Fitzo de Mayo Eve? Another Source Says Yes

Kossack goodasgold linked to the 2nd story on waynemadsenreport.com in the Open Thread - maybe thats where it belongs but I didn't write a diary today and its a quarter to midnight. Honest question: how credible is Mr. Madsen - anyone? A quick read through this story and it isnt burdened with silly phrases that suggest the "imminently indicted" have 24 hours to "get their affairs in order."

I could give a damn who got the scoop. Tomorrow could be sweet. This goes down, Im buyin everyone at the bar a shot.

One other tidbit from WMR is that Luskin "has moved into the category of a 'subject' of the special prosecutor's investigation..."

•  I'll believe it when I see it

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:48:20 PM PDT

•  been burned before

  but we can pray...

  by thereisnospoon on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:50:17 PM PDT

  •  That post didn't get far

    I saw one under the Wayne Madsen tag but it only got 22 comments.

    Leave this up for the late night crowd.

    by Tomtech on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:59:33 PM PDT

    •  Earlier diary

      this morning with 312 comments for anyone that wants some in-depth commentary.

      by Terre on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:05:55 PM PDT

•  Byron York debunks Madsen's column

  http://talkleft.com/...

  by dannyinla on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:53:34 PM PDT

  •  one question:

    In that excellent analysis, Gonzales himself said that it would be up to Fitz whether or not to share any information with him. York says it would be a mistake for the prosecutor to give a preview of a Rove indictment to Gonzales. But depending on the circumstances, couldnt that create pressure among people in the White House to toss and turn for another week awaiting the announcement and enhance the possibility that Rove would cooperate?

    by skyterrain on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:05:20 PM PDT

    •  beats me

      I'm asea on that sort of analysis - I've been looking at this from the journo angle all along. However, if Rove indeed has already been indicted I'm not sure what additional pressure it would create. Furthermore, Rove said he'd resign if indicted. He hasn't resigned yet.

      by dannyinla on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:10:16 PM PDT

      •  bush said he'd fire anyone involved in a leak too

        they dont mind switching things up ;)

        by skyterrain on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:14:06 PM PDT

•  when did DOJ

  announce the Libby indictment on their website?

  I'm wondering it fit was 9AM October 28th or was it at midnight October 28.

  Anyone?

  This suspense is killing me. I don't care who breaks the news first, just as long as there is NEWS to break.

  I don't think I can go through another week like the past one, and that makes me pissed at Leopold because I was fine with being surprised.

  by donailin on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:54:25 PM PDT

  •  There is no suspense. It probably won't happen

    move on nothing to see here.

    And if I am wrong, party city

    by Dave from Oregon on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:56:24 PM PDT

  •  Last time

    The press advisory from last time has a date but no time.

    http://www.usdoj.gov/...

    I'm not counting on seeing another press advisory tomorrow.

    by dannyinla on Thu May 18, 2006 at 08:59:43 PM PDT

    •  No. It was 9:00a Look at the document properties

      in Acrobat.  You'll see the name of the person who wrote it and the time the file was last modified -- just after 9:00a on Oct. 28.

      by DaveV on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:22:42 PM PDT

      •  good call n/t

        by dannyinla on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:36:24 PM PDT

      •  that's what I wanted to hear

        thanks!

        I check the site every day minute and I noticed the press advisory on the 28th but didn't see any time. Thanks for the tip!

        by donailin on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:55:43 AM PDT

  •  If memory serves me correctly...

    the indictment was posted around the time of the press conference (which was at 1 o'clock)... maybe a little while before.

    by Trix on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:01:04 PM PDT

    •  you're right

      but the press conference had to be called hours before that. I think that's the question here, is there an advisory for the press conference where Fitrz announces the indictment? Or last time around, when did Fitz announce that he would be giving the press conference? Was it the day of or the night before?

      I assume that if Fitz is going to indict anyone then he has to give a press conference. Not legally, but he really does have to talk to the press if he frog marches Rove out of the WH.

      by mbair on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:26:36 PM PDT

      •  When Libby was indicted on October 28, the

        DOJ Press Release said

        Libby was charged with one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury and two counts of making false statements in a five-count indictment returned today by a federal grand jury as its term expired, announced Justice Department Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald

        .

        So, Libby was indicted that day by the GJ, the DOJ issued the press release, and then a Media Advisory was issued - I can't find a time, but I seem to remember having to wait a few hours for the PC.  The PC was at 2:00 pm ET.

        by 2lucky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:59:07 PM PDT

        •  Oops

          Forgot the link to the media advisory.

          It notes that the 7th floor would be open to reporters would be open at 11:00 EDT, so it was before then.

          So, it looks like the press release was issued as or when the GJ filed the indictent in court.

          by 2lucky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:04:49 PM PDT

        •  wow.

          now see, these are details worth noting. except that the GJ couldn't have handed it down on Friday -- it was 9AM when they advised the media. Had to be wednesday.

          arghhh.

          by donailin on Fri May 19, 2006 at 03:57:59 AM PDT

  •  AP & Reuters Oct. 2005

    I checked the AP and Reuters newswires archives on Lexis -- news of the indictment hadn't broken on 10/27, but it was being wildly speculated that some sort of an indictment would come down because of the expiration of the grand jury's term.

    by kteemac on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:54:34 PM PDT

•  On a 1 to 10 Scale...

  ...with 1 being completely disreputable, and 10 being completely trustworthy, Wayne Madsen is somewhere between negative 3 and negative 9.  

  As I wrote earlier:

  This is the looney Tune who "reported" that

    1. Bush stole the 2004 election

    2. Rove paid $29 million to have it stolen

    3. He paid for it with a single $29 million check

  OK, set aside numbers 1 and 2; my point is irrelevant to whether you do or don't accept those assertions.  But does anyone really think that when you move $29 million, you write a check?  

  I can hear it now:

  "Sir, we can cash your check, but since you don't have $29 million in your checking account, we're going to have to hold the funds for probably three business days until the check clears."

  Wayne Madsen makes Matt Drudge look like Edward R. Murrow.

  by DHinMI on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:00:14 PM PDT

  •  thats the kind of thing I wanted to know.

    :(

    by skyterrain on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:06:06 PM PDT

  •  Stop raining on my parade

    I want a shot!!!!!

    by deathsinger on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:21:18 PM PDT

•  skyterrain: one question

  which bar?

  by ChemGeek on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:01:28 PM PDT

  •  a place called 'white collar crime' in raleigh

    Im not kidding!!!

    by skyterrain on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:07:40 PM PDT

•  Earlier diary, same subject

  He ain't too credible.

  by twalling on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:01:58 PM PDT

  •  yuck.

    by skyterrain on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:07:10 PM PDT

•  I'm not cheap

  I want a shot of The Macallan, but not the recent stuff, the good stuff, like '65, '70 or '71.

  by deathsinger on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:20:38 PM PDT

•  We are like two steps away from people diarying

  about Weekly World News articles...

  by Arken on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:25:53 PM PDT

  •  I checked out your website a few weeks ago.

    good stuff ;)

    by skyterrain on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:28:35 PM PDT

  •  I checked out everyonesvoice.com a few weeks ago

    good stuff :)

    by skyterrain on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:28:53 PM PDT

    •  Thanks.

      Always nice to hear compliments.

      by Arken on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:29:33 PM PDT

  •  Don't be a killjoy.

    

    by Brownian Motion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:35:56 PM PDT

•  Looks like not just Kossacks read Truthout.

  

  by Brownian Motion on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:32:16 PM PDT

•  I have nothing to say but.....

  24 business hours

  

  by Chamonix on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:34:44 PM PDT

  •  That's going to give me nightmares. n/t

    by Arken on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:39:11 PM PDT

    •  I just can't anymore with this...

      It is like the last prolonged nightmare we all lived through

      

      It just drags on and on and on and on.
      At least I know where to find.

      

      by Chamonix on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:49:01 PM PDT

  •  Eeeeww.

    Creepy.  

    What did we ever do to you;)?

    by 2lucky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:41:01 PM PDT

•  Madsen is not reliable.

  He claimed that Bush would attack Iran in 2004 as an October surprise. He has not broken anything yet worthwhile.

  by Eternal Hope on Thu May 18, 2006 at 09:56:21 PM PDT

•  Now HERE's something interesting.

  Our own teacherken posted over at Talk Left:

  Posted by teacherken
  May 18, 2006 10:23 PM

  I am probably to lame for this piece by Byron. He came out to my school to spend several hours with my AP Government students. As we walked into the building I told him about the Madsen piece. He said that the thing about Gonzales going to the Courthouse was something new to him. I expressed a mild bit of surprise, since I noted that when I had encountered Joe Wilson on Saturday that was one thing he had told me - that Gonzales had been at the Courthouse on Friday.

  I am assuming that Byron decided to follow up on that.

  Teacherken posted here Sunday that

  In my conversation with Joe Wilson on Saturday he told me something which caught my attention, which I clarified with followup questions, about which he was adamant, which if accurate would lend credence to Leopold's story
  Now, I won't go into the details, because although it was not an noff the record conversation, it was one remark in a tewnty minute exchange.  Wilson seemed sure about his source.  My only caveat is that I can imagine the possibility (NOT the probability) that Wilson and Leopold had the same source and it was deliberate disinformation designed to discredit both.

  I tend to doubt what I have stated in the caveat,  because of the specific nature of the information Wilson passed on.

  link

  So, last Saturday, teacherken heard from Joe Wilson, different details of what Madsen and Leopold are reporting.  

  Who woulda thunk?  

  Interesting....

  by 2lucky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:39:50 PM PDT

  •  *strokes chin* very interesting, right?

    by skyterrain on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:52:13 PM PDT

    •  LOL. Smart-ass!

      As my daughter used to say "That's insteresting."

      Wonder where she got it from?

      Anyway, I find it interesting intriguing that one of our trustworthy Kosters heard some level of detail from both what Madsen reported on Gonzales and something Leopold reported (tk's being coy.)

      Also, Larry Johnson reported that Wilson was hearing what Leopold was reporting, although from different sources.  (Hmm, how did LJ know the sources were different? Very interesting provacative.

      by 2lucky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 10:57:58 PM PDT

      •  Yes, I do not how to

        spell "provocative", but my fingers don't.  So, there.

        by 2lucky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:03:20 PM PDT

        •  I give up. n/t

          by 2lucky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:12:13 PM PDT

      •  I wasnt tryin to be a smartass...

        just not sure what else to say. interesting, intriguing, all of the above...

        would this not be the ultimate friday surprise?

        by skyterrain on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:13:08 PM PDT

        •  I wasn't taking offense - I thought it was funny.

          I tend to over-use the word "interesting".  

          Could be a Friday surprise.  Wilson doesn't strike me as the type that just fell off the turnip truck.  He's hearing something credible from people he knows are in the know.  

          I also believe Larry Johnson is a good-ole straight shooter, and has good contacts in the IC.  

          We shall see.

          by 2lucky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:24:22 PM PDT

      •  Gonzales there to testify again?

        Further down that comments thread there's a post from "Talkleft" which raises an interesting possibility. Teacherken and Joe Wilson make reference to AG being at the courthouse in Friday. Madsen implies that AG was there to "hear the indictments" because that's what he did last year before Libby was indicted.

        This post, however, makes sense. Maybe AG was there to testify again. He testified in the past.

        Gonzales acknowledged on Face the Nation that he was a witness before the Plame grand jury. Maybe if he was called back on May 12, it was to testify again, not to be apprised of an Indictment.

        by dannyinla on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:13:24 PM PDT

        •  could he have been there to TRAP

          Darth? I still think Fitz isn't going to show his cards until he gets the big fish. Time is on his side. Time is not on Bush's side. He is afraid of time. Time is his enemy. He is wanting Jan. 2009 to get here as soon as possible. His hands are tied and he has nowhere to go but down. I really don't think Fitz is finished with Rove. Rove is small time in this web. "Time thou must untangle this not I, it is to hard a knot for me to untie"

          by Chamonix on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:21:03 PM PDT

          •  Are you saying Fitz should wear a

            clip-on tie to the press conference announcing Rove's indictment;)?

            I agree - I think a lot of the Buscho scrambling on pushing through their legislation is cause Rove's in real danger.  Time is not on Bush's side in this election year.  

            by 2lucky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:34:48 PM PDT

        •  That makes sense - Gonzales had to recuse

          himself - if Fitz needed to notify Gonzales, out of courtesy protocol, he could do it by phone.  

          I hate this.  I've been trying to temper my expectations of what Fitz could do with this case - and I really thought he'd only get a few key players on perjury and lying, in the hopes that they'd flip on Cheney, but I thought he'd never get there.  No way these people would flip - it's obvious they colluded to obstruct from the beginning - even if can't be proved in a court of law.  

          But, Fitz may just be as good as his reputation, not only for his integrity and sense of fair-play, but for his strategic skill.  

          by 2lucky on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:31:54 PM PDT

        •  only there for 30 minutes?

          if as someone supposed upthread that gonzales wouldn't be there to be presented with a rove indictment as he recused himself, your suggestion would explain another reason for him to be there. even for a follow-up visit to the GJ, if it turns out that he was only there for 30 minutes, wouldnt that be an unusually short period of time?

          by skyterrain on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:32:43 PM PDT

          •  You assume the 30-minute reference is correct

            Otherwise, I have no idea. Seems short, but maybe not.

            by dannyinla on Thu May 18, 2006 at 11:45:28 PM PDT

•  Wake me up when it happens

  Until then, this is a waste of time.

  by jfern on Fri May 19, 2006 at 01:07:31 AM PDT