David SHUSTER outs his sources on KKKarl: defense lawyers (not ROVE'S)

[UTUSN]

Didn't see this till this morning on the re-run of Keith, and I did due diligence in finding the previous thread by sabra down on p. 3 of GD, but the headline needed sharpening its point. And SHUSTER's comments give insight into the actual first-hand knowledge of the "sources" ----------pure SUPPOSITION and GUESSING, as many DUers posted here during our long KKKarl-indictment vigil. These "defense-lawyers-with-clients-before-this-g.j." were GUESSING about what would happen.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1422845

*******QUOTE*******

http://newsbusters.org/node/5873

.... Substitute anchor Brian Unger inquired: "David, as you reported, your sources seemed to indicate that Karl Rove would be indicted. What happened?"

David Shuster, from Washington, DC, answered: "Well, sometimes when you're trying to track a secret grand jury investigation, the legal sources, the defense lawyers who have witnesses in front of that grand jury, sometimes they get it wrong, and that seemed to be the case in this particular case. And, of course, we hate it when that happens, but in going back to all of those defense lawyers today with the exception of Karl Rove's lawyer, who said that he would never be charged, all of those lawyers said that if he had the same circumstances all over again, somebody testifying five times before a grand jury, somebody who had the burden to stop the charges, somebody who had to testify for three and a half hours the last time, and oh, by the way, he had a classification in the Libby case that almost suggested he would certainly be indicted, the lawyers say they would have reached the same conclusion. ....

********UNQUOTE*******

[theboss]

1. First of all, I'm not sure there are soruces

But if there are, it is probably someone at Patton Boggs. I don't think it's an attorney though. Probably a paralegal jerking someone around.

[UTUSN]

2. So SHUSTER would just make up what he is quoted as saying? n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

4. Or,

the snakes who are permanently domiciled inside Jason Leopold's head.

They never shut up, I bet.

[KittyWampus]

9. This thread is about Shuster, why are you bringing in someone else?

simply to throw in some snark?

Are you implying Shuster & Leopold were sucking from same information teat?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

3. All along, Schuster was wrong about everything

he reported about Karl Rove. I wondered why the hell he was doing it, coming up with such idiotic swill and trying to pass it off as authenthic copy. It was absurd, as wrong as the Leopold story, and my colleagues and I talked about it, wondering where he was coming up with this bullshit.

Now we know.

He should be fired and disappear. This is as sorry an excuse for a journalist as Leopold.

But, he keeps his job, keeps getting his paycheck, and people will - for reasons that will forever evade me - keep quoting him as some sort of persuasive authority.

[UTUSN]

5. IIRC, you often reminded us "nobody knows". Congrats.

But SHUSTER used to work for Faux and BLASTS Faux for the wingnut shill the outfit is, so he's O.K. by me. He has said his parents would rail at him while he was at Faux, "Why are working for (scumbags like them)?"

[OldLeftieLawyer]

6. Nobody knows,

but Schuster apparently is still more intellectually suited to Faux than he'd probably care to admit. A shameful excuse for a "journalist." And, what really kills me is that he'll move on with impunity, never having to acknowledge his miserable failures on this story.

Using the opinions of other defense attorneys is about as feeble a way of gleaning information about grand jury proceedings as can be imagined. What an amateur.

Nobody knows except Fitzgerald. Still a good mantra, and thanks for remembering.

[UTUSN]

7. Your (oldLeftyLawyer) North Star posts deserve a kick n/t

[jsamuel]

8. So were these the same sources as Leopold's?

[grasswire]

10. has anyone considered the possibility that Schuster...

...was rathered? He's been the most hard-hitting investigative reporter against the Bush administration. Of course they would want to compromise his voice. Rathering is their chosen path, as demonstrated many times. It's too easy and it works.

[UTUSN]

11. I'm willing to believe it, but would sure like to CATCH them at it n/t