home

Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl Rove Indictment

Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney, has officially denied the allegations in Jason Leopold's article reporting Rove has been indicted and that there was a Fitzgerald-Luskin meeting on Friday.

I received the denial directly from Robert Luskin this afternoon.

1. Luskin stands by his April 26 statement in its entirety.

2. Karl Rove's status has not changed. They remain confident Fitzgerald will decline to bring any charges.

3. There is "no truth whatsoever" to any of Jason Leopold's recent stories about Karl Rove's resignation, the alleged meeting in his office or the Indictment. The denial he gave me Saturday night was and was intended to be "all purpose."

4. As far as he knows, Patrick Fitzgerald was in Chicago on Friday.

5. People should not interpret their "unwillingness to comment on every wild and malicious rumor as a change in position."

As background, Saturday night I reported on my dismally failed attempt to get Robert Luskin to discuss Jason Leopold's article.

Sunday night I reported the details of my phone call with Jason in which Jason expressed confidence his report was correct and confirmed that he would out his sources if it turned out they provided false information.

This morning I reported on my telephone conversation with Rove media strategist Mark Corallo and his full and complete denial of the accuracy of Jason's article.

After that call this morning, I e-mailed Mr. Luskin to properly introduce myself, thank him for connecting me to Mark Carballo and apologize again for calling him so late Saturday night. He responded favorably. Just over an hour ago, he sent me another e-mail with the above denials. He also said his cat is better now.

Update: Some verbatim quotes from Bob Luskin, reprinted with permission:

The cat's fine, thanks. Her stool sample shows no evidence of harmful parasites, which is one of the big differences between my cat's stools and this case. i do, occasionally, take a day (or, if i can, an evening) off.

On his belief that Fitzgerald was in Chicago Friday,

To paraphrase 'my cousin vinnie,' even in this investigation, the laws of physics apply.

< Third Player Indicted in Duke Lacrosse Case | Bush's Immigration Speech: Send 6,000 National Guard to the Borders >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • TL It was just on the way to the feathers I was going and I read your quotes. Would you be thanking Mister Luskin for sharing about his cat.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:05:19 PM EST
    I would say that is a very pleasant and warm response from Luskin and it is nice to see that he was able to recover nicely from the "late night call". Kudos to Mr. Luskin....

    Karl Rove ain't no yute. Vinny Gambini: How could it take you five minutes to cook your grits when it takes the entire grit-eating world 20 minutes? Mr. Tipton: Um... I'm a fast cook, I guess. Vinny Gambini: [across beside the jury] What? I'm sorry I was over there. Did you just say you were a fast cook? Are we to believe that boiling water soaks into a grit faster in your kitchen than any place on the face of the earth? Mr. Tipton: I don't know. Vinny Gambini: Perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on your stove. Were these magic grits? Did you buy them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans?

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:15:12 PM EST
    So Jason was either played, or his sources were misinformed, or themselves played? Tangled webs.. curious. I wonder what the purpose was. Try to make sure no one takes Jason seriously again? Try to make sure no one talks to him again? Dangle some bait? Find out how widespread the animosity towards Rove is? Just divert attention from bushco's troubles? Or what?

    MAybe they were trying to out any leakers and fed them bogus info.....

    Luskin sounds more credible than Leopold. Looks like Leopold's going to be revealing his sources.

    Sounds to me as if Luskin is calling Leopold a harmful parasite. If Joe Wilson, the original target of this treasonous mess, was given the same information, not by Leopold, sounds like the Plumbers are doubling as Veterinarians.

    In fact, I'd say the key to what might remain of Leopold's credibility lies with Joe Wilson. If he was definitely given the same information independently, then Rove is still trying to worm them out of his system.

    Leopold's sticking to his story as of this afternoon. Whole thing is screwy.

    Curiouser and curiouser. Just because parsing is so popular: If an indictment is still sealed, one is not charged yet. There's tele and videoconferencing to take care of the physics. Depends how you define 'confident' etc etc etc. I don't know who to trust, maybe only myself and my family and close friends.

    Leopold is on KXRA right now, standing by his story. They're streaming and he'll be on until 4p.m. West Coast.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:42:43 PM EST
    or he could be lying.
    Anything is possible. Bush and Rove have certainly set a good example the past few years. Lie though your teeth with no supporting facts, even when you know you'll be caught out? Maybe Jason has finally come to his senses and fallen through the mirror too?

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#13)
    by cmpnwtr on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:42:49 PM EST
    I'm puzzled by this. There seem to be solid and multiple sources. Who is lying and why? Is Luskin playing word games here? Here's Truthout's latest comment: How Accurate Was the 'Rove Indicted' Story? By Marc Ash, Mon May 15th, 2006 at 02:04:04 PM EDT :: Bush On Saturday afternoon, we ran a breaking story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." We assumed that we were well ahead of the mainstream media and that we would be subsequently questioned. Right on both counts. What everyone is asking right now is how accurate is the story? Has Rove in fact been indicted? The story is accurate, and Karl Rove's attorneys have been served with an indictment. In short, we had two sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation who were explicit about the information that we published, and a former high-ranking state department official who reported communication with a source who had "direct knowledge" of the meeting at Patton Boggs. In both instances, substantial detail was provided and matched. We had confirmation. We ran the story.

    It would have been nice if someone had asked Rove at the think tank today if he were indicted.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#15)
    by teacherken on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:47:31 PM EST
    so was Wilson played? I notice that Will Pitts references a former high State Department source. I do not know if that description is intended to point at Wilson or someone else, although given the total background Wilson is the probably person. And based on a conversation I had with Joe Wilson at 7 PM on Sastruday evening, he seemed to clearly think that something was happening, although his specific remarks to me were not about any meeting between Fitz and Luskin, but another piece of information which would seem to be supportive of an impending indictment, but which may merely have occurred because Fitz intended to release the news article with the handwritten notes by Cheney. There are sources independent of what is tied back to Leopold which have reported tales from the White House about impending problems for Rove, but these are always general, not tied to a specific event or person. IANAL - but it seems to me that unless Rove has something to deal that they have him - as they did Libby - at a minimum on one or more false statements and/or counts of perjury... I am interested independent of any information from Leopold what others might think.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#16)
    by teacherken on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:50:26 PM EST
    One other comment -- former high state department official could be Mark Grossman, and it is interesting that he is one of the officials that Libby's lawyers want to call. He would meet that description, as would Armitage and Powell, what it does not really seem an accurate appelation for Joe Wilson.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#17)
    by squeaky on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    As background, Saturday night I reported on my dismally failed attempt to get Robert Luskin to discuss Jason Leopold's article.
    Obviously not as dismal as you originally thought. Luskin 'decided' to get over it. It may be that Luskin is strongly advising his client to take a deal (24 hour) and is buying time as the ink is not yet dry. Leopold's writing may be true and Luskin may also be not lying, if a time limit deal is on the table. Notice he does not say that Fitz did not meet the GJ in DC he just implies it. "As far as I know...." I agree that the parasite story is some kind of metaphor, like aspens or something. Luskin seems to be very good at misleading without actually lying. We have seen it before.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:56:00 PM EST
    Why the hostility? Hostility? Simply a question. Why would anyone lie knowing that he'd be caught at it and damage his reputation? Bushco I can understand, but why anyone else?

    Excuse me, but I thought the whole deal was that Fitzgerald's entire team was airtight. So what sources close to them would know Thing One? A travel agent?

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Mon May 15, 2006 at 04:01:26 PM EST
    Why the hostility? There are hucksters of every political stripe.
    Apologists as well.

    Okay then back to April 26th's statement by Luskin: "Karl Rove appeared today before the Grand Jury investigating the disclosure of a CIA agent's identity. He testified voluntarily and unconditionally at the request of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald to explore a matter raised since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005," Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said in a written statement. "In connection with this appearance, the Special Counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation. Mr. Fitzgerald has affirmed that he has made no decision concerning charges. That's still some monumental parsing. I think it is "Lets' Make a Deal" time. Aside from Leopold's particulars, the whole press core has been chomping at the bit thinking something will happen this week. Hell, Chris Matthews was ready to do a late show on it Friday. And I wouldn't put it pass someone like Rove to set up Wilson (AGAIN) and by mutual association of sources Leopold as well. It's also a great way of finding out who is leaking by planting a story. Considering what's gone down with the press and this administration, we know damn well that they detest leaks, unless they're doing the leaking. These people are professional shaper of the story leakers. I simply do not like any of those people no matter how kitty-friendly they are, let alone trust them.

    Doesn't matter...gool 'ol 29% will give Rove a pardon, regardless. . .what's he got to lose? Public support? It doesn't exist.

    Why the hostility? There are hucksters of every political stripe. Apologists as well.
    Nicely done

    frozen out by anyone who cares about the integrity of blogosphere i didnt know there was a caste system in 'ere. ill go back now to steerage...

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Mon May 15, 2006 at 04:39:02 PM EST
    Orinoco-Do you actually believe that Rove will not be indicted, or do you just have it in for Leopold?

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Mon May 15, 2006 at 04:49:40 PM EST
    Orinoco-Nice dodge.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:07:14 PM EST
    Whatever you say.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#29)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:38:12 PM EST
    There's an elephant sitting in the middle of the room that I see some are doing their squirmiest best to avoid looking at.
    Why would anyone lie knowing that he'd be caught at it and damage his reputation?
    The uncomfortable truth of it is that no one would, unless comletely off his nut. Which is why the swiftboating of Jason Leopold and the impugning of his professionalism, ability and credibility, and the portraying of him as drug damaged and incompetent began and is growing. Standard Rovian tactics. Demonize the messenger. At all costs avoid addressing the issue or considering the message. If Jason didn't lie, then either his sources did, or his sources themselves were lied to... If Jason didn't lie, then either his sources did, or his sources themselves were lied to. And the ramifications of that are obviously too uncomfortably close to the bone for some to accept. Mirrors are terrible things to look at. Therefore Jason Leopold's credibility must be destroyed...

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#30)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:45:51 PM EST
    Yes, I've read it. It doesn't mean his reporting is false. I'm still waiting on future developments.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:00:38 PM EST
    Don't look at the elephant, whatever you do...

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:01:18 PM EST
    edger - This should be easy. If Jason didn't lie, who are his sources? If his sources didn't lie, who were their sources? So there is no need to pontificate on the possibly of Jason being mouse trapped. If he has, he can step forward and immediately identify the culprits. If he doesn't, that speaks for itself.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:11:12 PM EST
    Waas has an interview at U.S News and World Report. The pertinent part:
    Do you think White House aide Karl Rove will be indicted? I don't know, and even if I did, I wouldn't say because it would be unfair to him. The difficulty of these stories is being fair to people under investigation. One of the things I learned from the so-called Clinton scandals is there's a lot of hyperventilation, a lot of baseless allegations, and an assumption in Washington that being under investigation is a presumption of guilt.
    link via atrios Ah, the luxury of not being a journalist. Rove will fry.

    You also have to keep in mind that some people are pathologoical liars
    Oh, you mean like Rove?

    If Fitzgerald is holding indictment over Turd Blossom's head in an effort to get him to give up his bosses, we better hope they make Leopold look like a complete boob, here, or Rove would more easily choose the indictment, since everyone knew about it already....

    Larissa (Long Russian name) over at Raw Story had the same story, but just one source, so she didn't run it. What can I say? I don't think Leopold invented it. We shall see.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 06:23:56 PM EST
    Use all your well-learned politesse
    Or I'll lay your soul to waste


    If Leopold is not lying, he is a very poor reporter. He's sitting on one of the biggest stories of his career. He knows his credibility will be questioned. He wants to make sure the story is bulletproof. And then he goes and writes an article that contains huge logical gaps? Fitzgerald was there for 15 hours or half a day? Rove was given 24 hours or "24 business hours"? If I were a reporter and I wanted to make sure my story was bulletproof, I would make sure I had those things straight -- or if there was some ambiguity in my sources' accounts (i.e. the 24 hrs. thing) I would make sure that I reflected that ambiguity in the wording of my article. I would make sure I knew what a sealed indictment was. I would make sure I knew what a target letter was. And when I wrote about sealed indictments and target letters in a way that seemed inaccurate, and I was questioned about it by responsible bloggers on the left, I would appear interested in those details instead of responding defensively. My prediction: Rove will be indicted. The facts as to how it happened according to Leopold will be proven wrong. Leopold will try to spin it as vindication because (surprise!) Rove was indicted, even though his reporting was wrong on a few, ahem, particulars. It's exactly the same thing that happened with Leopold's "target letter" false alert two weeks ago. Frankly, I'm surprised he still has so many defenders. We've got to be a little more clearheaded, folks.

    "24 business hours"... nobody says that. Twenty-four business hours would be three weekdays. And the word "business" was injected into that piece after it was posted and people had a chance to start speculating about it. Like me when I pointed out on Saturday night that if the story had been true, we'd be seeing the mug shots instead of speculating.

    Truthout acknowledged the editing and the reasons for adding the word business--right after adding the word. No cigar on that one.

    With all respect, TL, there is a cigar. When you're breaking a story that big, you get the wording right the first time. Cf. "target letter."

    Thanks, TL. I wish they'd have noted it properly on the post that they'd done that. Did they also explain what they meant by that term? Three days or one business day? It just flat out looks like Fitzgerald is going after the big fish, and is squeezing Rove for all he's worth, closing off his wiggle room. If he gets indicted, everyone's going to tap dance on his forehead to keep the heat off themselves. If he decides to testify, his vaunted power evaporates. I hope he can't sleep.

    Okay. I have to admit, it does seem like the air is going out of Jason's story. And for that, I suppose, the Bush supporters on this chat are justified in pouncing. I knew there was one or two left in the woodwork. BUT... I wonder how they'd feel if it turns out Jason just had bad information. Careful before you answer, righty. Better be consistent with what you said when your supreme leader lied us into war using "bad" intelligence.

    OK, so I now really don't trust the Leopold article, I have to say, but one thought occurs to me: Is it not possible that Luskin is lying, quite deliberately, to protect some grand enterprise that has emerged as a result of some Rove change of heart/strategy? For example, if Rove is co-operating, perhaps in order to throw Cheney from the train to save his boss... wouldn't Luskin actually need to do more than just no-comment, to protect that process? He'd need to lie. He might even need to throw an investigative reporter off the scent. Far fetched, I know, because Luskin has never engaged in a lie of this magnitude so far, preferring sophistry. But with all that is going on in the press this last few days, there is no way that Bush could survive a Rove indictment.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:36:12 PM EST
    Agent99: If he gets indicted, everyone's going to tap dance on his forehead to keep the heat off themselves. If he decides to testify, his vaunted power evaporates... I hope he can't sleep.
    "I believe Karl is Bush. They're not separate, each of them freestanding, with distinct agendas, as some people say."
    --William Kristol
    I hope neither one of them can sleep.

    edger: A toast! "clink"

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#48)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 07:50:22 PM EST
    "clink", "glug!"

    And for that, I suppose, the Bush supporters on this chat are justified in pouncing. I knew there was one or two left in the woodwork. Come on, cut it out. I hate Bush as much as anyone. If you want to pin me down, I'm a bit to the left of TalkLeft. People are pouncing on Leopold because this thing has happened over and over and over, and it's about time we get past it. He has been wrong on the facts many times, he has been evasive and defensive, and people continue to make excuses for his reporting. And if its his sources who are lying to him, then I will want to know the same thing from him that I want to know from traditional journalists: How did he let himself get played?

    For example, if Rove is co-operating, perhaps in order to throw Cheney from the train to save his boss... wouldn't Luskin actually need to do more than just no-comment, to protect that process? He'd need to lie. He might even need to throw an investigative reporter off the scent. Far fetched, I know, because Luskin has never engaged in a lie of this magnitude so far, preferring sophistry. But with all that is going on in the press this last few days, there is no way that Bush could survive a Rove indictment.
    Yes, I've thought of that, too, and agree. You also just jogged my memory on how Luskin earned the nic given by the folks at FireDogLake "Gold Bars." To the best of my recollection without looking it up, Luskin was accepting gold bars as payment from a client who was being accused of money laundering. Let's THINK a moment here people. Sheesh, I know I sure should have remembered that one. Luskin is slime just like Rove.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#51)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:09:41 PM EST
    w0551: I will want to know the same thing from him that I want to know from traditional journalists: How did he let himself get played? Jason has written critically of rove before, and like most of us here I imagine he probably was hearing from his sources something he wanted to and has waited a long time to hear. If those sources have previously been reliable for him there would be no reason for him to doubt them. He, like anyone in his shoes, would be an easy mark or them.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:10:27 PM EST
    for them

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#53)
    by Dadler on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:18:48 PM EST
    If Jason's reporting were made up, entirely false, I'm sure there'd be a lawsuit pending against him as we speak. Libel anyone? That it's taking a bit longer to play out, so be it.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:22:28 PM EST
    Good point, Dadler. I think he honestly reported what he was told, and honestly thought it true. And, apart from some things like the "15 hours" (which, btw, I can imagine as 1.5 hours) maybe it is true.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#55)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:25:47 PM EST
    I am amazed that the blogosphere would lend credence to the statements of people who have consistently lied about Rove's role in this case. This is a White House that denied Rove's involvement in the leak. This is a White House that has lied and lied and lied. And yet the first question that people ask is "why would Rove's spokesman lie?" Because they can, because they do, and because they have. This is an administration that has attacked and discredited their detractors. I am amazed that not a single reporter would actually do any real investigative work and get to the bottom of this story. Surely, their must be another intrepid reporter out there that has sources beyond a spokesman. Jason Leopold


    Jason has written critically of rove before, and like most of us here I imagine he probably was hearing from his sources something he wanted to and has waited a long time to hear. Edger, this seems very plausible to me, and I don't fault Jason (or TalkLeft, or you, or me) for some wishful thinking. However, his sources, if these are the same sources, have frequently been proven wrong about key details in the Plame case. I'm not saying Jason is lying necessarily. I'm saying that he doesn't do a very good job in making sure his stories are "bulletproof" (his word). Doubting is part of an investigative journalist's job description. Anyway, I'll go back to my lurker's corner. (Doesn't TL have a rule on how many times newbies can post?) Sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread. The Daou report says it best for all of us: http://tinyurl.com/ky5pj

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#57)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:35:10 PM EST
    But, listen... you people of the press type those decisions down... Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration. You know - fiction! Because really, what incentive do these people have to answer your questions, after all? Stephen Colbert


    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 08:37:43 PM EST
    w0551, You ask good questions and make good points, IMO.

    w0551 --there is no limit on commenting, for newbies or anyone, unless they are a chatterer and you are not. Welcome.

    Thanks for staying on top of this story. I agree with Tom McGuire that Rove will probably be indicted anyway - perhaps by the end of the week. Remainder deleted for personal attacks on Leopold.

    Thanks, Edger, for your kind comment, & TL for the welcome. I'll jump in here one more time then to say that the Luskin end run theory is enticing... For example, if Rove is co-operating, perhaps in order to throw Cheney from the train to save his boss... wouldn't Luskin actually need to do more than just no-comment, to protect that process? He'd need to lie. He might even need to throw an investigative reporter off the scent. ...but I have a hard time believing he's making the cat thing up. Stool samples? I do, however, believe he's definitely lying on #2.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#61)
    by squeaky on Mon May 15, 2006 at 09:35:19 PM EST
    A WaPo report of Roves AEI speech. It is clear from a political perspective that delaying news of Rove's indictment was paramount.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#62)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 11:08:42 PM EST
    Karl Rove, staggered and bleeding a bit from the unrelenting attacks, and as disgusting and seriously damaged human being as he is is still a ruthless, talented, capable, imaginative, remorseless and extremely potent force to be reckoned with. One mistake he may have made(if it is not a smokescreen or a diversion) may be in broadcasting the general outlines of his strategy for retaining GOP control of the house and senate this year: MSNBC: May 15, 2006
    Rove - not indicted, not out on bail, and wearing a business suit, not orange prison garb -- was in person at the right-wing think tank, American Enterprise Institute Monday morning. ... If Rove is indicted soon, as some Democrats hope and expect, then this may have been Rove's valedictory message and the essence of it was: things are better than you, especially you in the mainstream news media, think. ... "we're going to be just fine in the fall elections and we're going to be fine because we stand for things that are important to stand for: a strong national defense and victory, complete victory in the war on terror.... Tax cuts, free trade, fiscal restraint in the budget process."
    RAW STORY: May 7, 2006
    In regular West Wing breakfast sessions catered by the White House mess, Rove and the White House political director, Sara Taylor, have already been reaching out to nervous and vulnerable Republican members of Congress, three at a time, to offer advice or to lay out an emerging, three-prong attack on Democrats over national security, taxes and health care.


    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#63)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon May 15, 2006 at 11:21:01 PM EST
    "Waiting is" Valentine Michael Smith

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edger on Mon May 15, 2006 at 11:29:58 PM EST
    grokking...

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 16, 2006 at 07:13:40 AM EST
    wo551 writes:
    And if its his sources who are lying to him, then I will want to know the same thing from him that I want to know from traditional journalists: How did he let himself get played?
    Exactly. And if he doesn't reveal his sources then you have to think he wasn't "played" but "playing."

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#66)
    by Edger on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:11:34 AM EST
    Silence of the Lambs:
    Some have taken this media absence, and Rove's continued liberty, as a refutation of Leopold's story. It's not the first time he's found himself at the centre of a credibility *hit storm. ,....Truthout.org, where Leopold's article first appeared, did some hasty "re-fact" checking on the story. They stand by it.

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#67)
    by Dadler on Tue May 16, 2006 at 09:40:41 AM EST
    None of Blair or Glass's subjects were this powerful or corrupt, nor was a criminal indictment the focus. Also, Blair and Glass, as memory serves, were busted for fabricating people as well as the "events" those "people" were involved in. Were Rove NOT going to be indicted, there'd be a libel suit already on the table.

    Here's a Wall Street Journal article that helps put your Saturday call to Luskin in context, TL. Apparently, you weren't the only one calling: Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Tue May 16, 2006 at 11:55:15 AM EST
    Dana Milbank unspins Rove's AEI speech: WaPo via war & peace

    Yea, Jason must be making the whole thing up because NO ONE who is involved with someone as honest and upstanding as Karl Rove would ever lie!

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#71)
    by Kitt on Wed May 17, 2006 at 05:44:15 AM EST
    I love the smell of indictments on a Wednesday (morning).

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edger on Wed May 17, 2006 at 05:51:14 AM EST
    Kitt, looking out my window this morning I thought "there's not much could make the day any more perfect than it already is". Until your commented reminded me. ;-) Hope you're right...

    Presumption of innocence doesn't apply to Jason Leopold?

    Re: Luskin Denies Truth of Leopold Article on Karl (none / 0) (#74)
    by Kitt on Wed May 17, 2006 at 04:42:09 PM EST
    Sorry, edger; I shot that comment off as I was leaving for work.