or he hasn't. I'm damn sick and tired of all this teasing, untraceable attributions, quotes from "Anonymous Sources: Senior Highlevel Official Leak Exclusive!" acronym: a**hole. Show me the f*cking money, or shut up! I'm tired of being embarrassed by sh*t like this. sh*t or get off the pot. That is all.

by Ed Garcia (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 6:50:57 PM

  (0+)

When someone gets indicted it's generally public information (yes there are secret indictments but not many). If Rove's been indicted it will have to be big news sooner not later. Jason Leopold has no reason to lie to us, it could only hurt him.

by Eugene Weixel (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 9:03:18 PM

  (0+)

Jason Leopold on his worst day is infinitely more trustworthy than any of the inhabitants of the White House is on their best day. Jason has broken big stories before (perhaps most notably the Enron scandals here in California); I'm sure he will again. But that doesn't just come about by magic; it takes long, hard work on his part, particularly carefully cultivating just the right sources. And that is precisely what Jason has done for this story. If you read carefully what he has written, he has never overplayed his hand. Others have. Jason hasn't. As he explained to the audience on our show yesterday, he and his editors carefully weighed the information they had from his sources; and its details were mutually corroborating and ultimately convincing. My money's on Jason, as always. Read between the lines in the major media: They are all BUT saying Rove will be indicted. Thay have to hedge their bets; they have not cultivated their sources as has Jason. It worked for Matt Drudge on the Right; it's working for Jason Leopold on the Left ... or should I say on the side of the truth.

by Douglas Drenkow (38 articles, 352 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 7:22:30 PM

  (0+)

I believe Jason before I'd believe anything that comes out of the pieholes in Washington. I have had it with this Administration! Rove is a snake in the grass, I hope he's indicted, and resigns.

by lanies (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 7:27:38 PM

  (0+)

Maybe it's just wishful thinking, or knowing that right always wins in the end, but I for one believe Jason's story. You go, Jason. Keep it up!

by Pat Herrick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 169 comments) on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 7:57:27 PM

  (0+)

never forget that gw bush was invented, not created by karl rove, master illusionist........ the houdini protocol CLICK HERE ...

by Editor, TvNewsLIES.org (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 8:03:19 PM

  (0+)

If you want info on Karl Rove, you can do a zaba search and go to his home in DC or at his home in Freeport, FL. (www.zabasearch.com) and ask him in person.

by Kirk Muse (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 8:08:00 PM

  (0+)

When someone is indicted, isn't it public record? If so, then it should be easy to find out from the court. Am I missing something with my logic?

by jpeskoff (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 18 comments) on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 9:07:37 PM

  (0+)

..I have patience, rob. :)

by Clark Democrat (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 10:13:33 PM

  (0+)

An indictment is a public record under normal circumstances. However, It can also be a 'sealed' indictment -- if the indictment may lead others to knowingly perform as sea mammals --such as those confined to zoos, aquariums, and newsrooms. However, a sealed indictment doesn't prevent children of all ages from throwing peanuts, aluminum six-pack rings, or M-80s into the act. Nor does it prevent 3-martini lunches, boning the new intern in the "Features" department, or becoming redundant when a younger, less inquisitive journalist applies for your job. In spite of this, America continues to have the best system of justice money can buy.

by landisfarne2 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 10:28:44 PM

  (0+)

http://tinyurl.com/a6erq ^^^ HELP IMPEACH TODAY Keep the pressure on Congress... Talking about impeachment wakes people up... They question, it's a strong motivator to get people thinking. It also lets Congress know how intense the dissapproval is for this President... They seem to be a little slow on the uptake. So please: 1) Sign petitions if you have not done so 2) Send a letter to Congress (both Senators & House rep) 3) Send a copy to the media 4) Enlist friends and family to help, ask them to chip in time 5) Spread the link around, email it (with a request to forward) post it on a blog, or in the comments of a news story. Help out!!! Thanks :)

by Fusioner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 10:30:14 PM

  (0+)

There could be any number of reasons why the indictment has not been made public. The most likely is entirely consistent with the report that Rove's lawyers were served with indictments (actually they were probably given unsigned copies of the indictment) and were told that Rove had 24 ("business" hours) to "get his affairs in order." Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 (e)(4)"Sealed Indictment" "The magistrate judge to whom an indictment is returned may direct that the indictment be kept secret until the defendant is in custody or has been released pending trial. The clerk must then seal the indictment, and no person may disclose the indictment's existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons." The key phrase being "until the defendant is in custody". This is not very unusual in white-collar cases, especially if Rove is co-operating even as the indictment comes down. Do you think Rove could actually pull a couple of years even at a minimum-security facility? I don't think so; he has every reason to rat and the personality traits fit nicely with informant even if he has to rat Dick, never "W", but Dick, that's o.k.! Rove will probably turn himself in tomorrow as quickly and quietly as possible. Which will last about 10 minutes? Then it is time to break out the bubbly! Tomorrow could go down as a very important day in the history of the Republic

by Kenc (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, May 15, 2006 at 10:54:34 PM

  (0+)

Whether this is Cheney pushback against Rove, or more Rove disinfo, this story was obviously planted. A 15 hour meeting? Get serious!

by Disputo (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 11:00:47 AM

  (0+)

According to Fitzgerald's site click here the Rove indictment isn't public yet, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been handed down. Looking at the latest two entries, however, leads one to think that perhaps Fitzgerald may be leapfrogging Rove, or perhaps holding him in reserve, to target Cheney.

by kokopelliwoman (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, May 16, 2006 at 6:42:59 PM

  (0+)

I think that something even bigger is going to happend. this is the start of the end of Chainy and Bush. they are going to fall. the rats are going to come out real soon. They have the one they need in Mr. Liby.

by truman arnold (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, May 19, 2006 at 2:55:45 AM

  (0+)

Leopold says the first question people ask is: “why would Rove’s spokesman lie?” That is not the first question I would ask. My question would be why, 72+ hours (or, if you will, 24+ "business hours") after Leopold said indictments had already been made, and Rove had 24 hours (or "business hours") to get his affairs in order, have we not heard any more about these alleged indictments? I'm not jumping to believe Rove or his spokesman, but I'm not going to believe a reporter just because he's saying something I want to hear. I'll believe Rove was indicted when I see the Frog March with my own eyes, and I don't care WHO "breaks" the story.

by twalling (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 1:46:00 AM

  (0+)

For the record, our show simply reported what Jason said he had done in this and previous investigations. Any endorsements of Jason were, and are, purely my personal opinions.

by Douglas Drenkow (38 articles, 352 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 11 comments) on Wednesday, May 17, 2006 at 3:11:56 PM

  (0+)