as the scapegoat to protect the real crooks: Cheney and Rove... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST,TIA Date: 23 Feb 07 - 03:41 PM Ah, and then BB jumped in. Now we have a smidgeon of context. But still, this relates to this thread how? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: beardedbruce Date: 23 Feb 07 - 03:24 PM context: "GUEST,TIA - PM Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:46 PM "No Dickey. I'm not saying I don't trust the polls. You are saying that the poll numbers are proof of something else, and I am saying you cannot make that leap without other evidence." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST,TIA Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:41 PM You're confused Dickey. I know the word "poll" has come up in this thread and the other, but we're not talking about the same thing, so your out-of-context quoting of me is meaningless here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:32 PM So it is OK if a reporter can't remember what he told a government official but it is not OK for a government official to not remember what he told a reporter? According to TIA: "I must point out *again* that without a control group, the polling data are meaningless." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:25 PM Oh, an' Tim Russert was a big-time Bush cheerleader during the 2000 election and even after Greg Palist had come up with the proof that Bush had indeeed stolen the election never ***bothered*** to say anything about it on the air... It wasn't until the public opinion polls reached 60% saying the Iraq war was not worth fighting that Russert, the ever political journalist, stepped back from Bush... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Bobert Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:17 PM The problem is that Tim Russert isn't paid by tax dollars to sit in private sessions to discuss ways yo discredit foes of the administration's policies... ... and that's a rather *****BIG***** difference... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST,Dickey Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:05 PM Standard #1: Libby says the can't remember = unaccaptable. Standard #2: Russert says he can't remember = acceptable. Russert's testimony: Wells: Do you remember saying to Katie Couric about the indictment, "It's huge… first time in 130 years"? Tim Russert: No, I don't question that I said it, but I just don't remember. W: Do you have a bad memory? T: No. W: You don't remember going on TV to discuss a historic indictment, where you were personally involved? T: I do television a lot, a lot of stories and interviews. Fitzgerald: Which is bigger news, possible indictment or actual indictment? T: Actual indictment. F: What do you remember personally from October 28, 2005? T: Press conference was a network interrupt, which was significant — and then hearing my name, which was jolting. And then Brian Williams talking me about the case and asking me to explain my role, which I did. First time in my life I'd heard my name spoken by a prosecutor. Wells: Do you recall appearing on the Imus show the morning of the 28th? T: (meekly) No. W: Do you recall whether the Today show reported that Libby would be [indicted]? T: I don't. W: Do you remember being on the Today show yourself and discussing possible charges against Libby? T: I don't. W: Do you deny it? T: I don't deny it, I just don't deny it. W: Remember the phrase "first time in a hundred years"? T: No. W: You don't remember talking about this on Today show? T: I appear on Today show several times a week. W: How many times do you appear on the Today show to discuss possible indictment of chief of staff of VP, in a case where you were involved — first time in your life, right? T: Yes. W: So you don't recall T: No. I do recall watching (Fitzgerald) news conference and discussing it with Brian Williams. (is shown Today show transcript) I don't recall this, sorry. W: Given your personal involvement… you have no recollection of that day? T: No, I said I remember news conf and going on air with Brian Williams W: Don't recall Today show? T: No. W: Don't recall Imus show? T: No. W: Do you remember saying to Katie Couric about the indictment, "It's huge… first time in 130 years"? T: No, I don't question that I said it, but I just don't remember. W: Do you have a bad memory? T: No. W: You don't remember going on TV to discuss a historic indictment, where you were personally involved? T: I do television a lot, a lot of stories and interviews. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: TIA Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:57 AM On the stat sheet, do I get credit for the assist? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Liz the Squeak Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:42 AM Actually it was 400... even better! LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Liz the Squeak Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:41 AM Answer.. probably but I don't care, I got 300!!! LTS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: TIA Date: 21 Feb 07 - 04:01 PM Don't know about Rove, but it seems that Cheney might be... " During closing arguments Tuesday in the obstruction of justice and perjury trial of former vice presidential staffer, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald told jurors that "there is a cloud over the vice president. ... a cloud over the White House over what happened," according to a copy of the transcript of Fitzgerald's statements. "We didn't put that cloud there," Fitzgerald said. "That cloud's there because the defendant obstructed justice. That cloud is something you just can't pretend isn't there." Moreover, Fitzgerald told jurors that Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, discussed aspects of the investigation with the vice president only when he was told by investigators not to talk about the probe, according to the transcript. Libby is "not supposed to be talking to other people," Fitzgerald said. But "the only person [Libby] told is the vice president. Think about that." The suggestion by Fitzgerald that Cheney was complicit in the unmasking of Valerie Plame Wilson's undercover CIA status led to immediate speculation by pundits that the special prosecutor is widening his probe and may have Cheney in his crosshairs." source |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Greg F. Date: 22 Aug 06 - 06:16 PM Jaysus, Rove lies for a living! That's what the BuShites PAY him to do! He's lied Baby Bush into the White House. He was the moving force behind the Swift Boat Liars, he's mobilized the same filth merchants against Murtha & on & on & on. No surprises here. Its a "man bites dog" situation: it might be news if Rove DIDN'T lie for once. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Don Firth Date: 22 Aug 06 - 04:19 PM I believe attorneys refer to Ken Lay's "I didn't know what was going on," and Karl Rove's "I don't remember," as "The 'I'm an Idiot' Defense." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST,Karl Rove Date: 22 Aug 06 - 07:06 AM Sorry, I mis-typed my last posting. Karl Rove IS NOT a big fat liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST,Karl Rove Date: 22 Aug 06 - 07:05 AM Karl Rove IS a big fat liar. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST,TIA Date: 21 Aug 06 - 01:04 PM Seems we may still be waiting to find out. A sealed indictment is still out there, and Patrick Fitzgerald is still on the case. Details. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST Date: 15 Jun 06 - 07:45 AM http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/06/12/rove2/index.html In an editor's note accompanying Jason Leopold's latest story on Karl Rove today, Truthout executive director Marc Ash tried to "clearly separate what we know from what we believe." Among the "things" Ash said "we know for certain" is a claim that we've already shown to be wrong: Ash said "Sealed v. Sealed," the title of the criminal case Truthout "believes" to be "directly related" to the Valerie Plame investigation, is "unusual," and that "typically, a sealed federal indictment will be titled, 'U.S. v. Sealed.'" In fact, as we reported earlier today, all sealed criminal cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia go by the title "Sealed v. Sealed," and there have been at least 31 such cases filed so far this year. What about some of the other things Ash said he knows for certain? We tried -- not very successfully -- to learn more about one of them today. Ash said in his editor's note that he knows for certain that "the federal indictment" -- and we'll assume for now that Case No. 1-06-cr-128 actually involves an indictment -- "was returned by the same grand jury that has been hearing matters related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation." We sent Ash an e-mail this morning asking him to explain the basis for that claim. "Good question," he responded. "Let me [get] that 'exact' answer and I'll get back to you." After a few hours passed, we followed up with a more detailed version of the same question: "In your note, you say you 'know for certain" that 1-06-cr-128 was 'returned by the same grand jury that has been hearing matters related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation.' But you also say in your note that claims designated as 'what we know' are based on 'official records and official statements.' What 'official record or statement' supports the claim that 1-06-cr-128 represents an 'indictment returned by the same grand jury that has been hearing matters related to the Fitzgerald/Plame investigation'?" Ash's response to that question: "Yes, I see your point on ... confirming the information about which grand jury returned 1-06-cr-128. I am contacting those who worked on that and WILL get back to you." A little later, we asked Ash and Leopold whether Truthout's focus on 1-06-cr-128 might be based on some confusion about a similarly numbered matter (1-06-mc-128) that involves Time's challenge to a subpoena in the Scooter Libby case. Leopold said, "No." Ash said, "Not exactly. This information was provided to us by someone who knows these issues -- first-hand. But before I try to explain to you what they explained to me, I want a detailed clarification. Our interest in 1-06-cr-128 is based on a multitude of factors." We tried one last time to get an answer late today. Leopold responded by saying: "Marc Ash handles all media inquiries. " Ash, in turn, said he is "frankly reluctant to get into [a] parsing contest" and that Truthout is "pretty comfortable with what we've published." "We're going to let her ride," Ash said. "Thanks for following up." -- Tim Grieve |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST,Woody Date: 15 Jun 06 - 07:38 AM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Leopold < font size=1> In 2002, Salon.com retracted an article by Leopold which had implicated Bush administration official Thomas White in the Enron scandal after it could not verify that the contents of the article were accurate. Afterwards, Leopold and Salon.com's editor engaged in an online debate over the incident with Leopold sticking to his story and the Salon.com editor accusing Leopold of a separate plagiarism incident. [1] [2] "Off the Record" Prior to writing News Junkie, Mr. Leopold had written a book entitled Off the Record. The book's release was permanently cancelled, however, following reported legal threats from Steven Maviglio, allegedly one of the subjects of the book. [3] In that book, Mr. Leopold planned to reveal many secrets of his life as a journalist such as a prior drug addiction, bouts with mental illness and suicide attempts, breaking journalistic rules, and lying to employers about a criminal conviction. [4] Reports of Karl Rove indictments in 2006 This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. On May 13th, 2006, Mr. Leopold reported on the progressive website Truthout.org that Karl Rove had been indicted. [5] The story spread quickly throughout the blogosphere[6]. Rove spokesman Mark Corallo issued a flat denial of Leopold's story, calling it "a complete fabrication". [7] On May 15th, Truthout.org Executive Director Marc Ash defended the story, saying they had more than two sources with corroborating information. [8] On May 18th, Ash provided another update, saying that they had found additional sources as well as three "network level" reporters who offered "off-the-record confirmation and moral support". [9] On May 19th, Ash issued a "partial apology" for "getting too far out in front of the news-cycle". He said "we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being."[10] Currently, Truthout.org is the only news outlet reporting Karl Rove has been indicted [11] and there is still no evidence or confirmation that Rove was indicted on May 12th.[12] [13] On May 26th, Ash reaffirmed that several independent sources existed to back up Leopold's story, and added that "We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove - at all." Ash speculated: "Rove may be turning state's evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one 'off the record source' to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation."[14] On June 3, 2006, Ash released another follow-up on the story, stating that "Right now we have only general indicators as to why an announcement might not be made when an indictment has been returned. And even though these indicators do exist, we need to more clearly understand exactly what is happening in this case before we can report on them." [15] On June 12, Leopold wrote claiming that the indictment of Rove was in federal case number 06 cr 128, tantalizingly titled "Sealed vs. Sealed." Leopold acknowledges that the grand jury that handed down this sealed decision also meet to discuss other cases, but contends that "legal experts watching the Plame-Wilson investigation have been paying particularly close attention to Sealed vs. Sealed since the Karl Rove indictment story was published. The legal scholars have said that a federal prosecutor can keep an indictment under seal for weeks or months - something that is commonplace in high-profile criminal cases - especially if an investigation, such as the CIA leak probe, is ongoing."[16] On June 13, Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer, released a statement that said Fitzgerald "has formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges [against Rove]...[and] we believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct." [17] [18] Nevertheless, Ash continued to stand by Leopold's story and questioned the accuracy of Luskin's statement, saying "the information he is providing is directly contradicted by the information we have." [19] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST Date: 15 Jun 06 - 07:31 AM No, once again I think I meant reservation. lol.. and Remember is spelled as I show it. and Arne, lets' go for the poster vocabulary skills and not the content of the post. I suppose, though, that is all you have left. You and Guest. I find it both amusing and revealing. So, it is okay with me and it also provides an outlet for your apparent frustrations. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST,Woody Date: 15 Jun 06 - 07:26 AM http://www.truthout.org/fitzgeraldcalling.shtml Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators By Jason Leopold t r u t h o u t | Report Saturday 13 May 2006 Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove. During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning. Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, did not return a call for comment. Sources said Fitzgerald was in Washington, DC, Friday and met with Luskin for about 15 hours to go over the charges against Rove, which include perjury and lying to investigators about how and when Rove discovered that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA operative and whether he shared that information with reporters, sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said. It was still unknown Saturday whether Fitzgerald charged Rove with a more serious obstruction of justice charge. Sources close to the case said Friday that it appeared very likely that an obstruction charge against Rove would be included with charges of perjury and lying to investigators. An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the special prosecutor was unavailable for comment. In the past, Samborn said he could not comment on the case. The grand jury hearing evidence in the Plame Wilson case met Friday on other matters while Fitzgerald spent the entire day at Luskin's office. The meeting was a closely guarded secret and seems to have taken place without the knowledge of the media. As TruthOut reported Friday evening, Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources. Details of Rove's discussions with the president and Bolten have spread through the corridors of the White House, where low-level staffers and senior officials were trying to determine how the indictment would impact an administration that has been mired in a number of high-profile political scandals for nearly a year, said a half-dozen White House aides and two senior officials who work at the Republican National Committee. Speaking on condition of anonymity Friday night, sources confirmed Rove's indictment was imminent. These individuals requested anonymity saying they were not authorized to speak publicly about Rove's situation. A spokesman in the White House press office said they would not comment on "wildly speculative rumors." Rove's announcement to President Bush and Bolten comes more than a month after he alerted the new chief of staff to a meeting his attorney had with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in which Fitzgerald told Luskin that his case against Rove would soon be coming to a close and that he was leaning toward charging Rove with perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators, according to sources close to the investigation. A few weeks after he spoke with Fitzgerald, Luskin arranged for Rove to return to the grand jury for a fifth time to testify in hopes of fending off an indictment related to Rove's role in the CIA leak, sources said. That meeting was followed almost immediately by an announcement by newly-appointed White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten of changes in the responsibilities of some White House officials, including Rove, who was stripped of his policy duties and would no longer hold the title of deputy White House chief of staff. The White House said Rove would focus on the November elections and his change in status in no way reflected his fifth appearance before the grand jury or the possibility of an indictment. But since Rove testified two weeks ago, the White House has been coordinating a response to what is sure to be the biggest political scandal it has faced thus far: the loss of a key political operative who has been instrumental in shaping White House policy on a wide range of domestic issues. Rove testified that he first found out about Plame Wilson from reading a newspaper report in July 2003 and only after the story was published did he share damaging information about her CIA status with other reporters. However, evidence has surfaced during the course of the two-year-old investigation that shows Rove spoke with at least two reporters about Plame Wilson prior to the publication of the column. The explanation Rove provided to the grand jury - that he was dealing with more urgent White House matters and therefore forgot - has not convinced Fitzgerald that Rove has been entirely truthful in his testimony and resulted in the indictment. Some White House staffers said it's the uncertainty of Rove's status in the leak case that has made it difficult for the administration's domestic policy agenda and that the announcement of an indictment and Rove's subsequent resignation, while serious, would allow the administration to move forward on a wide range of issues. "We need to start fresh and we can't do that with the uncertainty of Karl's case hanging over our heads," said one White House aide. "There's no doubt that it will be front page news if and when (an indictment) happens. But eventually it will become old news quickly. The key issue here is that the president or Mr. Bolten respond to the charges immediately, make a statement and then move on to other important policy issues and keep that as the main focus going forward." Jason Leopold spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. Jason has spent the last year cultivating sources close to the CIA leak investigation, and is a regular contributor to t r u t h o u t. He is the author of the new book NEWS JUNKIE. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com for a preview. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST Date: 15 Jun 06 - 07:01 AM Remeber, Guest thinks of himself (herself?) as "a conservation" -- unlike "Art Schultz". Of course he (she) denotes envy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Arne Date: 14 Jun 06 - 09:00 PM Guest: I think I denote a bit of envy... Oh, really? ;-) Perhaps. You'd be the best judge of that. And I'd say your vocabulary skills perhaps warrant it. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Arne Date: 14 Jun 06 - 08:54 PM Guest: And Arne, Many have been asking for months for one source that could prove that Rove lied. Or "made a false statement". A source please, not an opinion or a couple of people who surmise that. You may not believe the source here, but: For one, according to the sources close to the investigation, the likelihood that Rove will be charged with perjury centers on the fact that Rove has testified at least three times that he first discovered that Plame worked for the CIA after her name was printed in a July 2003 newspaper report by conservative columnist Robert Novak. Evidence has since surfaced that shows Rove spoke to Novak about Plame prior to Novak's published report in which Novak outed the undercover CIA officer.But Google "Cooper", "Rove", "Plame" and such. Ask, and you shall receive. Here's a more conventional source. Keep in mind that none of this is first hand source, but Robert Luskin is Rove's attorney, and should know a bit about what Rove has said. Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST Date: 14 Jun 06 - 08:54 PM Why not Arne? I listen to a flaming gasbag like "Ed" Schultz. And we have yet to hear what Ed does. I think I denote a bit of envy - if for no other reason that Conservatives rule the talk show circuit. Probably another one there but I don't care to get personal. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Bobert Date: 14 Jun 06 - 08:47 PM Karl Rove's own admissions... 1.) "I dind't talk with Matt Cooper" (Enter Exhibit A, an email that shows that Rove did talk with Cooper...) 2.) "Oh, I forgot..." Conclusion: Rove lied... Hey, the amnesia defense doesn't change the ***fact*** that Rove lied... It just changes the "intent" which is the loophole de'jour for liars... "Geeze, musta have slipped my mind, silly me...." Hahahahaha... Rove can name every Republican member of the House of Representatives but somehow can't remember setting up a plot to retaliate agianst Joe Wilson... Hey, Rove lives to hurt folks of the opposition... He get's off on this kinda stuff... To him, it is better than sex... Better than anything... The ultimate dirty trick... "Ahhhhhh, sorry, guess I forgot that conversation wioth Matt Cooper..." Yeah right, this is a proven lie!!! His own admissions prove he lied... So lets get past this and argue "intent".. "Well, I din't mean to lie... I just forgot.." This is what it boils down to... Heck, Bill Clinton was impeached for less... How do you spell "w-h-i-t-e-w-a-s-h??? Geeze... Beam me up, Scotty... The Bushsh*t is gettin' too deep down here... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: Arne Date: 14 Jun 06 - 08:46 PM Guest: Art Schultz Ed Schultz. ... the 'left' should try Limbaugh occasionally. I do, but far less often nowadays. My fiance thinks I'm masochistic. But outside of perverse curiosity, why??? Why listen to a flaming gasbag like him, except to remind oneself what the ravages of too much Oxy-Contin can do? Cheers, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: GUEST Date: 14 Jun 06 - 08:23 PM Still requesting just one, not two just one, verifiable source that show Rove lied. Feelings don't cut it and neither does 'bobert bullshit'. Ran out of gas on this one, didn't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Is Karl Rove a Big Fat Liar??? From: CarolC Date: 14 Jun 06 - 07:31 PM LOL The mid-terms and the next Presidential election are still safe while not in the control of liberals. This statement would be true even if the mid-terms and the next presidential election were in the control of the Democrats |
