SwiftVets.com

[shawa]

I expect the Left will go into major depression over this announcement.
For the last few weeks, they have been buzzing that a Rove indictment is imminent. Gee, I don't think they can handle the disappointment. Chris Mathews will probably have a total breakdown!!

National Review

[Me#1You#10]

For those who may not have had the occasion to follow this, our own Lawrence O'Donnell was up to top of his addled head in predicting, wallowing in and promoting this non-event.

My dear Lawrence...enjoy your day.

[Schadow]

[carpro]

Just 1 month ago, this story was making the rounds and Bush haters were ecstatic:

How Accurate Was the 'Rove Indicted' Story?

By Marc Ash,

Mon May 15th, 2006 at 02:04:04 PM EDT :: Bush


On Saturday afternoon, we ran a breaking story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." We assumed that we were well ahead of the mainstream media and that we would be subsequently questioned. Right on both counts.

What everyone is asking right now is how accurate is the story? Has Rove in fact been indicted? The story is accurate, and Karl Rove's attorneys have been served with an indictment.

In short, we had two sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation who were explicit about the information that we published, and a former high-ranking state department official who reported communication with a source who had "direct knowledge" of the meeting at Patton Boggs. In both instances, substantial detail was provided and matched.

We had confirmation. We ran the story.
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service."

[Anker-Klanker]

Carpo, that Truthout link is most amusing, and educational. Everyone should at least make a quick scan of the comments following the article. Yeah, there's a lot of visitors to that site that must really be gnashing their teeth today!

If you read those comments, though, it becomes abundantly clear how very deranged the Hate Bush lefties are. And it doesn't take much imagination to understand why the truth about sKerry is never going to penetrate the gray matter of people like this.

[Navy_Navy_Navy]

Good reminder, Carpro! (How soon we forget, hm? )

And Chris Mathews is just completely unhinged over this - seems to alternate between impotent, coming-unstuck fury and utter despondency.

Poor baby?
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

[dcornutt]

David Schuster on Keith O's was another who went out on a limb with this and got caught.

But, as far as I've seen...they are mostly just moving around and beyond the point...since their own buds are pitching the questions.

The Truth Out site is a riot. There's more too!...hang on..let me pull the last entry:



Regarding Mr. Luskin's Statements
By Marc Ash,

Tue Jun 13th, 2006 at 02:44:19 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation
(253 comments)

We are stunned by the magnitude of the reaction to the article we published yesterday morning. We have put our cards on the table. We invite Mr. Luskin to do the same.

To clarify: The entire basis for the information that "Rove has been cleared" comes from a verbal statement by Karl Rove's attorney. No one else confirms that. As Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin is bound to act - in all regards - in Rove's best interest. We question his motives.

Update [2006-6-14 18:53:27 by TruthOut]:This thread is now closed.


Then...the last one:
Standing Down on the Rove Matter
By Marc Ash,

Wed Jun 14th, 2006 at 06:52:40 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation
(11 comments)

Yesterday, most Mainstream Media organizations published reports about a letter supposedly received by Karl Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. As an example of the supposed letter's contents, TIME Magazine stated that, "Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said or wrote, 'Absent any unexpected developments, he does not anticipate seeking any criminal charges against Rove.'"
Truthout of course published an article on May 13 which reported that Karl Rove had in fact already been indicted. Obviously there is a major contradiction between our version of the story and what was reported yesterday. As such, we are going to stand down on the Rove matter at this time. We defer instead to the nation's leading publications.

In that Mr. Luskin has chosen the commercial press as his oracle - and they have accepted - we call upon those publications to make known the contents of the communiqué which Luskin holds at the center of his assertions. Quoting only those snippets that Mr. Luskin chooses to characterize in his statements is not enough. If Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has chosen to exonerate Mr. Rove, let his words - in their entirety - be made public.

Reporter Jason Leopold

Mr. Leopold did not act alone in his reporting of this matter. His work, sources and conclusions were reviewed carefully at each step of the process. There is no indication that Mr. Leopold acted unethically.

Please keep in mind that over the years we have reported on many examples of individuals being scapegoated in crisis situations by superiors seeking cover from controversy. Truthout, however, does not do scapegoats. And we stand firmly behind Jason Leopold.

The Confidentiality of Our Sources

As journalists, nothing is more critical to being able to report guarded facts than the guarantee of confidentiality we provide to our sources. Truthout has never compromised the identy of a confidential source. We will protect our sources on this story, as we have on every other story we have ever published.

Expect a more comprehensive accounting of this matter on Monday, June 19.

Marc Ash
Executive Director - Truthout
director@truthout.org



Read and discuss >>

So...it' appears that Mark Ash is both demanding that Rove "prove" he's not indicted..or going to be...BUT..continues to maintain that he should not have to divuldge his sources..just because his story was wrong. hahahaha.

[Schadow]