Posted on 05/15/2006 8:01:52 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Does anyone have directions on how to put Champaign Corks back in their bottles??
Pray for W and Our Troops
please, please DuFu the updates to this!!
I've have weeks like that, too. :)
Things are breaking so quickly on this that I need some time to absorb all the new info.
It's either out of Pitt's name-dropping ego or his hitting the "champagne" a little too hard, if you catch my drift.
Along with the fact that Pitt likes to hear himself talk so much that he's bound to let something slip eventually.
The other possibility: Jason Leopold TOLD Pitt his source was Joe Wilson, and Pitt believed him.
Pitt was so desperate to have a "scoop," just like a real journalist. So he WANTED to believe.
There is one. Only one. Mine. Before my own mother, I thanked you.
I have no doubt whatsoever as to the essential veracity of that statement, at least.
FREUDENSCHADE, Mama Pitt! ROTFLMAO!!!! :)
jason leopold, will pitt and the dozen eyes
by ne plus ultra
Sun May 14, 2006 at 09:44:09 PM PDT
>Still, it's comforting that "...a dozen eyes looked at this...", etc. - a poster in a Jason Leopold-related diary.
Will Pitt has now posted a `clarification.' When he said a dozen eyes had looked at the Leopold piece, he now says that he meant a baker's dozen.
Ur. Umm. That has now been re-corrected. It was pointed out to Will that a Baker's dozen would yield an odd number of eyes. He and Jason then caucused (for something less than 15 hours but more than half a day) and came back with different answers, Jason insisting that a one-eyed man had been among the proofers, while Will described the process of editing by a committee of 13, each of whom edited one sentence in the piece while covering one eye, so as not to spoil the confidentiality of the sources whose names were only half-hinted at.
When we pointed out to Will that a baker's dozen was 11, not 13, his disarming smile and response "maybe with the bakers you know", was unconvincing. Jason suggested that they had meant Dusty Baker's dozen, referring to an old custom among African Americans of another era who played "the dozens", or passed insults against each other. Justin insisted that the experience of being editing process always made him feel like he was being insulted.
This still left us somewhat in the dark, since it was hard to see how this new understanding of the dozen eyes could help give us confidence in the article they had all scanned.
At this point, Will began doing riffs on the words "dozen" and "doesn't", saying things like - "does Jason make up fax? No he dozen." Leopold took umbrage at this line of conversation, and began to talk about the issues of literacy and numeracy, insisting he had never been good with numbers anyway, and this was one source of the confusion in "24 business hours" and the "15 hour" negotiation. He also began referring to the "24 business hours" as "two dozen business hours, and it was only when he added, "give or take a few" that we began to worry.
Finally, we asked Will for the names of the editors, thinking this might clarify some of the confusion. Will said he would only name the editors if it turned out the sentences they had looked at included grammatical misusages. When I raised an eyebrow at Roberta, Will added a coda - that he no longer considered "business hours" a grammatical error, since it has come to his attention that Fitzgerald uses the term business hours to mean the hours of the Starbucks at 15th and K. This particular Starbucks has a back room that is only open for reading and sipping weekdays from 5 pm to 9 pm, so the meaning of 24 business hours is clearly 6 business days. Leopold nodded, saying he had thought all along that the indictments would be announced on Memorial Day, probably inside the oval track of the Indy 500.
Still, we were no closer to the truth, or the truth was no closer to out, or something. But we were hungry, having now discussed this for many business hours, so we adjourned to the Starbucks, and clarity set in.
The Left is now eating itself alive over this fiasco. Reputations are ruined, credibility chucked out the door, all for believing Pitt and his fired-for-plagiarism "journalist", Leopold. Wonkette is ripping into them, Kos's editors are ripping into them...you've got all those Michigan lawyers and politicians that bought into the rumor...a lot of enemies are going to be made within the left in the coming days. The implosion is gonna be something to see...
Maybe. Or maybe it's even Leopold himself. Regardless, the significant fact is they're already circling their wagons over this. And, it at least appears that Leopold may get more sympathy (even though his initial story was bogus to begin with) than Pitt, who supported his getting that story out. That is, IF this attempt at backing Leopold works.
WOW! Is this ever great to watch.
Go ahead... see for yourself: here.
This edition of the DuFu is gonna go down in internet history, PJ! :)
Exactly. If Pitt knows he is right, all he has to do is check his massive ego for 48 hours and say "I told you so." He'd be a DUmmie legend forever if that happened.
A big FRINGE BENEFIT of that was the publicizing of the big FU to Skinner posted and then quickly deleted by Pitt. Too bad somebody caught it before the deletion and reposted it on KOS for our eternal entertainment.
Pitt's "sources" are . . . Don Johnson and Paul O'Neil???!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1632466/posts?page=161#161
http://www.wonkette.com/politics/karl-rove/karl-rove-indicted-everyone-with-a-blog-to-get-their-own-unicorn-173762.php
"Dearest Readers:
“Truthout” is not quite the most trusted news source in our bloglines list."
LMAO
It looks like Pitt has made an enemy of Joe Wilson for outing him (correctly or incorrectly) as a source. This is getting more and MORE interesting by the minute!
I don't think he can keep his rampaging ego in check for 48 hours. He'd probably explode if he tried to do it for 48 business hours.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/15/5406/74005
Updated: Leopold's sources, a FABRICATION w/poll
by bzemky
Mon May 15, 2006 at 02:40:06 AM PDT
Listen, I don't expect anyone to take this seriously. That is alright. In all likelyhood the truth regarding this won't come out. However, when/if this comes out I want to be able to point to this diary. I expect a lot of egg on a lot faces here. I expect a lot of criticism. Who cares. I can take it. I don't have much mojo on this site as it is.
Well here goes:
bzemky's diary :: ::
Jason Leopold's first source is Don Johnson of Miami Vice fame. The source works for Fitz and is good friends with Don. In fact before working at US attorney general's office, REDACTED. The source was involved indirectly with some research that Don was doing for some acting gig (presumably Miami Vice, not sure about this).
2nd source: Paul O'Neil. Not much to say about this except it is not clear if Jason spoke to Paul directly. (I will try to clarify this in an update later, if I get more info.) Paul apparently has some connections in the Justice Dept. Also, he apparently hates this administration. (Not a big suprise probably). I got the feeling Jason is less sure of the info he is getting from Paul (or the go between).
In fact, there are some minor discrepancies between Paul's account and Don's account. In particular, the timing. Paul (or whoever the go between is) seems convinced that Fitz meant exactly 24 hours. Don seems to indicate that 24 hours means 24 business hours. Don is not sure what 24 business hours actually means. This I think explains some of the ambiguity in Jason's article. He left it intentionally ambiguous. In essence, however, both sources agree on the fundamental facts.
I am trying to contact Don and/or Paul to confirm this. Unfortunately, I don't have their phone numbers. Please email me if you have them.
UPDATE: Ok, I've got Don's number (still need Paul's). However, don't expect an update regarding my conversation with Don until tomorrow.
UPDATE 2:Ok. My source for this info confirms that, in fact, Jason did not speak directly to Paul. My source in fact is pretty pissed off about this whole diary. He presumed somehow that our conversations were off the record. He has asked me to at least redact some of the identifying information regarding Don's sources into the attny. general's office. And I have done that. If you did read any of the redacted info, PLEASE forget you read it. My source is a good guy (he's on our side) and he doesn't need the grief. I am, in fact, mulling over whether or not to delete the whole diary.
UPDATE 3:Updated title. I want people to read the diary, and referencing Don probably turns some people off (thinking incorrectly that this is a joke). And another thing, that I have been thinking about: why can't Don Johnson be a source? Why is that so hard to be believe? If I had typed another name (that noone is familiar with) the diary would have been taken more seriously. However, the truth is the truth. Does Don have some credibility issues that I am not familiar with? (I am honestly not a big fan of his, don't know much about him.)
UPDATE 4:Updated title again. It has been revealed to me that my source fabricated the whole story regarding Don Johnson and Paul O'Neil. Obviously, I am furious at my source, as I suspect my reader is. However, in the pursuit of responsible journalism this sort of the thing will happen on occasion. I report the facts as they are presented to me. Unfortunately, journalistic ethics precludes me from divulging my source. I don't want to discourage my source from sharing further information with me in the future. In any event, I have been proved f*ckin right! It has been suggested that I delete this diary. I have created a poll to help me decide.
Excellent thread PJ!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.