Truthout Indicted By Own Claims

TruthOut's coked-up, ethicically-challenged pretend Internet reporter Leopold does not have what one might call the gold standard as far as integrity.

But he also appears pretty sloppy in his fabrications.

"Fabrications"? Okay, that's too strong. It's my hunch that he didn't really "fabricate" anything. I'm guessing he really did have "sources" -- unreliable, dumb sources -- who told him they'd seen Rove's indictment. But he didn't do any checking around to see if their story held water.

C.G. Heckler of Football Fans For Truth did. He demolishes key factual details offered up by Leopold and TruthOut as indicia of the story's fundamental realiability.

Having no on the record sources, and not claiming to have seen the indictment document with his own eyes, Leopold and TruthOut keep tossing out official-sounding courthouse filing details to convince you their sources saw an indictment.

Like, they claim that a filing with the caption "Sealed vs. Sealed" was seen. That, they imply, is a detail that lends credence to their tale, as Sealed vs. Sealed documents are "rare" and would likely indicate a high-profile case wherein not only is the accused name's to be kept secret, but also the name of the official bringing the charges.

Except, FFFT finds, "Sealed vs. Sealed" documents are not especially rare. That's a quite common party caption for the granting of warrants in mundane criminal matters, before charges against a party are brought.

Even worse for Leopold is this: His timeline is provably false. His sources claim to have seen the "indictment" on May 10th; Leopold "reported" on the indictment on May 13th. TruthOut and Leopold repeatedly reference the date-sensitive code given to this document as "06 cr 128."

There was a "Sealed vs. Sealed" document entered into the court and given the code "06 cr 128."

Trouble is, it was entered May 16th or 17th, three or four days after Leopold wrote about his sources having seen it, and at six or seven days after his sources said they saw the document.

Some may be troubled with this precognitive aspect of Leopold's reportage. I have to say I'm not terribly bothered by this.

Because I've suspected for some time: Johnny Coldcuts has flipped to the other side. I can't help but notice that the time-travelling baloney sandwich's predictions of the future -- remember, he predicted a Red Sox World Series sweep before the season even began -- have been spotty of late. I've been wondering if he's been feeding me disinformation.

Why? Why would Johnny Coldcuts do such a thing?

Why else? Let's just say Johnny Coldcuts himself doesn't eat pork.

Maybe we should start calling him "Johnny Coldstein."

posted by Ace at 01:12 PM

| Access Comments