Honest Question. What if David Shuster is right?

[UTUSN]

13. He was a fixture on Keith's MSNBC show during Fitzmas, "reporting inside information"

from the Grand Jury (yeah-right), nightly assuring that KKKarl ROVE was going to be indicted any time soon. When the predicted apocalypse date got into the "imminently" range set by one Jason LEOPOLD from "Truthout" and passed by one and another day, LEOPOLD covered by something like a discrepancy between "calendar days or working days" but neither method of divination worked. And we had a Fitzmas of coals.

When it was over SHUSTER was pressed on how/who his "inside information" could be so wrong. He was burned and peevishly said his sources were (paraphrasing: ) "experts on grand juries, attorneys with extensive experience presenting cases to grand juries."

Get it? We lay people learned, got drilled, that grand juries don't spew "inside information." So SHUSTER's experts turned out to be attorneys without actual information, but rather acting as PUNDITS giving their opinions based on what was known outside the grand jury.

*** So, he's still pushing inside information, eh.

*** And just curious, answer not demanded: Is "non-partisan" literal or intended loosely as "impartial"?