Salon Interviews Truthout Re: Partial Apology Over Rove Article

Tim Grieves at Salon does an excellent job today interviewing Marc Ash at Truthout about why he only issued a partial apology for Jason Leopold's article last Saturday stating sources had told him Rove had been indicted.
Marc's partial apology stated:
The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it. As such, we will be taking the wait-and-see approach for the time being. We will keep you posted.
Tim spoke to Marc afterwards and reports:
So is Truthout saying that Jason Leopold's reporting was wrong? We put that question to Ash this morning, and his answer seemed to be a pretty unequivocal no. Although Rove's lawyer and his spokesman have both said that Leopold's story was false, Ash said that Truthout still believes that Patrick Fitzgerald, Karl Rove and Rove lawyer Robert Luskin participated in a 15-hour plea-negotiation session at Patton Boggs last Friday; that Fitzgerald gave Rove's lawyers a copy of an indictment charging Rove with perjury and lying to investigators; and that Fitzgerald told Rove's lawyers that their client had 24 hours -- or 24 business hours -- to get his affairs in order.
In other words, Truthout is apologizing because the announcement didn't come by Friday, as Jason had speculated it would. Jason, in his article, wrote:
An announcement by Fitzgerald is expected to come this week, sources close to the case said. However, the day and time is unknown. Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the special prosecutor was unavailable for comment. In the past, Samborn said he could not comment on the case.
Tim also reports Marc said Truthout will wait for official confirmation of a Rove indictment before commenting further:
Ash said that Truthout needs to "cool down the reactor a little bit" as it tries to learn more about the "cycle" on which Fitzgerald's legal team is working. "We're not in a position to continue on without an official confirmation," he said. "Unless we get some official confirmation, we're going to look stupider and stupider."
I think waiting for official confirmation is a good idea. No one knows what Fitzgerald is going to do until he does it. He keeps his cards too close to the vest ...appropriately. For all we know, Rove isn't going to get indicted at all and the sources pushing the story have an alternative, self-serving agenda.
Just to be clear, my purpose in writing about Rove and the Plame leaks investigation is not to root for Rove's indictment, although I know many TalkLeft readers are hoping for it. What I care about, if Rove is indicted, is whether he turned down a plea deal and why, whether he is cooperating against others in exchange for a lesser sentence or reduced charges and who else has cooperated in this investigation in exchange for favorable treatment of their own misdeeds. I'm also interested in whether Fitzgerald's ultimate target is Dick Cheney and whether Cheney will be "Official A" in any Rove indictment.
But I'm content now to wait until there are new details to report, rather than re-hashing last week's news, true or false, for the fifth or sixth time.
| < On Richard Armitage and Plame Investigation | Privacy vs. Tyranny and Security vs. Liberty > |





