ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Strike Three for Leopold & TruthOut

*** update ***
Firedog Lake posters/commenters react and go through the 5 stages of grieving right before our eyes!

And TalkLeft echoes my call for Jason Leopold to disclose his sources. Perhaps he will? (won't hold my breath.)


After I called out Jason Leopold on Saturday (link also contains chronology of coverage here), asking him to identify the sources that totally ruined his credibility, he decided instead to stand in the batters box and face the pitcher yet again, writing this post about Sealed v. Sealed. Here are the pertinent bits:
Sealed vs. Sealed
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Monday 12 June 2006

Four weeks ago, during the time when we reported that White House political adviser Karl Rove was indicted for crimes related to his role in the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, the grand jury empanelled in the case returned an indictment that was filed under seal in US District Court for the District of Columbia under the curious heading of Sealed vs. Sealed.

As of Friday afternoon that indictment, returned by the grand jury the week of May 10th, remains under seal - more than a month after it was handed up by the grand jury.

The case number is "06 cr 128." On the federal court's electronic database, "06 cr 128" is listed along with a succinct summary: "No further information is available."

We have not seen the contents of the indictment "06 cr 128". But the fact that this indictment was returned by the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case on a day that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury raised a number of questions about the identity of the defendant named in the indictment, whether it relates to the leak case, and why it has been under seal for a month under the heading Sealed vs. Sealed.

True, the grand jury in the CIA leak case also meets to hear evidence on other federal criminal cases, including at least one other high-profile case - crimes related to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.

So, since the grand jury has a Sealed v. Sealed indictment, IT MUST BE ROVE! HALLIBURTON!!! (Nevermind that the same grand jury is hearing the Abramoff case...)

Read the whole post as it's quite entertaining, especially in light of this article in today's NY Times. (I don't quote the NYTimes often, but I'll make an exception in this case.)
June 13, 2006
Rove Won't Be Charged in C.I.A. Leak Case

WASHINGTON, June 13 — The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Mr. Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Mr. Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Mr. Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

So, Jason... Once again. Who were your sources that fed you a line of b.s. in order to ruin your credibility. Sure, you got some traffic and noteriety - but it was the wrong kind of noteriety. Your name is mud in the blogosphere now - unless you take the one step that the MSM is loathe to do and that the blogosphere demands of itself and of the MSM: reveal your sources and correct the record.

We'll be waiting. It's strike three and what you do now will determine whether the coach will send you back up to the plate.

Oh, and just for the record, it's great that this Rovian Conspiracy to insert rumors into the wild-eyed and tin-foil-hatted community has produced such outstanding results.

*** Note to Kossacks and the other Moonbats ***

Moonbats react to the news

Note that this hasn't been posted on DailyKos, but we will provide their reaction when it comes in. Perhaps the "reality based community" won't even post on the topic or instead spin it as a "moral victory" since they tied up Rove for the last couple of years dealing with Fitgerald. Unfortunately for them, it didn't have an impact on the 2004 election and it's unlikely that it'll have an impact on the 2006 midterms. But it still was a moral victory, damnit!! HALLIBURTON!!!!!

*** Other Bloggers Covering ***
Sister Toldjah
The Commissar at Politburo Diktat
Move On & Shut Up (If only they would, my friend... if only they would)
Brian at Iowa Voice
AllahPundit at Hot Air
Stop the ACLU
ScrappleFace has some fun
Just One Minute - Your one stop shop
Gateway Pundit - No Frog March!!!
HotAir - Let the gloating begin

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: St Wendeler

Comments (1)
Kimberly said...

The photo is priceless. But I thought moonbats were more likely to toke up than to drink good booze?

Also, don't let up on Jason.